Hmm...

http://slashdot.org/articles/02/08/09/1235227.shtml?tid=98

It's good to see a guy standing up for what's right, but sad to see him fired for it.

That's unbelievable! With all that's going on today, that's not good publicity for themselves. They freaking gave themselves loans that they aren't paying back? Argh...

Good link

yikes. Drama. I hope the Cambridge boys have contingency plans... SB looks about as solid as a sliver of balsa wood.

In all honesty, it appears that the loans were above-board and are due in about a year. The CEO guy was asking for them to be repaid early.

I kinda get the feeling that he was going to be fired anyway and he's trying to drum up some fake reason for it. I find it hard to believe that he would get fired simply for asking for loans to be repaid early.

SB looks about as solid as a sliver of balsa wood.

Funny I woulda said that before this. Now I'd say more like tissue paper.

Then I think the board woulda mentioned the real reason he was fired, if only to save what's left of their share price.

Well, this only happened yesterday.

And not telling is probably part of his multi-million dollar severance package.

Hm. So what do you guys thing is going to replace capitalism as our next form of gov't?

and, a counterpoint...

http://news.com.com/2100-1040-949103.html?tag=cd_mh

My favorite quote:

"Potashner's firing is the latest in a series of executive shuffles at the company. In April, Chief Operating Officer John Todd left the company. That same month, Chief Financial Officer David Sugishita departed after less than two months at the company"

Looks like execs are leaving SonicBlue at supersonic speeds.

Hm. So what do you guys thing is going to replace capitalism as our next form of gov't?

I was just reading Daniel Schorr's recently-published memoir/autobiography and he remarked at one point at the eerie normalcy that followed initial revelations about Watergate. That included Nixon's landslide reelection in 1972.

I find recent months similarly eerie. The procession of Enrons, Tycos and Worldcoms (Ummmm, 4 billion.....no....7 billion!) appears to be never-ending. If there was anything left of a social contract between incorporated America and average citizens, what shreds that existed are now gone. Yet, it is pretty quiet out there. No burning tires at the barricades, few if any CEOs targeted for jail (or revenge killings!)....business as usual?

I don't mean to suggest that the implications of recent corporate events are limited to the U.S., but that the U.S. is (to me) the most eerie embodiment of this "business as usual" near-silence.

Watching WTO demonstrations over the past few years, including those in Seattle, I can't say that I leapt to identify with those folks marching in the streets. A big part of that was the unfocused heterogeneity of those crowds -- do I have to be a member of PETA and follower of the Dalai Lama in order to qualify to march?? Lately, though, those gaggles that seemed on the fringe seem less so.....yes, some of the anti-WTO protests still seem unfocused in retrospect, but I feel like I have a much stronger appreciation of what is being railed against.

A few months back I read a book called Weath and Democracy by Kevin Phillips. I have since given copies to a few friends. What the heck, I offer the following: I'll buy a copy of this and send it to the first BBS denizen who expresses an interest in reading it -- on the condition that they do read it and that they pass the book along.

I won't belabor W&D here, but the many charts and graphs conveyed the following to me:

- Wealth continues to concentrate in the hands of the few even as an illusion of increasing middle-class prosperiity has convinced some to the contrary.
- Laissez-fair capitalism does not exist. It is only laissez-faire when it is the average person's fortunes/pension that are going down the tubes.
- It really doesn't matter who is in power. With a few small exceptions (read: FDR) it doesn't matter. Democrat or Republican administration? Clinton or Bush? Doesn't matter.

All of this coming from a former Nixon operative and (now excommunicated) Republican.

Anyhow, what Phillips provides is a statement of the problem (I shouldn't lead anyone to believe that the book is difficult to read or enjoy -- I found it easy to read.) but what it does not provide is a particular solution. Likewise, some of my discomfort with anti-WTOistas is the lack of a coherent solution.

Well, I don't have the answer, but (and the reason I engaged in this long-winded excursion) is that I think Loren's ironic, smiley-fied question is *the* question.

In reply to:

---

- Wealth continues to concentrate in the hands of the few even as an illusion of increasing middle-class prosperiity has convinced some to the contrary.

---

I won't dispute that wealth continues to concentrate (particularly without reading
the book you refer to). I am also familiar with the statistics about the ratio of
top executive pay to "line-worker" pay increasing tremendously from 1970 to
present. Those are indisputable facts.

However, I do take issue with the claim that increasing middle-class prosperity is
an "illusion." Historically, capitalism has been the "rising tide which lifts all
boats." It just lifts certain boats a hell of a lot higher. This is perfectlty fine when it
is a legitimate reward for creating new and better products, more jobs, and
a raised standard of living for many others.

It is absolutely NOT fine when it is a payment for corruption, deceit, cronyism,
theft, and/or illegal or monopolistic actions which actually lower the choices
people have available or provide a product inferior to or more expensive than
what fair competition would have generated.

But I think that many people are now mistakenly starting to assume that because
corruption and criminals are present (and perhaps fairly widespread) in
corporations and government, that the premises and fundamentals of market
based competition are somehow flawed.

Track down and jail the miscreants!
Put in safeguards to help prevent this type of misbehavior in the future.
And examine what sort of societal mindset is making people choose to commit
these fraudulent acts. (Example: A former Cisco VP just went to jail. He had
made $35 million legally and legitimately. But that wasn't enough. Oh no, not for
him. He had to illegally embezzle another $50 million. He lost his job. He's going to
jail. And he has to pay back the money. But what was he *thinking*?
Why did he risk everything, when he really had nothing to gain, and everything to
lose? Because he's an idiot, of course. But why?)

[sermon]
If anything, what is holding back the middle class (of which I am a proud member)
is their propensity for excessive debt, particularly high-interest credit card debt
(of which I have none. zip. zero. zilch. nada.) Financing is for houses, business
expenses, and maybe cars. Not for expensive dinners, empegs, and shiny
things. If you can't afford it, don't freakin' buy it!
Or make sure the debt load is really worth it to you.
So when your stock portfolio crashes (as all of ours have) and you get "reduced"
from the workforce (as many of us have, or will at some point in our lives) you
don't have to eat grubs and beetles because you have a closet full of expensive
clothes that were trendy last year, and a living room full of obsolete electronics
now worth one-tenth what you paid for them last year.
Prioritize, dammit.
[/sermon]

Financing is for houses, business expenses, and maybe cars. Not for expensive dinners, empegs, and shiny things. If you can't afford it, don't freakin' buy it!

That's good advice, but it sure as hell would make life boring

Rob

If anything, what is holding back the middle class (of which I am a proud member) is their propensity for excessive debt, particularly high-interest credit card debt

When my buddy returns this book, I am going to re-read it, and try to do so more critically. However, I found it pretty compelling first time through. One of his points corresponds with yours, perhaps. Viewed as a "top-line" phenomena, middle-class wealth has increased; his point, though, is that, when examined at the bottom-line, middle-class wealth has not increased. This he pins not only on high-interest credit card spending needed to maintain a certain higher standard of living, but on overall higher debt (mortgages) and lower savings -- an overall lower moment-to-moment wealth factor for the middle class.

But I think that many people are now mistakenly starting to assume that because corruption and criminals are present (and perhaps fairly widespread) in corporations and government, that the premises and fundamentals of market based competition are somehow flawed.

Well, the various Enron phenomena certainly provide the most striking example of things gone horribly wrong, but one of the conclusions that I drew from this book, and from recent events, is that the notion of a pure market -- and "market-based fundamentals" such as you describe -- may not really exist given the historical pay-for-play intervention of the government/s in these markets.

Anhow, I have considerably less faith in any notion of market-based societal equity than I might have had years ago.

and a living room full of obsolete electronics
now worth one-tenth what you paid for them last year.

Oh, Crap! Do I need to move the Empegs out of the living room??

Well, I will be one of the folks eating grubs and beetles later this year if I get laid off. I won't necessarily blame the CEOs of Enron and Tyco when that happens, though, as I am the poster child for a certain bachelor "live for today" lifestyle that couldn't conceive of living to retirement age. There are however, lots of folks -- with families, kids, etc -- who have tried to do better (save, economize, etc.) and who are now getting a huge shaft when it comes to their retirement prospects.

Anyhow, I *do* recommend that book, if only as a discussion vehicle. The whole "What next?" thing.

That's good advice, but it sure as hell would make life boring

/me steps off the high horse for a second.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating a life of monastic asceticism.
I've got a living room full of depreciated home electronics and guitar effects pedals
of questionable utility, and a pricey sushi habit to boot.

/me jumps back on the horse.

