RE: Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
>Perhaps plutocratic dictatorship, or plutocracy is better.< when I see the word "plutocracy," I am reminded of two things: (1) Years ago, I read an article in the PROCEEDINGS of the U.S. Navy Institute that labeled the U.S. system using this word. Was this a move in the direction of increasing the legitimacy of the idea of replacing the plutocracy with military rule? (2)I think of Disney Dogs. Looking at the current occupant of the Oval Office, I wonder if instead of "Plutocracy," we have "Goofyocracy." Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
Sabri must have looked at my office. On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 08:43:10PM -0700, Sabri Oncu wrote: > > Shut them down, too. -- JD > > > >> Well, Ian wants to close the business schools > >> and I want to shut down economics departments. > >> What do you all think of Anthropology? > >> > >> Gene > > How about shutting the entire academe down. The current condition > of academe is a complete mess. It is like an "object oriented" > program that screwed up so badly that there is no point of > "deriving new classes" from the already existing "parent > classes". Maybe we can make a fresh start for the better. > > Sabri > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: Re: Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
Shut them down, too. -- JD -Original Message- From: Eugene Coyle To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 4/17/02 7:06 PM Subject: [PEN-L:25087] Re: Re: Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism Well, Ian wants to close the business schools and I want to shut down economics departments. What do you all think of Anthropology? Gene
Re: Re: Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
Well, Ian wants to close the business schools and I want to shut down economics departments. What do you all think of Anthropology? Gene Ian Murray wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "Sabri Oncu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "PEN-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 8:30 PM > Subject: [PEN-L:25023] Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism > > > Michael writes: > > > > > You are absolutely correct. > > > > > > "Devine, James" wrote: > > > > > >> My impression is that Williamson studies non-market > > >> institutions in order to show that corporate hierarchies > > >> are a good thing. > > > > I don't know whether he studies market or non-market institutions > > but other than that what Jim said was more or less what he told > > me or what I recall from the things he told me: hierarchical > > and/or centralized forms of governance for the institutions of > > capitalism are/can be better than other organizational forms. > > > > Moreover, he had no urge to make use of the word "democracy" as > > he was making his claims. As I heard many times in the business > > world: > > > > "We are a business, we are not a democracy!" > > > > Here is another one: > > > > "We are not in the business of doing good. We do business and > > good comes out of it!" > > > > More or less, that is, as far as I recall. > > > > Sabri > > > > Would that Williamson and his fellow apologists do some actual economic > anthropology and sign up for a stint as a mail room clerk or executive assistant, > a cosmetics salesperson or an air traffic controller or load trucks or be a school > bus driver to see how accurately their categories, narratives and explanations map > the actual lobotomizing practices of today's big firms. > > Business administration depts. are the breeding grounds for authoritarian, > autocratic personalities and they ought to be dismantled and rolled into those > remaining departments that could teach them something about democracy and > manners > > Ian
Re: Re: Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
There's a bit of the TC approach in John Commons as well.. Ian - Original Message - From: "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 10:07 PM Subject: [PEN-L:25027] Re: Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism > Transactions cost economics -- this will be brief after 6 hours of > classes, 2 hours at the gym -- starts with Ronald Coase, who explains that > firms arise to minimize the cost of negotiating via markets, say by > writing a contract with specific requirements. Robertson refered to firms > as islands of planning. But planning gets unwieldy if the organization > gets too big, so socialism is a no-no. > > Williamson was at Carnegie, where he picked up a great deal from Herbert > Simon about dealing with uncertainty, but then he rejected Simon later. > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
Re: Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
Transactions cost economics -- this will be brief after 6 hours of classes, 2 hours at the gym -- starts with Ronald Coase, who explains that firms arise to minimize the cost of negotiating via markets, say by writing a contract with specific requirements. Robertson refered to firms as islands of planning. But planning gets unwieldy if the organization gets too big, so socialism is a no-no. Williamson was at Carnegie, where he picked up a great deal from Herbert Simon about dealing with uncertainty, but then he rejected Simon later. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
- Original Message - From: "Sabri Oncu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "PEN-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 8:30 PM Subject: [PEN-L:25023] Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism > Michael writes: > > > You are absolutely correct. > > > > "Devine, James" wrote: > > > >> My impression is that Williamson studies non-market > >> institutions in order to show that corporate hierarchies > >> are a good thing. > > I don't know whether he studies market or non-market institutions > but other than that what Jim said was more or less what he told > me or what I recall from the things he told me: hierarchical > and/or centralized forms of governance for the institutions of > capitalism are/can be better than other organizational forms. > > Moreover, he had no urge to make use of the word "democracy" as > he was making his claims. As I heard many times in the business > world: > > "We are a business, we are not a democracy!" > > Here is another one: > > "We are not in the business of doing good. We do business and > good comes out of it!" > > More or less, that is, as far as I recall. > > Sabri Would that Williamson and his fellow apologists do some actual economic anthropology and sign up for a stint as a mail room clerk or executive assistant, a cosmetics salesperson or an air traffic controller or load trucks or be a school bus driver to see how accurately their categories, narratives and explanations map the actual lobotomizing practices of today's big firms. Business administration depts. are the breeding grounds for authoritarian, autocratic personalities and they ought to be dismantled and rolled into those remaining departments that could teach them something about democracy and manners Ian
