04-28-2003, 04:16 PM | #31 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
04-28-2003, 04:21 PM | #32 | |
40th Level Warrior
Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
Quote:
Look, Enron could have created Chewco to hide its profits with or without regulators involved. Once you have the corporation's accountants also doing "independent" financial auditing, you are just asking and begging for someone to risk a few little white lies to the tune of $30 million. It's inevitable. The real problem with these golden parachutes comes from the auditing. If the corp. really had books that were open to its members and could not secret money away, if directors really disclosed corporate transactions they were "interested parties" to, if CEO's really had their pay tied to the real value of the stock, and if insider trading really meant what it originally meant, we would not have these problems. [ 04-28-2003, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ] |
|
04-28-2003, 04:31 PM | #33 |
Zhentarim Guard
Join Date: February 24, 2003
Location: Indiana
Age: 61
Posts: 358
|
Um, the Fed was introduced in 1913, IIRC, and recommended the policy that created the Great Depression, and implemented (with Nixon's complicity) the stagflation of the '70's. Actually, the history of the Fed is far from flattering. That is well beyond this thread, but I would be happy to cite graphs and charts in an appropriate thread. It is not too much of a stretch to say that most modern economic downturns probably have a root cause in government monetary policy...
|
04-28-2003, 04:35 PM | #34 |
Zhentarim Guard
Join Date: February 24, 2003
Location: Indiana
Age: 61
Posts: 358
|
Right, Timber Loftis, it is inevitable that you will have people willing to risk some jail time to become a multimillionaire. It seems to me that is true regardless of your policy, save possibly if you start dismembering loved ones in front of them. So it seems to me that the appropriate means of discouraging malfeasance is to reduce the profit from that malfeasance, get it down to the point that breaking ethics has roughly the same opportunity cost as working a mimimum wage job. I guarantee you that you will not have many Harvard business majors risking jail terms over $6.50 per hour...
[ 04-28-2003, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: Thorfinn ] |
04-28-2003, 04:48 PM | #35 |
40th Level Warrior
Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
So, how do you reduce the profitability of malfeasance? Make it illegal/unethical for a corporate employee to own stock in the corporation? Doesn't that hurt their incentive to work hard? Ideas here?
Umm.... on stagflation for just a bit. How can we blame it on any one thing when at its time it was something completely new, that fell outside all our understanding of the market? I mean, no matter how you run the classical market models, unemployment and inflation are inversely related, making the increasing unemployment plus increasing inflation problem of stagflation a seeming anomoly at the time. One it takes some pretty complex math to puzzle through. |
04-28-2003, 05:02 PM | #36 | |
Fzoul Chembryl
Join Date: August 30, 2001
Location: somewhere
Age: 54
Posts: 1,785
|
Quote:
__________________
Master Barbsman and wielder of the razor wit!<br /><br />There are dark angels among us. They present themselves in shining raiment but there is, in their hearts, the blackness of the abyss. |
|
04-28-2003, 05:22 PM | #37 | |
Fzoul Chembryl
Join Date: August 30, 2001
Location: somewhere
Age: 54
Posts: 1,785
|
Quote:
__________________
Master Barbsman and wielder of the razor wit!<br /><br />There are dark angels among us. They present themselves in shining raiment but there is, in their hearts, the blackness of the abyss. |
|
04-28-2003, 05:52 PM | #38 |
Zhentarim Guard
Join Date: February 24, 2003
Location: Indiana
Age: 61
Posts: 358
|
Actually, you make people responsible, personally, for their malfeasance. I know the corporate liability shield intereferes -- kill it. Giving people a pass for their misdeeds only encourages further misdeeds.
And, actually, stagflation was not somthing new. Stagflation was predicted as early as 1938, by Ludvig von Mises. In the late '60s, Rotbard showed that we could face have stagnation and inflation. There were plenty of theoretical reasons that we might face stagflation, yet Nixon chose to focus on the classcal Keynsianism, despite the fact that several of Keynes' proteges had covered the weaknesses in detail. Again, our problem is probably not so much a complaint of Keynesianism as a compaint of the application thereof... |
04-28-2003, 06:05 PM | #39 |
Zhentarim Guard
Join Date: February 24, 2003
Location: Indiana
Age: 61
Posts: 358
|
Nope, Timber, you don't do anything to increase the penalty of lying. Like the War on Drugs, that just ups the ante. You decrease the incentive to lie. In this case, you decrease corporate taxes. This is beyond the scope of this topic, but I would *love* to discuss it further in a different thread...
|
04-28-2003, 06:07 PM | #40 | |
Quintesson
Join Date: September 12, 2001
Location: Ewing, NJ
Age: 42
Posts: 1,079
|
Quote:
They are related in the very short term, but once the market reacts to the new inflation, it stops working, and all it ends up is destroying savings, this is something that anyone who took the time to model the economy should be able to tell you. In the long term however the unemloyment/inflation tradeoff is just a fairy tale that Keynsians tell themselves to somehow try and feel that the Nixon-Ford economies didn't cause all sorts of problems with "stagflation". There are some people who were bright enough to realize that the relation was a myth. Friedman predicted "stagflation" with high unemployment and inflation at the same time in his 1968 Presidential Address. He was widely considered a nut, but the years that followed showed him right (and resulted in his Nobel Prize). In short, it wasn't "new" and it wasn't "outside understanding" it was the case of a group of people believing what they were doing was right, and refuseing to listen to anything that might suggest otherwise. |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
At what level should I tackle Bayjin? | Deathmage | Miscellaneous Games (RPG or not) | 14 | 02-18-2003 10:31 PM |
Hackers Tackle Censorship With New Tool | Downunda | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 3 | 07-23-2002 03:43 AM |
My poor dad! | Sir Goulum | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 5 | 04-27-2002 08:19 PM |
very, very poor....... | kingpats | Baldurs Gate II Archives | 16 | 10-19-2001 06:43 AM |
(spoiler) Suggested way to tackle Twisted Rune early in the game | mistral4543 | Baldurs Gate II Archives | 1 | 09-18-2001 08:48 PM |