http://qz.com/107970/scientists-discover-whats-killing-the-bees-and-its-worse-than-you-thought/
Dead bees make me sad.
I love their sweet sticky sticky delicious spit.
Oh, surprise, it's multiple interacting factors with unforeseen consequences combining to make the bees more susceptible to a common infection!
Quote from: Sir Squid Diddimus on July 25, 2013, 03:17:46 AM
Dead bees make me sad.
I love their sweet sticky sticky delicious spit.
There's also the whole part where if the bees die we won't get to eat anymore.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 25, 2013, 03:28:43 AM
Quote from: Sir Squid Diddimus on July 25, 2013, 03:17:46 AM
Dead bees make me sad.
I love their sweet sticky sticky delicious spit.
There's also the whole part where if the bees die we won't get to eat anymore.
I don't eat many bees as it is, so I doubt I'll be especially affected.
Quote from: Pæs on July 25, 2013, 03:33:55 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 25, 2013, 03:28:43 AM
Quote from: Sir Squid Diddimus on July 25, 2013, 03:17:46 AM
Dead bees make me sad.
I love their sweet sticky sticky delicious spit.
There's also the whole part where if the bees die we won't get to eat anymore.
I don't eat many bees as it is, so I doubt I'll be especially affected.
:argh!: GIT OFF MAH LAWN!
Quote from: Pæs on July 25, 2013, 03:33:55 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 25, 2013, 03:28:43 AM
Quote from: Sir Squid Diddimus on July 25, 2013, 03:17:46 AM
Dead bees make me sad.
I love their sweet sticky sticky delicious spit.
There's also the whole part where if the bees die we won't get to eat anymore.
I don't eat many bees as it is, so I doubt I'll be especially affected.
:lulz:
Despite you being human, I think I'll let you live.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 25, 2013, 03:28:06 AM
Oh, surprise, it's multiple interacting factors with unforeseen consequences combining to make the bees more susceptible to a common infection!
NO IT'S OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE THE BEES ARE BEING FORCED TO GAY MARRY
Quote from: Cainad on July 25, 2013, 04:36:40 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 25, 2013, 03:28:06 AM
Oh, surprise, it's multiple interacting factors with unforeseen consequences combining to make the bees more susceptible to a common infection!
NO IT'S OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE THE BEES ARE BEING FORCED TO GAY MARRY
:lulz:
I absolutely love how they have to frame the threat in terms of dollar value, obviously to impress upon the readership how important this is. Like "every man woman and child on planet earth will starve to death" isn't considered important enough, they have to back it up with $4billion loss to industry :horrormirth:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 25, 2013, 10:47:49 AM
I absolutely love how they have to frame the threat in terms of dollar value, obviously to impress upon the readership how important this is. Like "every man woman and child on planet earth will starve to death" isn't considered important enough, they have to back it up with $4billion loss to industry :horrormirth:
This amused me as well.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 25, 2013, 10:47:49 AM
I absolutely love how they have to frame the threat in terms of dollar value, obviously to impress upon the readership how important this is. Like "every man woman and child on planet earth will starve to death" isn't considered important enough, they have to back it up with $4billion loss to industry :horrormirth:
That's because more people understand money than how bees allow plants to propagate.
I'm picturing a CEO and some intern is waving a stack of reports and saying "If we don't fix this we're all going to die!" and the exec is all like "Yes, fine but how will it affect our bottom line? Unless there's at least a two point drop I'm never going to be able to sell this to the board"
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 25, 2013, 03:27:08 PM
I'm picturing a CEO and some intern is waving a stack of reports and saying "If we don't fix this we're all going to die!" and the exec is all like "Yes, fine but how will it affect our bottom line? Unless there's at least a two point drop I'm never going to be able to sell this to the board"
Speaking as one who has dealt with the board of a gigantic corporation, this is a true story.
This makes me fucking sad as hell. There's some hives up the street at the urban farming store, and they went from TEEMING with bees to me not even seeing any in a few weeks.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 25, 2013, 03:28:43 AM
Quote from: Sir Squid Diddimus on July 25, 2013, 03:17:46 AM
Dead bees make me sad.
I love their sweet sticky sticky delicious spit.
