We the (top earning) people | 48 comments (48 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: We the (top earning) people (4.00 / 3)

I, for one, welcome our top earning overlords.

So, how's everyone enjoying the Gilded Age anyway? Strangely enough, we're going to be visiting Versailles for some historical perspective later in the week.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 04:18:18 AM EST

Versailles? (none / 0)

That's so passé. Why aren't you going to Davos?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 05:00:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Versailles? (none / 1)

At least Versailles has some artistic merit. Davos?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 05:01:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Artistic merit? (none / 0)

How much is that worth in hard currency?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 05:05:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Versailles? (none / 0)

Probably because they have him on a watchlist now :)

After the whole comment in the other thread thing.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 05:02:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We the (top earning) people (none / 0)

> The trust in NGOs is mirrored in the public's belief that socially responsible activities are more important for a company than customer service or a strong financial performance, added the survey.

That's not naive and it's not stupid. What's a word stronger than stupid, Jerome?

by richardk (richard kulisz gmail) on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 04:36:43 AM EST

Re: We the (top earning) people (none / 0)

What's a word stronger than stupid, Jerome?

Unprofitable...

The only issue is - what discount rate is used (or, put in other words - how fast do you expect to make a return / what's the horizon for yoru decisions?)

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 05:04:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We the (top earning) people (none / 0)

Personally? About -0.5%. Though my time horizon falls off after a thousand years. And time has a positive discount rate.

by richardk (richard kulisz gmail) on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 05:47:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We the (top earning) people (none / 1)

Probably a little off-topic but definitely related to attitudes to business.

I attended a Unisys gig about 7 years ago (when I was still persona grata in that world) in relation to Money laundering/ regulation etc (at a very nice place they have near St Paul de Vence, I recommend it).

One of the key questions related to who would be trusted to have custody of ID information, it being recognised that payment - uniquely - requires ID , with everything else being ancillary.

One of the people there, very senior in the advertising world, had carried out a survey with >1000 respondents in relation to who were most and who least trusted with our data.

I forget the exact numbers, but as I recall, in ascending order, it went something like:

EU - 25%
UK government - 33%
Microsoft - 45%
Marks & Spencer 60%

and the Winner?

Let's hear it for

Boots the Chemist 80%

My view FWIW is that the requirement is for an Identity Foundation, funded by business, and with rock-solid safeguards in terms of access by Government (although even here we see how SWIFT caved in to the CIA etc etc)

In relation to access, another interesting (but more expected) response from the survey was that few surveyed had any problems with access to their data to rule them out of a crime, but most had grave problems with Big Brother and "fishing expeditions".

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 04:48:03 AM EST

Re: We the (top earning) people (none / 1)

The survey itself is a sales exercise, like most of the computer security surveys you see. "Look, you've got a problem, hire us to solve it."

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 04:56:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We the (top earning) people (none / 1)

This is getting to the point where the only pretention to veracity and substance lies in the "journalist's" smooth performance; here, in defining a tightly-defined group of top earners who owe their bread to the business world as "the public".

The Economist does this kind of thing without batting an eyelid, and has done so for years now. It's a measure of the continuing decline of the FT that it, too, will soon be totally indistinguishable from a propaganda rag.

But, erm, <cough>, are they worried about something in Davos, or what?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 04:57:11 AM EST

Now (none / 0)

.. now very seriously. Is this some kind of joke?

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 04:59:07 AM EST

Democratic Accountability (4.00 / 2)

Ugh. What about democratic accountablity? I don't buy the presentation by the FT here that the public trusts businesses more than government. And even if I did I think its a leap to indicate that the absence of faith in government which is at least nominally bound by democratic means indicates that they favor the wholesale turnover of public insitutions and services to the private sector. And that would seem to be the implication.

Privatize eveything, and that way services will be conducted more efficiently, and service will be more responsive. That this may mean that the people in Cochabomba won't have access to clean water, and can be forbidden to collect water in cisterns is glossed over.

The convergence of the private ownership of property and political power (the control of public services grants the holder a great deal of control over the public) looks very similiar to the feudal structures that existed in Europe. He who owns determines the rules of the game. Profit driven corporations colonize the lifesphere so that individuals are bound by the rules of the owner of the public space. And that policy is determined by a shareholder meeting in which those who own more are granted a greater share of the votes than those who vote.

Thus, the basis of suffrage is not humanity, but property. And the FT seems to think that this is just fine.

Bastards.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 04:59:29 AM EST

Re: Democratic Accountability (4.00 / 3)

Thus, the basis of suffrage is not humanity, but property.

Three years ago I decided to teach myself economics, so I grabbed a copy of Samuelson's textbook which, I am told, is the introduction to economics that pretty much everyone on the planet first sees.

The textbook's discussion of the way the market mechanism helps determine how resources should be allocated is to talk about "dollar votes".

Insidiously, the textbook uses the reader's attachment to democracy and "votes" to present market decisions as "dollar votes", and so legitimising the idea that, the more money you havem the more decision-making power you legitimately have.

