[FoRK] Obama: communitarian, redistributionist, confused? (from NYT)
Stephen D. Williams
sdw at lig.net
Mon Aug 25 19:38:53 PDT 2008
J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
> 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
> century ago.
> 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.
I read each of those points thinking, yea, I agree, our system is a lot
better. Kind of surprising to see at the end that he was admiring the
alternatives! His point that the leadership / ownership of a company is
competitive is true and enlightening.
> 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.
If Detroit had been run like Silicon Valley, we'd have flying cars by
now. Say, that's not a bad idea...
> J. Andrew Rogers
More information about the FoRK