<Where admission is by right of passage and restricted to a knowledgeable few. Recently, with the advent of personal investing, this struggle has burst from the confines of the arena and into the streets. Previously it was professional against professional, thief against thief, according to rules that all participants understood. Or learned. For there is honor amongst thieves. But thieves against honest men? That is a different contest. >
John, I've been knocking around in cyberspace since 1993, a whole decade now!!! That deserves a triple !!!. That's because I don't have a lot of ! left to waste and telomeres to fall off the end of whatever they fall off, before I fall off the perch.
That's several centuries in internet time. I've seen a lot of rantings [and committed a few myself]. So I'm well aware that miscommunication, with transient flaring of amygdalas members.aol.com is behind most of the flame wars. They write in that link that the amygdala is a non-verbal department. Cyberspace discussions are pure verbal [other than the :-] etc]. There's no doubt that emotions can get on the rampage via the verbal discussions here. So the amygdala must have some verbal pathways for operation as well as visual and aural.
I'm a bit like King George II in that I see life as a battle of good against evil. I don't buy the idea that capitalism is a pack of thieves against thieves. I think the rite of passage [not a right of passage] is to learn that ethics, honesty and voluntary exchange of value are the key to success for humans.
Those stuck in the zero-sum mentality of dog eat dog, outwit and steal, dominance hierarchy, confiscatory alpha male philosophy, are doomed to repeat our chimpoid antecedents' way of life for eternity or until a comet or supernova puts paid to them.
I prefer the concept of humans, with our brand new cdma2000 phragmented photon cyberspace light sabre, as a gang versus the cosmos, entropy, predatorial nature of the zero-sum mentality.
Cultures which live by dog eat dog rules tend to end up looking like Saddam's Iraq or Pol Pot's Place. Societies which have rule of law, private property and security do a lot better. Societies and people who do best take the next step up to adopting full-scale ethical behaviour, above and beyond the call of law, which is lowest common denominator stuff.
Capitalists who can bring the power of ethics, trust and those good things to bear, along with the other necessary components of successful capitalism, do best of all. It's a law of nature, just like entropy. Humans are just on the cusp of moving to that realm - the process has been several thousand years long in large communities of millions though has always been around in a family sense. People's ethics are still strongest with those they know personally and for family - not surprisingly since tribal identity has for millions of years been key to survival.
The amazing transition in process is to a global scale of ethics. Throw cyberspace and It into the mix and we are on our way to something as different from our current life as our life is to that of chimps. Probably a lot bigger difference actually. So different that we aren't even going to be part of it, just as chimps aren't part of how we are, though they still have a role in zoos.
Being human, the QUALCOMM gang won't be perfect. But they are certainly a lot different from a gang of thieves. That's why they don't hesitate to sign off on the CEO backing of the accounts. That's why their word always seems to be right and the word of the GSM Guild always seems to be unattached to reality.
Being human, the culture stems from those at the top who set the tone, select the people and establish the rules. So it can change. Take away Irwin Jacobs, Andrew Viterbi, Klein Gilhousen and the old-timers and it's likely that things will change; not necessarily for the better. A hot-shot short-cutting kleptocracy could result. I quite like Irwin's ruffled hair and professorial air.
Some would say they were kleptocratting with the stock options, but I disagree. That was always right out there in the open and for years I've had an eye on the vast wealth earned by those who invented QUALCOMM, paid in stock options, to ensure that they weren't taking so much that the shareholders would earn little. Capitalists can be very tough negotiators and should be - I see no reason they shouldn't extract as much value as they can for themselves.
They presented their efforts to We the Capitalists, who had to figure it all out and bid against each other for possession of the company. Neil Kadisha lost! He lost despite being an insider from the beginning. The capitalists who misunderestimate, get confused, make mistakes or get caught in a bubble bust maelstrom are mere grist for the mill.
The failed capitalists' capital is transferred to capitalists who can figure it out and have luck, much as the proteins and carbon in the biological world are transferred to the predators who can hang in there in the food chain, with their DNA managing the available resources. Humans are winning the carbon battles too. We're even digging up fossil carbon to bring back into the food chain and to serve our needs. Ethics are essential to the success. Necessary but not sufficient.
As you imply, it is a food chain in the world of capitalists and civilians should be aware of that. But capitalism isn't necessarily unethical and I say it is necessarily the contrary to get to the top of the food chain. $ill Gates, Warren Buffett, Irwin Jacobs are, as far as I can see, ethical people. World champion ethicists even. They and their ilk are why the USA is pre-eminent.
They are why I've entrusted my hard-earned money to them to do really great stuff, like Globalstar.
Mqurice |
