>At 1:46 PM -0500 12/21/01, kwalker2 at gte.net quoted:
>>
>>From: "Russell Turpin" <deafbox at hotmail.com>
>>To: fork at xent.com
>><...>
>>I enjoyed reading that. Thanks for posting it. I cannot
>>resist making one comment on the substance.
>>
>>Doug Henwood says:
>>>I'd also like to make the point that there's something
>>>illusory and fetishistic about the very notion of retirement
>>>funds. Individuals or families can save for a while, then draw
>>>down their savings, but societies
>>>as a whole cannot. Today's retirees can't be sustained using
>>>yesterday's savings - the money has to come from
>>>today. Effectively, today's stock buyers are what fund today's stock
>>>sellers. Just like a public pension
>>>system, a private one depends on the cross-generational
>>>transfer of funds from workers to retirees.
>>
>>That is one of the most wrong-headed economic claims I
>>have ever read! It completely ignores what constitutes
>>economic progress: that the current generation is NOT
>>beginning from scratch, but is working on a foundation
>>of accumulated capital, which interpreted broadly, is
>>the entire economic infrastructure, including the
>>knowledge distributed in the economic system, and the
>>knowledge held in the new generation's heads. This base
>>is provided by the previous generations' savings and
>>investment. Societies can and do save, in much the same
>>way an individul or family does. That is such a
>>critically important aspect of economic history that it
>>completely flabbergasts me that someone writing on
>>finance would miss it.
I was talking about savings in monetary form. Of course societies progress and prosper on the basis of physical capital and knowledge accumulated by previous generations.
I'd attribute this misreading to flawed reading comprehension, but I think it's symptomatic of the fact that fellows like this can't tell the difference between money and ideas, or money and machines.
>>From: ThosStew at aol.com
>>Message-ID: <4d.166ad11e.2954b82c at aol.com>
>>Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 11:07:08 EST
>>Subject: Re: Finance and Economics after the Dotcom Crash
>>To: FoRK at xent.com
>>
>>In a message dated 12/21/2001 10:36:26 AM, "Russell Turpin"
>><deafbox at hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>That is such a
>>>critically important aspect of economic history that it
>>>completely flabbergasts me that someone writing on
>>>finance would miss it.
>>
>>
>>Probably because of his Marxism. Marxism's fundamental flaw, IMHalf-bakedO,
>>is that it ignores the roles of innovation and knowledge as assets and
>>factors of production. The logic of the Marxist critique of
>>capitalism--especially the inevitability of trusts and monopoly, the
>>pre-condition for the radicalization of the urban proletariat--works only in
>>an economy where innovation is minimal.
It's news to me that Marx and Marxists are ignorant of the roles of innovation, knowledge, and competition. Sure there are some Marxists who adhere to a teleology of inevitable trustification, but not all, and certainly not me.
Doug