Gosh, had not expected to get to this area so soon, but posting on something new requires a little study which can lead to interesting paths. For instance, from first principles, these first posts are foundational. So far, we've looked at the markets, labor and laborers, and corporations.
Guess what? Due to some readings of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, corporations can claim rights, just like do we people. Say what?
Yes, but there are several differences. For one, they do not have 'being' in the same sense of humans. We'll address that at some point.
Too, they have more money and clout which can mean that, they, through hubris, can think that they are above law; well, don't some (many) politicos just salivate when the buck is passed under their noses?
And, they've been pretty good about knocking down labor, both dis-organized and organized, except that labor, as core, is a foundational, and fundamental, truism which needs more attention. Though we can anticipate that this applies to individuals for the most part.
Note, we have not said that corporations do not have some 'person' equivalents, as that same logic is what allows a collective of labor to argue their rights. Guess what? Some overlay of these might be expected, though one would very much think that labor, as core, might be more fundamental. It has not worked out that way, as of yet.
So, this post is only introductory but shows that Law is a major player in the economy. It sets the tone and the milieu. During times of rampant Rand-ism, those at the upper end of the talent scale are allowed to screw over the rest of the mix. What does this mean? Well, the right-hand side of the probability distribution function (curve called the pdf) covers a few, who, given the right mix of culture and such, can gather for themselves a whole bunch.
Given the reality of near-zero, this, then, comes from those who trail in the pdf who are massively more in cardinality. You also get events like the recent one where it is obvious that accumulations come about through privatization of gain (by necessity, there is socialization of loss).
This most recent downturn, where financial types froze as they know their own kind very well (and didn't want to play without the usual advantage), one sees the mess of legal code and almost indecipherable readings and interpretations.
Bailouts went to the fat cats, for the most part. That is, Wall Street's siphons were very effective in their function. What did Main Street get? Ah, not much. Well, the sacking of savers is one thing (gosh, Ben, wake the heck up).
Yet, it's not hopeless, folks. Given that current choices are lighting the fires of the next bubbles (the FED is aerating to the max), we'll have crashes sooner than later.
So, the issues will continue to require attention.
12/05/2012 -- Nice to know that Coase's view agrees with mine, somewhat.
03/17/2011 -- On the rise of the professional politician (will there ever be the citizen polico? that is, those who do not salivate when a buck is passed beneath the nose) toward robber barony. The M & Ms are apropos. As well, need to bring in Schervish's viewpoint.