There's also the whole part where if the bees die we won't get to eat anymore.
Yeah, I just didn't want to mention that part.
I'm just gonna blame corn. Yeah. Fuck you, corn. This is
all your fault...
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 25, 2013, 03:58:05 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 25, 2013, 03:27:08 PM
I'm picturing a CEO and some intern is waving a stack of reports and saying "If we don't fix this we're all going to die!" and the exec is all like "Yes, fine but how will it affect our bottom line? Unless there's at least a two point drop I'm never going to be able to sell this to the board"
Speaking as one who has dealt with the board of a gigantic corporation, this is a true story.
I don't doubt it for a second. The notion of corporations being an entity unlike humans is only half the picture. The people involved in corporations become unlike humans as they are subsumed. I'm sure a lot of the planet destroying CEO's started life as perfectly nice human beings. The company corrupts them, much like the 3rd reich took a bunch of innocent kids and turned
them into monsters. Human minds are generally pretty piss-weak and malleable. Corporate culture is not a good influence.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 25, 2013, 05:04:30 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 25, 2013, 03:58:05 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 25, 2013, 03:27:08 PM
I'm picturing a CEO and some intern is waving a stack of reports and saying "If we don't fix this we're all going to die!" and the exec is all like "Yes, fine but how will it affect our bottom line? Unless there's at least a two point drop I'm never going to be able to sell this to the board"
Speaking as one who has dealt with the board of a gigantic corporation, this is a true story.
I don't doubt it for a second. The notion of corporations being an entity unlike humans is only half the picture. The people involved in corporations become unlike humans as they are subsumed. I'm sure a lot of the planet destroying CEO's started life as perfectly nice human beings. The company corrupts them, much like the 3rd reich took a bunch of innocent kids and turned them into monsters. Human minds are generally pretty piss-weak and malleable. Corporate culture is not a good influence.
No, it's not that. It's that the machine takes on a life of its own.
Everyone's in the club car, nobody's driving the train. :lulz:
AND YA DON'T STOP!
\
:hammer:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 25, 2013, 05:51:54 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 25, 2013, 05:04:30 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 25, 2013, 03:58:05 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 25, 2013, 03:27:08 PM
I'm picturing a CEO and some intern is waving a stack of reports and saying "If we don't fix this we're all going to die!" and the exec is all like "Yes, fine but how will it affect our bottom line? Unless there's at least a two point drop I'm never going to be able to sell this to the board"
Speaking as one who has dealt with the board of a gigantic corporation, this is a true story.
I don't doubt it for a second. The notion of corporations being an entity unlike humans is only half the picture. The people involved in corporations become unlike humans as they are subsumed. I'm sure a lot of the planet destroying CEO's started life as perfectly nice human beings. The company corrupts them, much like the 3rd reich took a bunch of innocent kids and turned them into monsters. Human minds are generally pretty piss-weak and malleable. Corporate culture is not a good influence.
No, it's not that. It's that the machine takes on a life of its own.
Everyone's in the club car, nobody's driving the train. :lulz:
AND YA DON'T STOP!
\
:hammer:
YEP
Short time horizons are drilled into everyone, and everything is defined by money. People turn off completely, sold into the Cult of Financial Growth.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 25, 2013, 05:56:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 25, 2013, 05:51:54 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 25, 2013, 05:04:30 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 25, 2013, 03:58:05 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 25, 2013, 03:27:08 PM
I'm picturing a CEO and some intern is waving a stack of reports and saying "If we don't fix this we're all going to die!" and the exec is all like "Yes, fine but how will it affect our bottom line? Unless there's at least a two point drop I'm never going to be able to sell this to the board"
Speaking as one who has dealt with the board of a gigantic corporation, this is a true story.
I don't doubt it for a second. The notion of corporations being an entity unlike humans is only half the picture. The people involved in corporations become unlike humans as they are subsumed. I'm sure a lot of the planet destroying CEO's started life as perfectly nice human beings. The company corrupts them, much like the 3rd reich took a bunch of innocent kids and turned them into monsters. Human minds are generally pretty piss-weak and malleable. Corporate culture is not a good influence.
No, it's not that. It's that the machine takes on a life of its own.
Everyone's in the club car, nobody's driving the train. :lulz:
AND YA DON'T STOP!
\
:hammer:
YEP
Short time horizons are drilled into everyone, and everything is defined by money. People turn off completely, sold into the Cult of Financial Growth.
It's not even that, at least in my experience. It's classic disinformation theory. Nobody knows what the hell is going on, because everyone's afraid to tell their immediate supervisor the unvarnished truth. This goes through dozens of itterations, until the decision makers hear a story that has NOTHING to do with the actual situation.
Then they make a decision based on what they've been told. This creates confusion in the ranks, and WORSE information travels upward.
Rinse, repeat, kaboom.
Interesting crossover with psychopath-thread. I remember hearing a while back some (possibly sensationalist) statistic about such and such a percentage of top ceo's being psychopaths. Wonder if they started off as a psycho in the mailroom or was it part of their orientation/career ladder?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 25, 2013, 06:31:43 PM
Interesting crossover with psychopath-thread. I remember hearing a while back some (possibly sensationalist) statistic about such and such a percentage of top ceo's being psychopaths. Wonder if they started off as a psycho in the mailroom or was it part of their orientation/career ladder?
Um.
Never mind.
http://www.today.com/money/sometimes-boss-really-psycho-6C10732488
The boss IS a psycho apparently about 20% of the time. Clearly, though, the problem is greater than 20% of the CEOs.
But rather than identify the problem, let's just call them ALL psychopaths and stop thinking about it. Much easier that way.
Not my point. Is corporate culture responsible for turning Richie Cunningham and turning him into Hannibal Lecter? ie. we're blaming the CEO's but maybe they're just a symptom.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 25, 2013, 06:53:27 PM
Not my point. Is corporate culture responsible for turning Richie Cunningham and turning him into Hannibal Lecter? ie. we're blaming the CEO's but maybe they're just a symptom.
But that doesn't happen, most of the time. That's not the problem.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 25, 2013, 06:53:27 PM
Not my point. Is corporate culture responsible for turning Richie Cunningham and turning him into Hannibal Lecter? ie. we're blaming the CEO's but maybe they're just a symptom.
That was my point as well. If cultural norms tend toward sociopathy then even non sociopathic people are going to act more sociopathic.
Although I think there might also be a transfer of empathy, instead of empathizing with other humans CEO's are empathizing with the corporation.
I'm done. Carry on.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 25, 2013, 06:58:09 PM
I'm done. Carry on.
Clearly you have something to say about it, probably something important, but you seem fed up with our apparent blindness and/or preconceptions.
Figuring out what is wrong is the first step to actually doing something about the problem and the possible solutions I see so far are
(a) CEO's tend to be psychopaths, so we should string them up
(b) Corporate culture tends to create psychopaths, so the culture needs to be changed
or (c) both of those ideas are wrong and we need to figure out what is wrong with corporations and bosses and what can be done about it.
It seemed like you were suggesting something along the lines of the burden of omniscience before, and the only suggested solution I have seen to that is Anarchy, which doesn't seem like a very workable solution.
I said anarchy? Where the fuck did I say anarchy? There is actually a very real and viable method of dealing with disinformation theory, though it takes a long time to get results.
But that's too much like saying that they aren't The Other, and therefore the REAL problem in this conversation is my lack of commitment to Sparkle Motion.
Here:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,35058.0.html
Take this as my repentance for failing to properly knee-jerk my way to a Better Tomorrow™.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 25, 2013, 07:06:36 PM
I said anarchy? Where the fuck did I say anarchy? There is actually a very real and viable method of dealing with disinformation theory, though it takes a long time to get results.
But that's too much like saying that they aren't The Other, and therefore the REAL problem in this conversation is my lack of commitment to Sparkle Motion.
Here:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,35058.0.html
Take this as my repentance for failing to properly knee-jerk my way to a Better Tomorrow™.
I didn't say that you suggested Anarchy, I only said that you seem to be suggesting the problem is the burden of Omniscience, we don't tell our superiors the truth, we tell them what we think they want to hear, so they get false signal and it gets worse as it goes up the chain. The only other time I have seen that addressed was by Robert Anton Wilson and his suggested solution was eliminating authority.
Quote from: Pergamos on July 25, 2013, 07:11:23 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 25, 2013, 07:06:36 PM
I said anarchy? Where the fuck did I say anarchy? There is actually a very real and viable method of dealing with disinformation theory, though it takes a long time to get results.
But that's too much like saying that they aren't The Other, and therefore the REAL problem in this conversation is my lack of commitment to Sparkle Motion.
Here:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,35058.0.html
Take this as my repentance for failing to properly knee-jerk my way to a Better Tomorrow™.
I didn't say that you suggested Anarchy, I only said that you seem to be suggesting the problem is the burden of Omniscience, we don't tell our superiors the truth, we tell them what we think they want to hear, so they get false signal and it gets worse as it goes up the chain. The only other time I have seen that addressed was by Robert Anton Wilson and his suggested solution was eliminating authority.
Well, then, if RAW made a suggestion 40 years ago and it didn't work, the problem is obviously unfixable.
It is if others pointing out the same problem don't also make suggestions...
Well, I was going to
1, but I have been shown the error of my ways.
Let's just go back to calling them psychopaths, so we can get back to that squishy good feeling we get when WE are RIGHT and THEY are WRONG.
Because that's what it's all about, right? We might even impress the ladies.
1QuoteThere is actually a very real and viable method of dealing with disinformation theory, though it takes a long time to get results.
First off, I'm not really sure what I've said that's pissed you off but I'm pretty sure it's down to my failure to effectively get my point across.
It seems like you're accusing me of oversimplifying the situation which is kind of the opposite of where I'm coming from given that I view "the problem" as incomprehensibly complex. It's not the guy in charge that's at fault if, as I suspect, his actions are merely a symptom, neither is the blame down the tree, since everyone there seems to be doing what they need to do to survive. Somehow the whole "corporate culture" I refer to, is some kind of enormous egregore or meta property of a million people all doing something a little bit wrong.
I don't see a straightforward solution. I don't mind admitting I'm at a loss how to tackle it. Meanwhile my fucking planet is being chewed up and spat out in poisonous shit-format. You say you reckon there's something that can be done. I'm genuinely interested in hearing what you have to say and just as genuinely sorry I gave you some other impression.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 25, 2013, 07:42:43 PM
First off, I'm not really sure what I've said that's pissed you off but I'm pretty sure it's down to my failure to effectively get my point across.
It seems like you're accusing me of oversimplifying the situation which is kind of the opposite of where I'm coming from given that I view "the problem" as incomprehensibly complex. It's not the guy in charge that's at fault if, as I suspect, his actions are merely a symptom, neither is the blame down the tree, since everyone there seems to be doing what they need to do to survive. Somehow the whole "corporate culture" I refer to, is some kind of enormous egregore or meta property of a million people all doing something a little bit wrong.
I don't see a straightforward solution. I don't mind admitting I'm at a loss how to tackle it. Meanwhile my fucking planet is being chewed up and spat out in poisonous shit-format. You say you reckon there's something that can be done. I'm genuinely interested in hearing what you have to say and just as genuinely sorry I gave you some other impression.
No, I apologize. I am currently dealing with the exact problem I am trying to discuss, which has me pretty much homicidal.
When I can form a coherent sentence, I will continue.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 25, 2013, 06:31:43 PM
Interesting crossover with psychopath-thread. I remember hearing a while back some (possibly sensationalist) statistic about such and such a percentage of top ceo's being psychopaths. Wonder if they started off as a psycho in the mailroom or was it part of their orientation/career ladder?
Some career paths definitely appeal to sociopathic people more than others.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 25, 2013, 06:56:27 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 25, 2013, 06:53:27 PM
Not my point. Is corporate culture responsible for turning Richie Cunningham and turning him into Hannibal Lecter? ie. we're blaming the CEO's but maybe they're just a symptom.
But that doesn't happen, most of the time. That's not the problem.
What is the problem?
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 25, 2013, 09:01:05 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 25, 2013, 06:56:27 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 25, 2013, 06:53:27 PM
Not my point. Is corporate culture responsible for turning Richie Cunningham and turning him into Hannibal Lecter? ie. we're blaming the CEO's but maybe they're just a symptom.
