Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: The Corporation (was Re: CG: Ligatures etc)



I sometimes read the Economist, though I tend to differ with their overall 
slant. If we're to quote them at each other, see also:

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3888006

Where I would differ here would be with what I take to be their notion of 
cost-benefit analysis, for instance. The technical details are quite 
debatable, and the devil in the details. There is the question of the 
validity of the whole approach of CBAs in the first place. Although the 
writers do admit that some things in nature are 'literally priceless', the 
reductionism involved in CBAs is dubious, and it comes back to the problem 
of deriving 'ought's from 'is's. I'm also reminded of the story about the 
mathematician (who?) at the (Pr/R)ussian court who scribbled some equations 
on a board, and said, "Therefore, God exists!"

The wisest, including Russell, have always recommended guarding against the 
excesses of groups -- both governments and corporations. But the question 
is: what *are* the excesses, and what are the deficiencies? That is where 
folk differ.

Jay

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@BESTWEB.NET>
To: "Jay Halcomb" <jhalcomb8@comcast.net>
Cc: "Rich Cooper" <rcooper15@comcast.net>; <cg@CS.UAH.EDU>; 
<lupso@inna.net>; <standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2005 4:17 PM
Subject: Re: The Corporation (was Re: CG: Ligatures etc)


> Rich and Jay,
>
> I received an offline note, which recommended a review
> that was published in the _Economist_, a well respected
> British news magazine, which is staffed with experts in
> economics on all sides of the political fences:
>
>    http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2647328
>    Face value | The lunatic you work for | Economist.com
>
> Their final paragraph is very important:  both governments
> and corporations can be very good or very bad.  That's not
> surprising since they're both human.
>
> Our best hope is to maintain checks and balances so that the
> governments, corporations, journalists, labor unions, churches,
> universities, etc., etc., all keep watch on one another and
> maintain a balance of forces.
>
> What worries me most is that Eisenhower's worst fears are
> coming to pass:  the military-industrial complex bought the
> government -- lock, stock, and barrel.    If that is allowed
> to continue, all checks and balances are destroyed.
>
> John