Enron May Spark a Revolt of the Professionals.

January 25, 2002 11:04 AM

Enron May Spark a Revolt of the Professionals. James K. Galbraith suggests that the managerial class has had enough.
posted by Ty Webb (16 comments total)

Ignoring the obvious biases of the author, what makes him think that professionals are Democrats?
posted by gyc at 11:32 AM on January 25, 2002

(pedantic point) the article states: "Those were not only small fry, but modest millionaires in some cases, who lost their 401(k)s. A professional's pension can't be replaced. "

pensions != 401(k) Lots of folks make this mistake, but shouldn't. They're entirely different. The author of the article should know better.

That pedantry aside, I would love it if the author were correct. It is a comfortably self-serving delusion when a CEO takes credit and shitloads of money for the livelihood of a company, when that livelihood came from production, engineering, and marketing folks.

But Galbraith misses the point of the executive class: they aren't there for the company, they're there for the stockholders and wall street. Were it not for that, CEO's and CFO's and their ilk would be completely useless, and no profit-driven organization would endure their presence.
posted by yesster at 11:33 AM on January 25, 2002

" ... But Galbraith misses the point of the executive class: they aren't there for the company, they're there for the stockholders and wall street. Were it not for that, CEO's and CFO's and their ilk would be completely useless, and no profit-driven organization would endure their presence ...".

But he doesn't miss the point of the "Progrssive Community", for whom he is writing - which is to make certain to keep class divisons alive, to identify comfortably with the poor (who apparently are now not represented by anyone at all), and to imply that he and his audience have always known the the top elites were corrupt, but that that idiot professional class must certainly be very close now to coming around to the right point of view.
posted by MidasMulligan at 12:03 PM on January 25, 2002

--"But he doesn't miss the point of the "Progrssive Community", for whom he is writing"

Galbraith is syndicated in Long Island NY Newsday, as it says under the heading. Common Dreams just picked it up.

--"which is to make certain to keep class divisons alive, to identify comfortably with the poor "

Not one to make broad generalizations, are you? Sad, really, that you must attack the writer and what you imagine to be his audience, rather than the points at hand, such as they are.

Basing one's entire view around the idea of "class divisions" is weak, especially in U.S. society. To deny that classes exist at all, however, is just ignorant.
posted by Ty Webb at 12:30 PM on January 25, 2002

Your right, Midas. I've seen the light. Corporate America really DOES have my best interest at heart. What a huge relief! Man, I'm glad to know that all over our proud nation CEOs and CFOs are sitting down to figure out how best to meet the needs of America's working class citizens. And that perceived huge jump in compensation, where executives make 100 times their lowest paid employee's salary is just an ILLUSION fostered by sneaky progressives to foster class divisions, not blatant greed after all! And it's great that poor people are so well-represented in Washington these days. Whew! I'm glad I can relax, now that I've realized my nation is a meritocracy where the best always rise to the top to lead us plebes justly and fairly.

Now pull the other one.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 12:39 PM on January 25, 2002

So, how does the "Progressive Community" benefit from keeping class divisions alive? Forgive me if the question seems rhetorical, but I genuinely want a clearer idea of what you're getting at.

(FWIW, it's always been my understanding that the progressive community wants to level the playing field (to grossly over simplify) And, furthermore, from where I stand, there's plenty of class division in plain sight. In my neighborhood, the division happens right around 25th Street, and the difference from one block to the next are unmistakable.)
posted by Fenriss at 12:42 PM on January 25, 2002

" ... Not one to make broad generalizations, are you? Sad, really, that you must attack the writer and what you imagine to be his audience, rather than the points at hand, such as they are ...".

Apparently my wry humor was missed. Yes, I made a terribly (and, I thought, obviously) over-general statement. I could think of nothing else after reading his first paragraph:

"NOWADAYS there are three classes in America: working people at the bottom, professionals above them, a tiny elite at the top. Democrats represent the professionals, Republicans represent the CEOs. No one, much, speaks for working people, who must rely on the sympathy of leading Democrats for most of the little they get."

This garbage is what ought to be taken seriously? When the basic premise is this idiotic (and simply factually incorrect) the points that follow, whatever they are, aren't worth trying to address.

" ... from where I stand, there's plenty of class division in plain sight. In my neighborhood, the division happens right around 25th Street, and the difference from one block to the next are unmistakable ...".

