[lbo-talk] counter this...

[RE]

“Bankster” isn’t a good stand-in for fraudulent wealth acquisition as a whole.  I regularly read nakedcapitalism, and a cluster of writers who either post there or who are often referred to -- Yves Smith, Jaimie Galbraith, Matt Taibbi, Michael Hudson, William Black -- all push this very strongly.  The Rockwell piece tries to roar over the issue and these days can only sound naïve.  And, setting aside statutory criminality of the sort investigated by the other Michael Hudson, interviewed by Doug recently, what I find most interesting is how fluid the concept of fraud becomes when you start to appreciate how arbitrary valuation processes can be.  You lose (or you’re freed from) any clear sense of what is and is not legitimate,  what is simply an artifact of political success/legal evasion as opposed to “work as we know it.”  Now that system legitimacy is no longer ironclad because of the recession and the revelations of obvious criminality, the scope of the “obviously legitimate” shrivels.  It’s now possible to call much of the (at least recent) process of debt creation in this country into question. 

That said, this finale hardly gets you to the goal line:

“And what's with the whining about "the difference (ratio) between what a CEO makes and what a worker makes in the U.S. is wider than in any other country in the world"? So? Big deal! If you whiners are so concerned, then tell me what you, in your infinite economic "wisdom," deem to be the "proper" ratio? WARNING: Whatever arbitrary SUBJECTIVE ratio you give, I'm going to respond with a different arbitrary SUBJECTIVE ratio. (And when you get through telling me what the "proper" ratio should be, please tell me what the "acceptable" profit percentage should be for a corporation, what the minimum wage should be for an employee, what the maximum CEO salary should be, what the...)”

Blustery caps can’t hide that it’s not a question of proper ratios, but of who makes the rules so they can determine OBJECTIVITY and the right to bluster.  Whatever happened to market-based legitimation?   (Is this guy’s punt somehow linked to the law and economics mentality, wherein a contract is only as valuable as the penalty for breaking it?)
Randy

From: c b 
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 1:49 PM
To: lbo-talk 
Subject: [lbo-talk] counter this...

Each person in the top ___% has his or her own wealth, i.e., property,
that they (except for the Banksters) acquired¹ through voluntarily
exchanging a product or service with other people (called customers).

^^^^^^
CB; The rich don't earn most of what they "own". Their labor is not so
much more valuable than others' labor such that they should be
"compensated" at such higher rates. Furthermore, a lot of wealth is
inherited, so it is not even purported to be compensation for value
the rich inheritors have produced.  They didn't voluntarily exchange a
product or service in acquiring it.

___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk