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