« Gender-based Differences in Behavior | Main | A Historical Perspective on the Financial Crisis »

March 30, 2009

Comments

Chris Ward

Well, we get rapidly to the question of what is "fair", and who is "King-maker" in determining how the riches are shared. I guess for you Americans, Obama is King-maker whether he wants the role or not.

Imagine you've been putting away some of salary throughout your career, expecting to draw it as pension in retirement. The 'invisible hand' ... or more likely the 'fierce wind' ... can upset the best-laid plans of mice and men; unless someone in a position of power guarantees them.

Also, you could invest all you like in OS/2 and SmartSuite expecting a profit at the end of the day, but you would be most unlikely to get one. Bad investments are easy to make, and in a competitive market it's tempting to encourage your competitors to make them.

And if OS/2 and SmartSuite are 'over' as profitable businesses, what of Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office ? Can they absorb more investment and return dividends, or are they over too ?

Huge forces in the business world. I see the forces; I do not know the outcome.

dblwyo

You know if we rehearse a bit we could get an act together insofar as timing is concerned. VERY glad you've been exploring Smith - his fundamental message is that markets are indeed efficient but they are effective only so far as the institutional framework that defines, supports and constrains them is. As you continue to pursue this line of investigation may I recommend Douglas North(Nobel)"Structure & Change....", Mancur Olson(should have been),"Power and Prosperity" and Peter Jay, "Wealth of Man".
The complementary question is that businesses exist within a socionomic ecology and have a fundamental obligation AND self-interest in it's health; as well as in doing no damage themselves. {Drucker, "Management: Tasks,Responsibilities, Practices"}. Channeling Smith, North, Olson and Drucker leads one to proactively helping to shape the legislative and regulatory environment...or should:
http://llinlithgow.com/bizzX/2009/03/helmet_laws_vs_adult_supervisi.html

Free Pension Review

The standard definition seems to take reliance on markets for economic transactions as a necessary qualification for an economy to be seen as capitalist. In a similar way, dependence on the profit motive, and on individual entitlements based on private ownership, are seen as archetypal features of capitalism. However, if these are necessary requirements, are the economic systems we currently have

The comments to this entry are closed.