O que é que a via imprudente me ensinou? Uma realidade bem diferente, algo mais nesta linha:
"The companies don't know what they're going to face. They don't know how the technology will work out. They don't know who the other players are going to be in this business. They don't know what the reception is going to be for this new technology. They don't know what the regulations are going to be, the legalities, the shipping arrangements. And yet they are in a position where they have to ante up maybe hundreds of millions of dollars just to sit at this casino table and play. Now, and economist all say that's not a question of probabilities. It's a situation where the firms face what economist call fundamental uncertainty.
…
About these matters there is no scientific basis on which to form any calculable probability whatever. We simply do not know. Of course our firms know plenty, but if they want to define a real optimization problem or calculate probabilities, they simply do not know.
…
There's a syllogism here. If a situation is subject to some high degree of fundamental uncertainty, the problem it poses is not well defined - you can't express it in clear logical terms. If the problem is not well defined, rationality is not well defined - there can't be a logical solution to a problem that is not logically defined. There is then no optimal solution, no optimal set of strategies, for agents and players - optimality is not well defined. [Moi ici: O que é o óptimo? E o óptimo é universal? O que é que os que líderam uma empresa pretendem atingir? E querem todo atingir o mesmo? Acreditar que existe um óptimo universal é ingenuidade. Acreditar que a gestão é uma ciência como a física newtoniana é ingenuidade perigosa. Acreditar que a verdade de hoje continua a ser verdade amanhã é ingenuidade doentia] So if you simply don't know what you're facing, rationality isn't well defined and optimal behavior isn't well defined. So where an economic situation contain significant fundamental uncertainty, if we are rigorous it can't be credibly reduced to a rational, deductive economic model. And where rational, deductive behavior is not well defined, any outcome is likely to be temporary and not in equilibrium.
…
In the face of real fundamental and certainty the standard approach gets stalled.
…
in not-well defined situations, in various ways people try to make sense: they experiment, they explore, they adjust, they readjust, but not just in terms of having some wondrous mathematical model of the situation and updating a parameter. They form a hypothesis, maybe they have multiple hypotheses or ideas about the situation they are in, and they put more belief in the ones that work overtime and throw out hypotheses that don’t.
…
We could look at problems that were not well defined, whether there’s fundamental uncertainty, problems where there is no equilibrium, and we could unleash agents that could explore, take up hypotheses, throw them out, and generate new ones and get smart.
…
In general in a difficult or novel economic situation, there's no optimal solution. Agents are coping, exploring, adjusting, experimenting, whatever. But that very behavior changes the outcome and then they have to change again. It's a bit like surfing, where you don't know where the waves will go next and you're adjusting and readjusting to stay in the green water."
"Like many businesses in Japan, her family’s shop, Ichiwa, takes the long view — albeit longer than most. By putting tradition and stability over profit and growth, Ichiwa has weathered wars, plagues, natural disasters, and the rise and fall of empires....Such enterprises may be less dynamic than those in other countries. But their resilience offers lessons for businesses...“If you look at the economics textbooks, enterprises are supposed to be maximizing profits, scaling up their size, market share and growth rate. But these companies’ operating principles are completely different,”"
A vida económica é como a vida das pessoas, uma amálgama de entidades económicas com "vontades" diferentes, capacidades diferentes, visões diferentes, sujeitas a contextos diferentes e em constante mutação. Não existe um padrão universal, não existe um cristal que se contemple, tudo é líquido.
Quando se pensa que os empresários devem ser obrigados a ter um curso para poderem abrir uma empresa julgo que se navega nas águas da abordagem standard, julga-se que existe uma resposta lógica e racional, julga-se que existe uma receita. Quando na verdade o que existe é "Agents are coping, exploring, adjusting, experimenting, whatever." Por isso, em 2015 escrevi "Do concreto para o abstracto e não o contrário".
"Developmental psychologists had believed that children didn’t developPessoalmente lembro-me deste tipo de pensamento me perturbar quando tinha 5 anos ou menos. Sei que tinha essa idade porque lembro de os ter numa casa onde vivi até essa idade. Quem eram os outros? Existiam como eu? Tinham pensamentos como eu?the ability to take another perspective until they were about seven yearsold. Gopnik thought decentering—taking another person’s perspective—happened much earlier."
"O meu amarelo é diferente do vosso amarelo, o meu céu é diferente do vosso céu, o meu normal é diferente do vosso normal."
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário