Unacceptable face of capitalism?

[Carl Remick]

>From: James Heartfield <Jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk>
>
>The WEEK
>ending 30 June 2002
>
>THE UNACCEPTABLE FACE OF CAPITALISM? ...
>
>The purported differences between the US and European models are less
>important than they seem. It is a long time since individual investors
>played a significant role in market movements on Wall Street; rather
>institutional fund managers are the principle share-traders. Financial
>mismanagement is hardly a uniquely American phenomenon, either. The idea
>that there are different, even competing, models of capitalism, whether
>US, European or Asiatic, only indicates that there are no real
>alternatives to capitalism being considered. The over-emphasis upon
>competing 'models' of capitalism is for the most part, advertising copy
>in a conventional trade war.

Quite right there, James.  I'd like to share a thought I posted on another 
list recently re this:


>http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/27/business/27GLOB.html
>
>U.S. Businesses Dim as Models for Foreigners
>By EDMUND L. ANDREWS

Paradigms lost, alas!  What strikes me as a real hoot in this article is the 
chest-thumping by various Euro biz leaders in contrasting their own virtue 
with the exceptional commercial depravity of their American counterparts.  
But as I understand it, the "simple and fairly compact list of basic 
[accounting] principles" that Andrews cites as the common standard in Europe 
lead to pretty minimal disclosure.  And when it comes to financial 
reporting, if you say very little, you don't have to lie very much to get 
by.  I'm not sure secrecy is an improvement over fraud in conducting 
business affairs.

Carl

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com