Yes, there is class division in the US. Guess what, there is, and has been, virtually everywhere in the world, for the majority of recorded history. The difference in the US (and a very few other places) is that regardless of birth there is actually a chance - through work and merit - for an unusually large number of people to move, during the course of their lives, from one side of 25th Street to the other.
posted by MidasMulligan at 1:27 PM on January 25, 2002

" ... Your right, Midas. I've seen the light. Corporate America really DOES have my best interest at heart. What a huge relief! Man, I'm glad to know that all over our proud nation CEOs and CFOs are sitting down to figure out how best to meet the needs of America's working class citizens ...".

Oh I just so very much love the passive-agressive guilt-tripping that is apparently what passes for actual arguments to so many folks. It never ceases to bring a smile to my face.

If you'll permit me, at least to a small degree, to answer on behalf of "Corporate America" ...

I never said, anywhere, that anyone had your best interests at heart. People - shockingly enough - usually have their own best interests at heart. CEO's do. Professionals do. YOU DO.

What I probably have tried to indicate is that I do not think that if you are poor, and looking after your best interests, and a CEO is is rich and looking after his/her best interests, that by virtue of being poor you are somehow viruous, while by virtue of the fact that s/he has succeeded, the CEO is somehow "greedy" and evil.

What is very curious is the self-satisfied righteousness with which so much of this crap is written. You feel as though you should be able to hate, and publically curse CEO's ... at the same time as you condemn them because they don't have your best interests at heart, because they don't care about you. Tell me ... why should they act towards you any differently than you act towards them?
posted by MidasMulligan at 1:41 PM on January 25, 2002

MidasMulligan,
The basic difference between a CEO and your average working stiff acting in his/her best interest is that the CEO has the potential to screw the lives of thousands with a few selfish decisions, a fact the Enron situation has conclusively demonstrated. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a little more personal responsibility from the CEO, and, to be fair, most of them show it.

Given your habit of responding directly from the Ayn Rand phrasebook, I'm probably giving you more credit than you're due. But your rhetoric reveals you to be as dogmatic, and your responses as predictable, as the most dedicated Marxist.
posted by Ty Webb at 2:10 PM on January 25, 2002

Tell me ... why should they act towards you any differently than you act towards them?

Noblesse oblige, of course!

Isn't that what you guys talk about over martinis at the club after a relaxing round of golf? White man's burden, and all that?

And please note that I haven't stooped to characterize any of your comments as "crap". I suppose good manners is now optional among the power elite. Or is that only when talking to those beneath your station? As for "passive-aggressive guilt-tripping", I plead guilty as charged, and sincerely hope you do feel guilty. It's a shame you have to trot that same phrase out again and again, though.

I apologize if the lack of syllogistic arguments in my comments dismays you. I was unaware I was arguing -- I thought we wuz just talkin'.

And to clarify: I applaud hard work, thriftiness, willingness to take risks, and willpower; whether manifested by a poor schlub digging ditches or the toniest bluenose. The difference is simply that the schlub gets sold down the river after a lifetime of loyalty and hard work, and the bluenose gets the real profits.

It is my contention that many of the muckamucks sitting on corporate boards and receiving big fat bonuses for doing essentially nothing didn't get there becuase they worked hard and made innovative contributions to their respective fields of endeavor: they got there by Any Means Necessary or because they were rich to begin with (kinda like the last Presidential election!). Note that I said "many": not "all" or even "most". Just "many".

And you are absolutely right about one thing -- the unfolding Enron story proves without a shadow of a doubt that at least in this case the executives truly did have their own best interests at heart. And no one else's.

The system, as it stands, rewards avarice, deceit, one-upmanship, chicanery and duplicity. And I know as well as you do that as long as the wallahs keep tossing out bread and circuses (or Big Macs and Levi's, or N'Sync and Twizzlers) it will never change, because them what has the gold makes the rules, and the rule-makers have done a damn good job turning us into Consumers instead of Citizens, and yes, I hate them for it.

