|
Here I go
again. I am not familiar with this
author, but the title succeeded in grabbing my attention, as did the
reviewer. Guiding comments or
biting feedback, anyone? - KWC Book Review: In search
of a 'moral economy' by William Greider
by Mike Francis, in The Oregonian, Sunday, September 14, 2003 Anybody who's contemplating spending $28 to buy
William Greider's new book, "The
Soul of Capitalism: Opening Paths to a Moral Economy," surely knows better than to expect to race through its
zippy prose and encounter a thrilling denouement, so I'm going to give away the
author's conclusion. It's this: This book is full mostly of wishful thinking. But it is thinking, and so, for that
reason, highly worthwhile. Greider, who has a taste for such nontrivial
subjects as the Federal Reserve System ("Secrets of the Temple") and
the dubious rigging of the American political system ("Who Will Tell the
People"), this time tackles an even bigger subject. He proposes nothing less than to
rethink the way the American economy works, from corporate governance to
blue-collar employment, from environmental cleanups to political lobbying, from
pension-fund activism to spending on research and development. Yet the book yields no clear answers and few
"ah-ha" moments. Greider highlights scattered examples of innovative
thinking, a provocative project here and there, but nothing that comes close to
delivering a formula for "the soul of capitalism." What could? It would be easy to isolate and criticize swaths
of the book, but unfair to the author's purpose, which is to illuminate, to
provoke, to nudge. (OK, just one
argument. It was annoying to read
Greider's criticism of so-called "Safe Harbor" statements, in which
public companies warn opaquely that what they say must not be relied upon as a
prediction of the future. Greider suggests this is because corporations want to
obscure their intentions. While it would be wonderful if corporate executives
always said what they meant and meant what they said, those "Safe
Harbor" statements have evolved as a protection against counterproductive
shareholder lawsuits. They represent a standoff of sorts between an overeager
legal community and a risk-averse corporate mentality.) It's better not to dwell on the points of
disagreement with the author, because that would cloud his important criticisms
of the cumbersome machinery of American capitalism (which is tied to the
cumbersome machinery of American politics). For example, who can argue that something is not seriously amiss with a
system that encourages a cadre of corporate rogues to collude with a small
group of investment bankers to dismember profitable operations in a distant
state in order to generate fees and bonuses and raise a stock price by a small
amount? And what's wrong with a system in which
such maneuvers are financed mostly by pension funds of the very people whose
jobs are being endangered? If that sounds ludicrous, consider Portland
General Electric -- acquired by a distant group of executives in a transaction
that enriched a comparative few and, for a while, pleased Wall Street. Now,
those executives are in seclusion, awaiting trial or perhaps mobs with
pitchforks, and the fate of PGE has become a contentious issue here at home,
where its real headquarters used to be. Meanwhile, the employees of the
formerly independent utility are laboring patiently through the turmoil,
hopeful that their jobs will be saved but not knowing who will decide whether they
are. There's no way to look back on that
still-unfolding episode and say the system worked. And it's shameful that the
people who are most affected -- the ratepayers and the employees -- have had so
little voice in the proceedings. Greider
rightly asks us to examine what our system has wrought, and to consider such
troubling symptoms as: "Ownership" of
a company is broadly defined to consist of all shareholders, but in practice, a
few key officials at major investment houses collaborate with management to
make the most significant choices about corporate direction. Most employees are not
significant shareholders at the companies where they work and are not consulted
about their opinions. As a consequence, many of them feel little engagement
with the corporation's strategy. Pension funds that
invest people's savings and retirement funds prefer mostly to manage according
to short-term returns, rather than long-term benefit, even though their
investors also happen to be employees and residents in the communities where
their investments operate. The entrenched political
parties are disinclined to alter the formula for governmental and corporate
interplay, as both sides benefit from it. In that light, it's easy to forgive Greider his
relatively small transgressions as a reporter and advocate. He's up against
some monumental forces, and if he chooses to find hope in scattered, local
experiments in shared ownership and collaborative decision-making, then more
power to him. Greider's demeanor
is what sets him apart from some more noted, and equally opinionated social
critics. He is Michael Moore without the canine teeth; Robert Bartley with a
sense of compassion. Greider's calm, reasonable optimism is
welcome in any discussion of an unrealized "moral economy." http://www.oregonlive.com/books/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/entertainment/1063454313187750.xml Arthur wrote: I don't "like" government regulations. I accept
them. I don't think the |
- [Futurework] FW The world of work Sally Lerner
- RE: [Futurework] FW The world of work Cordell . Arthur
- RE: [Futurework] FW The world of work Cordell . Arthur
- Karen Watters Cole