I'm just saying that I'd prefer to see the bulk of my disposable income go to
people like you Empeg guys who make cool stuff and make the world a
happier place, than to someone like Providian who really provides no service
to society other than temporarily buffering people from the consequences of
their poor impulse control. (I'm exaggerating slightly to make a point....)
A dollar spent on a finance charge, is a dollar taken away from a creator of
cool stuff. (I know, not quite true; the rich bankers will go out and buy
the cool stuff. But I'd rather it be me!)

It seems like whether someone is the $35 million VP who wants to live like he
actually has $85 million, or the $20K worker trying to make it look like he
makes $30K, it's a similar issue. You can still have a heck of a good time
living within your means.
For me, anyway, I can motivate myself better to "increase my means" by
promising myself a cool new toy as a reward than by just buying the toy
and figuring out how to pay for it. However, I have been told that fear of
impending personal bankruptcy can be a fairly motivating technique as well. It's
just a little too stressful for a laid back guy like myself.

and a pricey sushi habit to boot

You're not the only one. My love for sushi and other pricy food definitely puts a dent in my finances. Just last night I spent $130 on sushi for 2 people! There are two problems witrh this. 1) This is not an abnormal amount for me. 2) It was sooooo worth it.

I try to balance out my nice car, electronics, and food with living in a shithole. It seems to be working well. I also don't carry credit card debt.

One of his points corresponds with yours, perhaps.

Woohoo!

one of the conclusions that I drew from this book, and from recent events, is that the notion of a pure market -- and "market-based fundamentals" such as you describe -- may not really exist given the historical pay-for-play intervention of the government/s in these markets.

I'll definitely agree with that.

Oh, Crap! Do I need to move the Empegs out of the living room??

Shouldn't you be taking the Empegs with you wherever you go, at all times?
They even have carrying cases for that. Although, apparently, some of them
can actually alter your sexual orientation if other threads on this board are
to believed. So, watch your step!

lots of folks -- with families, kids, etc -- who have tried to do better (save, economize, etc.) and who are now getting a huge shaft when it comes to their retirement prospects.

I agree this is where the system is failing. People can make risky investments if
they want to. But they should be able to tell whether they are risky.
All the recent corporate frauds were basically illegally hiding the risk
from the investors. This particularly sucks for people within 5 years of retirement.
Because there is no way they can get their lifetime of savings back.
If I were in that bracket, I would definitely be looking for a way to have "a little
conversation" with a few CEOs, as they might say on The Sopranos.

Well, I will be one of the folks eating grubs and beetles later this year if I get laid off

Well, I hope not. But if worse comes to worst, try to get some Tabasco,
cilantro, curry, and a wok. Then you can probably get through it....

Anyhow, I *do* recommend that book, if only as a discussion vehicle.

I'll take you up on your offer of a free copy. And I'll read it. But if I think it's bogus
I'd like to reserve the right to mail it back to you rather than passing it on.
Otherwise, onward it goes.

Just last night I spent $130 on sushi for 2 people! [...] It was sooooo worth it.

Amen, my brother! Amen.


I try to balance out my nice car, electronics, and food with living in a shithole. It seems to be working well.

Not having to make a car payment for several years allowed me to buy *all*
*kinds* of cool stuff. But now I'm feeling the urge for some fancy wheels.
Maybe it's time to start looking in the classifieds under "Shitholes."

/me earlier....and "market-based fundamentals" such as you describe -- may not really exist given the historical pay-for-play intervention of the government/s in these markets.

I'll definitely agree with that.

Then comes the question of whether a pure market *could* exist (no government involvement, for example). Some folks think so. I think, but am not certain, that "big L" Libertarians would say so. As a "small l" libertarian, I'm less confident that it could.

Shouldn't you be taking the Empegs with you wherever you go, at all times? They even have carrying cases for that. Although, apparently, some of them can actually alter your sexual orientation if other threads on this board are to believed. So, watch your step!

I am actually heading in the direction of having Empegs pre-deployed where I need them -- am going to clone my 60GB to a backup unit and perhaps leave it on my boat hidden in a Pelican case

Fear not, I have only black and blue carry cases that help reinforce my sexual identity!. (I was waiting for someone to jump on my case for indirectly implying that the Empeg was obsolete!!)

I agree this is where the system is failing. People can make risky investments if they want to. But they should be able to tell whether they are risky.
All the recent corporate frauds were basically illegally hiding the risk from the investors. This particularly sucks for people within 5 years of retirement. Because there is no way they can get their lifetime of savings back. If I were in that bracket, I would definitely be looking for a way to have "a little conversation" with a few CEOs, as they might say on The Sopranos.

