Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version nyu B notes v1.5 12/10/84; site acf4.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!acf4!mms1646
From: mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: What is "capitalism"? (Explorations of "social-interest")
Message-ID: <2380065@acf4.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 29-Jun-85 01:38:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: acf4.2380065
Posted: Sat Jun 29 01:38:00 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 4-Jul-85 00:19:46 EDT
References: <661@whuxl.UUCP>
Organization: New York University
Lines: 53

>/* tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) /  2:12 pm  Jun 24, 1985 */

>In democracy, persuasive people gain more power, and
>intellectuals are more persuasive than businessmen because verbal and
>written agility is needed to be intellectual.

This seems reasonable.  However, people like Hitler have proven even more
persuasive than intellectuals.  If democracy favors the most persuasive,
consider the implications.

>One point of democracy
>should be that important issues would get more public discussion -- hence
>my claims about intellectuals.  And the less democracy, the more an
>existent distribution of power and property -- that is, the businessman
>-- makes decisions.

There is a trade-off here, since while intellectuals may be necessary for
discussion, businessman are necessary to get things done.  Man does not
live by debate alone.

>As far as penalties go, an intellectual-turned-administrator can be made as
>responsible for the failure of the program he administers as any manager
>of a company.

Not likely.  As was pointed out in a recent Reason article, politicians
have an incentive to focus on the short term at the expense of the long
term because of the nature of democratic politics.  On the other hand,
since wealth is transferrable, the value of an enterprise is theoretically
based on an infinite sequence of future returns discounted to the present.
Thus, businessmen have an incentive to make their businesses viable for
the long-term, i.e., even after their death, since the perceived odds on
such viability affect the present value of their enterprises.

>Most major companies are large,
>and they judge their managers via organizational norms rather than direct
>market incentives (sometimes these match, sometimes not -- just as in
>politics).

I don't believe this is necessarily so.  Of course, the larger the company
the more difficult to make sure middle management is doing its job, but
when this becomes too difficult, that may mean that the company is too large
for its current structure and changes need to be made.

Which companies/industries are you referring to?  (I want to short them :-)

>And woe to the stupid politician that decides to take the misjudgments of
>the intellectual as gospel.  He could lose a lot.

Sure.  Unfortunately, the majority of people lose a lot more.

>Tony Wuersch

						Mike Sykora