At some point in the course of our journey through life, we all encounter those people who simply cannot think ill of others. So pure of heart are these folks, that even entertaining the notion that those who do harm to others should do so out of malevolence, rather than misguidedness, is simply unfathomable. These good Christians will steadfastly maintain that those who steal, those who lie, those who manipulate others, suffer from a distorted worldview – they basically mean well, but either through mental defect, or lack of education, are not able to fully think through the consequences of their actions. Ever since childhood I have been frustrated and intrigued by this particular quirk of the Anglo-Saxon culture. I have come to refer to it as the ‘see no evil’ syndrome.

Over the last few months I had the privilege of having lengthy discussions with two prominent members of the London Financial scene, one an international risk management specialist, the other the dean of a prestigious business school. Both men are acknowledged experts on corporate malfeasance, regularly invited to give keynote addresses on the topic.

In both cases the discussion was most enlightening and stimulating. However, when I broached the possibility that much of this malfeasance was the result of collusion at the highest levels, meticulously planned and choreographed, rather than the result of a few bad apples in a basically sound system – both men had a conspicuously similar reaction- finding the notion simply inconceivable, and the suggestion on my part tasteless and off-putting.

The position shared by both, delivered most eloquently, in exquisite prose, and Oxbridge accents, was that this was all the result of gross ineptitude at the highest levels. I, incredulous, argued that it would seem beyond the boundaries of plausibility to imagine that people educated in the finest academic institutions, with decades of experience behind them, could have, let all what has come to pass take place out of sheer oversight.

Looking back, in my naiveté, what I was failing to see was the positioning of those I was speaking with in relation to the big Game – the dean being a gatekeeper to, the consultant, a gray eminence for the very Players who perpetrated the 2008 Crash.

At the risk of coming off as a tad ‘negative’, I would suggest that this ‘see no evil’ attitude is far from benign. This brings to mind a memory from my time as a builder, when I had occasion to ask an architect (British, as it turns out) to explain the principles behind chimney constructions – specifically, how one ensured that the smoke from the fire went up the chimney instead of into the room. The architect’s response was the following: “Entire books have been written on the topic of chimneys”. He delivered this sentence with such profound solemnity, and with such self assurance, that I immediately aborted any further investigation, convinced that the knowledge I was seeking was the sacred domain of an elite sect of geniuses who guarded their secrets closely (lest this knowledge should fall into the wrong hands, and the world would be consumed by chaos).

The motivation behind this high minded stance, in fact the mandate of these esteemed experts, is to obfuscate the problem, rather than fix it. Experts at blinding us with science, generously spicing their rhetoric with the jargon of high finance, they wax poetic on the complexity of today’s financial world, and the difficulty of sorting all of this out.
All this posturing on the part of esteemed experts is meant to distract us from the ugly reality- that being that the system spawned by these poseurs is rotten to the core, and beyond redemption. No new set of regulations, no new investigative committee, no change of government, will ever set it right.

All the king’s horses and all the king’s men
Couldn’t put Humpty together again.[1]

If one wishes to be taken seriously in this world of ours, it is important not to be seen as shooting from the hip – a few anecdotal examples do not a theory make! Therefore, we painstakingly research our points, we find studies that support our assertions, and we refer to acknowledged authorities in the field. In other words, we build a case supported by objective, verifiable evidence.

These studies – do we know the assumptions that support their findings? And these acknowledged experts- do we know the earlier triumphs upon which their present largesse is based? No! We assume these experts know more than us, and that these studies are honestly executed, logically consistent, and produce meaningful findings because… Because everyone says so!

So we give our experience, our insight, our innate wisdom, a backseat to studies that have been commissioned by parties with vested interests in their findings, and to experts connected to institutions that define the status quo. In this way the prevailing view can find copious amounts of ‘objective’ support, but the naysayer, the maverick, is hard pressed to find any credible’ support for their contentions.

Now comes the paradox – we cannot be absolutely sure of that which is scientifically verifiable either. Scientists will be the first to admit that absolute certainty does not exist, and the most we can hope for is a high degree of confidence in the fact that something, or some causal relationship, appears to hold true, under a certain set of conditions.

As an aside, wishing to base our world view on something hard, like facts, rather than something soft, like inference and conjecture, we demand that our reality be verifiable. The scientific process is rigorous and restrictive. The problem is that only a small subset of reality can be proven scientifically. Just because something falls outside this narrow sliver of reality does not mean that it is not true, or that he cannot attest to it’s validity.

