Sunday, July 20, 2008
Quote of Note: Phil Gramm
"In economics, we define labor exploitation as paying people less than their marginal value product. I recently told Ed Whitacre [former CEO of AT&T, who retired with a $158 million pay package] he was probably the most exploited worker in American history because he took Southwestern Bell, which was the smallest of the former Bell companies, and he turned it into the dominant phone company on earth. His severance package should have been billions."
Phil Gramm, John McCain's economics advisor, in June 28 WSJ interview. [link]
[The rest of the interview is just as breath-takingly bloodless. Guess Gramm and company have not gotten the memo yet.]
Phil Gramm, John McCain's economics advisor, in June 28 WSJ interview. [link]
[The rest of the interview is just as breath-takingly bloodless. Guess Gramm and company have not gotten the memo yet.]
Technorati Tags: AT&T, Economics, JunkEconomics, QuoteOfNote, Stupidity
Comments:
Marc, Where's the Maslow hierarchy when a soldier lives in the dirt without sleep or any of the basic comforts, then exposes him (or her) self to mortal danger to impress his/her buddies or superiors? Seems inverted to me. And that's only one example of many. Believe whatever you want . . .
By stating that I believe in Maslow's hierarchy of needs, I was implicitly referencing the opinion that society has an obligation to meet the basic needs of its people, by providing things such as socialized medicine and education for those who need it.
Without people's basic needs being met, people will act from a fearful place, and the society becomes too aggressive, i.e. dog eat dog, and loses it's appeal to people who want to enjoy life, not to impress or kill others.
Without people's basic needs being met, people will act from a fearful place, and the society becomes too aggressive, i.e. dog eat dog, and loses it's appeal to people who want to enjoy life, not to impress or kill others.
Marc, Aha, I understand. Nothing wrong with wanting to meet people's basic needs . . . but why muddy that ethic with a dubious, easily falsifiable theory?
Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a hypothesis not a theory per se (i.e. it has statistical basis, no logical basis)
It's a hypothesis about the "typical" human behavior *within* society, not isolated from it (i.e. not in a lab, and not in a war, the army, etc)
As a hypothesis, it contains UNTESTED assumptions, and in Maslow's case, those assumptions are based on a very small sample of people (which means it's a weak hypothesis but that doesn't mean it's wrong), but he studied the behavior of those people inside of society (i.e. their everyday behavior) not in a lab setting or in a business or military organization as his detractors have done.
It's a social hypothesis, i.e. a hypothesis about typical behavior of individuals in a society.
It's not a psychological theory.
I think the way Maslow's work is framed is the issue here.
If it's not the issue, then what would you note as evidence that Maslow's social hypothesis(which is a
"hypothesis about typical behavior of individuals in a society") is invalid?
I'd like to learn.
After all, I'm not a sociologist nor a psychologist.
It's a hypothesis about the "typical" human behavior *within* society, not isolated from it (i.e. not in a lab, and not in a war, the army, etc)
As a hypothesis, it contains UNTESTED assumptions, and in Maslow's case, those assumptions are based on a very small sample of people (which means it's a weak hypothesis but that doesn't mean it's wrong), but he studied the behavior of those people inside of society (i.e. their everyday behavior) not in a lab setting or in a business or military organization as his detractors have done.
It's a social hypothesis, i.e. a hypothesis about typical behavior of individuals in a society.
It's not a psychological theory.
I think the way Maslow's work is framed is the issue here.
If it's not the issue, then what would you note as evidence that Maslow's social hypothesis(which is a
"hypothesis about typical behavior of individuals in a society") is invalid?
I'd like to learn.
After all, I'm not a sociologist nor a psychologist.
David, you KNOW what I've told you about trying to be an economist. Stick to your knitting!
Hayek's thesis is that centrally planned economies (and the US was headed down that road) lead to tyrrany. Where is the central planning in the Nordic countries? Sachs is just plain wrong. Don't believe me? Read the wikipedia article for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_To_Serfdom#Main_thesis_and_arguments
Now, as for the application of the principle that you exploit when you pay a worker LESS than their marginal value to the company, sorry, but yes, it should apply to everyone, even the CEO. To say anything else would be the poor economics that I keep telling you about.
Post a Comment
Hayek's thesis is that centrally planned economies (and the US was headed down that road) lead to tyrrany. Where is the central planning in the Nordic countries? Sachs is just plain wrong. Don't believe me? Read the wikipedia article for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_To_Serfdom#Main_thesis_and_arguments
Now, as for the application of the principle that you exploit when you pay a worker LESS than their marginal value to the company, sorry, but yes, it should apply to everyone, even the CEO. To say anything else would be the poor economics that I keep telling you about.
