The Raider VS the Economist
Thought you monkeys would find this interesting; here's the notorious and abso-fucking-lutely legendary Corporate Raider Sir James Goldsmith on the Charlie Rose Show back in 1994. He attests that GATT (now the WTO), would lead to a major crisis worldwide, while former Clinton adviser (now Obama's?) Dr. Laura Tyson argues that not only will there be blue skies and chirping birds, but that it'll be a huge benefit for the U.S. and the rest of the world.
Watch how he tears her apart.
This leads me to think though; financiers and big business have always been labeled the villain, yet it's these advisers and the government's themselves who have done far worse economic crimes with their countless fumbles and corruptive politics.
So who really knows more about economics?
The business world?
Or the Government?
Actually, what I'm asking is, who would you trust in that regard?
Last time I trusted the government was... Errrr... Ummm.... Vids after the jump.
Comments
Nice, you've had some pretty
Nice, you've had some pretty good content recently.
Because the world is based on
Because the world is based on the law of jungle, surely the raiders are more trustworthy...as long as he does not target you.
at the start of video 3 and
at the start of video 3 and end of video 2 I want to slap her hand down, pretty annoying.
I really enjoyed that - love
I really enjoyed that - love how Charlie Rose struggled to control the conversation and its direction.
How can you not trust him? His batting average is superb. Besides the great points he makes regarding the WTO and the world's "race to the bottom", he saw the coming of the 1987 crash and in this interview, issued warnings about the world financial system and its unrighteous levels of risk.
SB'd. Keep up the good work Jorge.
Thank you for posting this.
Thank you for posting this. These videos contain a wealth of knowledge and I have learned a lot in a very short period of time. +1 SB.
In the debate between a legendary corporate raider and a government economist, I have no choice but to side with the legendary corporate raider. A government economist may be well educated, but in the end they usually do not work more than 40 hours per week and do not receive additional compensation for a job well done. It does not take a genius to figure out that a government economist is outmatched by a corporate raider who is likely to work well over 100 hours per week, and is rewarded appropriately for a job well done.
Men are so simple and so much inclined to obey immediate needs that a deceiver will never lack victims for his deceptions.
-Niccolo Machiavelli
SB to you sir, one of the
SB to you sir, one of the best posts on this site. Thank you for putting this interview on the radar and I highly encourage all monkeys to watch the videos in their entirety.
Thank you. This is probably
Thank you. This is probably the most interesting interview I've ever seen, and it makes a lot of sense. I'm going to buy his book now - although it is old, I bet it is still relevant as ever.
Wall Street leaders now understand that they made a mistake, one born of their innocent and trusting nature. They trusted ordinary Americans to behave more responsibly than they themselves ever would, and these ordinary Americans betrayed their trust.
Jorgé wrote: This leads me to
This leads me to think though; financiers and big business have always been labeled the villain, yet it's these advisers and the government's themselves who have done far worse economic crimes with their countless fumbles and corruptive politics.
So who really knows more about economics?
The business world?
Or the Government?
Businessmen. But that's like asking, who knows sports? Stuart Scott? Or your grandmother? (In all honesty, as someone who's studied economics pretty seriously for about 5 years now, I'm really not convinced that most businessmen/financiers are very knowledgeable about economics.)
It's actually not so much that people in the government "don't know economics." It's more that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and that policymakers often don't have the right incentives to make sound economic decisions. Have any of you guys ever heard of public choice theory? I should really do a post in the Economics Group about it. Some of the conclusions from public choice theory will blow your mind because they are so counterintuitive (at least they're counterintuitive when you grow up in a culture that generally worships democracy). For example, public choice theory claims that if 100M people want one thing and 1000 want another, the 1000 can often get their way in a democracy. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an opponent of democracy. I just think what we are allowed to vote on should be much more limited. In my opinion, we shouldn't be allowed to encroach on people's freedoms, just because "we decided" via majority rule.
Edit: One more thing. You guys should not think that making sound business decisions is the same thing as understanding economics. That'd be like saying that making sound athletic decisions is the same thing as understanding physics. Even though physics is implicit in everything that an athlete does (just like economics is implicit in everything a businessman/financier does) it doesn't imply that athletes understand physics better than physicists. As FA Hayek points out in this brilliant article the reason capitalism is so successful, is precisely because it allows us to economize on information -- people are able to make sound economic decisions, without understanding economics. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not defending that economist from the Charlie Rose show. I haven't even watched it yet, but I intend to later today. All I'm saying, is that you shouldn't let her give economists a bad name; and you also shouldn't attribute someone being successful at something business-related, to them being knowledgeable about economics (sometimes they are, sometimes they're not).