So in this way scientific validity has become the bludgeon with which the status quo attempts to pre-emptively deflect any opposition to that which is held to be true. As the Players well know, this truth itself is nothing more than pure fabrication. From where they are perched, it is of little consequence what nonsense we choose to subscribe to, one myth is as good as another; just so long as we are all ensnared in the ironclad conviction, that our model, our particular ruse, our particular parody of reality, is God’s truth!

Toronto is a pretty tame place; the kind of place where nothing ever happens. The population is calm, conservative; all are great believers in the sanctity of law and order. There are no radical groups of any size. Militancy of any kind is almost non-existent.

Thus on the surface, one might assume this would be an ideal place to hold the G20 Summit. Despite this, the security budget for the summit was projected at over $200 million (over 6 times the figure of the previous G20 Summit). The Canadian public perceived this sum as absurdly high, yet the politicians only gave the most perfunctory justification for the exorbitant bill. To add insult to injury, a couple of weeks prior to the event this sum inexplicably ballooned to nearly $1 billion.

Major parts of the city were cordoned off like a high security prison, all under the pretext of protecting the security of the participants in the conference. After all the hoopla and expense, what was achieved? No one who lives in or around Toronto escaped being inconvenienced, frustrated and irritated by the oppressive security measures. Meanwhile, the professional anarchists, having no chance of getting anywhere near the summit events, not wishing to appear completely ineffectual, had to content themselves with smashing windows along the route of the demonstration. Finally, the city’s business owners, normally the beneficiaries of such summits, lost money because the city was turned into a ghost town, as all who could, fled the city for the duration of the event.

All this demonstrates the inherent flaws in the assumption that security must be tight and in clear view to all to be effective. In making control overt, you give those who wish to subvert your efforts the blueprints to do it with. By making it blatant, the security measures morph into being symbols of oppression- intimidating those already inclined to be compliant, while provoking and providing public sympathy to the subversive elements in society. The vandalism, which would ordinarily have offended the average Canadian, became instead a kind of vicarious expression of their own frustration. The police, after spending an absolute fortune on security, came off appearing incompetent and ineffective. Finally, the taxpayers are saddled with a bill they did not support, for an event they never desired, all in aid of international initiatives no one really understands.

However, there is an example of a completely different approach to security. One in which nearly perfect security is achieved imperceptibly- the Antwerp Diamond Exchange, one of the most secure places on the planet. It has been in place for several centuries with no significant modifications to the way business is carried on. Millions of dollars worth of diamonds exchange hands completely out in the open, in view of any passer-by, with no visible security anywhere in sight. As implausible as this utopian, laissez-faire structure appears to be, this model has been in continuous existence for some 500 years.

To the uninformed bystander the public square which houses the diamond exchange appears to be nothing more than a typical square in the old town, immaculately restored, but no more so than any of its neighbouring squares. Meanwhile, embedded in the tableau, one can see couriers in traditional orthodox Jewish long black robes, are walking to and fro across the square. Only the speed of their gait, and the seriousness of their demeanour, convey any hint of their purpose- conveying millions of dollars of uncut diamonds in small pouches tucked in their pockets.

The security is provided by undercover police disguised as shopkeepers, shoppers, a pair of lovers sitting at a café, etc. When the messengers meet; pouches are exchanged, with each then proceeding on their way. No paper changes hands; no inspection of the merchandise takes place- it is all done on trust.

During the centuries that this market has been in this square, great technological advances have been made in our society. We passed from the agricultural, through the industrial, into the electronic, and information ages. Nonetheless, this low-tech marketplace remains unsurpassed in the world, in terms of its efficiency, security and simplicity. The Antwerp Diamond Market is the model of control without restrictions. It is formless form at its finest. The flow of transactions is smooth and completely fluid, without compromising security. By way of contrast, the recent violence at the G20 summit in Toronto graphically illustrates the perils of taking the more traditional approach to security. One is left wondering precisely what the powers that be will have learned form this debacle?

As much as we like to think we are fully conscious rational beings who char their own destiny, at best we are co-creators of our reality. Most of our waking hours are spent in one trance or another. This is because full consciousness is simply too exhausting to sustain for anything more than a brief interval. Once we become familiar with anything, we transform it into a kind of subroutine which we come to perfom automatically. For any society, or group for that matter, to function successfully there musgt be a shared trance that binds them together.

All trances are kept in place by a set of beliefs. Often these are in turn tied to a single core presupposition. The Ancient Greek philosopher Plato referred to this as the Noble Lie. The Noble Lie that lays beneath the Player Culture that has come to dominate not only our organizations, but our society, is the belief “this is the way it is”. The belief that this restrictive order is an immutable fact of life. If you recall from the Prologue this is precisely the way in which Machiavelli presents his rules of realpolitik. The clear implication: even contemplating resisting this ‘fact of life’ is childish and as futile as charging at windmills.

The vulnerability of this belief is that it is an absolute condition, therefore if we can create but one exception, one single instance which is proved to be sustainable; the seeds of doubt have been sown. From there it is only a matter of time before the bubble bursts, and the structure created by the Circle Square Pattern crumbles.

Placing this in the context of our organization, the initial response to any new direction that does not conform to this worldview will be to resist it, or simply ignore it, treating it as yet another phoney directive, or hoax that senior management wishes to pull one over on the ranks. However, once concrete evidence begins to appear that there is substance behind the words, non compliance is forgiven, and imitative is rewarded, attitudes will begin to change.

With the possible exception of the Players, all of us have a real need to believe in something, take pride in their work, and feel their input can make a difference. Decades of evidence to the contrary has jaded most of us, such that by middle age we have unwittingly given up on life. These dreams do not disappear; instead they lay dormant, held in a kind of psychic suspense file. Once the conditions in our day to day lives begin to support our childhood optimism, they we will once again come to the surface.

No man is an island! Being social animals, our success in this world very much depends on our ability to get along with others. This includes our ability to communicate with others, to influence others, to convince them of the worth of both ourselves, and our ideas. Thus, we are always selling in one way or another. Sounds logical enough! In fact we have all heard this so many times before, that it is practically self evident. The only problem is that it is unadulterated bullshit.

Equating teaching teenagers about the ideals of the French revolution, or attempting to convince your toddler to go to bed tonight, are not the same as selling vacuum cleaners, or financial services.

True, they all involve some form of persuasion that much is undeniable. However, what distinguishes the latter examples from the former is that for the teacher and the parent it is done for the benefit of the students and the toddler. In the case of the sale, the salesman stands to benefit. In fact this benefit is the primary motivation for the entire exchange.

By blurring this distinction, selling is elevated, somehow ennobled. At the same time, persuasion that which is altruistic is minimized, or even invalidated. Everything becomes reduced to one simple common denominator – selling! For many people compulsive self-promotion and selling has become so deeply ingrained, that they literally do not know when to stop. For such people, selling does not stop in the boardroom, or in the showroom, but extends to friends, neighbours, and the family alike.

In the best case selling is selective truth; in the worst case it is outright misleading. What it does not do is convey the whole truth, as we would be asked to do in a court of law. Truth may be subjective, but when we are embellishing, or editing to convey an impression we are misleading others in some way. Technically, we’re not lying, in the legal sense. But in the moral sense, we most certainly are.

The typical justification of the salesman is that we all do it, we all have to make a buck somehow. This is the morality of the herd –which is not morality, but tribal group think masquerading as ethics.

The horror of it is that these days, all are compelled to sell. Teachers have to jump through hoops to amuse their students, university professors are evaluated on how much their students enjoy their lectures, and parents have to compete with cartoon characters and sanitized versions of classic fairy tale characters to communicate values to their children.

In such a world to not sell, to refrain from embellishing and entertaining, to simply tell it as you see it, is to be inaudible. You simply do not register, you do not count, and you do not exist.

Another more insidious consequence of this “everyone is a salesman” mindset is that it implies that the market is the ultimate arbiter of value. If something does not sell, it is not of value. This progressively crowds out anything whose deliverables to the consumer can not be squeezed into a sound byte, while promoting that which titillates the senses and appeals to the vanity. Over time we become progressively more indulgent, superficial and addicted.

Ultimately, it has taken us to where we find ourselves today as a society: relating to one another only as Buyers and Sellers, nothing more. The filter through which we hear is “what is in it for me now?” In order for our message to get out there, to not get lost in all the noise out there, we talk louder, faster, longer, – all the while saying next to nothing!

Competition is good! Is this necessarily so in all cases? Certainly, no competition is a bad thing – state control, or monopolies are inefficient, and reward the few at the expense of the many.

