CNBC’s John Carney finally heard an idea that intrigued him at the Aspen Ideas Festival: Ending universal suffrage:
His argument had two parts. The first was that some people simply are not ready for democracy. They have no functional conception of the state in their minds, much less an understanding of representative, deliberative democracy. Some are so poor that they can be bribed to vote this way or that for “five dollars,” he said. The application of the principle of universal suffrage was not a recipe for successful government in these circumstances, the speaker argued…
This pretty much runs against the grain of everything decent and serious people think. In fact, in a place like Aspen — which is dominated by progressives of various sorts — it felt like he was standing athwart history yelling “Go back!”
There’s something truly gross about the elite gathering in Aspen, of all places, at the behest of The Atlantic, of all institutions, to talk about how some people are too stupid to vote (a notion advanced by the Wall Street Journal editorial pages last week).
Because what the world needs now is more power concentrated in the hands of Aspen Ideas Festival elites like Alan Greenspan, Pervez Musharraf, and Larry Summers.
— Here’s the headline of Agnes Crane’s Reuters Breakingviews column:
Libor rigging look like victimless crime
If somebody was making money off this, somebody was losing money. It’s a zero-sum game. The argument, I suppose, is that it’s “victimless” if you steal relatively small amounts from large numbers of people (emphasis mine):
The numbers just don’t look large enough to matter. In one documented example, a derivatives trader put in a request to lower the input for three-month Libor, among the most popular benchmarks for floating rate debt, and it dropped by half a basis point, 0.005 percentage points. Libor was 5.365 percent at the time. Borrowers would hardly notice the difference.
That was the point, wasn’t it?
— The Wall Street Journal looks at how Amazon’s Marketplace retailers think it uses its inside knowledge of their sales to compete against them:
Thousands of small merchants depend on Amazon.com Inc. AMZN +3.18% to reach customers who otherwise wouldn’t know they exist. A few of them complain, though, that Amazon sometimes eats their lunch.
According to some small retailers, the Seattle-based giant appears to be increasingly using its Marketplace—where third-party retailers sell their wares on the Amazon.com site—as a vast laboratory to spot new products to sell, test sales of potential new goods, and exert more control over pricing…
Amazon is willing to lose money on the sale of some products and can drive down prices by buying items in larger quantities than many competitors, says Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster. That, in turn, can force third-party retailers to lower their own prices.

"There’s something truly gross about the elite gathering in Aspen ... to talk about how some people are too stupid to vote ..."
Yep. Fact is, people are just stupid enough to vote.
Thanks in no small part to the MSM.
#1 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Fri 29 Jun 2012 at 09:20 PM
What is the point of the Amazon item? Looks yellowish to me. Throw some he said/she said together with invariably anti-Amazon speculation and voila!
"Amazon is willing to lose money on the sale of some products and can drive down prices by buying items in larger quantities than many competitors, says Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster. That, in turn, can force third-party retailers to lower their own prices."
Let's pretend that is true. So, what's the problem?
#2 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Fri 29 Jun 2012 at 09:37 PM
The problem is that people gotta eat but corporations don't.
#3 Posted by Jonathan, CJR on Fri 29 Jun 2012 at 10:06 PM
Why should we be surprised at this coming from the Aspen Institute funded and boarded by the Koch brothers. Progressive my ass. By the way...this is how the Atlantic has managed their "miraculous" turnaround- spamming Reddit, and being a mouthpiece for the Koch brothers and surely taking their money. Certainly not by "leveraging digital" or whatever deluded futurist fools have been saying What a peice of shit...the end will come hard and bitterly for them
#4 Posted by Stephen, CJR on Sat 30 Jun 2012 at 03:59 AM
Stop what you're doing and have some fun with this:
http://m.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/201207/amber-waves-of-green-jon-ronson-gq-july-2012?currentPage=1
Interviews of americans by income strata.
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 1 Jul 2012 at 03:06 PM
In other news, something which I've been talking about occasionally made an appearance on propublica.
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 1 Jul 2012 at 11:50 PM
And ain't it just like me to forget the link:
http://www.propublica.org/thetrade/item/how-shareholders-are-hurting-america
"It's a bedrock principle of our era: Companies should be run for the sole purpose of increasing their stock prices, or returning "value" to shareholders, the ultimate "owners."
To Lynn A. Stout, however, it amounts to nothing more than a "shareholder dictatorship."
Ms. Stout, a professor at Cornell Law School, has authored a slim and elegant polemic, "The Shareholder Value Myth" (Berrett-Koehler Publishers) to explain the idea's two problems: It's worked out horribly, and as a matter of law, it's not true.
The blame lies with economists and business professors who have pushed the idea, with generous enabling from the corporate governance do-gooder movement, Ms. Stout contends. Stocks, as a result, have become the playthings of hedge funds, warping corporate motivation and eroding stock market returns...
It's clear that something is deeply wrong with our capital markets. Stock market returns have been terrible for well over a decade. Wall Street investment banks, pushing their stock prices ever higher, took on risks that blew up the global financial system. In the early 2000s, companies sought to lift their share prices through an epidemic of accounting fraud.
The professor's argument is that as companies have increasingly focused on their stock prices, and given managers more shareholdings, they have inadvertently empowered hedge funds that push for short-term solutions. Mutual funds, dependent on winning money from retail investors, have become myopic as well. The average holding period of a stock was eight years in 1960; today, it's four months."
Worth a highlight.
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 1 Jul 2012 at 11:56 PM