I think current model has some sinister and wicked rules: 1. To make of each one of us an stockholder. We can't choose if we want or not to gamble. The fact of opening a retirement account makes you an stockholder. ¿Where is it the freedom of western culture? You must decide the level of risk of the investment you are constrained to do. In the same sense, at the end profits belongs to the bank but losses belongs to the owner of the retirement account. Banks use our money to increase their profits. For example, last trimester I lost more than twice the amount I saved during the same period (check your accounts).
2. Labor flexibilization: is an excuse to impel private inversion. Theoretically, reducing the cost of production gives more jobs. Unfortunately to reduce cost of production means reduce all kind of benefits for workers and creates labor instability but the worst thing is that it is false about creation of more jobs. 3. Health care privatization: has made life a merchandise and level of corruption in this kind of private companies is amazingly big (at least in my country). 4. To allow companies to growth without limit. The tiny company will extinct, monopoly will get strong and more poor people will "emerge". Years ago I read that the value of Microsoft was equivalent to the economy of Spain and my Country of the size of Yahoo. It is ridiculous. At the end of the day, real discussion is the weak paper of the governments. 2011/10/22 Nicholas Thompson <[email protected]> > Good point! And any academics on this list should think hard about where > their TIAA-CREF money actually IS. **** > > There’s a “social responsibility” fund, for instance. But my point was a > psychological one, right. **** > > ** ** > > Should we be lobbying TIAA to stop buying bonds issued by the likes of > Bank of America, if, indeed, they do? **** > > ** ** > > Nick **** > > ** ** > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On > Behalf Of *Marcus G. Daniels > *Sent:* Saturday, October 22, 2011 11:11 AM > *To:* [email protected] > > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Next Dictator**** > > ** ** > > On 10/22/2011 10:45 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: **** > > So why did we in the middle class been so stalwart in our defense of wall > street for the last 40 years?**** > > **** > > The answer, it seems to me, is that we are all stockholders. > > **** > > [..] > > **** > > Over the years CREF, which started out as a sturdy conservative fund, > became a “family of funds”, and you could invest your retirement money in > any crap you felt like. In short, many academics lost a large proportion of > their retirement. **** > > **** > > Thus, the gradual erosion of our retirement institutions in the 50’s into > INVESTMENT institutions has turned us all from people trying to guarantee a > minimum dignified retirement income to people trying to make a stock-market > killing. **** > > As Doug has pointed out many times, a large chunk of the `99%' create the > problem and won't take responsibility for it. > > TIAA-CREF has a number of funds and lets one move between them with the > latency of a few days. It's not like a retiree's financial security is > held hostage to a particular fund. For example, there's this option: > > http://www.tiaa-cref.org/public/about/how-we-invest/sri/social-screening/ > > Marcus**** > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > -- Alfredo
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
