* Self-funded startup (early stage): founders are usually equity-rich, but cash-poor; B.O.D. has to be well disciplined due to the cash-constraints (or, a rather nasty ka-boom awaits them).

* Venture-backed startup (several rounds of capital): founders are 'crammed down'; VCs gain a significant presence on the B.O.D. and ensure that exec salaries are in line with norms (if not, see ka-boom)

* Public company: founders & early-VCs typically exit; financial discipline on the B.O.D. is driven by 'institutional' types; enter, the 'professional' CEO and other 'charismatic' execs

* Mature public company: B.O.D. is made up of institutional-types PLUS some glamor-types for window-dressing; revolving door for super-CEOs and execs; weirdly competitive pressures, e.g. "nyah, our CEO is bigger-n-badder than your CEO, nyah" ... the B.O.D. and the execs dazzle each other with B.S., back-scratching and fancy double-talk, while the company is usually run by talented mid-level people. Success is a bit of a crap-shoot, but the laws of inertia can be quite helpful. Pass "Go" several times, collecting $$$ each time. Growth often comes via acquisition, not (necessarily) from innovation.

* Very mature public company: holy crapoly .. the company (in its current form) can't deal with mkt pressures ... seek Govt intervention at once. When that (inevitably) does more harm than good, declare the company "too big to fail" and get taken over by the Govt in a quasi-legal fashion that puts the cor-rupt in bank-rupt.

* Extremely mature, public-owned company: Fueled by populist fervor, Govt comes up with an act of genius .. it bravely lowers exec pay after wagging fingers and frowning sternly into adoring TV cameras, saying "Look .. make no mistake ... let me be clear ...". This drives off the show-boat execs but the B.O.D. is now chock-full of dashing young political appointees and union-istas. Execs are hand-picked to be ideologically perfect. The company is now driven as a political fiefdom - banishing any remaining mid-level talent, and keeping it from ever coming back. Profit is a deemed to be a dirty word, and, so, like, old-fashioned, because the Govt-driven goals are much more lofty, e.g. Green Products for a Clean Planet, Jobs for Everyone (and his brother) and the crowd-pleasing "kumbaya my love, kumbaya".

The reality: "oh, it is vonderful, komerade ... ve made dis machine that costs millionz (or iz it billionz? hmm, all I remembers dat it rimes vith Gilliganz), but, you know vhat dis machine do? vy, you ain't seen nuthin, man, she eats garbage and farts steam. De kompany? oh, it iz great! dem smart fellers in Va-shington, dey figger it all out ... dey borrow from the Chineez to pay us ... and ev'body gits free healthcare! hey, wanna see my free gold tooth? jest got it yestyday ..."

When America was the only semi-capitalist country on the planet, American manufacturing output was disproportionately higher (per capita) than any other country.

Not surprisingly, the following was also true of Americans - on a per capita basis:

* highest consumption of raw materials

* highest wealth creation - including the middle class

* highest personal consumption

* highest generation of pollutants

Countries that went "the other way", dabbled in socialism (or its variants) and preached various forms of virtuous austerity for their citizens. Since their leaders extolled the virtues of egalitarianism (often with a soupçon of religious piety), there wasn't an environment conducive to wealth-creation. Strangely, and in spite of the underwhelming size of the pie, there was a wide disparity between the haves and the have-nots. So, when regular folks seemed envious of the lifestyles of average Americans, their leaders were careful to cocoon them in cultural snobbery. Quite often, they criticized evil Americans - whom they tagged with warmongering, traffic, pollution, crime, promiscuity & racism - to keep the natives from getting too restless!

While waiting for the miracles of 'planned economies' to blossom, semi-socialist countries continued to do business with Americans. They sold their 'nationally owned' resources [which their depressed, statist economies could not properly allocate, consume or conserve] to the highest bidder. Americans, perhaps surprised at how inexpensive their luxuries were, continued to get richer & fatter, dumb & dumber-er. And, why not? The world was 'on sale', and America was one of the few countries with the unlimited credit-card of a productive economy.

