Apr 2007
Credibility as a Commodity
Perhaps I'm naive, but the corporate treatment of
brands as commodities fills me with loathing. The
name of the manufacturer and the brand of the product
should mean something. It should stand for the people
who made the product and the company that manages its
production, distribution and marketing.
In our market-driven society, however, brands mean nothing. Shedd's Spread was not made in a shed. Nothing advertised as homemade is actually made in a home. Log Cabin syrup is not made anywhere close to a log cabin, nor is it the kind of syrup that used to be made with a press powered by a donkey going round and round and then boiled to the proper thickness. Most syrup sold at the store uses corn syrup, flavored with a tiny bit of maple syrup. The name itself is basically dishonest.
Walk the rows of a modern supermarket. The brands almost invariably attempt to endow the product with an aura of genuineness. This is particularly true of highly processed or particularly unhealthy foods.
It's like the concept of credibility. There was a time when a person's word was his bond; that "a great name is to be better chosen that great riches." Credibility, on the other hand, is a commodity that can be used up, like money in the bank. Or it might be considered a capital good, that, like a factory machine, can be depreciated over a period of time, after which it is worn out and needs to be replaced.
Credibility is consumed by telling lies. A name associated with integrity and trustworthiness has more credibility to expend than a name not so well-regarded. Accountants and economists quantify credibility when they place a value on corporate "good will."
So if your corporation has a reputation for hucksterism and dishonesty, the solution is not to stop cheating and deceiving your customers but simply to acquire a corporation with a positive balance in its credibility account.
In our market-driven society, however, brands mean nothing. Shedd's Spread was not made in a shed. Nothing advertised as homemade is actually made in a home. Log Cabin syrup is not made anywhere close to a log cabin, nor is it the kind of syrup that used to be made with a press powered by a donkey going round and round and then boiled to the proper thickness. Most syrup sold at the store uses corn syrup, flavored with a tiny bit of maple syrup. The name itself is basically dishonest.
Walk the rows of a modern supermarket. The brands almost invariably attempt to endow the product with an aura of genuineness. This is particularly true of highly processed or particularly unhealthy foods.
It's like the concept of credibility. There was a time when a person's word was his bond; that "a great name is to be better chosen that great riches." Credibility, on the other hand, is a commodity that can be used up, like money in the bank. Or it might be considered a capital good, that, like a factory machine, can be depreciated over a period of time, after which it is worn out and needs to be replaced.
Credibility is consumed by telling lies. A name associated with integrity and trustworthiness has more credibility to expend than a name not so well-regarded. Accountants and economists quantify credibility when they place a value on corporate "good will."
So if your corporation has a reputation for hucksterism and dishonesty, the solution is not to stop cheating and deceiving your customers but simply to acquire a corporation with a positive balance in its credibility account.
|
Sulzberger Family Refuses to Relinquish Control of
NYT
According to the NY Times, class A shareholders of
the newspaper--including some large institutional
investors--who elect 30 percent of the board want the
Sulzberger family, owners of non-traded class B
shares to give up some of their control over the
newspaper.
A Difficult Annual Times Meeting for Sulzbergers
It's hard to have much sympathy for the class A shareholders, however, since they bought their stock in the full knowledge that the Sulzbergers would be controlling the paper for the foreseeable future.
Considering the seemingly inexorable process of consolidation of the news media and the simultaneous dumbing down of the contents, it is hard not to conclude that the only way the press can fulfill its function as contemplated by the founding fathers is when it is owned privately. Only a private owner has the power to risk financial losses for actions grounded on principle that would otherwise be swiftly punished by shareholders. In the market economy, quality is a cost, not a benefit. A rational actor seeking to maximize returns on investment is looking for the sweet spot where marginal cost and marginal revenue intersect, which means that he will reduce quality (defined in the broadest sense) until such time as the savings are outweighed by a loss of revenue. If those curves intersect at a low quality, that's fine, because return is maximized. Gannett is a perfect example of this process.
Which is not to say that the New York Times is a sterling example of private ownership. The newspaper has time and time again betrayed the nation and its readers by printing shameless propaganda (as when Judith Miller became a mouthpiece for the Bush administration in favor of invading Iraq) or in suppressing vital news at the behest of the government, as when the newspaper waited a year before it revealed that the NSA was listening in on U. S. citizens in criminal violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
In our own city, the Hederman family, former owners of the Clarion-Ledger, published a racist and reactionary newspaper that did incalculable damage to our state and its citizens for generations.
On the other hand, editors, publishers and owners have often risen to great challenges, fighting dangerous and unpopular battles against the rich and powerful, to the benefit of the entire nation. The Watergate scandal is only the most illustrious example of many truly heroic acts by American newsmen undertaken simply because it was what they were supposed to be doing. If you want to see what a newspaper can do, read the Autobiography of Lincoln Steffens, one of the original muckrakers around the turn of the 20th Century.
A Difficult Annual Times Meeting for Sulzbergers
It's hard to have much sympathy for the class A shareholders, however, since they bought their stock in the full knowledge that the Sulzbergers would be controlling the paper for the foreseeable future.
Considering the seemingly inexorable process of consolidation of the news media and the simultaneous dumbing down of the contents, it is hard not to conclude that the only way the press can fulfill its function as contemplated by the founding fathers is when it is owned privately. Only a private owner has the power to risk financial losses for actions grounded on principle that would otherwise be swiftly punished by shareholders. In the market economy, quality is a cost, not a benefit. A rational actor seeking to maximize returns on investment is looking for the sweet spot where marginal cost and marginal revenue intersect, which means that he will reduce quality (defined in the broadest sense) until such time as the savings are outweighed by a loss of revenue. If those curves intersect at a low quality, that's fine, because return is maximized. Gannett is a perfect example of this process.
Which is not to say that the New York Times is a sterling example of private ownership. The newspaper has time and time again betrayed the nation and its readers by printing shameless propaganda (as when Judith Miller became a mouthpiece for the Bush administration in favor of invading Iraq) or in suppressing vital news at the behest of the government, as when the newspaper waited a year before it revealed that the NSA was listening in on U. S. citizens in criminal violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
In our own city, the Hederman family, former owners of the Clarion-Ledger, published a racist and reactionary newspaper that did incalculable damage to our state and its citizens for generations.
On the other hand, editors, publishers and owners have often risen to great challenges, fighting dangerous and unpopular battles against the rich and powerful, to the benefit of the entire nation. The Watergate scandal is only the most illustrious example of many truly heroic acts by American newsmen undertaken simply because it was what they were supposed to be doing. If you want to see what a newspaper can do, read the Autobiography of Lincoln Steffens, one of the original muckrakers around the turn of the 20th Century.
Mississippi Bell Labs - An Immodest Proposal
Apr 22, 2007 16:14 Subjects Mississippi/Jackson
Subjects Permalink
Prior to the breakup of AT&T, Bell Labs was one
of the most creative institutions in the world. So
many inventions and discoveries came out of an
institution that hired geniuses and told them to do
what they wanted to do, that it can honestly be said
that had Bell Labs not existed, the World would be a
vastly different place and much the worser. Because
of the unique exemption the government gave AT&T
for many years, it had to license its discoveries
very expensively. Unix, for instance, was practically
given to colleges and universities, which explains
why Unix and its descendants like BDS and Linux are
pervasive in the computer world.
Bell Labs is now owned by Alcatel-Lucent, and although its mission is similar to that of AT&T Bell Labs, the unique circumstances that made it such a national treasure no longer exist and it resembles a large corporate research organization more and more. This is clearly one of those instances where the application of market principles resulted in a monumental loss for us all.
