http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/john-galt-and-the-theory-of-the-firm/
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-07-11/at-sears-eddie-lamperts-warring-divisions-model-adds-to-the-troubles
QuoteEddie Lampert's big idea is that markets and competition rool, so he's forcing the different parts of Sears to compete for resources just as if they were independent firms, with individual division profitability the only criterion for success... The first issue that should pop into anyone's head here is, if the different divisions of Sears have no common interests, if the best model is competition red in tooth and claw, why should Sears exist at all?
...We may live in a market sea, but that sea is dotted with many islands that we call firms, some of them quite large, within which decisions are made not via markets but via hierarchy — even, you might say, via central planning. Clearly, there are some things you don't want to leave up to the market — the market itself is telling us that, by creating those islands of planning and hierarchy.
The thing is, however, that for a free-market true believer the recognition that some things are best not left up to markets should be a disturbing notion. If the limitations of markets in providing certain kinds of shared services are important enough to justify the creation of command-and-control entities with hundreds of thousands or even millions of workers, might there not even be some goods and services (*cough* health care *cough*) best provided by non-market means even at the level of the economy as a whole?
Sometimes, the Invisible Hand gives you the finger: Their stock has sunk 64%.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 17, 2013, 03:52:13 PM
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/john-galt-and-the-theory-of-the-firm/
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-07-11/at-sears-eddie-lamperts-warring-divisions-model-adds-to-the-troubles
QuoteEddie Lampert's big idea is that markets and competition rool, so he's forcing the different parts of Sears to compete for resources just as if they were independent firms, with individual division profitability the only criterion for success... The first issue that should pop into anyone's head here is, if the different divisions of Sears have no common interests, if the best model is competition red in tooth and claw, why should Sears exist at all?
...We may live in a market sea, but that sea is dotted with many islands that we call firms, some of them quite large, within which decisions are made not via markets but via hierarchy — even, you might say, via central planning. Clearly, there are some things you don't want to leave up to the market — the market itself is telling us that, by creating those islands of planning and hierarchy.
The thing is, however, that for a free-market true believer the recognition that some things are best not left up to markets should be a disturbing notion. If the limitations of markets in providing certain kinds of shared services are important enough to justify the creation of command-and-control entities with hundreds of thousands or even millions of workers, might there not even be some goods and services (*cough* health care *cough*) best provided by non-market means even at the level of the economy as a whole?
Sometimes, the Invisible Hand gives you the finger: Their stock has sunk 64%.
Wow, that has to be the dumbest business model I've ever heard of. "Divisions shall compete amongst themselves!"
AT&T did that in the 80s, which is why their PC dominates the market. :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 17, 2013, 03:57:53 PM
AT&T did that in the 80s, which is why their PC dominates the market. :lulz:
:lolchix:
This seems like it will end in a Lord of the Flies scenario.
I'd be psyched to see a senior executive crouched on his desk, snarling, with the head of a pig on a stake.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 17, 2013, 04:26:29 PM
I'd be psyched to see a senior executive crouched on his desk, snarling, with the head of a pig on a stake.
Our execs do that as a matter of routine. They are all painted like Maori and...Um, scratch that. I have no idea why I say these horrible things. They are a clean and sober lot, and sup only on the tears of orphan children.
Why would this be considered a good idea?
Didn't Enron pull some shit like this as well?
So... someone decided it was time for Sears to go away? This is what I'm hearing.
QuoteThe bloodiest battles took place in the marketing meetings, where different units sent their CMOs to fight for space in the weekly circular. These sessions would often degenerate into screaming matches. Marketing chiefs would argue to the point of exhaustion. The result, former executives say, was a "Frankenstein" circular with incoherent product combinations (think screwdrivers being advertised next to lingerie).
Eventually Lampert's advisory committee instituted a bidding system, forcing the units to pay for space in the circular. This eliminated some of the infighting but created a new problem: The wealthier business units, such as appliances, could purchase more space. Two former business unit heads recall how, for the 2011 Mother's Day circular, the sporting-goods unit purchased space on the cover for a product called a Doodle Bug minibike, popular with young boys.
