Fwd: thought provoking interview (from 1997)

[Owen Densmore]

A friend sent this along.

In addition to his included snippet, there are other interesting  
points made.  One I liked is that in Europe, cities are likely to  
become more important than nations.

     -- Owen

Owen Densmore
http://backspaces.net - http://redfish.com - http://friam.org


Begin forwarded message:

> From: "brian raymor" <brianraymor at hotmail.com>
> Date: December 7, 2005 4:18:31 PM MST
> To: owen at backspaces.net, byeager at fastmail.fm, steve.drach at sun.com,  
> jackson.wong at sbcglobal.net
> Subject: thought provoking interview (from 1997)
>
> http://www.pfdf.org/leaderbooks/L2L/summer97/handy.html
>
> I especially liked :
>
> It seems to me rather obvious that the current system of capitalism  
> is not going to be sustained, and let me explain why. The  
> assumption, in the Anglo-American context -- and it's different in  
> continental Europe, different in Japan, in China -- is that the  
> company is a piece of property, owned by the people who buy shares  
> of it. They therefore have the right to sell that property. But  
> what is this property? It increasingly is a collection of people.  
> The tangible, fixed assets of these corporations are worth  
> considerably less than their market value. If you take the pure  
> knowledge organizations -- advertising agencies, banks, software  
> companies -- the market value may be 20, 30, 40 times the fixed  
> assets. I think the rhetoric of the stock market is concealing from  
> us the fact that what we're actually talking about is owning other  
> people.
>
> Now when we think about it, this is both strange and in the end  
> unworkable, because organizations, as we know, are whittling down  
> to the core. Outsourcing everything they can. They are going to  
> employ a relatively small proportion of all the people they need.  
> Those core people, therefore, are going to be rather competent. And  
> they are going to resent being owned by other people. They're going  
> to say, "No, you can't just sell us over our heads or dictate our  
> strategy. Furthermore, if you don't like it, we will leave." So  
> what is the point of saying that you own something when actually  
> that something can walk out the door?
>
> The stock market is just a casino. When you buy shares in  
> Microsoft, for instance, you are taking a gamble. It's not just a  
> gamble on the profitability of Microsoft; it's more than that. You  
> are gambling that Bill Gates can continue to motivate young people  
> to work like fiends for the company. Therefore, I argue,  
> stockholders will revert to their true role as investors and not  
> owners. They will not have the right to combine and sell the  
> company over the heads of its people.
>
>

[Dede Densmore-2]

Everything old is new again.

Dede
On Dec 7, 2005, at 5:02 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:

> A friend sent this along.
>
> In addition to his included snippet, there are other interesting
> points made.  One I liked is that in Europe, cities are likely to
> become more important than nations.
>
>      -- Owen
>
> Owen Densmore
> http://backspaces.net - http://redfish.com - http://friam.org
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: "brian raymor" <brianraymor at hotmail.com>
>> Date: December 7, 2005 4:18:31 PM MST
>> To: owen at backspaces.net, byeager at fastmail.fm, steve.drach at sun.com,
>> jackson.wong at sbcglobal.net
>> Subject: thought provoking interview (from 1997)
>>
>> http://www.pfdf.org/leaderbooks/L2L/summer97/handy.html
>>
>> I especially liked :
>>
>> It seems to me rather obvious that the current system of capitalism
>> is not going to be sustained, and let me explain why. The
>> assumption, in the Anglo-American context -- and it's different in
>> continental Europe, different in Japan, in China -- is that the
>> company is a piece of property, owned by the people who buy shares
>> of it. They therefore have the right to sell that property. But
>> what is this property? It increasingly is a collection of people.
>> The tangible, fixed assets of these corporations are worth
>> considerably less than their market value. If you take the pure
>> knowledge organizations -- advertising agencies, banks, software
>> companies -- the market value may be 20, 30, 40 times the fixed
>> assets. I think the rhetoric of the stock market is concealing from
>> us the fact that what we're actually talking about is owning other
>> people.
>>
>> Now when we think about it, this is both strange and in the end
>> unworkable, because organizations, as we know, are whittling down
>> to the core. Outsourcing everything they can. They are going to
>> employ a relatively small proportion of all the people they need.
>> Those core people, therefore, are going to be rather competent. And
>> they are going to resent being owned by other people. They're going
>> to say, "No, you can't just sell us over our heads or dictate our
>> strategy. Furthermore, if you don't like it, we will leave." So
>> what is the point of saying that you own something when actually
>> that something can walk out the door?
>>
>> The stock market is just a casino. When you buy shares in
>> Microsoft, for instance, you are taking a gamble. It's not just a
>> gamble on the profitability of Microsoft; it's more than that. You
>> are gambling that Bill Gates can continue to motivate young people
>> to work like fiends for the company. Therefore, I argue,
>> stockholders will revert to their true role as investors and not
>> owners. They will not have the right to combine and sell the
>> company over the heads of its people.
>>
>>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at Mission Cafe
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>