4 ms·
I don’t understand this sort of explanation. A “tacit admission” by who? “The economy” does not actually take actions, and definitely doesn’t have objectives; i
by spenczar5 5y ago
I don’t understand this sort of explanation. A “tacit admission” by who? “The economy” does not actually take actions, and definitely doesn’t have objectives; it just describes the broad system resulting from many individual agents.
Are you suggesting that corporate VPs hire managers with a goal of distributing money unequally so their products get sold? That seems like a huge stretch - they benefit so little in that way from their individual hiring decisions.
Are you suggesting that there is an “invisible hand” which pushes systems towards hiring do-nothing managers, because companies that don’t get outcompeted? I don’t see how that would happen - it seems like the opposite would occur.
- paganel 5y ago> Are you suggesting that there is an “invisible hand” which pushes systems towards hiring do-nothing managers, because companies that don’t get outcompeted? Not the OP but in a sense that's what happens, yes, even though I wouldn't use that "invisible hand" metaphor (which I personally find it a little over-used) but more like the "BS-jobs class system" (composed of most of the C-execs, of most middle-managers, of some HR and marketing people) making sure it is successful at reproducing itself.
- spenczar5 5y agoI’m still confused. What do you mean when you say the “system makes sure?” I have the same issue as before - I don’t think of systems as having intent or “making sure” of anything. That might be a metaphor around a mechanism or feedback loop - what is that mechanism?