Humm....but I still wonder if North was rights. Maybe we are not sharing mental models...:-)
----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Carson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 8:20 AM Subject: RE: North on ideology -- Free Markets, & Marketeers -- tunneling > Interesting. Your remarks on tunnelling dovetail nicely with an excellent > article by Sean Corrigan at LewRockwell.com: > > http://www.lewrockwell.com/corrigan/corrigan13.html > > Corrigan refers to privatization, as part of IMF-imposed "structural > adjustments", as a carpet-bagger strategy for enabling international > financial classes to buy up taxpayer-funded assets for pennies on the > dollar. > > This discussion reminds me of something I heard second-hand about the > Austrian economist and anarcho-capitalist Hans Hermann Hoppe. I've yet to > read it myself, so take it for what it's worth. Anyway, he argued that the > ex-Communist states were the one proper area for implementing syndicalist > control of industry, since the original ownership was hopelessly muddled or > moot, and the state industry thus qualified as "unowned property" in the > Lockean sense. It was therefore quite logical to treat the workforce as > occupiers or homesteaders, and place it under their collective ownership. > Anyway, it sounds to me a lot better than turning the product of seventy > years stolen labor of the Russian people over to domestic and international > elites at fire sale prices, and then turning the country into a big > sweatshop. > > On a related note, in the "Tranquil Statement" of the YAF's Radical > Libertarian Caucus, Karl Hess argued that radical student occupations of > even private universities wasn't a violation of any valid private property > right, because such nominally "private" institutions were almost entirely > dependant on the state's subsidies. Therefore, they should be treated as > unowned, and "homesteaded" by students or faculty--in many ways a return to > the original medieval idea of the university. I've also been told that > Rothbard, at one point, (in the late 60s, I think, at the height of his > affinity for the New Left) called for the expropriation of any corporation > that got more than half its profits from state capitalist intervention, and > its being placed under workers' control instead. The agorist Samuel Edward > Konkin, another Austrian radical, speaks of a period of restitution in which > the property of statists will be seized to pay back what they consumed > through robbery of the producing classes. > > For "privatization" in this country, there's a lot to be said for what Larry > Gambone calls "mutualizing" state property as an alternative both to > corporate capitalist privatization and to state ownership. It entails > devolving social services, police, schools, etc., to the local level, and > then placing them under the direct democratic control of their > clientele--sort of like transforming them into consumer co-ops. The > ultimate goal, of course, is to fund them on a user-fee basis and make > consumption voluntary. It's quite a bit like what Proudhon called (in > *General Idea of the Revolution*) dissolving the state within the social > body. > > > >From: Grey Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: RE: North on ideology -- Free Markets, & Marketeers -- tunneling > >Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 11:22:22 +0200 > > > > > quoth Tom Grey: > > > > . . . For instance, the need for government to prevent "tunneling" > > > > of newly privatized companies by the managers. . . . > > > > > > Define please? > > > >It's basically asset stripping, in any of sundry ways. > >Asset stripping has occurred in almost all newly privatized Slovak firms. > > > >A few ways I know of: > >1) The new manager, often part owner, creates a new brand name for > >the product the newly privatized company is making. This brand name > >is owned by a little company wholly owned by the manager. The production > >company pays millions for the brand name. -- production company has > >losses, the little company is quite profitable, but prolly off shore and > >untaxed. > >2) The new owner's wife or son writes up a "strategic" or "marketing" > >plan, some 5-20 pages of BS to lay a shelf; to get millions in fees. > >3) Older but working, high-market value production equipment is sold at > >almost zero "book value" (near end of depreciated life). > >4) The production company builds a mansion, pays millions; sells it to > >the owner's little company at a huge loss. Similarly with luxury cars. > > > >Here in Slovakia, accounting form requirements are rather strict; but > >the first three above are entirely legal. I'm not sure on the details of > >(4) in order to make it legal, but I strongly suspect certain perpetrators > >have legal opinions on how to do it legally -- in accordance with required > >form based reporting. > > > >The failure of the Klaus voucher privatization plan was that the mostly > >minority > >owners had no real way of stopping the top managers from asset stripping. > >Ownership got dispersed, but it became ownership of debts without assets; > >select (mostly ex-commie) managers ended up with most of the assets. > >That's one of the main reasons so many ex-commie countries have voters > >unhappy > >with "the free markets". ... and then they vote tough ex-commies into > >office :( > >(The problem with democracy? People get the gov't they deserve!) > > > >Most ex-commie judicial systems are also completely unable to cope with the > >huge increase in clearly illegal actions, so there is little chance of > >hoping > >for any legal redress. My wife and I paid for a small flat in Oct 95, > >after > >looking at it and being assured it would be complete by December. In the > >purchase there was stiff penalties if late. Almost immediately after we > >paid, > >construction halted ... for a year! We got it in Dec 96, but no penalty > >money. > >We sued, in early 97. They agreed to pay penalties, they haven't. VERY > >clear. > >We've been waiting (no bribes to judges). Finally, April this year, we > >"won". > >But now the Drustvo (co-operative) is appealing, so we're waiting, some > >more. > >Oh, and there will be no interest on the money we eventually get. > >In general, the courts don't quite work. > > > >I think the "aid" community has become more clearly aware of this, and are > >focusing now, much more than 10 years ago, on: rule of law, property rights > >(& > >titles), and corporate governance. (See CIPE, for instance on Africa) > >http://www.cipe.org/fs/articles/gatamah.php3 > > > >Hope this is helps understanding. > > > >Tom Grey > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: > http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx > >
