"John T. McCracken" wrote in message
...

"John T. McCracken" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.net...
"John T. McCracken" wrote in message
...

"Koz" wrote in message
...
I just had to add a quick ramble here....

When 5% of the people hold 90% of the wealth in this country, most
business essentially operates to serve the interests of that 5%,
not
the
other 90%.

I disagree, business operates to satisfy the stockholder, and today,
in
the
U.S., that is every working stiff with a 401K or mutual fund
investment,
plus a lot of small busnessmen who have their pension plan invested
at
least
partially in stocks and bonds. The 1960's idea that only the idle
rich
care
about stock prices is long gone, the man on the street is just as
likely
to
check his investments as the tycoon.

You may want to consult the big stock holders about that. They'll tell
you
that the businesses are run for the CEO's and other top executives,
which
is
the reason the SEC and the Justice Dept. are promoting a new plan that
gives
stockholders more say in the way the boards and the businesses are
run.
It's
part of the court-imposed reorganization for MCI/WorldCom. Whether
it's
adopted as SEC rules is problematic. Politically, it's not in the
cards
right now, even though most experts agree it's necessary. It doesn't
go
down
well with "free market" conservatives.

As for the 401K's, that's another myth. 85% of stock market wealth is
held
by 20% of the people. The top 1% have 38% of the wealth (see this
week's
issue of The Economist), and 10% to 15% of any big company's stock,
depending on the company, is usually enough to exercise control over a
board
of directors . The "working stiffs" are 'way down the totem pole.
Wealthy
individuals and institutional investors control the market. The 401K's
are
a
pile of money that other people use for their own purposes. The actual
401K
holder is just there for the ride. He can check his investments all he
wants
but his control over anything is largely illusory.


The result is that the overall goal is to result in "short
term" profitability rather than overall business strength.

I disagree again, you assume that a small cadre of ultra rich are
running
the country to suite their fancy.

They are at least running the economy to suit their fancy.

The facts are that those running business
today answer to almost the entire spectrum of American society, look
at
the
Enron executives either doing time or about to do time, in prison.

Yes, please tell us about the Enron executives who are doing time.

The last I heard Kopper was in the can, but of course that might of
changed,
especially if he rats out his former partners in crime, and I'm sure he
will. I think he still gets prison time, even if he testifies tho. They
got
10 million or so from him and are after a bunch more. I run into Enron
employees I know from time to time and they follow this situation a lot
closer than I do. They expect Kopper to put a bunch of people on the
spot.
This might be old news, as I said, I don't follow it very close.

g What
kind of time is Ken Lay doing?

Lay may get away scott free, but as his high level underlings fall, his
position gets shakier.

I see this morning that the Enron treasurer pled guilty and agreed to
cooperate with prosecutors. As they line up these fairly high level
"cooperators", hope rises that the top 2 or 3 will be convicted.

JTMcC.

Now, this afternoon, they say he's not cooperating, but he was sentenced to
5 yrs. and lost $900,000.

JTMcC.




JTMcC.



His last big stock sale netted him $101.3
million, which, by all accounts, he still has. It's probably some very
good
time indeed.

This should reafirm your flagging belief in the free market system as
practiced
in America.

Superficial facts lead to superficial conclusions. Dig deep, and you
will
find a lot of muck in the way our economy is presently operating.

The "free market" system has its ups and downs. As a principle, it has
a
lot
going for it. If it were practiced according to the principles, it
would
be
terrific. But it's not, and the ways it's not are sometimes difficult
to
root out. The facts are there, in financial reporting and economic
analysis,
but putting it all together and figuring out how it really works is
not
something anyone can do from reports in the popular press or TV. It's
a
cumulative thing you acquire from reading about corporate maneuverings
at
the micro level, and about economic trends at the macro level. Even
then,
the origins of power are not always easy to see.


Can you even
say that you are paid more and work about has hard as 20 years
ago?

Of course I can.

As an individual, over a lifetime, of course you can expect to make
more
money. But the wages in manufacturing, for example, have declined by
7.6%
in
real terms since 1972. Wasn't it all the "low-paying" jobs we were
supposed
to have sent to Mexico and China? Maybe someone made a mistake...

However, real *prices* for goods have actually declined quite a bit
during
that time. We can buy more for the same money. It's not a simple
issue.



As long as the government operates in a mode where decisions are
made
with such a high focus on "short term profitability", as they
currently
do for that 5% who hold the 90% wealth, we will always be weak and
nationally insecure.

I am, and I believe WE are, neither. Keep your weakness and
insecurity
to
your self, I am, and those I befriend and associate with, are NOT
weak,
and
NOT insecure.

Attitude is important. Within the context we've been given, there's no
question that there are limitless opportunities, and a positive
attitude
is
helpful in realizing them.

The valid argument here is over who is establishing the context. It
isn't
easy to see from the ground. Given the opportunities we have, many of
us
may
not care how the tune is being called. Many others do.

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)