If I had a no-paywall URL I'd give it. I love ft.com because it's harder hitting that many US publications in the same space. And here they are really onto to something.
There is also a charming story (strangely under new/jazz) about why Mozart started composing fuges:
Wrote Mozart regard to his Fugue K394b :
[...] This fugue has been created expressly for my own Constance. For she will listen to nothing except fugues, particularly fugues by Händel and Bach, and upon hearing me play them, often by heart, she would ask me whether I had never written one; when I answered no, she would reproach me for not wishing to compose the most artistic and the loveliest thing that music had to offer, and never stopped asking me to compose one for her. [...] In time and if the right opportunity arises, I shall write five more and give them to Baron van Sviten [sic!], whom I know to possess a veritable treasure of good music.
It’s generally attributed to Óscar R. Benavides, the 45th and 49th president of Peru, (1913-1914, terminated by a coup, then 1933-1939) although I haven’t been able to find good references pointing at exactly when or in what context he used the line.
I am happy to read to a piece which gives friendly fire to the left and the right. We need more of these.
My own tired example "half of the fraud" is fiscal management: one-half focus only on income (via raising taxes) and the others on cutting expenses. No successful family or company does fiscal management this way. It's both sides, and it's even deeper than that: usually we need to re-assess the priorities which underpin expenses and taxing strategies. And fix those too. Heck, the GOP has even given up on talking the talk. Not even that is around anymore.
Like other commenters here outrage isn't an answer. Yes, it's the present currency for talking heads on TV and crap talkers on the radio. Like a Woody Allen movie without the humor or intellect or pretense of trying, each side tries extract more outrage, more anger, and to guilt the other side into change. It's stupid. As one corporate owner put it (paraphrasing) Americans prefer to be entertained than to deal better with the truth. So we play into this.
Why outrage? Because we have no agency in the present. We gotta fix that.
MLK had two easy outs: give up beating a dead horse, and open a barber shop or preach. Or payback. He, thankfully, chose the middle course. The middle course in America will travel through both political parties re-examining their political planks, since without them, they are lobbying fodder.
Whatever the root reason this is now conflict over control. Therefore you need to know your legal contractual options and obligations and his plus whatever poison pills or repercussions for out of contract behavior. Who owns the IP is key. What is that? No need to necessarily write here but to bolster your resolve. Now if the contract allows bad actors without downside risk ... There are no good answers except experience. Watch out for attrition by tying you up on legal fees. But then call BS on him not having buyout proceeds. Finally, maybe you need to press him and not let him set the context. Saying no is but one play his side. You can put him in a box too All this assumes an adversarial process. Good luck to you.
Agree! Let's not think leather shoes and shirt cuffs is always better. There's a long running issue with fee-for-service giving what the client wants. Ok to be fair to banks they could easily be value add but only if they face stiffer down side on fees when fraud, bs, and bad evals happen earning indeed commanding those fees on the upside or average case. It's separating risk from reward that is the issue largely.
