About Me

My photo

I am an honours graduate (BSc. Hons. Strath-Glasgow) coupled with an MBA-ICG (Paris) , experienced, Metallurgist - Materials Scientist and Engineer & Manager turned Consultant & Blogger. I specialised in Superalloys (aero-engine_Seminal Work peer reviewed & published IOM3_MST, Feb.1985, the 2nd issue of this now well known journal dedicated to the fundamental aspects in our multidisciplinary subject area ) My experience over a wide range of Special Alloys is extensive. (Cryogenic,Controlled Expansion-Dilatometric,Magnetic, Corrosion Resistant Grades and finally HSLA-Aircraft Undercarriage. (Great Stuff-I was lucky) My responibilities were especially in Melting & Refining to 1st Forming stage. Responsibilities include QC,QA & Accounting, Melt/Remelt Process  & Products, R&D.  Bilingual English-French. 
Read my web-logs and post a comment is certainly the best way to get to know me..

WebSearch –Try: Management-Methods-Foresight-Prospective Studies-Roadmaps-Innovation.

Custom Search

My visitors whereabouts - tell me more via a comment or back link

New Scientist - Environment

Renewable energy : nature.com subject feeds

ScienceDirect Publication: Journal of CO2 Utilization

Shale Debate, UK

News - Steel Market Update - Steel Market Update

Saturday, 6 March 2010

Financial Innovation_The Economist Debate. Stiglitz sways the field advocating a more cautious regulatory approach. CASE for MASS TORTS?

Levine vs Stiglitz: A Case for The TORTS LAWERS?

The debate is summarised in 4 Points, by The Economist's Zanny Minton Beddoes, head of global economic coverage and ex-IMF economist, (cf full summary in reference below)

I. -Both Ross Levine and Joseph Stiglitz agree that financial innovation can boost economic growth.

-Both acknowledge that some innovations have caused harm.

THE FOCUS OF THE DEBATE
They differ—and hence where the discussion focused—is in their assessment of whether the financial innovations of the past 30 years have, on balance, been beneficial; and on how best to minimise "bad" innovation while promoting the good sort.

II. Mr Stiglitz is sceptical of the benefits of much recent innovation. He focuses on the many misaligned incentives within finance, and advocates strong regulation with a precautionary focus. Mr Levine sees greater benefits from modern finance, and is concerned with government failures, especially regulatory failures. These differing perspectives are reflected in the debaters' policy prescriptions. Mr Stiglitz wants to create a "Financial Product Safety Commission" to assess the safety and effectiveness of new financial innovations. Mr Levine suggests a new independent agency to watch over today's financial regulators.

III. At the beginning of our debate a small majority (54%) supported the motion. Now a slightly larger majority (57%) oppose it.

MY COMMENTS AND REFERENCES
That's a big swing in electoral terms but there are still 43% against Stiglitz prescription. These are the numbers but where does the balance of power lie, most likely with those with most money - remember this is an educated persons debate and intelligence is not all. ]

These considerations remind me of a powerful minority call by top management (union) for improved self regulation on pay, "performance related" bonus, free stock options, etc...
Here we see daily with what diligence power puts its machine into motion to solve recognised issues.

->RELATED POSTS

INNOVATION -THE WORTHWHILE PROJECT-Conversational styled, review of science's powerful tool "The Experimental Method" in politics and humanities

Sidewiki REf (en référence à) :

"At the beginning of our debate a small majority (54%) supported the motion. Now a slightly larger majority (57%) oppose it."
- Economist Debates: Financial innovation: Decision ( afficher sur - on Google Sidewiki)