Ivan and Boris Again

shagdrum

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
6,568
Reaction score
44
Location
KS
Ivan and Boris Again

There is an old Russian fable, with different versions in other countries, about two poor peasants, Ivan and Boris. The only difference between them was that Boris had a goat and Ivan didn't. One day, Ivan came upon a strange-looking lamp and, when he rubbed it, a genie appeared. She told him that she could grant him just one wish, but it could be anything in the world.

Ivan said, "I want Boris' goat to die."

Variations on this story in other countries suggest that this tells us something about human beings, not just Russians.

It may tell us something painful about many Americans today, when so many people are preoccupied with the pay of corporate CEOs. It is not that the corporate CEOs' pay affects them so much. If every oil company executive in America agreed to work for nothing, that would not be enough to lower the price of a gallon of gasoline by a dime. If every General Motors executive agreed to work for nothing, that would not lower the price of a Cadillac or a Chevrolet by one percent.

Too many people are like Ivan, who wanted Boris' goat to die.

It is not even that the average corporate CEO makes as much money as any number of professional athletes and entertainers. The average pay of a CEO of a corporation big enough to be included in the Standard & Poor's index is less than one-third of what Alex Rodriguez makes, about one-tenth of what Tiger Woods makes and less than one-thirtieth of what Oprah Winfrey makes.

But when has anyone ever accused athletes or entertainers of "greed"?

It is not the general public that singles out corporate CEOs for so much attention. Politicians and the media have focused on business leaders, and the public has been led along, like sheep.

The logic is simple: Demonize those whose place or power you plan to usurp.

Politicians who want the power to micro-manage business and the economy know that demonizing those who currently run businesses is the opening salvo in the battle to take over their roles.

There is no way that politicians can take over the roles of Alex Rodriguez, Tiger Woods or Oprah Winfrey. So they can make any amount of money they want and it doesn't matter politically.

Those who want more power have known for centuries that giving the people somebody to hate and fear is the key.

In 18th century France, promoting hatred of the aristocracy was the key to Robespierre's acquiring more dictatorial power than the aristocracy had ever had, and using that power to create a bigger bloodbath than anything under the old regime.

In the 20th century, it was both the czars and the capitalists in Russia who were made the targets of public hatred by the Communists on their road to power. That power created more havoc in the lives of more people than czars and capitalists ever had combined.

As in other countries and other times, today it is not just a question of which elites win out in a tug of war in America. It is the people at large who have the most at stake.

We have just seen one of the biggest free home demonstrations of what happens in an economy when politicians tell businesses what decisions to make.

For years, using the powers of the Community Reinvestment Act and other regulatory powers, along with threats of legal action if the loan approval rates varied from the population profile, politicians have pressured banks and other lending institutions into lending to people they would not lend to otherwise.

Yet, when all this blows up in our faces and the economy turns down, what is the answer? To have more economic decisions made by politicians, because they choose to say that "deregulation" is the cause of our problems.

Regardless of how much suffocating regulation may have been responsible for an economic debacle, politicians have learned that they can get away with it if they call it "deregulation."

No matter what happens, for politicians it is "heads I win and tails you lose." If we keep listening to the politicians and their media allies, we are all going to keep losing, big time. Keeping our attention focused on CEO pay-- Boris' goat-- is all part of this game. We are all goats if we fall for it.
 
...

clapqy9.gif
 
However, we don't hear about good CEOs - of which there are plenty - who make as much as the ones being vilified. Maybe if both sides of the equation would work at getting out the news about Schmidt, Jobs, Busch IV, Rogers, (CEOs who make a difference, and make big money) then the everyday man wouldn't feel so victimized. Yes, media on all sides needs to report occasionally on the success of business, and not just the failure of business.

But, once again - it comes down to dirty laundry, and believe me, it sells. I wish it didn't, but the bad news of AiG execs having lavish parties while the company fails around them is going to get more press than how Lafley over at Procter & Gamble is working to make the company green while keeping dividends at an all time high.

And yes, Oprah, Rodriguez and Woods make incredible amounts of money - but for every Oprah, there are thousands of John Doe's who can't make it in the industry, who make some money doing a couple of commercials and end up waiting tables. And how many guys are playing bush league - or are even just playing non-pay competitive baseball - thousands and thousands. Good talent in any endeavor deserves to get paid. Sports has their own 'shifting' system, usually the best do rise to the top. Entertainment is sort of fuzzy, but if you aren't selling movies, CDs, TV time then you don't last very long.

Sometimes it seems in business you can rise to the top on things other than business acumen. And often when people do arrive at the top, the demands of Wall Street and next quarter profit and dividends can undermine the best of them. Wall Street may want to point fingers at the government (somewhat rightfully so), but Wall Street needs to look inside as well. The demands of instant return is hurting capitalism immensely.

It is hard to say what regulations do to the economy - certainly the CRA is a failure. However, other countries that are capitalistic have many more regulations. They don't seem to get in the way. Japan, England, India all have some very tight government regulations on business, far more than the US does.