It didn't take much longer before I decided the textbook was crap and abandoned it, but what did you expect to find in the FT? 3100 "top earners" are probably close to a plurality of "dollar votes".

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 05:04:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Accountability (4.00 / 4)

Come on Mig, don't you know that the marketplace is the perfect democracy because people are able vote with their money.

And those people who don't have money, well, this provides a useful way to marginalize their role in public life without resorting to discredited theories of race or appealing to elitism.

By presenting a game in which 90% of the votes are held by perhaps 5% of the players, the ugly anti-democratic face of unconstrained captalism is able to avoid being called out for it devaluing of the value of equality.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 05:14:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

LTE time, I think (4.00 / 3)

I know Jérôme is busy today so ...

Dear Sir,
In your story of the 22/01/2007 "Global survey shows business has regained people's trust" you equate "the public" with 3,100 "opinion leaders", "top earners with an interest in politics and economics" which is hardly a representative sample of public opinion.
My calendar says 2007, yours seems to be stuck in 1707 or so: it is quite a while since we could discount the opinions of most of the population quite so easily.
In the context of the Edelman survey cum sales exercise on which the story is based I believe the headline should have read "Global survey shows business has regained stock holding public's trust".

Not inspired, but it'll get the ball rolling...

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 05:33:15 AM EST

Re: LTE time, I think (none / 0)

Nice.

1707 might carry certain political overtones in the in current environment. Perhaps 1807?

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 05:36:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LTE time, I think (none / 0)

What happened in 1707?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 05:37:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LTE time, I think (none / 0)

The union with Scotland.

How about "stuck in 1789"?

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 05:38:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LTE time, I think (none / 0)

Am I being too sensitive here?

How about 1776, first publishing of the Wealth of Nations?

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 05:44:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LTE time, I think (none / 0)

And the American Revolution?

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 05:45:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LTE time, I think (none / 0)

Though of that.

Perhaps 1700.

Nice round number.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 05:47:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LTE time, I think (4.00 / 2)

Just say "stuck in the 18th century".

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 05:50:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LTE time, I think (4.00 / 4)

My meeting this morning went faster than expected, so here goes:

Dear Sir,
In your story of the 22/01/2007 "Global survey shows business has regained people's trust" you repeatedly talk about "the people" or "the public" (and flag it in your headline) while offhandedly admitting that it is based on a survey of "3,100 opinion leaders", also described as "top earners with an interest in politics and economics." When did "top earners" become a representative sample of "the people"?
My calendar says 2007, yours seems to be stuck in 1789 or so: it has been a while since we could discount the opinions of most of the population quite so easily.
In the context of the Edelman survey cum sales exercise on which the story is based I believe the headline should have read "Global survey shows business has regained stock holding public's trust".
Such shameless headlines go a long way towards explaining the rise of "populism" that you have been lamenting in recent columns.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 05:50:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LTE time, I think (none / 0)

It's not the shameless headlines, but what's implicit in them.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 05:54:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LTE time, I think (none / 0)

Make it "stuck in the 18th century" as suggested by Migeru. Change "offhandedly" to "casually" or "admitting in passing".

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 05:54:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

1789 (none / 0)

Jerome and I share the revolutionary spirit...

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 05:57:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Update (4.00 / 2)

Dear Sir,
In your story of the 22/01/2007 "Global survey shows business has regained people's trust" you repeatedly talk about "the people" or "the public" (and flag it in your headline) while offhandedly admitting that it is based on a survey of "3,100 opinion leaders", also described as "top earners with an interest in politics and economics." When did "top earners" become a representative sample of "the people"?
My calendar says 2007, yours seems to be stuck in the 18th century: it has been a while since we could discount the opinions of most of the population quite so easily.
In the context of the Edelman survey cum sales exercise on which the story is based I believe the headline should have read "Global survey shows business has regained stock holding public's trust".
Such headlines - and what they shamelessly imply in terms of what (money) and who (people with money) matters in today's world - go a long way towards explaining the rise of "populism" that you have been lamenting in recent columns.

What do you say?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 06:02:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Update (none / 1)

I would add the notion of Orwellian novel... along the lines...

Dear Sir,
In your story of the 22/01/2007 "Global survey shows business has regained people's trust" you repeatedly talk about "the people" or "the public" (and flag it in your headline) while offhandedly admitting that it is based on a survey of "3,100 opinion leaders", also described as "top earners with an interest in politics and economics." When did "top earners" become a representative sample of "the people"?

My calendar says 2007, yours seems to be stuck in the 18th century: it has been a while since we could discount the opinions of most of the population quite so easily.

In the context of the Edelman survey cum sales exercise on which the story is based I believe the headline should have read "Global survey shows business has regained stock holding public's trust".

YOUR PRESENT HEADLINE SEEMS TO COME DIRECTLY FROM AN ORWELLIAN BOOK. It shamelessly states what (money) and who (people with money), matters in today's world just deleting anybody else. This is a troubling vision which goes a long way towards explaining the rise of "populism" that you have been lamenting in recent columns.

too strong?