Fucking wonderful. Guy from Freakonomics involved in this shitheap too. So that marks him as a bad businessman and a racist now. How does he get work again?
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 17, 2013, 07:08:08 PM
QuoteThe bloodiest battles took place in the marketing meetings, where different units sent their CMOs to fight for space in the weekly circular. These sessions would often degenerate into screaming matches. Marketing chiefs would argue to the point of exhaustion. The result, former executives say, was a "Frankenstein" circular with incoherent product combinations (think screwdrivers being advertised next to lingerie).
Eventually Lampert's advisory committee instituted a bidding system, forcing the units to pay for space in the circular. This eliminated some of the infighting but created a new problem: The wealthier business units, such as appliances, could purchase more space. Two former business unit heads recall how, for the 2011 Mother's Day circular, the sporting-goods unit purchased space on the cover for a product called a Doodle Bug minibike, popular with young boys.
Fucking wonderful. Guy from Freakonomics involved in this shitheap too. So that marks him as a bad businessman and a racist now. How does he get work again?
Eh, explain?
we need a social safety net for the men's shoe department
NO, THAT'S SHOE SOCIALISM
Levitt got taken on as a Consultant by Lampert, loved his ideas etc...
The freakonomics video had a section on abortion, race and crime and I recall a lot of shit flying around about how badly the data was interpreted. It basically came down to "There's less crime in X decade compared to Y because less black kids."
It was pretty much that blunt too. Will see what I can dig out, bear with me.
Ah, here we go:
http://exiledonline.com/s-h-a-m-e-profile-freakonomics-author-steven-levitt-is-an-anti-labor-pro-prison-milton-friedman-extremist/
QuoteSteven Levitt, University of Chicago economist, gained nationwide fame and prestige after co-authoring Freakonomics, a pop economics book based partly on Levitt's original economic research. Published in 2005, Freakonomics became an instant #1 bestseller and spawned an entire Freakonomics media franchise that included a branded Freakonomics blog (hosted on the New York Times website until 2011), a regular segment on the National Public Radio program Marketplace, a Freakonomics movie and, alas, a Freakonomics business consulting company (now called the Greatest Good).
In 2006, Time magazine solidified Levitt's "thought leader" status by naming him one of "100 People Who Shape Our World."* But despite Levitt's high profile, very little has been written about his academic and ideological background. Generally Levitt is assumed to be a harmless, quirky pop economist for trivia nerds. But is that really the case?
As Steven Levitt's S.H.A.M.E. Profile demonstrates, Levitt is a dyed-in-the-wool Chicago School neoliberal who believes in the sanctity of "the market" and a small government whose function is restricted mostly to protecting property rights. He has used "objective" economic research and mainstream credibility as cover, while attacking teachers' unions, advocating for the privatization of prison labor, spreading crude climate denialism and promoting rank "free market" ideology that sees human labor as a resource to be extracted for maximum profit. Levitt has also developed a nasty habit of misrepresenting the research of other scientists in order to reach predefined ideological conclusions, and has failed to disclose financial conflicts of interest.
I smelt bullshit on this guy years ago but only got confirmation fairly recently. I think I may have had Cain to thank for that, I can't quite recall.
But yeah, Everytime I see this guy's name mentioned in a positive light it sickens me a little.
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 17, 2013, 07:29:42 PM
Levitt got taken on as a Consultant by Lampert, loved his ideas etc...
The freakonomics video had a section on abortion, race and crime and I recall a lot of shit flying around about how badly the data was interpreted. It basically came down to "There's less crime in X decade compared to Y because less black kids."
It was pretty much that blunt too. Will see what I can dig out, bear with me.
It essentially made a correlation between abortion and crime rates. The theory being that if (black) women are forced to birth and raise children they either don't want or can't properly care for, the children are at a higher risk for turning to crime.
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 17, 2013, 07:29:42 PM
Levitt got taken on as a Consultant by Lampert, loved his ideas etc...