But that doesn't happen, most of the time. That's not the problem.
What is the problem?
I am fairly sure he was talking about the burden of omniscience, where we only tell those in positions of power what we think they want to hear, so the CEO's are operating on completely inaccurate information.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 25, 2013, 09:01:05 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 25, 2013, 06:56:27 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 25, 2013, 06:53:27 PM
Not my point. Is corporate culture responsible for turning Richie Cunningham and turning him into Hannibal Lecter? ie. we're blaming the CEO's but maybe they're just a symptom.
But that doesn't happen, most of the time. That's not the problem.
What is the problem?
As far as I can tell from first hand observation, the problem is a combination of inertia and disinformation. As noted above, the decision makers are not given good information, both out of fear and also out of agenda-driven underlings. Bad decisions are therefore made.
Repeat this process many, many times, and recognize that each bad decision gets a ball rolling. The balls keep rolling even after attention is shifted to new decisions. The decision makers may or may not know that any given "ball" is still rolling. Later decisions not only have their own ill-effects, but combine with the earlier "balls".
People can see and recognize this. As a result, CEOs are not chosen for their abilities, but for their charisma and their disposability. The board, on the other hand, is composed of survivors who are too busy trying to maintain their position by setting the CEO up for failure to actually try to avert catastrophe.
Now add into this venture capital and banks. THIS is where you find the psychopaths.
Imagine that there is a huge banquet. This is a corporation. A number of people sit down to eat at this banquet. The suckers think the winner is the last man sitting at the table. The bankers and the venture capitalists understand the truth;
The winner is the guy who eats first.
This attitude, of course, is what leads to short range thinking (helped along by the disposability of the CEO, who has to turn a growth every quarter or be removed), and leads to taking "cost-saving" shortcuts such as seen on the BP oil platform that, you know, devoured the Southeast coast. The capital investors from the project were long gone. The CEO, a certifiable moron by the name of Tony Hayward, was left holding the bag. To give you an idea of why he was chosen as CEO, his response to the disaster was to sail around it in his yacht, complaining about the inconveniences he was suffering in his personal life as a response to the disaster.
This happens in EVERY industry, with the industries with the highest gross margin being the ones most effected. You see the CEO, you blame the CEO, but the actual villain - if there is one - is long gone by the time you look, with all the serious boodle in hand.
This is ESPECIALLY true of most banks, who themselves are looting other industries. Paul Cassano is the best example I can think of. He was the CEO of AIG Financial Products, and he presided over the complete and utter rape of AIG by Goldman-Sachs, resulting in the 2008 meltdown.
So, the CEO may in fact be a bad guy. He may in fact be a psychopath. But he isn't THE bad guy. You never heard of the bad guy before. Until the bad guy gets put in charge of "the recovery".
And, often, there are either a myriad of bad guy, or none at all (sometimes sheer stupidity can look just like evil...And disinformation can look like conspiracy).
The problem is that it is the system itself which is to blame. We are so fond of having discrete problems with discrete solutions, but that's not how the real world works. This is not a cartoon. There is no one tidy villain, and an easy answer of putting a stop to his plans. There's no one to punish.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 26, 2013, 01:28:16 AM
The problem is that it is the system itself which is to blame. We are so fond of having discrete problems with discrete solutions, but that's not how the real world works. This is not a cartoon. There is no one tidy villain, and an easy answer of putting a stop to his plans. There's no one to punish.
That's basically it. The disconnect is the banquet thing. The people who make the most profit are in no way connected to the results.
We have, by agreeing that this system is the best and in fact the only one, made ourselves all the villains, as well as the victims. We have agreed to a system that rewards the first one to eat. We have agreed on a pyramid scheme of an economic paradigm in which it makes perfect sense to kill the bees.
I think it's time to shift our thinking away from our punishment-fetishist "who is to blame" thinking, towards the solution-oriented question, "what is to blame".
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 26, 2013, 01:30:20 AM
We have, by agreeing that this system is the best and in fact the only one, made ourselves all the villains, as well as the victims. We have agreed to a system that rewards the first one to eat. We have agreed on a pyramid scheme of an economic paradigm in which it makes perfect sense to kill the bees.