Absolutely fraudulent are many of these stories. FWIW, I do feel, though, that the Enrons and Tycos are simply the purest expression of a smash-and-grab mindset that pervaded the 90s. Essentially, that the value of options was what mattered over anything else. A former boss was probably worth $15 million on paper at one point but listened to the siren song of buying more shares on margin and is now worth precisely zero; there were a lot of people who put their eggs in a single basket in the hope that their particular Enron would float long enough and they would never have to work again. Well, I have little sympathy for some of those folks (what *were* they thinking??) but I do have a lot of sympathy for the poor bastard who went from working for a real utility like Portland Gas and Electric (with a real pension) on one day to involuntarily working for Enron the next day.

But if worse comes to worst, try to get some Tabasco, cilantro, curry, and a wok. Then you can probably get through it....

I have been doing some preliminary taste tests with Huy Fong Tuong ot Sricacha "Rooster" Sauce!

I'll take you up on your offer of a free copy. And I'll read it. But if I think it's bogus I'd like to reserve the right to mail it back to you rather than passing it on. Otherwise, onward it goes.

E-mail me your delivery particulars and I'll get it on its way (maybe a drop ship, say). If you do feel like mailing it back to me, perhaps I could redirect if another BBSer is interested?

I won't say that it is a perfect book. I found some of it repetitive in part due to less-than-perfect organization of the book. That being said, I thought it scored pretty high. A lot of the book was consumed with drawing parallels between recent boom/bubble cycles and previous Gilded Age cycles in Spain, Holland, and England. One of his contentions is that in all of these cases the economies transitioned from actual production into a gilded period of "Financialization" and that decline followed.

Anyhow, for better or worse, it is not simply a look at "the History of the American Rich" as the title suggests. Liberal Democrats might read this book and consider it ammunition for their bipolar struggle against Republicans. I did not draw that kind of conclusion. I'll be interested to see what you think.

Before i finish reading this thread... I DEFINITELY want that book! =]

darn... Music got it first. ah well.

So yeah. It's Sunday morning and i have a lot to say on this subject, but ya know what? It's too damn nice outside. So i'll just leave it at this...

It's not the size or profits of the middle class that's important... it's the incredible growth of the "lower class". The amount of people living at or below poverty level in this country... THAT is what we should be looking at... the people who could give a fuck what a stock dividend or margin account is... because they'll never be able to afford one anyhow thanks to the beautiful thing we call capitalism where the few in power (politically and financially... which are intrinsically linked in case you haven't noticed) will never relinquish it (meaning $ and power) without a fight.

I can't shake the feeling lately that some nasty stuff is going to go down in my lifetime.

ya know what? It's too damn nice outside.

Good day for the Wine Country or the Beach, perhaps?
I'm headed that way shortly, myself.

it's the incredible growth of the "lower class". The amount of people living at or below poverty level in this country... THAT is what we should be looking at

We should be careful what we define as "the poverty line" in terms of
historical perspective. Most people in the US living below the poverty line
have a trailer or apartment, a TV set, a microwave, a telephone, and a
refrigerator. I.e., way better off than 99.9% of the world a few hundred
years earlier.
These people (or more likely, their children) can boost themselves out of this
through education and hard work.

"True poverty" are the people living in tin shacks in the Louisiana Bayou or
homeless on the streets of the big city.
These people are fairly screwed and we definitely should be concerned about
them, both because it is a crappy life for them, and a waste of their potential
to society.

I can't shake the feeling lately that some nasty stuff is going to go down in my lifetime.

Yes, I have that same feeling.

darn... Music got it first. ah well.

Oh, dang. Did I say "one"? I meant two. If you can hack a drop-ship from something like Amazon, PM your delivery info.

So yeah. It's Sunday morning and i have a lot to say on this subject, but ya know what? It's too damn nice outside.

/me, loading up Empeg and boat stuff to go for a sail...

So i'll just leave it at this...

It's not the size or profits of the middle class that's important... it's the incredible growth of the "lower class". The amount of people living at or below poverty level in this country... THAT is what we should be looking at... the people who could give a [censored] what a stock dividend or margin account is... because they'll never be able to afford one anyhow thanks to the beautiful thing we call capitalism where the few in power (politically and financially... which are intrinsically linked in case you haven't noticed) will never relinquish it (meaning $ and power) without a fight.