The freakonomics video had a section on abortion, race and crime and I recall a lot of shit flying around about how badly the data was interpreted. It basically came down to "There's less crime in X decade compared to Y because less black kids."
It was pretty much that blunt too. Will see what I can dig out, bear with me.
I read the book, that's not what it said. Saw the video too, it also didn't say that.
Levitt, among others, was hired as a consultant by Lampert... it seems a bit of a stretch to hold him responsible for Lampert's insane business model.
I mean, fuck:
QuoteIn 1999, Levitt presented a paper for privatizing prison labor at a symposium hosted by a private prison consulting firm, arguing: "I would privatize prison industry. As long as the government is in charge of prison industries, it will be difficult if not impossible to avoid decisions being made with political rather than economic justifications." Thirteen years later, Levitt's privatized-prison-labor dream is a reality: Some 1 million state inmates are slaving away for wages averaging between $0.93 and $4.73 a day. African-Americans make up over 40% of the U.S. prison population.
QuoteIn 1995, Levitt published a paper which "proved" that packing prisoners into increasingly-overcrowded prison cells translates into a net $15,000 positive effect on society per overcrowded cell inmate.
http://exiledonline.com/s-h-a-m-e-profile-freakonomics-author-steven-levitt-is-an-anti-labor-pro-prison-milton-friedman-extremist/
There's tons of this shit. He's a player in the prison pipeline and the media fellates him for his free market "wisdom"
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 17, 2013, 07:34:25 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 17, 2013, 07:29:42 PM
Levitt got taken on as a Consultant by Lampert, loved his ideas etc...
The freakonomics video had a section on abortion, race and crime and I recall a lot of shit flying around about how badly the data was interpreted. It basically came down to "There's less crime in X decade compared to Y because less black kids."
It was pretty much that blunt too. Will see what I can dig out, bear with me.
I read the book, that's not what it said. Saw the video too, it also didn't say that.
Levitt, among others, was hired as a consultant by Lampert... it seems a bit of a stretch to hold him responsible for Lampert's insane business model.
I'm not holding him responsible, I'm just pointing out that he won't have helped matters in any regard.
Quote"I almost always believe in free markets as the solution to problems"
—Freakonomics Blog; January 23, 2012
Quote"Any religion . . . has its heretics, and global warming is no exception."
—From a section in SuperFreakonomics "that debunked" global warming science
It's been a while since I've seen the video, what did it say on race/abortion? I can't recall right now, been years since I last saw it.
ETA -
Quote"Fertility declines [due to legalized abortion] for black women are three times greater than for whites (12 percent compared with 4 percent). Given that homicide rates of black youths are roughly nine times higher than those of white youths, racial differences in the fertility effects of abortion are likely to translate into greater homicide reductions. Under the assumption that those black and white births eliminated by legalized abortion would have experienced the average criminal propensities of their respective races, then the predicted reduction in homicide is 8.9 percent."
—From a 2001 paper arguing that an increase in abortions among black women in the 1970s was the reason for lower crime rates in the 1990s
Damn, so much for the Craftsman tool warranty...
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 17, 2013, 07:32:40 PM
Ah, here we go:
http://exiledonline.com/s-h-a-m-e-profile-freakonomics-author-steven-levitt-is-an-anti-labor-pro-prison-milton-friedman-extremist/
QuoteSteven Levitt, University of Chicago economist, gained nationwide fame and prestige after co-authoring Freakonomics, a pop economics book based partly on Levitt's original economic research. Published in 2005, Freakonomics became an instant #1 bestseller and spawned an entire Freakonomics media franchise that included a branded Freakonomics blog (hosted on the New York Times website until 2011), a regular segment on the National Public Radio program Marketplace, a Freakonomics movie and, alas, a Freakonomics business consulting company (now called the Greatest Good).
In 2006, Time magazine solidified Levitt's "thought leader" status by naming him one of "100 People Who Shape Our World."* But despite Levitt's high profile, very little has been written about his academic and ideological background. Generally Levitt is assumed to be a harmless, quirky pop economist for trivia nerds. But is that really the case?
As Steven Levitt's S.H.A.M.E. Profile demonstrates, Levitt is a dyed-in-the-wool Chicago School neoliberal who believes in the sanctity of "the market" and a small government whose function is restricted mostly to protecting property rights. He has used "objective" economic research and mainstream credibility as cover, while attacking teachers' unions, advocating for the privatization of prison labor, spreading crude climate denialism and promoting rank "free market" ideology that sees human labor as a resource to be extracted for maximum profit. Levitt has also developed a nasty habit of misrepresenting the research of other scientists in order to reach predefined ideological conclusions, and has failed to disclose financial conflicts of interest.
I smelt bullshit on this guy years ago but only got confirmation fairly recently. I think I may have had Cain to thank for that, I can't quite recall.
But yeah, Everytime I see this guy's name mentioned in a positive light it sickens me a little.
That is a very interesting spin on the book... I can't say I agree with it, but it's an interesting spin. I'm not defending Levitt because I don't know any more about him than what I learned from reading Freakonomics, but something about Levine's allegations raises a red flag for me about the nature of his intentions. It just feels a little personal-feudy to me.
I watched the freakonomics documentary on Netflix a while back. I recall him linking increased abortion rates to decreased arrest rates 20 years down the line. I don't recall him saying that arrests decreased because less black kids had been born -- his explanation was along the line that unwanted children tend to have troubled home lives and get into crime. If that was code for black kids, it went over my head.
I can see how that has troubling implications. I wouldn't necessarily chalk it up to racism. But disclaimer - I haven't read the book and I am fuzzy on the documentary.
He's an economist, so his opinions come through a financial filter. I wouldn't trust that economical models are also moral, so it doesn't surprise me that his conclusions are somewhat ethically skeevy. He's right that packing prisoners into cells saves money. That doesn't make it the correct thing to do by any means. But I don't think that necessarily makes him racist either.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 17, 2013, 07:44:10 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 17, 2013, 07:32:40 PM
Ah, here we go:
http://exiledonline.com/s-h-a-m-e-profile-freakonomics-author-steven-levitt-is-an-anti-labor-pro-prison-milton-friedman-extremist/
QuoteSteven Levitt, University of Chicago economist, gained nationwide fame and prestige after co-authoring Freakonomics, a pop economics book based partly on Levitt's original economic research. Published in 2005, Freakonomics became an instant #1 bestseller and spawned an entire Freakonomics media franchise that included a branded Freakonomics blog (hosted on the New York Times website until 2011), a regular segment on the National Public Radio program Marketplace, a Freakonomics movie and, alas, a Freakonomics business consulting company (now called the Greatest Good).
In 2006, Time magazine solidified Levitt's "thought leader" status by naming him one of "100 People Who Shape Our World."* But despite Levitt's high profile, very little has been written about his academic and ideological background. Generally Levitt is assumed to be a harmless, quirky pop economist for trivia nerds. But is that really the case?
As Steven Levitt's S.H.A.M.E. Profile demonstrates, Levitt is a dyed-in-the-wool Chicago School neoliberal who believes in the sanctity of "the market" and a small government whose function is restricted mostly to protecting property rights. He has used "objective" economic research and mainstream credibility as cover, while attacking teachers' unions, advocating for the privatization of prison labor, spreading crude climate denialism and promoting rank "free market" ideology that sees human labor as a resource to be extracted for maximum profit. Levitt has also developed a nasty habit of misrepresenting the research of other scientists in order to reach predefined ideological conclusions, and has failed to disclose financial conflicts of interest.
I smelt bullshit on this guy years ago but only got confirmation fairly recently. I think I may have had Cain to thank for that, I can't quite recall.
But yeah, Everytime I see this guy's name mentioned in a positive light it sickens me a little.