Yes, that's possible. Being exhausted helps with that, too. So does being scared, distracted, and poor.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 26, 2013, 01:32:12 AM
I think it's time to shift our thinking away from our punishment-fetishist "who is to blame" thinking, towards the solution-oriented question, "what is to blame".
DING DING DING.
What I was trying to say.
I still want to see venture capitalists and Lloyd Blankenfien breaking rocks, though.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 26, 2013, 01:32:12 AM
I think it's time to shift our thinking away from our punishment-fetishist "who is to blame" thinking, towards the solution-oriented question, "what is to blame".
This needs to be tattooed on people.
At least, a large stencil and a can of spray paint is needed on a dark night.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 26, 2013, 01:32:12 AM
I think it's time to shift our thinking away from our punishment-fetishist "who is to blame" thinking, towards the solution-oriented question, "what is to blame".
Raaaawwwwrrr! But Hulk not able to SMASH abstract concept!
Hulk smash CEOs! Hulk smash politicians! If bees not make food then, Hulk smash more!
Hulk not want solution oriented questions!
/
(http://i39.tinypic.com/2mxhfgx.jpg)
As seems to happen to me fairly often the fact that Dr Howl is infuriating blinded me to the fact that he is wise. This revelation about the first to sit at the table (who are also among the first to rise) is almost certainly going to alter my views as the great tragedy of our national (and international) looting by the wealthy continues. I don't think I have processed it properly yet because part of me is still infuriated and busily screeching for answers.
Quote from: McGrupp on July 26, 2013, 01:25:55 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 26, 2013, 01:32:12 AM
I think it's time to shift our thinking away from our punishment-fetishist "who is to blame" thinking, towards the solution-oriented question, "what is to blame".
Raaaawwwwrrr! But Hulk not able to SMASH abstract concept!
Hulk smash CEOs! Hulk smash politicians! If bees not make food then, Hulk smash more!
Hulk not want solution oriented questions!
/
(http://i39.tinypic.com/2mxhfgx.jpg)
:lulz:
Quote from: Pergamos on July 26, 2013, 08:15:20 PM
As seems to happen to me fairly often the fact that Dr Howl is infuriating blinded me to the fact that he is wise.
...The people who piss you off the most often have a lesson for you.
When the student's ready, the teacher appears...
...Mainly because there's teachers all over the place.
Often in the form of insufferable assholes.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 25, 2013, 09:28:04 PM
As far as I can tell from first hand observation, the problem is a combination of inertia and disinformation. As noted above, the decision makers are not given good information, both out of fear and also out of agenda-driven underlings. Bad decisions are therefore made.
Repeat this process many, many times, and recognize that each bad decision gets a ball rolling. The balls keep rolling even after attention is shifted to new decisions. The decision makers may or may not know that any given "ball" is still rolling. Later decisions not only have their own ill-effects, but combine with the earlier "balls".
People can see and recognize this. As a result, CEOs are not chosen for their abilities, but for their charisma and their disposability. The board, on the other hand, is composed of survivors who are too busy trying to maintain their position by setting the CEO up for failure to actually try to avert catastrophe.
Now add into this venture capital and banks. THIS is where you find the psychopaths.
Imagine that there is a huge banquet. This is a corporation. A number of people sit down to eat at this banquet. The suckers think the winner is the last man sitting at the table. The bankers and the venture capitalists understand the truth; The winner is the guy who eats first.
This attitude, of course, is what leads to short range thinking (helped along by the disposability of the CEO, who has to turn a growth every quarter or be removed), and leads to taking "cost-saving" shortcuts such as seen on the BP oil platform that, you know, devoured the Southeast coast. The capital investors from the project were long gone. The CEO, a certifiable moron by the name of Tony Hayward, was left holding the bag. To give you an idea of why he was chosen as CEO, his response to the disaster was to sail around it in his yacht, complaining about the inconveniences he was suffering in his personal life as a response to the disaster.
This happens in EVERY industry, with the industries with the highest gross margin being the ones most effected. You see the CEO, you blame the CEO, but the actual villain - if there is one - is long gone by the time you look, with all the serious boodle in hand.