American political life seems mired in what I would call a bipolar, "yer either fur us or agin us!" mode. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, nearly anything "left" or liberal was discredited and, with the collapse of communist states, it seemed like the "winner" -- capitalism -- enjoyed new, unquestioned status as the right path.

The fact that the U.S. declined on a number of very objective metrics (infant mortality, say) over the past 15 years seemed to get little attention. Generally, I'd say that the whole "a rising tide lifts all boats" was the working proposition and that the middle class was feeling satisfied. Poverty-related issues and positions got less attention. Democrats fell over themselves to assume "moderate" positions (witness Clinton's aggressive welfare reform/dismanting. Whatever you think of it, it is amazing from the standpoint of who was now wielding the axe).

Me? I have continued to have the apolitical blues. With what i consider to be fewer and fewer distinctions between the two dominant parties, what I don't see is a coherent emerging alternative, nor have I been able to invent one myself. Phillips doesn't ignore poverty. However, in graphs like this I think he spends more time looking at middle-class effects -- I think because the perceptions of an ascendant middle class have provided the underpinnings for overall acceptance of the recent social/economic compact.

I can't shake the feeling lately that some nasty stuff is going to go down in my lifetime.

Why, hasn't it already? I don't consider myself prone to conspiracy theories or prophesies of doom, but am concerned that life for folks half my age (nieces, friends' kids, people I don't know half a world away) is going to be harder, not easier.

/me What a cheerful guy you are, Jim!

FWIW, I do feel, though, that the Enrons and Tycos are simply the purest expression of a smash-and-grab mindset that pervaded the 90s

Yep. And at the risk of alienating the dot-commers and ex-dot-commers who
comprise 95% of this board, I have to say that in the case of many of those
companies, the smash-n-grab is not only obvious in retrospect, it was
blatantly obvious at the time to absolutely everyone with a clue.

Get the eToiletCleaners website up, go public, hype the stock up to a billion,
pump-n-dump before people realize there isn't really much of a market for
online toilet brush sales.

A good friend of mine actually worked for a company whose idea was to
keep the contents of your clothes closet online (sizes, styles, etc.)
in order to facilitate online clothes purchases.
All you had to do was log on and tell them all about it whenever you bought a
new shirt....

I'm sure many of you have even sillier stories than that.

But if worse comes to worst, try to get some Tabasco, cilantro, curry, and a wok. Then you can probably get through it....
I have been doing some preliminary taste tests with Huy Fong Tuong ot Sricacha "Rooster" Sauce!

Excellent. One should also not ignore the culinary delights of a fine
Grub Bolognese, a Pad Worm Thai, or nice Beetle Vindaloo.

E-mail me your delivery particulars and I'll get it on its way
Done.

A lot of the book was consumed with drawing parallels between recent boom/bubble cycles and previous Gilded Age cycles in Spain, Holland, and England. One of his contentions is that in all of these cases the economies transitioned from actual production into a gilded period of "Financialization" and that decline followed.

Interesting. I have often thought the same thing.
The social impetus here pushes people into being financiers, lawyers, or
(for the dreamers) rock/movie stars, or professional athletes.
These are all fine professions. But it is not really prestigious to be a scientist
or engineer (as I have been told it is in, for example, India).

As a result, many (or most) silicon valley companies are founded, run, and staffed
by many non-citizens from Europe, India, and to some extent China/Taiwan/HongKong/Korea/etc.

Now why are these people willing to pay income taxes in two countries at once?
Because, for the moment, this is where the action is.

Now, the Empeg guys don't want to leave England. And a lot of these other
people would like to return home at some point as well. It seems clear that
if/when the business infrastructure and economic climate become
comparable in many other places around the world, all these wealth-creation
activities will occur there, rather than here.
Certainly the alliance between Venture Capital, Universities, Advertising, and
smart young people with no life (SYPWNL) is rather unique to California. But it isn't impossible
to duplicate, and there are lots of near-misses in other locales in the US and
around the globe. And maybe some of those will be able to avoid
California's high real estate costs, high state tax rate, questionable power
situation, and painful legal morass.
At that point, it makes little sense to do things here.
Similar fates have befallen American manufacturing already.

I've kind of wondered if someplace like Brazil could be the hot new place to be
in a hundred years. They certainly have the natural resources, if they could
get it together in other ways.