That is a very interesting spin on the book... I can't say I agree with it, but it's an interesting spin. I'm not defending Levitt because I don't know any more about him than what I learned from reading Freakonomics, but something about Levine's allegations raises a red flag for me about the nature of his intentions. It just feels a little personal-feudy to me.
That's how the eXile crew likes to roll. AFAIK, the eXile and Levitt have no personal feuds going on...Yasha was a journalist in Russia when Levitt first wrote Freakonomics.
It's probably worth reading this (http://exiledonline.com/freakonomics-author-steven-levitt-enemy-of-chicago-school-teachers/) to get an idea of the ideological background of Levitt:
QuoteSpecifically, Levitt has worked with Chicago's notorious union-buster Arne Duncan, who was the CEO of Chicago public schools until Obama tapped Duncan to be the U.S. Education Secretary in 2008. Duncan has been credited with doing more than anyone else to help bring the neoliberal nightmare to Chicago's impoverished and mostly nonwhite public schools, funneling public funds to dysfunctional private voucher schools, terrorizing unionized teachers, closing schools and turning public education into feeder tube for the prison-industrial complex. And Levitt, a tenured professor at the University of Chicago, was right there along with Duncan.
Levitt, together with other University of Chicago economists, was given access to the city's public school system and turned it into a neoliberal R&D lab for high-tech union-busting.
And, of course, it is always worth remembering the institutional links between the Chicago School of Economics, American libertarianism and kooky experiments in economics performed in Third World dictatorships like Chile.
QuoteAnd, of course, it is always worth remembering the institutional links between the Chicago School of Economics, American libertarianism and kooky experiments in economics performed in Third World dictatorships like Chile.
I'd forgotten about those bouts of Milton madness. I expect some of the shinier new theories will be being tested in various middle eastern countries over the next couple of decades too.
The statistics make sense, and have held up to scrutiny, if to a lesser proportion than originally projected. Impoverished and disadvantaged people are more likely to become involved in street crime. The fact that a greater proportion of the black population is impoverished and disadvantaged is not news. That this, in pure statistical terms, translates to a higher proportion of black people, particularly young black men, engaging in crime, is not palatable, but it is, nonetheless, true. This also means that if all impoverished and disadvantaged women have access to abortion, a higher proportion of black women, compared to the total black female population, will have abortions, than white women as a proportion of the white female population. However, because in total there are still many times more impoverished and disadvantaged white women than black women, the majority of the reduction in crime could be attributed to white babies who did not get born to grow up into criminals.
It's easy to misunderstand statistics, and easier still to twist a statistical conclusion to fit an agenda.
None of this, of course, addresses the root problem, poverty, but that isn't the job of statistics. Statistics measure what is, not what could or should be. They are measurements of observations.
Freakonomics, the book, also addressed the fact that there is a tremendous amount of crime, in fact the majority, that is not affected by mothers aborting unwanted children, but that people fear street crime and tend not to perceive white-collar crime as a problem.
Levitt may indeed be a free-market neoliberal freak, but I don't think the racism charge is appropriate or accurate, and I suspect that Levine has some kind of personal vendetta against Leavitt, because his vitriol is remarkably overarching and widespread given a target who is, in the grand scheme of foul business shit that's going on, inconsequential.
I'm reading through some of these S.H.A.M.E. profiles and they seem very nitpicky.
stuff like -- In the 1970s, Arianna Huffington was "involved" with somebody who idolized hitler and owned many rolls royces. He was arrested!
Or this hit piece on Malcom Gladwell being a shill for Phillip Morris. The shame project published an e-mail exchange with Gladwell where it looked like he explained himself pretty well, but they are sticking to their guns. The writer doesn't speak to his conclusions, just to which team enjoyed gladwell's papers most.
Some of these bullet points are very on-target and sketchy, but I think they are going out of their way to cherry pick. Huh, this is put together by nsfw corp? hmmmm weird, need to read more
Alright, I may have been a little strong on the racism charge.
However, the consistent advocacy for shittier conditions for a populace that is largely of one race surely is worth a look.
