 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike the Elder <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> It's not so much that this guy is actually *swaying* anyone in Congress, rather
> it's simply the case that a large number of are legislators are bought and paid
> for by corporate interests who are intent on maximizing their profits regardless
> of the reality of global warmimg. These folks are more than willing to exploit
> any ol' diversion, misdirection or smoke screen (a genuinely accidental pun)
> that becomes available.
I have always wondered why companies seem to think so short-term. It's
like they are thinking: "Who cares what happens to the world 50 years from
now? It's not like our company will even exist that long." Eh... Many
companies, especially the successful ones, *do* exist decades, even
centuries. Such short-term planning seems counterintuitive to the goal of
a company succeeding big. Big success = company is prosperous for decades.
Short-term planning = company dies when the world dies.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 21/07/2011 18:06, Warp nous fit lire :
> Mike the Elder <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>> It's not so much that this guy is actually *swaying* anyone in Congress, rather
>> it's simply the case that a large number of are legislators are bought and paid
>> for by corporate interests who are intent on maximizing their profits regardless
>> of the reality of global warmimg. These folks are more than willing to exploit
>> any ol' diversion, misdirection or smoke screen (a genuinely accidental pun)
>> that becomes available.
>
> I have always wondered why companies seem to think so short-term. It's
> like they are thinking: "Who cares what happens to the world 50 years from
> now? It's not like our company will even exist that long." Eh... Many
> companies, especially the successful ones, *do* exist decades, even
> centuries. Such short-term planning seems counterintuitive to the goal of
> a company succeeding big. Big success = company is prosperous for decades.
> Short-term planning = company dies when the world dies.
>
You forget one term: the people at the direction of the big companies
are nowadays playing a game of "get me a better score and I move to the
next company with a bigger raise".
Old companies were made and kept by old sentimental people.
New greedy goldenboys have another scale to measure their success: how
much did you get when selling your company ? (or how much would you...
like facebook: it's worth nothing, AFAIK, yet everybody think it is more
important than a banana-selling company).
And if you are not the owner of the company, the scale turns into: how
much raise can I get soon before swapping job in another big company.
It was a time in which 40 years in a single company was seen as good.
Nowadays, more than 3 years is stated as a failure!
(the failure on the first year is not your fault, it was due to your
predecessor... you have the second year to promote an empty picture as a
wonderful budget win... with a bit of luck, the third year is still ok
and nobody with power has interest in showing the potemkin villages as
what they are, while you move in your successful carrier to the next
company)
The basic of this gymnastic is: come in, a reform is needed, have a
committee study the issues, validate the reform, goes out before the
last part of the reform even reach all.
With enough luck, your reform can even be in progress with 2 previous
reforms and the next one too. Go find a guilty for the mess and good luck.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/21/2011 8:45 AM, Mike the Elder wrote:
> Warp<war### [at] tag povrayorg> wrote:
>> ...The major difference is
>> that the US congress is listening to him (even though he's not a scientist,
>> by his own admission).
>>
> It's not so much that this guy is actually *swaying* anyone in Congress, rather
> it's simply the case that a large number of are legislators are bought and paid
> for by corporate interests who are intent on maximizing their profits regardless
> of the reality of global warmimg. These folks are more than willing to exploit
> any ol' diversion, misdirection or smoke screen (a genuinely accidental pun)
> that becomes available.
>
> Warmest Regards,
> (deliberate pun)
> MIke C.
>
Doesn't help that we have thinks like Kato, which are bought and paid
for by the same people, and "do" have scientists (of the sort that sold
out for lots of money, to lie for the corporate world). Since the
public, and even a fair number of representatives, don't comprehend why
corporate paid think tanks are a bad thing, and shouldn't be the "go to"
people when figuring out what is factual...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/21/2011 9:06, Warp wrote:
> I have always wondered why companies seem to think so short-term.
Part of it is taxes. If you get paid in salary, you get like 39% tax rate.
If you get paid in stock and you leave it sit for a year, you get a 15% tax
rate. So the top executives ask to take their pay in stock, and then when
they want to leave the company, they want a giant boost in stock price. This
is how folks like Warren Buffett manage to pay less tax than their
secretaries, percentage-wise.
I.e., the future of something long-lived like a corporation is bollixed up
by the fact that the humans get a pay-out of company performance much
earlier. It's simple greed, basically.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 12:06:13 -0400, Warp wrote:
> I have always wondered why companies seem to think so short-term.
That's easy - they're public companies driven by quarterly earnings and
not much else.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/21/2011 16:27, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 12:06:13 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> I have always wondered why companies seem to think so short-term.
>
> That's easy - they're public companies driven by quarterly earnings and
> not much else.
