Here, here, Tom and Arthur. THAT is always the rub. Everyone I observe who
favors "free-market capitalism" expects "the government" to provide a
docile, competent work force (and more importantly, consumers); regulate
OTHER economic activities; permit them to strive for (and hopefully
obtain) monopoly unimpeded; AND, as you both point out, absorb the costs
of their failures or greed, meanwhile cutting taxes and allowing them to
hog a disproportionate share of the wealth.
Sounds like a GREAT game if you can get "the masses" to go along. With the
aid of the police, military, public education, and media (the latter
which they directly own and control), the others they strongly
influence, they CURRENTLY have "the masses" on their side in the hope
against hope that they, too, can one day strike it rich in the
government-backed global casino called the stock market.
On Wed, 6 May 1998, Cordell, Arthur: DPP wrote:
>
>
> Socializing losses and privatizing profits. Interesting sort of
> asymmetrical market economy.
>
> arthur cordell
> ----------
> From: tom abeles
> To: Ed Weick
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Bringing down the MAI
> Date: Tuesday, May 05, 1998 7:29PM
>
> Ed Weick wrote, in part:
>
> >
> > As you may have guessed, I am something of an elitist, and may even be
> > neo-con or neo-lib, though I have not had my blood tested recently to find
> > out. I do not believe in mass movements, and have a low opinion of
> > democracy as currently practiced. .. Mobilizing these people into digital
> mobs via the Internet
> > scares Hell out of me.
> >
> > I do believe in free and open trade and have felt the MAI to be a good
> > thing. We live in a complicated but open world in which the absence of a
> > common set of rules about things as important as international capital
> flows
> > is hazardous - witness the Asian meltdown.
> --------
>
> Ed
>
> i grant your position. But here is the catch. When the melt down
> occurred in SE Asia and when the Mexican crisis occurred, the bailout
> was on the backs of those masses and not on the backs of the capitalists
> who had moved their money out or who, when their funds were trapped, got
> the governments to bail them out at the citizen's expense.
>
> Now if you and the rest of the investment banking community were to take
> the risks along with the rewards, then cut your deals in private- thats
> your biz. But when the MAI is sorted out and one understands the
> ramifications, the risks are not proportionate to the rewards needed by
> the investment community. After all isn't that how Lloyds of London got
> started with the risk takers hedging their bets with other risk takers
> and not on the backs of the citizens?
>
> There in lies the issue. So, should Sumotomo and Morgan Stanley call you
> up and ask you to organize the cost of the recovery? Hmm maybe there
> might be some generals in SE Asia who might have a conscience and join
> you.
>
> cheers
>
> tom
>
>
