<html> Charles, <x-tab>        </x-tab>Understood.  The problem I have with the Ponzi analogy is that it rings of the Proudhonian "Property is theft".  Marx famously argued against this as an interpretation of capitalism, an argument I'm sure just about everybody on this list is familiar with (so I won't repeat it). <x-tab>        </x-tab>It's not just a pedantic matter of "theoretical correctness".  As a practical matter, the "Ponzi" standpoint has to argue that either all capitalist enterprises are models of theft, or only some are, as with Enron.  In the latter case, one falls into the trap of arguing that Enron is the exceptional, and by possible implication reformable, instance of a system that as a whole is honest.  I argue quite the contrary, without arguing that the system as a whole or particular enterprises, is or are based on theft or swindles.  Enron is the inevitable outgrowth of the 'normal' working of the capitalist business cycle at a certain point in its "life-cycle".  No reform can prevent this from occurring;  the "Ponzi/swindle" analogy, however, tends to promote this illusion.  Even at the quasi-Keynsian heights of the late 60's - early 70's, the boom-bust cycle of grossly overvalued enterprises crashing to earth could not be avoided - merely attenuated. <x-tab>        </x-tab>OTOH, the there is no claim to a similar logic in the analogy Al Qaeda - Enron.  The logic is purely conjunctural;  however politically potent the organizational symmetries uncovered, the cause of this similitude is unknown to me. -Brad Mayer   Subject: RE: Al Qaeda, Inc: The Enron Business Model From: Charles Jannuzi (jannuzi@edu00.f-edu.fukui-u.ac.jp) Date: Wed Feb 13 2002 - 21:28:13 EST ·<x-tab>       </x-tab>sorted by: ·<x-tab>    </x-tab>[ date ] ·<x-tab>      </x-tab>[ thread ] ·<x-tab>    </x-tab>[ subject ] ·<x-tab>   </x-tab>[ author ] ·<x-tab>       </x-tab>Next message: ·<x-tab> </x-tab>Kelley: "max tax rate" ·<x-tab>       </x-tab>Previous message: ·<x-tab>     </x-tab>Luke Weiger: "Re: warning!" ·<x-tab>       </x-tab>Maybe reply: ·<x-tab>  </x-tab>Charles Jannuzi: "RE: Al Qaeda, Inc: The Enron Business Model" The Ponzi analogy works for some because Enron had a pyramid scheme going. Ponzi, if anyone now knows the term, is used to describe just about any pyramid scheme or dodgy business venture which bilks the investors. And those informed investors in the Hayekian marketplace of information should know when something is too good to be true, but they never do. The Enron pyramid attracted more glowing analysis and more stupid investors to keep the whole thing going. And opaque pyramids work until there is a liquidity crunch or someone at the top spills the beans. I would argue the way US and UK companies use profit reports, takeovers (Tyco, GE anyone?) and the stock markets, which bid up their stock prices to inflate their overall worth so they can keep doing more of the same, is a pyramid (even as many companies don't pay dividends while managers and board members pull off insider deals ). Sure it's not pure Ponzi. Hell, even the crime syndicates provides goods and services. I'm not sure the Al Qaeda analogy works very well though because if reports are to be believed, the man at the top blew his wad to achieve non-profit ends. I am interested, though, in seeing if Enron and Jack Welch's GE match up. Charles Jannuzi </html>