It's not like he can claim ignorance of the statistics, so I'd suggest, on at least some subconcious level that he his not completly clean on this front. I've got more pushing me towards racist than not I guess.
If he advocates private prisons, then I don't care if he's a racist.
Because he really can't sink any lower.
Quote from: Cramulus on July 17, 2013, 08:02:42 PM
I'm reading through some of these S.H.A.M.E. profiles and they seem very nitpicky.
stuff like -- In the 1970s, Arianna Huffington was "involved" with somebody who idolized hitler and owned many rolls royces. He was arrested!
Or this hit piece on Malcom Gladwell being a shill for Phillip Morris. The shame project published an e-mail exchange with Gladwell where it looked like he explained himself pretty well, but they are sticking to their guns. The writer doesn't speak to his conclusions, just to which team enjoyed gladwell's papers most.
Some of these bullet points are very on-target and sketchy, but I think they are going out of their way to cherry pick. Huh, this is put together by nsfw corp? hmmmm weird, need to read more
I'd encourage a good look. I've found the reporting to be pretty solid. I remember it was Cain who put me on to these so he's probably the best chap to say anything about this.
The eXiled "style" can take some getting used to. You gotta remember - these are the people who put detailed expositions of Russian political corruption next to pieces where they phoned the Russian prime minister posing as "Mr Hamamoto" of the Japanese Embassy, talking about Godzilla and asking where to get the best sushi in Moscow.
The way of writing is meant to be in opposition to the sterilised language of "serious" reporting by "serious" newspapers, which typically have a bad track record at actual, you know, reporting and stuff. So, the insults, the sometimes strange focus on possibly irrelevant minor details which serve little except to add colour to a piece are all part of that.
Quote from: Cramulus on July 17, 2013, 08:02:42 PM
I'm reading through some of these S.H.A.M.E. profiles and they seem very nitpicky.
stuff like -- In the 1970s, Arianna Huffington was "involved" with somebody who idolized hitler and owned many rolls royces. He was arrested!
That's a bit disingenous, Cram. She was a member of the cult at the time Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh was arrested on bioterrorism charges.
His teachings were that "Jews "are guilty people, and their guilt is very great" because they crucified Jesus, and out of their guilt, are "always in search of their Adolf Hitlers, someone who can kill them." He further claimed that only when Jews "reclaim Jesus," "they will be healthy and whole, and then there will be no need for Adolf Hitlers."
I mean, being part of a cult with teachings like that speaks to, at the very least, some seriously bad judgement.
fair enough! I admit to only skimming though a bunch of these pages. Still -- that was almost 40 years ago, no? I don't think that's terribly incriminating unless she actively believes that kind of stuff. It's kind of like branding Obama as "palling around with terrorists" due to his link to Bill Ayers.
I get the impression that if there were to be a S.H.A.M.E. article about shaming the S.H.A.M.E. project, it would gloss over the actual content and focus on how hysterical conservative nutjobs love article bashing liberals like Levitt and Huffington. So -- SHAME is associated with conservatives and nutjobs :p
Yes, it was 40 years ago. However, Huffington has kept up associations with various dangerous cults and New Age Movements right up until the present - for example, in the case of James Arthur Ray, and her ongoing associations with the John Roger "Insight" cult. In other words, it's a pattern of behaviour with her, that she associates with people who are dangerous cranks and charlatans.
I also don't recall her ever, you know, saying something to the effect of "I was wrong to follow a man who blames the Jews for the Holocaust". Do you know for sure she doesn't think badly of Jews even now?
"Liberals like Levitt and Huffington"? Have you been smoking crack? Serious question here. And if you think detailing her many business and personal associations with right-wing outfits and cults and her manipulation of the HuffPo as a PR outlet masquerading as a progressive news site is not "actual content"...then to be honest, I don't know where to start.
I'm not trying to defend Huffington or Levitt, I don't know anything about them personally (before today). Levitt is described as a neoliberal *by shame*, which I misread as liberal.
I just find Yasha Levine's reporting style odd and in places unconvincing.