This is ESPECIALLY true of most banks, who themselves are looting other industries. Paul Cassano is the best example I can think of. He was the CEO of AIG Financial Products, and he presided over the complete and utter rape of AIG by Goldman-Sachs, resulting in the 2008 meltdown.
So, the CEO may in fact be a bad guy. He may in fact be a psychopath. But he isn't THE bad guy. You never heard of the bad guy before. Until the bad guy gets put in charge of "the recovery".
And, often, there are either a myriad of bad guy, or none at all (sometimes sheer stupidity can look just like evil...And disinformation can look like conspiracy).
BUMP.
I was asked to comment on this. Unfortunately, I've been busy lately, which is why this has taken me a while to get to.
I would, firstly, add the tendency to groupthink into any decision-making body. Corporations are certainly not immune to this and, in fact, the prominence of certain faddish styles, such as New Age "positive thinking" and similar, suggest that at least some corporations may already be prone to irrational assessments of reality. Remember, at one point, a toad controlled over $10 billion in financial investments in Tokyo (link (http://haquelebac.wordpress.com/2010/01/09/madame-nuis-toad/)).
CEO's often suffer from a particular bias which afflicts people who are gambling with other people's money. Their loss aversion becomes much decreased because, although their position relies on bringing in ever increasing returns, they personally have very little at stake. In theory, this should make them more impartial when assessing risk, however in practice it tends to cause them to underrate risk and overstate the advantages of their chosen course of action. CEOs do tend to be good at shifting blame onto others, meaning even if their gamble does fail badly enough for the board to dismiss them, they are usually not out of a job for long.
There's also the case of shell corporations, and CEOs and their allies playing the better known company to help line their own pockets. Recall Enron, where "special purpose entities" were created, transferring billions in Enron assets to their personal control under the guide of external contracting. Special purpose entities are most commonly used however, to hide debts and inflate the worth of the company...like one would do if, as a CEO, they had undertaken a risky gamble and it failed to pay off.
If CEOs were the principal evildoers, they wouldn't need to do this. But CEOs answer to higher powers...the board. And the board themselves answer to higher powers...private equity firms.
Who are the world's major private equity firms? The Carlyle Group, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, Goldman Sachs Principal Investment Group, The Blackstone Group, Bain Capital and TPG Capital, to name a few. You'll likely know some of these, but not all of them. And when a CEO's failure is exposed, when the company looks set to fail and flounder...they're the ones who will come in and purchase their assets, often at a significant markdown. Of course, they can also help capitalize successful companies...but success doesn't last forever now, does it? And when it doesn't, their lawyers and investment analysts will be waiting.
VERY nice.
I submitted my entry to bitter tea. I'd like to add yours, as a "dialogue". My initial statement, and your clarifying statement.
Yes, feel free. Usual attribution.
Quote from: Cain on July 31, 2013, 10:45:36 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 25, 2013, 09:28:04 PM
As far as I can tell from first hand observation, the problem is a combination of inertia and disinformation. As noted above, the decision makers are not given good information, both out of fear and also out of agenda-driven underlings. Bad decisions are therefore made.
Repeat this process many, many times, and recognize that each bad decision gets a ball rolling. The balls keep rolling even after attention is shifted to new decisions. The decision makers may or may not know that any given "ball" is still rolling. Later decisions not only have their own ill-effects, but combine with the earlier "balls".
People can see and recognize this. As a result, CEOs are not chosen for their abilities, but for their charisma and their disposability. The board, on the other hand, is composed of survivors who are too busy trying to maintain their position by setting the CEO up for failure to actually try to avert catastrophe.
Now add into this venture capital and banks. THIS is where you find the psychopaths.
Imagine that there is a huge banquet. This is a corporation. A number of people sit down to eat at this banquet. The suckers think the winner is the last man sitting at the table. The bankers and the venture capitalists understand the truth; The winner is the guy who eats first.
This attitude, of course, is what leads to short range thinking (helped along by the disposability of the CEO, who has to turn a growth every quarter or be removed), and leads to taking "cost-saving" shortcuts such as seen on the BP oil platform that, you know, devoured the Southeast coast. The capital investors from the project were long gone. The CEO, a certifiable moron by the name of Tony Hayward, was left holding the bag. To give you an idea of why he was chosen as CEO, his response to the disaster was to sail around it in his yacht, complaining about the inconveniences he was suffering in his personal life as a response to the disaster.
