HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » HughBeaumont » Journal
Page: 1

HughBeaumont

Profile Information

Member since: Fri Aug 13, 2004, 02:12 PM
Number of posts: 24,461

About Me

If anyone's wondering why I haven't been here much lately, it's because I feel no one is learning anything from 2016. Neoliberalism is a thing and it doesn't win elections in the 21st Century. People want a candidate that's going to take strong, non-waffling stands on human rights the rest of the world enjoys. Enough living in the goddamned Reagan 1980s. Enough taking solar panels off the roof. Enough introducing more rightwingedness into American economics. Enough medical bankruptcies. Enough governing by mythology. Enough science denial. Enough of spitting on women, children, veterans and the LGBTQI community. Enough kicking the can. ENOUGH. America needs to move past it's "everything has to be about making a buck" bullshit. I'd prefer a candidate not born during the FDR/Truman administrations. No offense, but you had your time . . . and you got us Trump. Plus, I can't take another one of these still-Capitalist Boomer codgers yap on about "bootstraps" when college now costs a mortgage, necessity costs have been outpacing wage growth for 20 years and automation promises to kill more jobs than it creates. I don't want to hear what is or isn't "politically achievable". Kick-the-Can economics was never asked "How is it going to be paid for?". Tax Cuts for the rich were never given a spending limit. Folly wars were never asked "Why is this necessary?". Corporate Pork by the billions was and is always approved. America's safety net needs to be greatly expanded and retirement age needs to be drastically lowered. This country throws out far too many people that still have a decade or two of prime contribution left. If life doesn't get fairer for you or I pretty goddamned quickly, we aren't going to have much of one.

Journal Archives

Why the "World's Dumbest Idea" is Finally Dying: The "maximize shareholder value" myth

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/06/17/why-the-worlds-dumbest-idea-is-finally-dying/

Bad ideas don’t die just because they are bad. They hang around until a consensus forms around another idea that is better. This is what’s happening now with a stupid idea has dominated American business for the last four decades: that the purpose of a firm is to maximize shareholder value. The massive problems that this notion has caused for business and society have been documented. Even Jack Welch has called it “the dumbest idea in the world.” Yet it remains the conventional wisdom throughout much of big business. What’s different now is that a consensus is forming around a better idea.

That’s the big news coming out of a recent report from the Aspen Institute which convened a cross-section of business thought leaders, including both executives and academics. The report’s most important finding is that majority of the thought leaders who participated in the study, particularly corporate executives, agreed that “the primary purpose of the corporation is to serve customers’ interests.” In effect, the best way to serve shareholders’ interests is to deliver value to customers.

snip

“Friedman won the way a great debater wins,” says Martin, “by cleverly framing the terms of the debate… Because Friedman was so inflammatory in his call for a 100 percent versus 0 percent handling of the trade-off, his entire opposition …has focused on making arguments for a number lower than 100 percent for shareholders. In doing so, they implicitly… accepted Friedman’s premise that there is a fundamental trade-off between the interests of shareholders on the one hand and other societal actors such as customers, employees and communities on the other hand. Ever since, the Friedmanite defense has been to force the opposition to prove that making a trade-off to any extent whatsoever against shareholders won’t seriously damage capitalism.”

“Had the opposition been cleverer, it would have attacked the premise from the very beginning by asking: what is the proof that there is a trade-off at all? Had they done so, they would have found out that Friedman had not a shred of proof that a trade-off existed prior to 1970. And they would have found out that there still isn’t a single shred of empirical evidence that 100 percent focus on shareholder value to the exclusion of other societal factors actually produces measurably higher value for shareholders.”

Hello internet right wing! (Big Fat PDF ahead!)

How you doing out there? Like I care!

I've officially decided that you people suck hearty balls at internetting.

So, without further ado, please read THIS handy, dandy chart listing all of the things you're doing wrong before you ruin my day with your inane, linkless, partisan comments on image macros regarding life issues that no other country besides OURS seems to take interest in politicizing.

Pay special attention to the following sections:
The entire "On the Attack" section
Two Wrongs Make a Right
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Circular Logic
False Dilemma
Hasty Generalization
Appeal to Authority
The entire "Appeal to Emotions" section.

Have a pleasant day. But you won't, because you aren't wired that way.

http://pzxc.com/logical-fallacies-cheat-sheet

Slum Life In New York City During the Nineteenth Century's Gilded Age

This is "Laissez-Fail".

Here's what life would be like without social services, laws or regulations of any kind, with as small a government as you could imagine and corporate America's "you're worth what you're worth" wage acumen. Put the economy in the hands of the Peter Thiels, Peter Schiffs, Thomas Petterfys, the Kochs, Bernie Marcuses and Ken Langones of the world, and this is what you're going to get. This canyon-gapped two-tiered life is what they would love to send us back to.

Some "utopia" . . . .

http://io9.com/slum-life-in-new-york-city-during-the-nineteenth-centu-1584688488







Go to Page: 1