On 9/6/07, Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't think it is fair to call him a retired CEO. When I knew him he was > West > Coast Editor for the New Republic. It was a good publication then. He then > became > active in the Land Reform movement. I am not sure how capitalistic Working > Assets > was.
Liberal Capitalist. Genuinely on the side of the good guys most of the time, but ideologically pro-capitalist. Honestly, I'm not attacking Barnes. I think he has a lit of insight and does a lot of good things. But I don't think it unfair to describe him as a capitalist, or pro capitalist. And working assets was very capitalist - which again is not a slam. How on earth do you run a mainstream business in the U.s. and not make it capitalist? Anyway the idea behind it was progressive, responsible capitalism. I don't think Barnes would be insulted at being called a capitalist, or at hearing working assets described as capitalist. Nor I think would he dispute their accuracy. The whole point of his book is that capitalism does not have to be oppressive--something I dispute, but don't expect everyone to share. The whole point of "Capitalism 3.0" is that it can be made to work. Barnes described himself in a number of bios as retired CEO of Working assets in 1995. I tend to associate the word "retirement" with old age. I tend to associate early retirement either with supplementation by McJobs (something Barnes does not have to worry about) or a move into unpaid volunteer works if you don't need the income. I was mistaken in Barnes' case and I apologize for it, especially since I consider him one of the good guys. He has mostly been there and on the right side for important fights, and that is more important than ideological agreement. From the ferver with which Michael and Eugene defended him , I'm guessing he is a good guy personally as well. B