Now I'm going to go get in my American-made automobile and go purchase some foreign-made malt-and-hops-based beverages and return to my overpriced suburban cottage and brood about what a sucker I am.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 2:30 PM on January 25, 2002

It is odd to me that the class divisions et al get discussed when in fact the safeguards that used to in place were removed--see the current issue of the British Economist--and all that followed was made possible though previouysly it would not have been. It is not this or that class that will change things but only when regulations are put back in place. What is interesting about this is that even so die-hard a conservative as Peggy Noonan, writer for Bush number One, condemns her own party for having allowed this to happen. Both parties are at fault, if that can at this point slow down the bickering at Metafilter.
posted by Postroad at 2:49 PM on January 25, 2002

" ... Given your habit of responding directly from the Ayn Rand phrasebook, I'm probably giving you more credit than you're due. But your rhetoric reveals you to be as dogmatic, and your responses as predictable, as the most dedicated Marxist ..."

Really. Hmmm, and I believe just up the page you said something like "Sad, really, that you must attack the writer and what you imagine to be his audience, rather than the points at hand, such as they are."

I do notice that the essential points are never addressed ... but rather most responses either try the guilt-trip approach, or (rather predictably and dogmatically) label me dogmatic. The actual point, of course - that CEOs might (the horror!) simply be as selfish as everyone else, and that while it's easy to state that the mere act of having a lot of money immediately makes one suspect ... the actual moral foundation of this is more than a little questionable ... yep - I understand. Much easier to call me dogmatic.

" ... And please note that I haven't stooped to characterize any of your comments as "crap" ..."

No - instead of stating this bluntly, you launched into a wonderfully bitter, dismissive and disparaging paragraph about seeing the light. The "power elite" generally treat people virtually exactly as people treat them.
posted by MidasMulligan at 5:09 PM on January 25, 2002

Can somebody point me to an American corporation that has gotten rich by providing goods or services the American citizen did not WANT to buy?
posted by quercus at 7:52 PM on January 25, 2002

quercus: Any pharmaceutical company : people do not want to buy drugs, they buy because they need, that's entirely different.
posted by elpapacito at 5:05 AM on January 26, 2002

I think it might be productive to comment that Galbraith's article is fairly short and, more or less, an opinion piece subject to a lot of over-generalization to which everyone can find something to disagree with.

Now for the really self-satisfying smuggly virtuous part:

Quercus, I entreat you to look at the case of the poor Trolley car. In 1935 General Motors joined with the Omnibus Corporation to replace New Yorks electric Trolley system with buses, but more importantly with private transportation -- individuals in cars. In "The Geography of Nowhere", James H Kunstler writes:

"The conversion of Manhattan was largely accomplished in an eighteen-month period, despite the hue and cry among the riders."

. . . which [considering the god awful traffic there] I assume can still be heard to this day.

The following year GM, Firestone tires, and Standard Oil of California formed a company called National City Lanes that illegally converted Trolley cars to buses in roughly 40 U.S. cities.

A Federal Grand Jury convicted GM of criminal conspiracy in LA in 1949 ... fining them $5000 -- as Kunstler notes, "equal to [GM's] net profit on the sale of five Chevrolets."

Obviously, they profited much more than they were penalized for this scheme, and many cities [ particularly smog troubled L.A. ] are still paying for it.

details of this can also be found in R. Mohkiber's "Corporate Crime and Violence"

I also recommend you strongly consider the effects of over half a century of Federally subsidised advertising and the powerful veto power it gives major corporations in the dissemination of information to the public BEFORE you assume that marketplace behaves in a healthy supply meets demand fashion.
posted by ProfLinusPauling at 8:54 AM on January 26, 2002

Democrats represent the professionals, Republicans represent the CEOs. No one, much, speaks for working people, who must rely on the sympathy of leading Democrats for most of the little they get.

Geez, what crap. I consider myself a 'centrist' and I voted for Nader, but I have say the above thing is really crap. You could easily make the argument that Republicans represent the lower-middle class (I'm not saying "working class" because almost every one works, and to do so would frame the argument in Marxist terms, already ceeding a lot to the other side). I mean, and like any good republican would tell you, it's not about what you "get." from the government, it's about what the government dosn't take away. etc.

Honestly, I don't really think the democrat/republican split is along any kind of real class burrier. Hell, I don't even think there's much of an idological burrier either. (I know I'm spelling burrier wrong). Other then the most banal shit brought on by religious wackos and stuff.
posted by delmoi at 10:50 AM on January 26, 2002