Re: RE: Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
You are absolutely correct. "Devine, James" wrote: > My impression is that Williamson studies non-market institutions in order to > show that corporate hierarchies are a good thing. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
Sabri writes:>There is an interesting book by Oliver Williamson that I bought a while ago but have not read yet. It is entitled something like "Institutions of Capitalism" or some such name. He is the founder of this "transaction costs economics" and will most likely receive a Noble [sic!] Prize in the next few years. I met him a few times in some social gatherings as a matter of coincidence and had a chance to chat with him on the topic, although I must confess what he explained was way above my head. Read it, and if I understood anything from Oliver, you will see that Gunder Frank is right in that, Oliver doesn't know how Marxist he is. < My impression is that Williamson studies non-market institutions in order to show that corporate hierarchies are a good thing. One of his arguments is that other forms of organization lack the single-mindedness of a corporation (referring to the profit-seeking lust that they have). When I read his stuff years ago -- in preparing an article that Michael Reich and I got published in the REVIEW OF RADICAL POLTIICAL ECONOMICS -- I concluded that there was a basic conflict between capitalists and workers at the center of his theory. Capitalists were striving to attain the collective good for all that worked for the corporation, while disgruntled workers were mere free riders, undermining the collective good. But maybe I mushed his views up with some of the other orthodox authors. JD
Re: Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
- Original Message - From: "Sabri Oncu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Hey Ian, > > In the world of finance, what you said is called "saving ass" or > "ass saving", depending on which one you like more. If you are > someone with some authority and have those below you with lots of > responsibility, whenever there is a screw up, you can try to > point fingers at them to save your own "ass". This is why it is > called "ass saving" in those circles. It doesn't work forever > though. At some point, the unit you are in charge screws up so > badly that a security guard escorts you to the door, as I have > witnessed many, many times. > > Here is a fictitious story which covers not just "ass saving" but > also one reason why most financial corporations loved this thing > called out-sourcing: > > Suppose, for whatever reason, the executives of a firm that > manages about $360 billion decide to install an enterprise wide > risk management system. Actually we know: they want to monitor > their portfolio managers, so that they can point fingers at them > when there is a screw up. > > Now, consider a Managing Director of Information Technology at > this firm. As an Information Technology Managing Director, > suppose that this person has no idea about "modern portfolio > theory", so-called Litterman decomposition, Value at Risk and > cannot even tell the difference between say duration and maturity > of a fixed income asset, which means she knows nothing about risk > management. Further, she knows nothing about stochastic > processes, term structure models, option pricing, CAPM and all > that garbage either, which makes her a complete idiot in the eyes > of those who know about that stuff, like myself, that is. > > So, she hires first, say, Reufers, a very respectable firm, of > course, but no less idiots than her as far as risk management > goes, as consultants to manage the installation project and > naturally they screw up, say, after a year. By firing them, she > saves her "ass" but since she is still in trouble, she this time > hires, say, IBN, another respectable firm, of course, but no less > idiots than her as far as risk management goes, as consultants to > manage the installation project and naturally they screw up, say, > after a year. By firing them, she saves her "ass" once again but > since she is still in trouble, she this time hires, say, Orakle. > > Do you think she can survive if Orakle screws up too? > > And this fictitious story ends with me saying that I had seen her > escorted out by a security guard, after Orakle screwed up. > > For your information, in this fictitious story, the first two of > the firms mentioned were there, that is, Reufers and IBN. By the > way, IBN consultants cost this particular money management firm > from $2500 to $5000 daily, depending on their seniority, or, > should we say, stupidity. > > Best, > Sabri === And just who was the fool who hired the MDIT? Who was the fool who assigned her the task of search and implementation ? Why are they not gone? Ian
Re: Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
- Original Message - From: "Sabri Oncu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "PEN-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 3:11 PM Subject: [PEN-L:24950] Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism > Miyachi wrote: > > > From the viewpoint of Stalinism, the content of > > centralization of power is not considered as a pair > > of centralization of leadership and decentralization > > of responsibility, but only centralization of leadership > > has been put forward. > > Dear Miyachi, > > I have served at a few of the most Stalinist institutions in the > world: US financial corporations. They talked about > centralization of leadership and decentralization of > responsibility incessantly. This is the way the US financial > corporations are organized and I doubt that non-financial > corporations are significantly different. Responsibility without > authority is one of the most painful experiences I have ever had, > where, in this context, with authority I mean ability to make > decisions. > > What is the point of decentralized responsibility if those who > are responsible have no ability to make decisions? > > Best, > Sabri = To protect the leadership. It's called the musical chairs theory of unaccountability. Ian
