>>> Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> 10/05 3:33 PM >>>
Charles Brown wrote:
>Charles: So actually, all of those innocent
>people were taking the risk with the
>rich person, and they should have been
>compensated for taking risk too, no ?
I'm not talking about LTCM partners or investors or lenders, but about the risk that the entire financial system might implode, including your pension as a public employee. ___________ Charles: Yes, that is the way I understood you. Therefore, I was taking the risk with them when they made the investment. Therefore, I should have been compensated for taking the risk just as they were if their risk had succeeded. I should get more money than I am out of the deal in the cases where it succeeds.
I am saying all of this as a way of suggesting that progressive economists might be especially capable and effective at demonstrating that the often broadcast notion that entrepreneurs are risktakers and that this is the economic justification for their rich compensation.
If the entire financial system imploded, could you imagine a revolution (if we could get together a workers' movement real quick ) ? Is it really possible for the entire financial system to implode soon ? What would that look like ?
>But my question is somewhat
>rhetorical. I didn't mean that you,
>Doug Henwood, should have
>to justify Greenspan's statement.
Hey, I'm here to justify Greenspan's ways to man.
>I am thinking more that the next
>times bourgeois propagandists
>justify huge income by the
>idea that the rich supposedly
>take more risks, left economists
>should debunk it with the many
>examples that disprove this
>myth.
It's not risk, it's expoitation. Only bourgeois financial theorists price capital mainly by risk. ___________
Charles: Indeed, you use that word, but most economists talk like the bourgeois financial theorists. Actually, I was not including you among the bourgeois economists , just trying to emphasize what big liars they are, using your post.
Charles Brown
>From the market to the Marxit