People matters

One thing to discuss might be how insularity comes out of proprietary practices. We see examples being made of people who go outside with inside knowledge without approval or who just get a company involved in unexpected ways with issues (Oops!?!, let us count the ways) because of blogging, structuring, or the like (one comment to this report points to a talk given in 2006 in which there was this statement: do we have a culture of silence — don't ask the tough questions?).

Okay. One can see disclosures being bad, if not controlled, given that a company's future resides on what it knows. Yet, what it knows is really encapsulated in the people.

We also see an example of extreme farming out that ought to demonstrate to us that limits do exist and ought to be understood. This type of thing has to presuppose that the people don't matter. Too, there is an erroneous take on just what computer systems bring to the table.

From another angle, most firms that try to impress peers, mind you , peers, not customers, by getting into this thing of comparative analysis. That is, there is supposedly a thing called 'industry practice' which those who are successful in some industry know and against which firms can measure themselves.

Yet, if something is really proprietary, will it be amenable to comparison? That is, is any measure beyond its demonstration in the market of any use? These are not meant, cynically.

So, it may be that we need to expect the insularity that we observe; perhaps, understanding how this relates to how people are treated is something that is necessary.

You see, capitalism thinks that 'labor' is something that is there to be exploited. Why haven't those in the thralls of capital's grasp realized that 'knowledge' is capital? Too, is it not obvious that 'labor' has morphed to something else that is very much knowledge related?

So, would not a proper model let those who found their abstractions on the 'capital' myth and on the financial gaming that has emerged play (perhaps in a sandbox that we, the people, control) and, at the same time, allow true evolution of knowledge of the types that somehow eludes the grasps of those who ascend the management hierarchy?

With whom would the 'knowledge' ownership reside? That is, if we can show that people found the phenomenon, those people surely are not chattel for fat cats alone. Yet, we seem to let that happen; the counterpoint offered by entrepreneurship is only a chimera.

The discussions will continue.

Remarks:

08/01/2013 -- Ben cannot unwind or taper down; he has too many Doves. We'll have to get back to the king thing (yes, the divine rights of the CEO, new royalty, in other words) and dampening of these types by a new outlook (Magna-Carta'ísh).

09/12/2009 -- Sandbox was used without definition. Let's discuss that concept.

04/24/2009 -- We'll start to re-look at this and related subjects.

02/03/2009 -- Islamic economics, supposedly, looks to improve their people's lives.

01/18/2009 - We even need to look at why we need finance.

11/12/2008 -- Well, things feel apart fairly quickly, starting in September of 2008. By N0vember, there was general spooking. Starting in September, movements toward nationalization sped so fast that it was easy to forget that a Republican administration was still in the White House. Talk about rewarding hubris and moral hazardness!!!!

Modified: 08/01/2013