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 06:23:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Update (none / 0)

YOUR PRESENT HEADLINE SEEMS TO COME DIRECTLY FROM AN ORWELLIAN BOOK. IT shamelessly STATES what (money) and who (people with money), matters in today's world WHILE DISREGARDING (OR DELETING) anybody else. This is a troubling vision which goes a long way towards explaining the rise of "populism" that you have been lamenting in recent columns.

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 06:24:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Update (4.00 / 2)

I'd be willing to add it. I also had an idea for a last sentence:

It's not populism: it's well deserved outrage in the face of predatory selfishness.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 06:25:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Update (none / 0)

Again.. my only worry is that it may be too strong for them... :)

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 06:26:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Update (4.00 / 2)

I prefer yours. The Orwellian thing triggers some analogue to Godwin's Law and won't help credibility, true though it is.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 06:27:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Update (none / 0)

If it may sound too strong... forget about it.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 06:37:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Update (none / 0)

To me, "Orwellianism" refers to manifestations of totalitarianism, specifically. You can have runaway capitalism without totalitarianism.

Furthermore, the reference to the 17th century is perfectly accurate. These people aren't saying 2 + 2 = 5, as the Bushies often do: they have simply gone back to a much older social model.

A bomb, H bomb, Minuteman / The names get more attractive / The decisions are made by NATO / The press call it British opinion -- The Three Johns

by Alexander on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 09:01:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Update (4.00 / 2)

The Orwell reference is spot-on, but is used again and again by all sides of any given debate and has thus lost pertinence. Godwin's Law (2).

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 06:56:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Update (none / 0)

It doesn't help that Orwell's heart was on the other side.

The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill

by r------ on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 07:26:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Update (none / 0)

:-D

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 12:43:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Update (none / 1)

I like this line too but like kcurie, fear it might be over the top for the cake-eaters at FT.

Assuming simple persuasion is the goal in this exercise of course (not my first instinct to be sure...)

The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill

by r------ on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 07:21:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Update (none / 1)

It may be too late, but final sentence:

matter, not matters.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 06:31:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LTE time, I think (none / 0)

First sentence:

Your 22/01/2007 story, "Global survey shows business has regained people's trust", repeatedly refers to "the people" or "the public", yet casually admits that it is based on a survey of "3,100 opinion leaders", also described as "top earners with an interest in politics and economics."

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 06:09:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Update 2 (none / 0)

Dear Sir,
Your story dated 22/1/07, "Global survey shows business has regained people's trust", repeatedly refers to "the people" or "the public", yet casually admits that it is based on a survey of "3,100 opinion leaders", also described as "top earners with an interest in politics and economics." When did "top earners" become a representative sample of "the people"?
My calendar says 2007, yours seems to be stuck in the 18th century: it has been a while since we could discount the opinions of most of the population quite so easily.
In the context of the Edelman survey cum sales exercise on which the story is based I believe the headline should have read "Global survey shows business has regained stock holding public's trust".
Such headlines - and what they shamelessly imply in terms of what (money) and who (people with money) matters in today's world - go a long way towards explaining the rise of "populism" that you have been lamenting in recent columns.

Colman, will you send it? Should we try a joint ET byline?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 06:23:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Update 2 (none / 0)

You're the editor of European Tribune, right?

There's a byline.

For one or both of you.

Name(s)
then Editor, European Tribune.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 06:30:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Update 2 (none / 0)

That was my intention. That's what I've done before, and he can do the same. I'm just not sure Colman has sent them any letters before, so I was just offering my name in addition, to get an extra chance to get in.

As he started it, I'll let him choose.
(Off to lunch now)

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 06:32:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Update 2 (none / 0)

Do the joint byline, with afew's last correction below.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 06:38:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Update 2 (4.00 / 2)

Now sent as suggested.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 07:53:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We the (top earning) people (none / 0)

Business [is] more trusted than governments in every continent...

What a surprise after decades of hammering by the economic media (FT, The Economist, WSJ, Eric Le Boucher...) saying that government is bad, business is good...

"Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet

by Melanchthon on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 07:37:10 AM EST

Now crossposted on dKos (none / 0)

in a slightly extended version:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/22/8537/82078

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 08:37:05 AM EST

We the (top earning) people | 48 comments (48 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Top Diaries

Rabies Brexplained

Transition In America

I don't like lawyers

The economic realities of a united Ireland

Raising public morale

Europe under Covid-19

The Human Trouble According to James Baldwin

Brexit and Northern Ireland's food supply

Recent Diaries

Rabies Brexplained

I don't like lawyers

Transition In America

The economic realities of a united Ireland

Raising public morale

Europe under Covid-19

The Human Trouble According to James Baldwin

Brexit and Northern Ireland's food supply

The powers of the President of the USA

Georgia on my mind

US Elections Live Blog

Occasional Series