Hi Keith et al, Keith does have a way with words. But the current discussion has less to do with "capitalism" or its namesakes than it has to do with the distribution of wealth and the political and economic power that comes with wealth.
There has been considerable discussion about the ratio of corporate officer remuneration to lowest worker wages. I think this is a useful topic since the current pay for executives seems out of line with the benefit they bring to their organizations. Supposedly in Japan (in years past) the top paid employee on average, took home about 30 (I think) times the lowest worker. In the US it was more like 70. Nowadays, I have heard numbers like 140 to 500. If the lowest paid worker gets $8 US per hour or about $16,000 per year, the top paid worker gets about $2.4 M. What does a person need to do to be 'worth' that kind of money? And worth to whom? The stockholders, his bankers, his employees, his customers, his kids, who? There are many folks who would like to be a CEO, so the competition for the job should be fierce. Now not everyone is smart enough to be a CEO but there must be alot more that are able than hold that title. When the CEO fails to come thru for the company, over some appropriate time period like one to two years, he really ought to be replaced by someone else to see if he/she could do better. But the Boards of most large companies id controlled by friends of the CEO who are reluctant to fire him. Pity! Capitalism is all well and good, as Keith says. But I think we need to rethink the way that corporations are governed. One way would to prevent ANY employee of the company from sitting on the Board unless they hold a proportionate share of the stock. If the CEO owns 20% of the stock and there are 5 board members, then OK, he gets one seat. On the globalization topic, the problem is that corporations no longer are the creatures of any one country. In general, corporations are creatures of national governments. All the rules of corporate governance were established by some national government. But now, the majority of the business of the larger corporation is not with any single country. Their employees are spread around the world as are their customers. So who is to say whether a company is American, British, German, French, Russian or Chinese? Or Bermudian? Companies are moving their HQs around to gain maximum economic benefit without regard to those who live nearby. Either we should make trans-national companies subserviant to the UN and pay corporate income taxes to that body or we should require that they announce their national affiliation and obey all the laws of that country and pay full taxes as established by that country. I am tired of companies getting subsidies from our government when the benefits go primarily to the citizens of other nations. My guess is that the Enron/WorldCom/Anderson fiascos would have occurred whether they were transnationals or not. Still, the larger companies have so much money to spend on lobbying or controlling national legislators, and the incentive to do so, that they will be able to buy 'protection' of their income streams. It will take some massive changes in election laws around the world to change this influence peddling. Of course, the matter is made worse by treaties that attempt to homogenize world trade. Individual countries can no longer control trade in their own economies nor is trade regulated by any democratic body. So those who make those trade rules have free reign to line their pockets. Somethings gotta change. Dennis Paull Half Moon Bay, California At 12:15 AM 7/12/2002 Friday , you wrote: >The Economist this week has a special survey on finance. Only the >introduction, "Capitalism and its troubles" is available on-line and I will >have to wait until I receive my hard copy tomorrow to read the rest. The >introduction (as was the financial commentary this morning on BBC Radio) is >in a complete dither as to what is going to happen next on the stock market >and in the wider financial system. > >As I read it, however, I couldn't help think what an unfortunate legacy >Marx has left us. His massive work, 'Das Kapital', has given us a term >which is used as a battering ram by the opponents of social injustice but >also by others who should know better (such as The Economist) as being the >quintessential property of our economic system. > >But Capitalism is no more apt to describe our economic system as, say, >'Workerism' or 'Landism' or 'Energyism'. All of these were just as >important and visible components as Capital in the development of the >system which swept us out of agriculture into industrialisation. > >Capital, in the sense that it is necessary and that it essentially consists >of delayed gratification, has always been with us. Even the Neolithic >axe-head worker, who delayed consuming (or relaxing) by working at >producing a stock of flint axe-heads against the day when the next >market-day took place with the adjacent tribe or iterant merchant, was a >capitalist. > >Instead of using a term which describes only one component of our economy, >is there not another term which describes its essence? I suggest there is. >It's a cumbersome term and doesn't exist in my dictionary but I can think >of no better one for the time being. It is "Efficiencyism". >"Productivityism" would be a synonym, but this is even more cumbersome. >Also, somehow, the ideal term should include the basic notion that what man >has been about ever since the dawn of our species is the more efficient use >of energy -- that is, the energy that is given us as a free lunch by solar >radiation pouring down on us, and/or large quantities of fossilised >sunlight (coal, oil, gas, tar sands, etc), and/or radioactive elements >(themselves originally manufactured in the sun). > >Pre-humans hunted and gathered food purely in the form that nature provided >it from sunlight; >Early hunter-gatherer man hunted and gathered food in the form that nature >provided it from sunlight -- but more efficiently by means of using simple >tools; >Agricultural man cropped animals and grain (about half-a-dozen species only >in both cases) by genetic engineering and concentrating supplies which were >able to sequester even more solar radiation per unit area of land; >Pre-industrial man was able to tap into even more energy from sunlight by >means of windmills and watermills; >Industrial man was able to tap into even more energy by exploiting vast >quantities of fossil fuels which were the product of solar energy from >times past, and also by the fission of radioactive elements. > >In this efficiency-of-energy-use view, I don't think we're justified in >calling ourselves a "post-industrial" economy, though we are probably on >the verge of it. When we start to receive the bulk of our energy supplies >by an efficient use of solar-capture technology -- say, in 20-40 years' >time -- then we could aptly say we have left industrialism behind and are >into something far more sophisticated. > >At that stage we will probably be producing everything we need in situ by >means of nano-biogenetic systems directly powered by sunlight. And, >incidentally, we'll then be able to get rid of another ugly and inept term, >"Globalisation". There'll be no need for it in the sense of the physical >trading of goods. > >But, until then, Capitalism, Workerism, Landism, have been but components >of our economy. What man's history has been really been about are quantum >leaps in the efficient use of solar radiation -- the massive free lunch >that has been given us. In other words, by using our brains. > >It's time to bury Capitalism but I guess it will still continue to be used >for a long time to come even though it will remain a stop-word, rather than >a step-word, in our understanding of what our economic system is really about. > >Keith Hudson > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >-------------- > >Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England >Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >________________________________________________________________________
