Welcome to Thunderdome

There's also the problem that as companies get large they tend to collect idiots in larger and larger quantities. It starts with just a few, but once they infiltrate management then those few start to snowball because they're much more likely to hire other idiots.

The pool of good people is finite, and these people are usually already employed, even in a bad economy. Obviously people who interview well are still going to get in. It doesn't make my observation ncorrect, which is it is easy for good people to find work, and just got slightly harder for those with no motivation.

Yeah, fucktards idiots are often rich. Can't believe how easy it is for stupid people to make money. They never have to work hard or think or persuade people.

Fucktards aren't often rich, but the rich are often fucktards. My theory is excessive cash makes people stupid and lazy.

Malcolm wrote:Fucktards aren't often rich, but the rich are often fucktards. My theory is excessive cash makes people stupid and lazy.

No, it makes people fiscally conservative and individualistic. They want to get richer and they don't want to risk, now that they actually have something to risk. They avoid outspoken personalities that don't fall in line with theirs, because docile team players are less headache to manage even though they underachieve. Perfectly natural.

There's actually legal precedent in America that requires a CEO be a money-seeking homunculus rather than a human being: Dodge v. Ford.

Managers must pursue the best interested of shareholders. That's just obvious.

TheCatt wrote:Managers must pursue the best interested of shareholders. That's just obvious.

But the problem is that 'best interest' is universally interpreted as 'short-term profits' and never 'laying the roads for a robust future economy in all sectors including ours'.

They want to get richer and they don't want to risk, now that they actually have something to risk. They avoid outspoken personalities that don't fall in line with theirs, because docile team players are less headache to manage even though they underachieve.

That's how industry leaders get their asses kicked.

Managers must pursue the best interested of shareholders. That's just obvious.

That would certainly explain all the corporate scandals at major Fortune 500 companies that make the news. Nothing says "best interests of the shareholders" like "innumerable class action lawsuits from hell for several years."

The internet is officially not in U.S. control.

https://www.cnet.com/news/us-internet-c ... s-numbers/

Malcolm wrote:

They want to get richer and they don't want to risk, now that they actually have something to risk. They avoid outspoken personalities that don't fall in line with theirs, because docile team players are less headache to manage even though they underachieve.

That's how industry leaders get their asses kicked.

Managers must pursue the best interested of shareholders. That's just obvious.

That would certainly explain all the corporate scandals at major Fortune 500 companies that make the news. Nothing says "best interests of the shareholders" like "innumerable class action lawsuits from hell for several years."

Cost-benefit analysis. Lawsuits that are more expensive than prevention are prevented. Lawsuits that are less expensive take the place of prevention.

Capitalism, baby.

Malcolm wrote: That would certainly explain all the corporate scandals at major Fortune 500 companies that make the news. Nothing says "best interests of the shareholders" like "innumerable class action lawsuits from hell for several years."

Wait, people make mistakes or do dumb things? The HELL you say! That being said, it's not like the cost of litigation is that high, relative to profits.

TheCatt wrote:

Malcolm wrote: That would certainly explain all the corporate scandals at major Fortune 500 companies that make the news. Nothing says "best interests of the shareholders" like "innumerable class action lawsuits from hell for several years."

Wait, people make mistakes or do dumb things? The HELL you say! That being said, it's not like the cost of litigation is that high, relative to profits.

The elite, chosen/proven leaders of these corps seem to be just as idiotic as an average moron. But your average moron only has enough cash to do average size stupid things. Rich morons can do big, stupid things.

I think that people have individual tolerances for the amount of cash or resources they can manage properly, just like they have for how much booze they can drink before they get wasted. People who understand that shit best use it as fuel or a tool. I'd put Warren Buffet in that class. Dude knows how to manage his assets, whatever they are, and his investments tend to be decent. Then there are people who use wealth like a suit of armour or cocoon (think J.D. Salinger or Howard Hughes in his later years). We also have people who frivolously piss it all away because using it intelligently is h4rd. I'd argue the vast majority of humans fall into that last category and the filters on executive corporate positions don't seem to be keeping the fucktards out.

Bait, meet switch.

Revelations about fraud and mismanagement in the Pentagon's retention program emerged after the program's budget swelled between 2000 and 2008 — when the Defense Department went from spending $891 million for selective reenlistment bonuses to spending $1.4 billion on them, according to a 2010 research paper by the RAND defense institute. By the end of that period, the military was also spending $625 million yearly to pay enlistment bonuses.

In short, some of those signing bonuses ended up being stolen or otherwise disappeared and the difference is made up by...

But after dozens of auditors reviewed its system that had paid soldiers bonuses without determining their eligibility, the California National Guard's veterans started getting repayment notices.

I found this meaningless little news item hidden on MSN's front page way off to the side.

Obamacare premiums doubling.

What are they, racist?

Leisher wrote:I found this meaningless little news item hidden on MSN's front page way off to the side.

Obamacare premiums doubling.

Before taxpayer-provided subsidies, premiums for a midlevel benchmark plan will increase an average of 25 percent across the 39 states served by the federally run online market, according to a report from the Department of Health and Human Services. Some states will see much bigger jumps, others less.

That's not doubling. That's double-digit.

Hasn;t rates been rising almost since the inception? I would be surprised if premiums haven't doubled on average since implementation.

It's also down to one insurer, whatever that means for the long term?

Leisher wrote:It's also down to one insurer, whatever that means for the long term?

Eventually... single payer.