Would it be possible for the State of Mississippi to establish such an independent laboratory? Is it desirable? Would it be a good investment of the admittedly scarce resources of this poverty-stricken state? Could the legislature and the executive branches be trusted to keep their political hands off the lab and simply let geniuses do what they do so well? Could the Department of Economic Development and the state universities be dissuaded from regarding it as a competitor? Big questions. Previous attempts have not turned out well:
Summaries of PEER Reports Vol. 1 1973-79
Summaries of PEER Reports 1973-2002
There could be some big benefits, though. The state would own a collection of valuable patents it could license to Mississippi businesses or businesses that are willing to move here for the long run as a condition of licensing. The people of Mississippi would gain both from job opportunities and from the licensing income that would help finance state government. And although the geniuses in the lab would be given freedom to work on whatever projects they wished, there would always be the understanding that they would be expected to direct some of that intelligence and creativity toward solving the manifold problems we experience in this poorest state.
The biggest problem with such an institution would be the demand for immediate concrete achievements. ITD was founded with great expectations of high-tech employment in the state and it didn't work out. A Mississippi "Bell" Labs would have to be established in the faith that something good will eventually come out of it and with a minimum guarantee of ten years' full funding.
There are many more problems that would have to be dealt with before something like this would have a chance to succeed. The composition of the board of trustees would be a huge problem. Many of the logical choices for the board would have sharp axes to grind, like representatives of higher education. Who gets to pick the geniuses to initially populate the labs? Once the lab gets up and started, the employed geniuses themselves could suggest new colleagues. Where to put the labs? Not on a university campus, but not too far away, either.
In spite of the obstacles, a successful Mississippi Labs would represent a coup. We should at least be discussing the possibilities.
Bell Labs is now owned by Alcatel-Lucent, and although its mission is similar to that of AT&T Bell Labs, the unique circumstances that made it such a national treasure no longer exist and it resembles a large corporate research organization more and more. This is clearly one of those instances where the application of market principles resulted in a monumental loss for us all.
Would it be possible for the State of Mississippi to establish such an independent laboratory? Is it desirable? Would it be a good investment of the admittedly scarce resources of this poverty-stricken state? Could the legislature and the executive branches be trusted to keep their political hands off the lab and simply let geniuses do what they do so well? Could the Department of Economic Development and the state universities be dissuaded from regarding it as a competitor? Big questions. Previous attempts have not turned out well:
Summaries of PEER Reports Vol. 1 1973-79
Summaries of PEER Reports 1973-2002
There could be some big benefits, though. The state would own a collection of valuable patents it could license to Mississippi businesses or businesses that are willing to move here for the long run as a condition of licensing. The people of Mississippi would gain both from job opportunities and from the licensing income that would help finance state government. And although the geniuses in the lab would be given freedom to work on whatever projects they wished, there would always be the understanding that they would be expected to direct some of that intelligence and creativity toward solving the manifold problems we experience in this poorest state.
The biggest problem with such an institution would be the demand for immediate concrete achievements. ITD was founded with great expectations of high-tech employment in the state and it didn't work out. A Mississippi "Bell" Labs would have to be established in the faith that something good will eventually come out of it and with a minimum guarantee of ten years' full funding.
There are many more problems that would have to be dealt with before something like this would have a chance to succeed. The composition of the board of trustees would be a huge problem. Many of the logical choices for the board would have sharp axes to grind, like representatives of higher education. Who gets to pick the geniuses to initially populate the labs? Once the lab gets up and started, the employed geniuses themselves could suggest new colleagues. Where to put the labs? Not on a university campus, but not too far away, either.
In spite of the obstacles, a successful Mississippi Labs would represent a coup. We should at least be discussing the possibilities.
Presidential Popular Vote Without Constitutional
Amendment
How do we convert the electoral system into a
presidential election by nationwide popular vote
without a constitutional amendment? There is a way.
One state, Maryland, has already enacted into law the National Popular Vote Bill, that, if enacted by enough states whose combined electoral votes equal or exceed 270, automatically gives their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote. No constitutional amendment is required.