In 50 years, America's role may be predominantly in Entertainment, Advertising,
and Finance. (I assume this is what you meant by "financialization," above.)
Technology, BioTech, Medicine, Electronics, Software, Manufacturing, Science,
and Basic Research may well be centered elsewhere. Naturally, this means
the US university system may fall to second-tier status as a consequence.
(I know, a lot of it already is. But the good ones are still among the best in
the world -- for the moment.)

A lot of the book was consumed with drawing parallels between recent boom/bubble cycles and previous Gilded Age cycles in Spain, Holland, and England.

Damn. I read a book a year or two ago, Tulipomania, that documented the ridiculous rise and fall of tulip trading in 17th century Europe. Fascinating book.

Perhaps because I'm stupid, I didn't realize until just now that it was an allegory for the dot-com era. Oh, well.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, nearly anything "left" or liberal was discredited and, with the collapse of communist states, it seemed like the "winner" -- capitalism -- enjoyed new, unquestioned status as the right path.

There were two great shows about capitalism recently on PBS.
(Yes, I'm not making this up. PBS. Capitalism. Deal with it.)

The Commanding Heights A great 3-part series about the recent world acceptance
of capitalism in the past 100 years, its pros and cons. From Keynes
and von Hayek, through Thatcher/Reagan, to the recent Asian market collapse and
Russian default, with excursions into some South American economies.

Watch the entire 6 hours on the web, if you've got the bandwidth.
This was awesome stuff. And I thought is was pretty even-handed.

The Trillion Dollar Bet A Nova episode about the company LongTerm Capital Management
and how they almost single-handedly hosed the world economy. It's a couple years old,
but I think it has relevance today, since the
downfall of LTCM was the Nobel-winning Black-Scholes formula. The same
one that people are saying that companies should use if we start accounting
for options as an immediate expense (I.e., part of the reason why I think that
might be a bad idea).

Noam Chomsky's "Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind" is a great listen. It's a speech he gave around 1997 that talks about many of the issues brought up here. smart guy. find it if you can.

Perhaps because I'm stupid, I didn't realize until just now that it was an allegory for the dot-com era. Oh, well.

Ha. We know just how unstupid you are, so I think that perhaps you are just teasing us, eh?

I had read about tulipomania, the phenomenon, but never the book. I'll have to read it. Is tulipomania an allegory, or is it an analogy? It is analagous, but does that make it an analogy? Seriously, I was trying to think of a better term for a phenomenon that foreshadows a later one that is analogous. Anyone?

I don't think that any of the parallels that Phillips points out are new discoveries, but he did a better job of pulling the various threads together, IMO. I hadn't really though of the parallels between speculatively overbuilt railroads in the late 1800s and overbuilt telecom/fiber a century later, but now I do.

I'm sure many of you have even sillier stories than that.

I don't have any sillier story than that. I *did* leave my last job, though, in great part because managers started chanting "E"-this and "E"-that and "digital transformation" in a way that made it perfectly clear that they had no bloody idea what they were talking about and that they were mindlessly surfing a big buzzword wave. It made me too nervous. I had to go. All of their "E"-ness has since collapsed in a big, messy, layoff-strewn heap.

I've kind of wondered if someplace like Brazil could be the hot new place to be in a hundred years. They certainly have the natural resources, if they could get it together in other ways.

I remember reading in one of Richard Feynman's books his tale of life as a guest lecturer at a big Brazilian university. A big generalizatuion on his part, but he pretty much decided that their higher education system was constructed in such a way to eliminate critical thinking and to solely focus on near-rote learning of received wisdom (such as his). He thought this would have a pretty nasty impact on Brazil.

In 50 years, America's role may be predominantly in Entertainment, Advertising,
and Finance. (I assume this is what you meant by "financialization," above.)

The term is Phillips' (though not sure he invented it). Yes, this is what he means, I think, although he is more focused on the finance aspects -- shifting from growing cotton to trading cotton futures, from making steel to loaning money to a steel company.

(Yes, I'm not making this up. PBS. Capitalism. Deal with it.)

We know you're not making it up. I saw the show on LTCM when it aired originally. Quite good. I managed to catch just one part of Commanding Heights in a hotel, but will have to try the rest. Thanks for that link.

As far as I remember, the author never made any direct comparison between the Dutch tulip craze and the, at the time, current economic situation, or any mention of late-twentieth century economics at all, which is why I chose the term allegory. Of course, it could easily be seen as just a piece of history, which is what I took it for for a long time, but its timing was rather auspicious.