Basically. The rich people have gotten so rich that their groups (i.e.,
mutual funds) control most of the stock in most of the medium and large
companies. And since the mutual funds don't really care if the company is
around long-term (since there will always be other companies to invest in),
they're more interested in forcing policies that will make the mutual fund
look good at the cost of the companies the mutual funds invest in.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 17:15:57 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> On 7/21/2011 16:27, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 12:06:13 -0400, Warp wrote:
>>
>>> I have always wondered why companies seem to think so short-term.
>>
>> That's easy - they're public companies driven by quarterly earnings and
>> not much else.
>
> Basically. The rich people have gotten so rich that their groups (i.e.,
> mutual funds) control most of the stock in most of the medium and large
> companies. And since the mutual funds don't really care if the company
> is around long-term (since there will always be other companies to
> invest in), they're more interested in forcing policies that will make
> the mutual fund look good at the cost of the companies the mutual funds
> invest in.
Yup. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Mike the Elder<nomail@nomail> wrote:
>> It's not so much that this guy is actually *swaying* anyone in Congress, rather
>> it's simply the case that a large number of are legislators are bought and paid
>> for by corporate interests who are intent on maximizing their profits regardless
>> of the reality of global warmimg. These folks are more than willing to exploit
>> any ol' diversion, misdirection or smoke screen (a genuinely accidental pun)
>> that becomes available.
>
> I have always wondered why companies seem to think so short-term. It's
> like they are thinking: "Who cares what happens to the world 50 years from
> now? It's not like our company will even exist that long." Eh... Many
> companies, especially the successful ones, *do* exist decades, even
> centuries. Such short-term planning seems counterintuitive to the goal of
> a company succeeding big. Big success = company is prosperous for decades.
> Short-term planning = company dies when the world dies.
>
Not so long ago, when you started to exploit a mine, you where in it for
the LOOOONG term. Terms of at least 50 years, normaly more, lot more!
Some mines are in operation since over 1000 years...
Recently, my prime minister, Jean Charest, unveiled his "Plan Nord" for
the next 20~25 years with some mines planed to be closed after that
period. In my opinion, that's prety dumb. That and the fact that those
mines will probably be used to export raw, unprocessed, ores.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> That's easy - they're public companies driven by quarterly earnings and
>>> not much else.
>>
>> Basically. The rich people have gotten so rich that their groups (i.e.,
>> mutual funds) control most of the stock in most of the medium and large
>> companies. And since the mutual funds don't really care if the company
>> is around long-term (since there will always be other companies to
>> invest in), they're more interested in forcing policies that will make
>> the mutual fund look good at the cost of the companies the mutual funds
>> invest in.
>
> Yup. :)
So... basically everything is screwed?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Mike the Elder<nomail@nomail> wrote:
>>> It's not so much that this guy is actually *swaying* anyone in
>>> Congress, rather
>>> it's simply the case that a large number of are legislators are
>>> bought and paid
>>> for by corporate interests who are intent on maximizing their profits
>>> regardless
>>> of the reality of global warmimg. These folks are more than willing
>>> to exploit
>>> any ol' diversion, misdirection or smoke screen (a genuinely
>>> accidental pun)
>>> that becomes available.
>>
>> I have always wondered why companies seem to think so short-term. It's
>> like they are thinking: "Who cares what happens to the world 50 years
>> from
>> now? It's not like our company will even exist that long." Eh... Many
>> companies, especially the successful ones, *do* exist decades, even
>> centuries. Such short-term planning seems counterintuitive to the goal of
>> a company succeeding big. Big success = company is prosperous for
>> decades.
>> Short-term planning = company dies when the world dies.
>>
>
> Not so long ago, when you started to exploit a mine, you where in it for
> the LOOOONG term. Terms of at least 50 years, normaly more, lot more!
> Some mines are in operation since over 1000 years...
>
> Recently, my prime minister, Jean Charest, unveiled his "Plan Nord" for
Provincial heads of government are called "premier" in Canada. "Prime
Minister" is the title reserved for federal head of government. Charest
is the premier of Quebec, Harper is the prime minister of canada.
> the next 20~25 years with some mines planed to be closed after that
> period. In my opinion, that's prety dumb. That and the fact that those
> mines will probably be used to export raw, unprocessed, ores.
>
Unfortunately, it's cheaper to ship the unprocessed ore to China or
South America and then reimport the finished product than it is to
process it here. The alternative is to lure the companies over with
massive tax breaks or free electricity, which only work as long as you
give them those gifts, or they'll simply pack up and leave. (e.g.:
Norsk Hydro plant in Nicolet, Hyundai plant in Bromont, Electrolux plant
in l'Assomption, etc.)
>
> Alain
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
