| The
views expressed on this listserv are those of the individuals posting the statement
and
do not necessarily reflect the views of the Ohio Employee Ownership Center
or Kent State University. MODERATOR:
Steve Nieman
GROUP CONDUCT POLICY REGISTRATION:
Send an email to listserv@listserv.kent.edu
with the following message -- SUBSCRIBE OWNERSHIP DISCUSSION:
Browse discussion to date
October
7, 1999 to July 13, 2005
July
14, 2005 to present The
objective for this group is to expand the number of economists who take a professional
interest in issues of capital ownership. Because
distribution of the means of production is normally taken as a given in economic
analysis, there is no well established convention for evaluating policy proposals
of a kind
that are likely to be developed in COG discussions. Nevertheless,
political approval of tax and regulatory changes required for implementation of
broader capital ownership rights
is likely to depend on the ability of promoters
to show plausible improvement in the kinds of indicators that are accepted as
marks of relative economic success or failure. The
first and most rigid requirement of "scientific" economics is that a
proposed (or applied) policy cannot be acknowledged as an improvement to the general
welfare unless the rewards to some groups are not achieved by imposing losses
on others. The issue of broadened capital ownership therefore sends an immediate
signal to an economist that it is forbidden or professionally dangerous territory. On
the other hand, technical skills and experience of economists can be helpful in
producing
quantitative refutations to hypotheses that underly the arguments
put forward by participants in the debate. Economists who may be induced to participate
in the COG discussions can be helpful by identifying important hypotheses at stake,
and by suggesting appropriate and cost-effective means for putting them to the
test. The exercise
should be intellectually stimulating, for it involves speculating on the effects
of changing fundamental presumptions on how the economy operates and the economic
impact of initiatives introduced to make such changes. The
original discussion generated some heated debate. Writing a summary which would
be recognized by all of the participants as representative of their views is an
impossible
task. Several of the group's participants have made an effort to
summarize. These summaries
are strictly the points of view of their authors.
The Capital Ownership Group, Kent State
University and the Ford Foundation
should not be construed as endorsing these views. KEITH
WILDE
(Keith
Wilde coordinated the Economics of Ownership working group from October 1999 to
April 2001) REBUTTAL
TO KEITH WILDE
(Several participants who found Wilde's summary to be
offensive and libelous prepared a response) DAVID
ELLERMAN RODNEY
SHAKESPEARE
(Rodney Shakespeare prepared an alternative summary incorporating
feedback from several participants) RICHARD
STUTSMAN SHANN
TURNBULL
(Shann Turnbull wanted to clarify parts of the discussion that
were not covered in the above summations) |