So if no competition is bad, and competition is good, then it only stands to reason that more competition can only be better. It provides consumers with more choice, and forces the producers to up their game. This then is the classic non-sequitor, the Noble Lie supporting our cult – the Cult of Capitalism!

The greater the competition, the greater the pressure! In the beginning, producers work better, and smarter to beat the competition. The problem starts when they run out of ways to improve their competitiveness, but the pressure within the system keeps growing. What happens next?

Sooner or later, out of sheer necessity some of the competitors start bending, or even breaking the rules. If these few are successful in avoiding detection, the others will be compelled to follow suit if they wish to avoid falling behind. Ultimately, the situation arises where the player in the game is left with a simple choice – break the rules and risk the penalty, or stick to the straight and narrow, and go under.

Now let’s turn to the BP oil spill in the Gulf. This is very likely what lay behind the scenario that led to the disaster. The drilling company was ordered to increase capacity. Wishing to remain in business, they complied. The person at British Petroleum demanding the increase was no doubt under similar pressure, and this would then carry all the way up the line to the top. In the pressure driven environment the ultimatum presented to all those in positions of authority is: do what it takes, or we will find someone else who will.

This paying forward of pressure cannot go on interminably. Sooner or later it comes up against an immovable object – in this case Mother Nature herself. Singling out one of the links in the chain, and attempting to attribute blame to it is a complete waste of time. Once the decision to deep sea drill was made, an irreversible chain of events was set in motion that could have but one final outcome- disaster. We cannot know which rig will be the one to fail, or when it will fail, but that some rig somewhere will cause a catastrophic failure is almost guaranteed.

We can improve technology, tighten regulations, but so long as the pressure keeps building and building we can only expect more of the same. What was deemed as an acceptable risk turned out to be unacceptable? How many other similar decisions have been made, where risks are high, corruption is systemic, under highly specialized conditions is involved just waiting to explode?

There is a role for structure; however, it is a far cry from the one in practice today. There is no freedom of expression, no creativity, without structure. Take the grammar out of language and what you have would be an idiotic stream of words that might be meaningful to the speaker, but would communicate nothing to the listeners (many would argue that this is precisely where we are headed these days). Therefore we need some form of structure, to serve as kind of vessel used to convey meaning to others. When we are novices in a language, we experience this structure as confusing, distracting and inhibiting – restricting our ability to express ourselves freely. However, once we have mastered it, it is placed in the back of our minds; while we focus our attention on conveying the precise tone and meaning we wish to communicate.

Similarly, when we see Tai Chi being practiced by a throng of elders in a public park in China, all are meticulously following the same precise sequence of movements, performed at the same tempo, executed in exactly the same way. The impression is one of precise clockwork.

Now, if you are fortunate enough to see a master forming the same form by himself in a park, you would recognize the same form, however it would be somehow different. The movements would not be as distinct, they would bleed together, it would have a quality that might be described soupy, or cloudy. They would have a quality that the others lacked – a certain smoothness, strength, depth, and energy that while subtle, was immediately apparent. If you were to then see another master performing the same form on his own, the movements would yet again vary according to his particular style, while retaining the same core structure, depth of feeling, etc.

Now if you were to witness either of these masters accosted by a hooligan you would likely witness a rapid sequence of indistinct movements that culminated in the hooligan being on the ground. Very likely you would not be able to recognize the specific movement in the form which was implemented by the master. This is formless form in practice.

Structure is meant to elevate us, to free us, not to confine us. In our world is be been subverted and become the yoke to lock not just our bodies in place, but our minds and souls as well. The Player Culture promotes a robotic mindset in which all are just going through the motions, their minds parked elsewhere.

The problem arises when they have to deal with new and changing conditions, something that takes place on a day to day basis these days. They simply cannot cope! Having done their jobs mechanically for so long, the situation varies, the employee simply has no idea of how to accommodate the new conditions. Over the years occupations have become progressively more specialized. Instead of integrating and synthesizing information from several areas, these days many people’s mental functioning is more akin to data processing. The result is that their ability to respond to the unforeseen is severely restricted, their response being confined to a limited range of pre-programmed strategies. This makes for employees who may be highly efficient, in the classical sense, but are not particularly effective. In the past, the focus was upon producing more, now it must be on producing intelligently.