All this was going quite well (for Americans) until about 1989, when walls started to come down, and blinders started to come off. People realized that they didn't particularly care for austerity, and wouldn't mind 'living like Americans'. They also realized that they had been sold a bill of goods by their kumbaya leaders, who had preached austerity for all four-legged animals, but were now "walking on two legs". A new breed of enlightened leaders decided to 'allow' the germ of semi-capitalism into their countries, 'just for economic reasons, eh komrade?'.

Meanwhile, in a deliciously decadent stupor, many Americans forgot about cause-and-effect. They ignored the source of American affluence - capitalism, and its by-product, the work-ethic of their ancestors. Tilting Leftward, they began to gorge on welfare-statism, because it was easier (and très chic) to talk about re-distributing the wealth that someone else had worked to create. They assumed that Americans would always come out on top, as they began dismantling the very vehicle that had taken them to the top of the economic heap.

Fast forward ... about 20 years after the watershed events of 1989:

* many countries have prospered - by importing that stoopid Americain idea called semi-capitalism

* Americans, although challenged by other roaring tigers, continue spending in a stupor. No worries, duuude ... inertia will keep us on top for just a bit longer. Let our kids deal with the aftermath.

Income Inequality Without Class Conflict: written by Irving Kristol on Dec. 18, 1997

It is often said that capitalism—that is, a market economy—is morally obnoxious because its "trickle-down economics" inevitably creates inequality of income and wealth. Now it is certainly true that "trickle-down economics" has that effect. It is also true, however, that if you want economic growth and greater affluence for all, there is simply no alternative to "trickle-down economics," which is just another name for growth economics.

The world has yet to see a successful version of "trickle-up economics," an egalitarian society in which the state ensures that the fruits of economic growth are universally and equally shared. The trouble with this idea—it is, of course, the socialist ideal—is that it does not produce those fruits in the first place. Economic growth is promoted by entrepreneurs and innovators, whose ambitions, when realized, create inequality. No one with any knowledge of human nature can expect such people not to want to be relatively rich, and if they are too long frustrated they will cease to be productive. Nor can the state substitute for them, because the state simply cannot engage in the "creative destruction" that is an essential aspect of innovation. The state cannot and should not be a risk-taking institution, since it is politically impossible for any state to cope with the inevitable bankruptcies associated with economic risk taking.

BTW, I don't take the position that America - or, by extension the American system - is consistently or uniformly representative of freedom, fairness or equality. There is plenty of criticism that one could justify against America's actions (past and present) and against certain aspects of American society. But, when Moore attacks Capitalism (which doesn't exist in pure form, even in America), he is attacking a system that is known to reliably produce wealth for a majority of the population - by properly allocating limited resources. Since the alternatives that Moore proposes (or praises) are systems that are infinitely worse than American-style Capitalism, Moore comes off as a person who can't understand simple causal relationships.

The other argument that is often made by Leftists is that Capitalism must be controlled (regulated), and/or that the wealth that it produces must be re-distributed by the enlightened ones. However, re-distributive policies wind up killing the source, resulting in less wealth creation. And regulation often takes the form of Govt meddling, which has disastrous consequences, e.g. the current financial mess.

Here is a somewhat dated analogy: remember those fuse-boxes in American homes from many decades ago? After blowing fuses a few dozen times (by overloading the circuits), some enterprising people would literally "put a penny in the fusebox". If you were lucky, your home didn't burn down due to electrical fires; but homeowners could now overload the circuits significantly and take unreasonable risks.

Capitalism has 'fuses' too, in the form of a healthy skepticism on the part of consumers. When Govt steps in (by insuring losses), it creates a falsely high level of trust - replacing fuses with pennies - and encouraging risky behavior. The resulting electrical fire is blamed [by Moore, and his intellectual peers] on Capitalism. But, that is like blaming the fire on the Power Utility -- although it was the "penny in the fusebox" that caused the the overload that caused the home to burn down.

A classic Stalin-era joke: Stalin arrives at a local communal farm and demands an accounting of the potato harvest. “The potatoes are piled as high as the eye of God, comrade!” declares the farm manager. “Now, now, comrade, you know very well there is no God,” replies Stalin. “Yes,” says the manager, “and there are no potatoes either!”