Maybe this is a growing phase - where we learn where government regulations are needed and where they are really bad. We need to play in the world market - and maybe we should look at some successes within the world market to get some frameworks.
 
Maybe if both sides of the equation would work at getting out the news about Schmidt, Jobs, Busch IV, Rogers, (CEOs who make a difference, and make big money) then the everyday man wouldn't feel so victimized.

But that is part of the problem; people feeling "victimized" and using that to justify there envy. Emotion does not make good decisions, and all this talk of the CEO's and vilifying then is ment to stoke the fires of envy, which is the basis for class warfare. Policies based on that line of thinking only help the powerful in government while hurting the rest of us.

it comes down to dirty laundry, and believe me, it sells. I wish it didn't, but the bad news of AiG execs having lavish parties while the company fails around them

...and look how well AIG is doing. It would be out of business right now if it weren't for the government propping it up. The free market would have already been correcting that problem. Instead, the government is forstalling the inevitable; and the failure of AIG will be all the more economically painful to the country for it.

It is hard to say what regulations do to the economy - certainly the CRA is a failure. However, other countries that are capitalistic have many more regulations. They don't seem to get in the way. Japan, England, India all have some very tight government regulations on business, far more than the US does.

If countries have regulations then they are not, by definition, capitalistic. They may be closer to being truely capitalistic then others, but they are not truely capitalistic.

And the contries you point out cannot compete with us economically, or on a standard of living leve. That is because we have a more free market, capitalistic society then them. Without fail, in the long run; less capitalism = weaker economy and a lower standard of living for all, more capitalism = stronger economy and a higher standard of living for all.

The Framers set it up very well, and we would probably be better off if the government interference in the economy had stayed at that level; namely, the interstate commerce clause (narrowly defined). Government regulates trade and that is it.
 
But that is part of the problem; people feeling "victimized" and using that to justify there envy. Emotion does not make good decisions, and all this talk of the CEO's and vilifying then is ment to stoke the fires of envy, which is the basis for class warfare. Policies based on that line of thinking only help the powerful in government while hurting the rest of us.

Emotion never makes good decisions - but good decision makers factor in emotion. If, for instance, the CEOs who took their corporate jets to beg for our tax money would have thought ahead (or had their staff think ahead) they would have flown coach. Bad decision. Whether or not it was a good financial decision, it was a bad PR decision. A bad 'emotional' decision. It is what they have to deal with. Odd, the Union leaders took a motor home to meet with congress - that got no play - good or bad - but at least it got 'no play'. If the CEOs had gone to the meeting flying coach - it would have gotten 'no play'. But, in this case - no play would have been the 'correct play.'

It may be a bad way to run a company - but, in this financial climate the corporate CEOs had better look at how their actions effect their company's public image. They may have not had to worry about that in the past - but, as tax payer dollars get involved - it will become more of a 'news' item.

...and look how well AIG is doing. It would be out of business right now if it weren't for the government propping it up. The free market would have already been correcting that problem. Instead, the government is forstalling the inevitable; and the failure of AIG will be all the more economically painful to the country for it.

I don't profess to know how the free market would have handled so many financial companies going out of business at once. And now we will never know. I do know the government stepped in to keep multiple banks from failing so we wouldn't have the same problem when the banks failed in 1929 and 1930. I think most of 'it would be better if...' is now regulated to speculation. Bush and Paulson decided that this was the route to go.

If countries have regulations then they are not, by definition, capitalistic. They may be closer to being truely capitalistic then others, but they are not truely capitalistic.
They are capitalistic, the industry is privately owned. There is nothing in the definition about government regulations - just that business cannot be government owned. The US capitalist system has mostly been defined as capitalism with little government control (well, in a perfect world ;) )

And the countries you point out cannot compete with us economically, or on a standard of living leve. That is because we have a more free market, capitalistic society then them. Without fail, in the long run; less capitalism = weaker economy and a lower standard of living for all, more capitalism = stronger economy and a higher standard of living for all.
However, as we have to move into global economy - those countries are better set up to succeed, and it is starting to shift. The US might want to be isolationist, but, the world is too small. The standard of living isn't a great way to look at this problem. There is something called the Human Development Index, which takes into a lot of different things - but basically is considered a 'standard of living' index and many countries are above America (oddly many democrat/socialist countries). The US rates 12th (falling 4 points this year), Japan ranks 8th (falling 1), the UK 17th (up 1) India is very low - 128 - but rising. I wouldn't want to live in those other countries - but they are capitalist, and moving up or already ahead of us.

The Framers set it up very well, and we would probably be better off if the government interference in the economy had stayed at that level; namely, the interstate commerce clause (narrowly defined). Government regulates trade and that is it.

And yes, we may have been better off - alternate universe study is interesting, but somewhat impractical. Sometimes I think the founding fathers believed a bit too much in the innate 'goodness' of man.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top