Mastery is one of the cornerstones of this alternative approach. Mastery is something that has come to be completely devalued over the last century. The road to mastery is long and tedious, demanding endless hours of tedious repetition. the distinction between this repetition, and that practiced by the assembly line worker, is that for the artisan it is a milestone on the way to a deeper understanding, while for the assembly line worker there is no payoff whatsoever. Therefore for the line worker it has no meaning. the motivation for the artisan in enduring this monotony is the freedom, the self respect, the sense of accomplishment that mastery provides. Meanwhile, for the assembly line worker, where the accounting clerk, there is no prize, no glory, no payoff whatsoever.

In the idealized town of Volterra, or the Antwerp diamond market, the hidden a structure that allows the system to function in such a fluent, seamless fashion is that all know that everyone else in the choreography is able to play their part perfectly. Each individual’s commitment to excellence is not just for their own sense of self worth, but is also for the benefit of those around them, so as to not let down the others in their community. Unlike the pressurized conditions produced by the traditional model, this is the most natural condition. It would’ve existed in the early stages of our tribal development, and we see it among those, such as soldiers and firemen, who depend on each other’s confidence and support for their own survival.

Over the last month two events have dominated the economic news: the Gulf oil spill caused by the mechanical failure on a British Petroleum offshore drilling rig, and the insolvency of the Greek Federal government. It seems on both sides of the Atlantic we’re beset with scandal and crisis.

Starting with the oil spill – the drill was operating in extremely deep water which places enormous pressure on equipment which in turn greatly increases risk. A further complication is that should anything go awry remedial action is difficult and uncertain. Under such conditions one would anticipate that the equipment would be over- engineered by a safe margin, in order to compensate for the risk.

No such luck! Instead, it turns out we have quite the opposite. A critical piece of equipment specifically designed to prevent such disasters, which is required by regulation in other parts of the globe, is not mandatory in American waters. Next we find out that should there be a calamity, according to some other government regulation, British Petroleum is only on the hook for $75 million.

This is all particularly confusing in light of the statements made by the young CEO on TV (presented in open collar and rolled up sleeves in a general office setting as the background), earnestly assuring us that despite the fact that the accident was not their fault, they intend to foot the bill.

Turning to the Greek situation – on television we see graphic pictures of rioting in the streets in response to the austerity measures demanded by the European Union. This was to be its penance for defaulting on their debt. In return they were promised $1trillion in additional financing. The editorial message to the world conveyed being that the Greek populace has been living well beyond their means, and is now behaving badly when called to task.

The news presents this as a crisis unfairly thrown in the laps of the financial mandarins in Europe. However, it is certainly no secret that living a relatively comfortable existence, and avoiding paying taxes has become something of a social contract in Greece. In light of this, the so called crisis was nothing short of inevitable. Also, the crowd’s reaction came as a surprise to no one, in the same way that the ultimate conclusion of the crisis – after much debate, wringing of hands, and gnashing of teeth, the Greeks got their money – was equally predictable.

All over the world financial markets react to the news about these two events by shooting up and down with each sound byte that comes over the news-wire. This distracts us from the underlying reality- that our systems are completely permeated, subsumed in fact, by corruption. Words such as ‘sustainability’, a big part of British Petroleum’s PR over the last decade, and ‘austerity measures’, a favorite of the EU Bankers, have become nothing more than meaningless verbiage.

In the meantime, the pressure keeps building and building. British Petroleum’s spill continues to gush out toxic crude, the Greeks carry on with their lifestyle till the new money runs out, and in the end nothing will change. Sooner or later the public will lose interest in these calamities, only to be titillated by the next one that comes along. It would seem that all of us are so preoccupied with just surviving today; we don’t have the psychological capacity to even engage with the singularity towards which we are accelerating.

In the former communist regime in Hungary, a favourite term for describing the ills of the socialist system was contra-selection. The best and the brightest were removed from the top, or denied entry to the inner circles of power, and the resulting vacuum filled with outwardly compliant, but inwardly self-serving apparatchiks. Skilled at stroking their superiors, and ensuring that those below them towed the party line, they served the system very well. Unfortunately, this preoccupation with the communist variation of the Game left them with little time or energy to invest in actually doing the job.