A National Popular Vote Bill was introduced in the Mississippi Senate this year, but failed to gain traction. New ideas take a long time to penetrate our state's legislative skull.
The mechanics of the bill are simple. Until a sufficient number of states to create a majority in the electoral college have enacted the bill, nothing happens. But when the magic 270 electoral votes are reached, every participating state, including Mississippi if it enacts the bill, automatically chooses electors pledged to vote for the winner of the popular vote. It doesn't matter which states choose to participate; once an electoral majority is reached, the winner of the popular vote will be automatically elected president.
The Jackson Progressive thinks this is a good idea. Congratulate its sponsors, and if your senators or representatives didn't sponsor it, tell them you think it is a good thing.
Read the National Popular Vote web site for a more comprehensive explanation and for the latest news on the national campaign.
Addendum: Here are the sponsoring Mississippi state senators: Gloria Chisholm Williamson, Robert L. Jackson, Deborah Dawkins, David Lee Jordan, Johnnie E. Walls, Jr., Willie Lee Simmons, and Joseph C. Thomas. Let them know that you appreciate what they have done.
One state, Maryland, has already enacted into law the National Popular Vote Bill, that, if enacted by enough states whose combined electoral votes equal or exceed 270, automatically gives their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote. No constitutional amendment is required.
A National Popular Vote Bill was introduced in the Mississippi Senate this year, but failed to gain traction. New ideas take a long time to penetrate our state's legislative skull.
The mechanics of the bill are simple. Until a sufficient number of states to create a majority in the electoral college have enacted the bill, nothing happens. But when the magic 270 electoral votes are reached, every participating state, including Mississippi if it enacts the bill, automatically chooses electors pledged to vote for the winner of the popular vote. It doesn't matter which states choose to participate; once an electoral majority is reached, the winner of the popular vote will be automatically elected president.
The Jackson Progressive thinks this is a good idea. Congratulate its sponsors, and if your senators or representatives didn't sponsor it, tell them you think it is a good thing.
Read the National Popular Vote web site for a more comprehensive explanation and for the latest news on the national campaign.
Addendum: Here are the sponsoring Mississippi state senators: Gloria Chisholm Williamson, Robert L. Jackson, Deborah Dawkins, David Lee Jordan, Johnnie E. Walls, Jr., Willie Lee Simmons, and Joseph C. Thomas. Let them know that you appreciate what they have done.
The Army is About to Break
Apr 01, 2007 17:06 Subjects War/Military
Subjects Permalink
Via Helena Cobban in Just World News,
the right-wing Washington Times features a
column by Major General Robert H. Scales, former
commander of the Army War College, entitled
Is the
Army Headed for Collapse?
Scales says yes, the Army is broken:
This is not news to anyone who has been following the way the administration has been treating the troops during this war. Our nation is in a very perilous situation with respect to its military strength and unless there is relief soon our Army will cease to exist as an effective fighting force. In the international situation that Bush has created over the past six years, that is a bad position for our nation to be in.
Scales says yes, the Army is broken:
The essence of Scales's argument is based upon the necessity of keeping 2 brigades at home for every one in the theater of war. One of the home brigades would be recovering whicle the other would be training and otherwise preparing for combat. With such an arrangement the Army could keep one brigade in combat indefinitaly. After the surge, according to Scales, the nation will have to keep 33 brigades of 3000 troops each in Iraq, thus requiring a total of 99 brigades to sustain the fighting. There are only about half that number in the Army, which makes a sustained effort impossible in the long run.If you haven't heard the news, I'm afraid your Army is broken, a victim of too many missions for too few soldiers for too long. Today we have deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan all of our fighting brigades, both active and reserve. Every brigade save one in Korea has spent time in combat.
This is not news to anyone who has been following the way the administration has been treating the troops during this war. Our nation is in a very perilous situation with respect to its military strength and unless there is relief soon our Army will cease to exist as an effective fighting force. In the international situation that Bush has created over the past six years, that is a bad position for our nation to be in.