[FoRK] Obama: communitarian, redistributionist, confused? (from NYT)
geege4 at gmail.com
geege4 at gmail.com
Mon Aug 25 18:09:46 PDT 2008
Sheesh. You had an interesting reaction there. Seems you're an either-or delimited personality. .
Go back to your Cato Institute charts. Be comforted and calm yourself.
(Watching the convention. George McGovern's makeup is scary!)
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
From: "J. Andrew Rogers" <andrew at ceruleansystems.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 16:45:19
To: Friends of Rohit Khare<fork at xent.com>
Subject: Re: [FoRK] Obama: communitarian, redistributionist,
confused? (from NYT)
On Aug 25, 2008, at 3:24 PM, geege schuman wrote:
> <Tenth, one of the most interesting questions over the next
> generation is
> whether the Anglo-American form of capitalism, which gives primary
> of companies to capital markets, will flourish and expand, or not.
> Some of
> the evidence on the (in)effectiveness of takeovers and the recent sad
> experiences in financial markets rather suggests not.>
To be replaced by what? I do not think the world can afford the
opportunity cost. Call me crazy, but I like the technology and
innovation of "Anglo-American capitalism". Not that we are not slowly
smothering capitalism in Anglo-America these days -- I do not know why
people are surprised when an economy rooted in innovation goes with
it. People love the sausage, but hate the sausage-making.
> It's a tenuous connection, but read
> Jeff and JAR, check out the fifth point.
"Fifth, in this perspective, shareholders are not genuine owners. They
contribute nothing of value to the competitive strengths of the firm..."
This is a stupid perspective, because the assertion is demonstrably
false. Sure, grandma and her ten shares of General Motors may not add
any value, but then that is why she only has ten shares. Especially
for smaller companies, and companies are getting smaller, who your
shareholders are can have a significant impact on the value of your
business. Pablum for the proletariat, as good today as it was a
The entire article was about how workers are owed a job. That is
lovely and all, but I would rather the money was spent on creating new
and useful jobs rather than subsidizing a job that long since passed
its Sell By date. Labor has no intrinsic positive value.
Ironically, this perspective is the very thing that killed companies
like General Motors. People are promoting this perspective, but
apparently unwilling to take responsibility for its past "successes".
But this time it will be different! D'oh.
J. Andrew Rogers
FoRK mailing list
More information about the FoRK