The other issue was competency. The apparatchiks are much like incompetent pilots flying a plane. They can bluff it well enough in clear sky, but take-off and landing are beyond their pay grade. Staying within this metaphor, to the extent that the apparatus of state could stay in the air, there was enough money to keep the country going, the apparatchiks were fine. But when the weather was rough, or a change of course was required, because the old ways were simply too outdated to be effective any longer, they were simply not up to the task.

When, we examine the traits that best ensured success in the communist system they included knowing the right people, deflecting blame, stealing credit for other’s work, a flexible spine, and a strong constitution. To many this will sound like heresy, however from my experience these same traits are the major contributors to success in the corporate world.

During my time as crisis manager, and acting CEO, of a formerly state owned food processing company in southern Hungary I was immediately struck by how fluent the senior management was in terms such as debt-equity swaps, market share, competitive advantage, etc. This was truly extraordinary considering the fact that they were all apparatchiks of the old school, and that the socialist system had fallen less than two years before. The point being that doublespeak is doublespeak: be it ‘for the good of the cause’, or the ‘maximization of the benefit to shareholders’, each is but a script easily learned by the skilled Player, who is a natural actor.

One can see ample evidence of this juggernaut approach in North American corporations and banks where executives almost wilfully ignored feedback from the market and emphatically refused to change course. Examples are IBM’s blunder of getting in too late to the PC market which created the opening for Microsoft to fill. Another example is the big three in Detroit, particularly GM, where the executive class seemed to exist in a bubble. They felt themselves so powerful that they sincerely believed that they could ignore consumer needs and preferences. They believed they could dictate tastes and preference of the consumers and therefore did not need to concern themselves with the competition. We all know how that story ended.

Somewhere between a third and at half of all of the mortgages in the U.S. today are on properties with negative equity. This means that the mortgages are greater in value than the home itself. Despite the fact that the liability to the homeowner is limited to the home, and on a pure cost benefit basis there is no reason to keep servicing the mortgage each month, the vast majority of people continue to pay. The question is why?

The first reason is simple habit. People are used to paying their mortgages, and paying their debts in general. Breaking a habit is never easy. To the extent that we can avoid it, put it off somehow, we will. It is easier for us to just mechanically make our payments each month than to stop and think about whether this is really the best strategy. Typically, the monthly payment is deducted from our accounts automatically each month, making it still easier for us to put off the decision.

The second is stigma. There is a stigma associated with being foreclosed upon. The concept of losing one’s home is associated with bankruptcy, failure, being the ultimate loser. Most of us will do just about anything to avoid looking like a loser.

Thirdly, is naked fear. The bankers tell the homeowners that if they do not pay, especially when it’s proven that they could (how they would do this is anyone’s guess), their credit ratings will be destroyed for years. Here the bankers are playing upon our innate fear of authority. Most of us are afraid of the power of large faceless institutions. We’re inclined to believe (not without reason), the law will always come down on their side and our attempts to resist this natural order will only cause greater problems for ourselves and our families.

In the meantime, the banks resolutely refuse to negotiate with debtors on terms. This is justified on a moral basis, in that negotiating with one creditor, would set a bad example, and be unfair to the rest who are obediently fulfilling their obligations.

The irony of this line of reasoning is that should the debtor be a large corporation, the scenario would play out completely differently. Acting in the best interests of their shareholders, the officers of the company would not hesitate to walk away from a negative equity situation. Similarly, the banks would not be inclined to take nearly such a hard line, and would readily re-negotiate terms. Recently the Supreme Court determined that corporations enjoy equivalent rights to individuals within the law, so it seems ironic that this distinction should continue to be made. Should the homeowners wake up one day and see himself as having the same status of a large corporation, then the Lawmakers may have to revisit this ruling.

At the same time that all of this is taking place, the number of homeowners walking away from their obligations is steadily climbing, gradually approaching a tipping point. Once we see enough of our friends and neighbours walking away from their homes, and appearing to get away with it, we will follow suit not wishing to be the fools who are left behind. In this light the intransigence of the banks would appear to be particularly ill advised. Before we reach the tipping point it is impossible to predict when we will hit it. However, once passed there will be no way to stem the tide of defaults that will ensue.

This rigid autocratic response, which seems incomprehensible, from a practical point of view is a clear indication of what I refer to as to circle within a square structure that lies within the banking industry. This is a hidden power structure wherein a small elite circle, creates a rigid control structure to support itself. Even when the structure ceases to be efficient, or responsive to changes in the outer environment, it still remains in place because of the fact that it is the key support for this inner circle.