This happens in EVERY industry, with the industries with the highest gross margin being the ones most effected. You see the CEO, you blame the CEO, but the actual villain - if there is one - is long gone by the time you look, with all the serious boodle in hand.
This is ESPECIALLY true of most banks, who themselves are looting other industries. Paul Cassano is the best example I can think of. He was the CEO of AIG Financial Products, and he presided over the complete and utter rape of AIG by Goldman-Sachs, resulting in the 2008 meltdown.
So, the CEO may in fact be a bad guy. He may in fact be a psychopath. But he isn't THE bad guy. You never heard of the bad guy before. Until the bad guy gets put in charge of "the recovery".
And, often, there are either a myriad of bad guy, or none at all (sometimes sheer stupidity can look just like evil...And disinformation can look like conspiracy).
BUMP.
I was asked to comment on this. Unfortunately, I've been busy lately, which is why this has taken me a while to get to.
I would, firstly, add the tendency to groupthink into any decision-making body. Corporations are certainly not immune to this and, in fact, the prominence of certain faddish styles, such as New Age "positive thinking" and similar, suggest that at least some corporations may already be prone to irrational assessments of reality. Remember, at one point, a toad controlled over $10 billion in financial investments in Tokyo (link (http://haquelebac.wordpress.com/2010/01/09/madame-nuis-toad/)).
CEO's often suffer from a particular bias which afflicts people who are gambling with other people's money. Their loss aversion becomes much decreased because, although their position relies on bringing in ever increasing returns, they personally have very little at stake. In theory, this should make them more impartial when assessing risk, however in practice it tends to cause them to underrate risk and overstate the advantages of their chosen course of action. CEOs do tend to be good at shifting blame onto others, meaning even if their gamble does fail badly enough for the board to dismiss them, they are usually not out of a job for long.
There's also the case of shell corporations, and CEOs and their allies playing the better known company to help line their own pockets. Recall Enron, where "special purpose entities" were created, transferring billions in Enron assets to their personal control under the guide of external contracting. Special purpose entities are most commonly used however, to hide debts and inflate the worth of the company...like one would do if, as a CEO, they had undertaken a risky gamble and it failed to pay off.
If CEOs were the principal evildoers, they wouldn't need to do this. But CEOs answer to higher powers...the board. And the board themselves answer to higher powers...private equity firms.
Who are the world's major private equity firms? The Carlyle Group, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, Goldman Sachs Principal Investment Group, The Blackstone Group, Bain Capital and TPG Capital, to name a few. You'll likely know some of these, but not all of them. And when a CEO's failure is exposed, when the company looks set to fail and flounder...they're the ones who will come in and purchase their assets, often at a significant markdown. Of course, they can also help capitalize successful companies...but success doesn't last forever now, does it? And when it doesn't, their lawyers and investment analysts will be waiting.
Damn, now I have to go read and learn about private equity firms. It's interesting that I've always thought of the executives and CEOs as the top of the foodchain.
So, how much are CEO's and the boards pawns to the private equity firms in terms of decisionmaking? Or is it more that the private equity firms themselves are simply playing the game based on the economic pressures of the system* in general?
I'm sure its not that cut and dry but it still makes me curious.
*sorry for the vague term of 'system' I suppose I mean capitalism in general or the rewards society gives for pursuing profit and assets over all else. I'm not sure what the best term for that is. I'd also bring up game theory but I don't know enough about it to use it correctly although it seems like it might apply to capitalism.
Cain, thanks for the response. It's good stuff.
an aside and, IMO, one of those crux isues that appears (at least to me) insurmountable.
There are two courses of action available when dealing with individuals or groups who are so powerful.
Phase1 - The appeal to humanity*.
This doesn't work because they appear to have no humanity. This makes the decision to escalate matters to...
Phase 2 - Heads on spikes
This decision is made easier given the nature of our desperation and the fact that our enemies are not deemed human. However, in doing so, we lose our humanity
* any nonviolent action, protests, petitions, politics, strikes... etc