Posted on 09/08/2006 6:01:12 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
September 8, 2006 - 08:53
Paul Krugman is right about one thing, "We are, finally, having a national discussion about inequality." This thanks to liberals such as himself who have dragged the issue front and center, using as their springboard statistics suggesting wages aren't rising as fast as profits or productivity.
At the end of his subscription-required column of today, Whining Over Discontent, Krugman indulges in a bit of 'bring it on bravado', claiming that "[we liberals have] got the arguments, and the facts, to win this debate."
But just which debate is he talking about? Let's assume, arguendo, that Krugman & Lefty Co. can prove that inequality is increasing. As we would say back in the old days in the Bronx: "nu?" So what?
Krugman never says just what is wrong with inequality. Our country was founded on the principle that we have been endowed with the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That implies equality of opportunity. In no way does it suggest equality of outcomes. To the contrary, it leaves it up to each individual to define happiness for himself. One man might prize leisure time, another material gain.
But Krugman apparently won't be satisfied until there is at least rough equality in material outcomes. Rather than life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, Krugman would apparently posit dialectic materialism as his operating principle.
If it's all the same to you, Paul, I'll stick to the Declaration of Independence. If, as is apparently the case, you disagree, please tell us why.
NY Times -Krugman/NewsBusters dialectic materialism ping to Today show list.
Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.
But envy, they hope, is on a sliding scale...
Well put. I'll be very interested to see if Krugman or other like-minded people will take up my challenge and explicitly state their objection to inequality.
His never-ending propaganda has already done your nation incalcuable damage. But in typical American fashion, the cultural destruction he and his ilk inflict has to reach epic proportions before you finally take action.
Better late than never, I suppose.
GREAT QUOTE - TYVM
This isn't a simple debate. I agree, outcomes should be based on individual input, (effort, talent, and luck). But I also see where those in power can configure things so that others have little or no chance.
One of the things that is wrong with the system right now is CEO and executive compensation. CEOs buddy up to the boards and become protected, and over compensated. I was watching Mad Money the other day, and Cramer listed 5 companies that if the CEO were to resign or be fired, you should BUY immediately. In all 5 cases he hinted, (in one case he outright said it), that the CEO had the board in his pocket.
I know, I know, the CEO worked his way to the top, he deserves to be paid $20 million a year with perks. He's worth it. *choke* And who does it serve when the CEO has the board in his pocket? The company does well? No. The stockholders get benefits? No. It serves the CEO and his staff.
Let's consider your example. A company is run by a CEO that has his board in his pocket, and as a result gets paid more than the market would dictate. Kramer says you should buy if the CEO leaves. That would imply that you should sell short if the CEO stays!
In other words, companies that don't act in accordance with market dictates will be less competitive, ultimately fall behind or even disappear.
In any case these are private individuals making decisions, albeit bad ones, with private money. No one is forcing investors to own those companies. The only equality of opportunity government should be concerned with is equality before the law.
We should welcome the opportunity to discuss this. If they want to create a communist, socialist government, go and look someplace else to overthrow.
This country is taken already.
These CEOs are just another example of employees legally stealing from shareholders.
Another way is to join together with other employees to form a labor monopoly. Then extort money from the shareholders by threatening to shut down operations.
I stumbled across the most vile and putrid moment in television history when this little weasel was a guest on Colbert. No words can adequately describe the filthiness emanating from the tube with those two on screen.
"In any case these are private individuals making decisions, albeit bad ones, with private money. "
And that opens the door to the debate, what is private money? It's a public corporation if it sells stock. It's unethical at best to sell stock in a company where the CEO is making "bad decisions". It is a problem that could easily be fixed, if the people in power weren't the ones who benefit, (fox watching the hen house?). If lower level employees were running a similar type scam, you can bet that it would be fixed yesterday.
The polar opposites of this are equally bad. Trying to fix everything so everyone is "equal" doesn't work, and will lead to a lot of trouble. Letting everyone use whatever means are at their disposal doesn't work either, and it will lead to trouble. Let's face it some people are just rotten SOBs. This is a civilization, a society. In that, there is a certain level of looking out for each other that is implied.
I have the flamesuit on, ready for the charges of being a socialist, and invitations to go to the DU.
Actually, you are exactly right. Our system runs on the assumption of honesty and fair play.
Anything that interferes with that assumption is moving us towards the corrupt cronyism systems of Africa and Mexico.
Cheating should be punished immediately and severely, not just with jail time but with lots and lots of public humiliation. That's why I would have loved to have seen Randy Duke Cunningham in the stocks on Capitol Hill.
They won't. Because, with them, it is a matter of faith. One doesn't debate the heathens about the precepts of one's religion...
No flames but public corporations are not the same as "public corporations" such as PBS and other quasi-government organizations. It only means that outsiders are able to invest their funds in the company as opposed to a corporation whose stock is held entirely by a group of investors who cannot or will not sell their stock to outsiders. It doesn't mean "public money" (i.e., taxes) are involved.
Now, in truth, there are few private corporations anymore and those held "privately" are often operating with tax monies in terms of contracts and grants. However, in large measure the free enterprise system, while it sometimes stinks, is better than any other alternative.
The economy and society as a whole functions best when left alone as much as possible and it usually functions in the same manner as a pendulum, benefitting one group over another, adjusting and benefitting the other side before it swings again in the opposite direction. The point at which a pendulum is in absolute equidistance between the two endpoints of its arc (and therefore absolutely "fair" to everyone involved) is a tiny fraction of a moment in the swing of the pendulum. At all other times, it is not "equal". Yet if we try to stop the pendulum at its absolute fair point, we stop the energy.
There is a legitimate issue as to whether the "public" is fairly represented in the pendulum swing. Nowadays institutional investors drive decisions which are often deleterious to its individual stakeholders, or at least some of them. There is also a legitimate question as to whether corporations are answerable or constrained any longer to citizens or laws of any one nation but a lot of the debate has to do with the nature of the stock market and the power of these giant institutional funds to manipulate the markets and fire the shots to which corporations must dance.
Legitimate questions should be asked of society in general. Today too many investors can manipulate the market with a quick-in, quick-out investment philosophy which skews decision-making on the part of corporations to enhance quarterly earnings at the expense of long-term health. Investors are no longer personally concerned about the health of a corporation beyond their ability to sell the stocks at a healthy profit.
This is all part of the pendulum swing--best analyzed and smoothed out if necessary but not stopped. I'm not a financial analyst, not a stockbroker and at best barely literate in these matters but there is a sense of common sense which says at any one point in time some people are winning and some are losing. Critique and analyze and philosophize and make the system better but don't try to stop the pendulum.
Of course, it does. In this sense, corporations are just like people. Some boards (and companies) make good decisions. Others make bad decisions. Corporations are just as subject to the "rule of inequality" as individuals.
In the long run, the CEOs and boards and stockholders who make bad decisions will be punished. Those who make good decisions will be rewarded.
That's how capitalism works.
"That's how capitalism works."
And would you be as calm and calculated in your observation had you worked for Enron? Those nice folks at the top simply make some bad decisions that cost you your job, and your retirement.
Ok, Enron is worst case. But, the point is still valid. Bad people at the top, cost many people. As bordergal said, our system assumes honesty and fair play. If it's a private company, and they simply trash themselves, who cares? But when many are involved, then many have to be involved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.