Re: OWNERSHIP: The New Capitalists - Excerpts

["Keith Wilde" <kwilde@magi.com>]

    SVK laments .......

    I see there is a sentiment that the econ aspects of Kelso should now be
left, at least for now, at least by this group. I must say i am somewhat
saddened that my recently published work received no comment on the board,
despite the fact that it presents solid theoretical ground, using the common
language of economics to rigorously treat the ideas. That is no small part
my fault for taking so long in getting it into the mail to busy people. I
sent it out only last Wednesday.

    The reason why i'm sad is because i think there is merit to the ideas!
And where Mr. Kurland and Mr. Shakespeare have failed, my treatment of the
ideas is as simple for economists to understand as a Cobb-Douglas production
function. It is the product of nine years and $100,000 worth of education,
so i hope it wouldn't be dismissed too lightly.

    KW comments:

    Stephen's contributions, even before reading his full text, have been a
major influence in my own perception that our discussion over the binary
theory has come to a pretty clear transition point.  My recommendation is
not at all to cut off the debate, but rather to continue it under a
different, more exclusive title so that Economics of Ownership can focus on
a broader range of questions and issues.  Although I am waiting for the
promised hard copy of the article to begin reading, I have every expectation
of finding it definitive and a very important first step toward recasting
debate over the "binary theory" in a more productive direction (pun not
intended).  It has the smell of a credible critique because founded in an
understanding of the doctrine that is being criticized.  That is what has
been lacking in our debate up to now, from proponents.

    I don't know if, when or how my suggestion of a separate discussion
group for the binary focus will be implemented.  Because your main
contribution is from from production economics (as I undertand your
description) it will obviously straddle both of the discussions that I have
in mind as an ideal.  I expect to find interest in both of them myself.  The
desirable outcome would be to have the political advocacy element of the
ownership campaign become less vulnerable to a reputation that b.e. stands
for bonehead economics.  Reactions like those of John Medaille yesterday,
based in business experience and financial accounting, have obvious bearing
on issues that will continue to come up in discussing the economics of
ownership.  That John happens to be a proponent of the binary view does not
affect the importance of his empirical and analytical contribution to other
or ancillary issues.  I hope this is helpful clarification rather than the
opposite!

    Thanks for relaying the greeting from Virgil Wood.  Comments from him in
our brief meeting a couple of years ago have been one of the anchors of my
understanding through the course of this
    forum.


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Stephen V. Kane <svkane@naisp.net>
    To: ownership@cog.kent.edu <ownership@cog.kent.edu>
    Date: Sunday, April 08, 2001 2:46 PM
    Subject: Re: OWNERSHIP: The New Capitalists - Excerpts


    KW---->> Stephen Kane is the outstanding exception to this rule, and he
has painted for us the implications of the productiveness theme as a world
where humans live in abundance because they achieve rational control over
their animal desires.

    svk: Thank you for those kind words, Keith. I returned from Albany
yesterday with my friend the Reverend Doctor Virgil Wood, who sends his
greetings. Evidently you two have met, and Virgil informs me that he found
you to be an engaging intellect and decent fellow.

    Pastor Wood made a very good point in our five-hour drive up: Lest we
forget, Kelso was a very practical fellow, as well as a visionary. He
brought about the ESOP through sheer tenacity and force of will, giving us
the first steps towards the larger vision. What are the results of those
first steps? They are all encouraging. To build on those successes is in my
mind the practical challenge. No grand vision, but a series of small
successive steps that might one day lead to that. Along the way, the *social
ethic* that is part of the machinery of the system can be learned.

    KW----->>Stephen's contribution has pushed the debate over the "binary
theory" out of economics and into the domains of anthropology, social
psychology and sociology.

    svk: Yes, that is very possibly true, very plausibly where the correct
basis of discussion lies.

    Perhaps if you and Mr. Zundel, and Mr. Bell too, as well as anyone else
to whom i sent it might comment on the work? I would be very pleased. Mr.
Kurland has received a copy, but has not acknowledged it which is his loss.
You remarked in an earlier post ..."There is reason to doubt, however, that
he [svk] will be embraced as an ally by Kurland & Co." To that i would reply
as Pastor Wood might: i have no permanent friends and no permanent
enemies....only permanent interests.

    My interest in economic matters is merely truth. The truth is this:
Kelso was talking about "what could be", a far cry from "what is."

    As a practical matter, he began the process of turning his hope into
reality through the incremental step of the esop. It's worked pretty good so
far. Maybe it's time to extend it to the next step.

    vty, svk




    Keith Wilde
    Ottawa, Canada
    kwilde@magi.com
    613 990-8125
    613 747-6847