For my aspiring Entrepreneurial Nomads, check out my blog.
Am I missing something? I
Am I missing something? I just listened to the first few videos, and all I can see so far, is a guy arguing that free trade is not optimal. A proposition that sounds pretty ridiculous to me. If you think this guy understands economics, you guys should listen to economists like Milton Friedman, FA Hayek, Frederic Bastiat, and Russ Roberts (Google "EconTalk"). I'm sure you will find their logic much more persuasive on the topic of trade/exchange. As far as I can tell, this guy is just arguing for mercantilism and protectionism. I guess it's just like Keynes said:
The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.
If you find the arguments for protectionism and mercantilism persuasive, then listen to this. This argument uses steel as an example, but the logic/theory applies to any industry.
For my aspiring Entrepreneurial Nomads, check out my blog.
Haha, I love how at various
Haha, I love how at various points the raider looks as if he's about to jump through the screen and wring her neck.
Head of Metal Website: www.headofmetal.com
https://twitter.com/headofmetal2012
good stuff Jorge
good stuff Jorge
With the trade gap and the
With the trade gap and the total lack of a U.S. manufacturing base, I'd say Sir Goldsmith has been proven right, although it's difficult to ascertain the marginal acceleration of NAFTA/WTO on American manufacturing moving overseas. It was happening anyway.
Very good stuff, thanks for
Very good stuff, thanks for sharing..
I agree with his point:
People on the top, the senior executives, wall street people, HNW investors, have benefited tremendously from the globlization, since they now have a much bigger pie to work with, can deliver their services to a much bigger customer base, can hire much cheaper labor..
For the middle-low income people, because of the globalization, they are competing directly with billions of cheap labor from the developing world. The supply for comparable labor has increased several fold.
At the same time, due to the technology revolution, it is harder than ever to migrate to a non-tradable sector
No wonder their living standard was negatively impacted.
That's why I do think those who benefited from the globalization should carry a higher tax burden to help out those who get left behind during the process.
US is still a democracy, without majority's support, there won't be a globalization.
tsong wrote: For the
For the middle-low income people, because of the globalization, they are competing directly with billions of cheap labor from the developing world.
If low-income Americans are competing with labor from the developing world, then their income probably will decrease. Let's not forget though, those low-income Americans enjoy a material well-being greater than 90% of the global population. Those workers from the developing world are incredibly poor, and their jobs from globalization help tremendously. In many cases, those jobs pay double or triple of the local wage. In other words, it's incorrect to say that senior executives are the main beneficiaries, when some of the poorest people in the world are becoming wealthier. Lastly, let's also not forget that when goods are produced more cheaply, it puts downward pressure on prices, which obviously benefits everybody, particularly low-income Americans.
For my aspiring Entrepreneurial Nomads, check out my blog.
econ wrote: If low-income
If low-income Americans are competing with labor from the developing world, then their income probably will decrease. Let's not forget though, those low-income Americans enjoy a material well-being greater than 90% of the global population. Those workers from the developing world are incredibly poor, and their jobs from globalization help tremendously. In many cases, those jobs pay double or triple of the local wage. In other words, it's incorrect to say that senior executives are the main beneficiaries, when some of the poorest people in the world are becoming wealthier. Lastly, let's also not forget that when goods are produced more cheaply, it puts downward pressure on prices, which obviously benefits everybody, particularly low-income Americans.
1 Sure, the poor people in the developing economies are definitely better off, and overall it is a definitely a big plus for the global economy, but I was only talking about its impact to the developed world here.
2 cheaper goods aren't that helpful when people are out of work. Social welfare is probably more important to them.
3 And I do think that the globalization is a good thing overall, it brings a big net benefit to this country, I am just saying that those who benefited from it the most, the top earners, should pay more tax to offset part of the pain the low-income Americans are experiencing.
tsong wrote: 1 Sure, the poor
For my aspiring Entrepreneurial Nomads, check out my blog.
Yeah, that's where I disagree
econ wrote: Edit: One more
econ wrote: tsong wrote: For
All the people lauding this
I think the fundamental point
this video is confusing. i
in the fifth video at 1:45
I don't want to be a product of the environment, i want the environment to be a product of me
Samy90 wrote: in the fifth
Sir James Goldsmith is an
I think Goldsmith is making a
Bruin13 wrote: I think
For my aspiring Entrepreneurial Nomads, check out my blog.
econ wrote: Bruin13 wrote: I