In the Box

27 08 2015

Bentonville, Arkansas

No more AR-15s at Wal-Martinez.

My reaction?  The same reaction I had way back when, when Rosie O’Donnell’s political pressure got K-Mart to quit selling guns altogether:

Fine by me.

As far as I care, W-M can totally get out of the gun business, too.

So that mom and pop little box retailers can soak up the business.

Can we have at least one part of the economy free of big box marts?





How to Think About the Silicon Valley Diversity Row

14 08 2015

Cupertino, California

AAPL, racial beancounting, blah blah.

“But white dudes still run things.”

Really, I don’t think the purpose of this hysteria is to change that.  All it is is that the CSIT-STEM sector, especially in SV, was allowed to grow and progress uninhibited and unnoticed by the Eye of Soros for a long time.  But once those firms got big and profitable, then TPTB came knocking to tell them that it’s time to start paying the diversity tax, hiring a bunch of HBCU diploma Shaniquas who are the patrons of important black preachers who have megachurches or large churches and who constitute various NAACP chapters.  Even if the work is useless personnel/HR/EEOC work.





A Box For Everything

27 07 2015

Chappaqua, New York

Me, four days ago:

But I think the better explanation is our increasing deification of the stock market, our increasing investments in it, which creates a business climate in the relationship between corporate boards of directors and the corporations’ most prominent singular managerial employees, the CEO, being mindful of the outsized control that mutual funds have on the composition of boards of directors because they quasi-own so much of the stock.  The goal is as much profit as possible over the short term; a CEO who engineers such policies will get paid very well, one who doesn’t is out the door.  As it is, since the average Fortune 500 CEO tenure is not even five years, it’s not like any one CEO really cares about what happens when s/he is no longer CEO, and like I said, CEOs are high level managerial employees, nothing more.  To net it all out, the high end American corporate world is driven by temporary players who are just looking to catch while catch can, they’re out the door and replaced by more people looking to catch while catch can.

MMcA has a piece at Bloomy today about HRC calling for a reverse stair stepped capital gains tax system; Ross Perot first proposed this in 1992.  I think it’s a good idea, but MMcA has a more elegant explanation than mine above on why it won’t do much good by itself:

On the margin, it’s probably going to affect investment if you raise capital gains taxes by a lot — and nonetheless, this is not going to do much to shift the incentives toward longer-term thinking at companies. That’s because Clinton seems to fundamentally misunderstand the reason that public companies are so focused on short-term results that impact their stock price, rather than longer-term growth. To the extent that you think this phenomenon is real, and a problem, the issue is not that American investors, for reasons known only to themselves, have developed the attention spans of gnats. Instead, I’d argue that the problem is the massive shift toward institutional management of equity assets.

Here’s SEC Commissioner Luis Aguilar on this phenomenon in 2013: “The proportion of U.S. public equities managed by institutions has risen steadily over the past six decades, from about 7 or 8 percent of market capitalization in 1950, to about 67 percent in 2010.” Stocks used to be the province of affluent people who might hold them for decades — and might well take it into their head to show up at your shareholder meeting and delicately inquire why the chief executive officer is getting paid so much when quarterly results look pretty dismal. Now they’re the province of everyone — and everyone is in the hands of professional managers who don’t care how much the CEO is getting paid, would rather sell and buy something else than chivy the board into doing its job, and need to deliver price appreciation pretty regularly, lest their Morningstar profile become tarnished, or the regulators start asking the company to increase contributions.

Add to that the fact that you can now log in every day to see exactly how your 401(k) is doing, and you can see how short-termism might come to dominate executive offices.

Unless the short term reverse stair stepped time bracket has an extremely confiscatory rate, it won’t make this any better, and I even have my doubts that it would get much better even if the rate was 99.9%.  Being an NRx, I can diagnose the fundamental problem is the same kind of democratization in the business world as democratization of government has negatively affected the quality of the public policy formation and enforcement process.  Just as I think hereditary monarchy is generally the least problematic of types of governments, with some qualifications, hereditary monarchy is my beaux ideal of a business management paradigm.  Either as a privately held business handed down from generation to generation, or as publicly traded corporations where one person must hold a simple majority of the stock expects to will it to a blood heir.  Even then, there might be a necessity for some non-hereditary non-family publicly traded corporations to exist, but in the dark enlightenment, the king must hold them in close and permanent check.

Let me ask you this, St. Louisan:  Did you like Anheuser-Busch better when it was essentially a hereditary monarchy, or as a pure publicly traded corporation?

 

 





Control+F

23 07 2015

Downtown

St. Louis-based Stifel drops a new analysis of S&P 500 CEO pay relative to the average American worker.

373:1, compared to 42:1 in the same metric in 1980.

I looked at the article and Stifel’s press release (it’s not long enough to be much of a report), did Ctrl+F, “immig” — And while I did get a hit to another Washington Examiner story, that 87% of illegals will have zero threat of deportation under Obama’s next amnesty scheme, the actual subject matter did not contain that search string.

That explains the slow growth of average wages and salaries, but what could explain exploding CEO pay?  Mass immigration doesn’t explain it by itself, but I will say that even in jobs that aren’t known for being immigrant heavy, mass immigration still affects their salaries and wages, because mass immigration creates an almost economy-wide downward pressure on salaries and wages.  Which means higher business profits than there would be otherwise, and of course, that’s music to the ears of most CEOs.  But I think the better explanation is our increasing deification of the stock market, our increasing investments in it, which creates a business climate in the relationship between corporate boards of directors and the corporations’ most prominent singular managerial employees, the CEO, being mindful of the outsized control that mutual funds have on the composition of boards of directors because they quasi-own so much of the stock.  The goal is as much profit as possible over the short term; a CEO who engineers such policies will get paid very well, one who doesn’t is out the door.  As it is, since the average Fortune 500 CEO tenure is not even five years, it’s not like any one CEO really cares about what happens when s/he is no longer CEO, and like I said, CEOs are high level managerial employees, nothing more.  To net it all out, the high end American corporate world is driven by temporary players who are just looking to catch while catch can, they’re out the door and replaced by more people looking to catch while catch can.

Another big factor in very recent years has been quantitative easing.





Are Your Pets Giving You Problems, Andy?

30 06 2015

Clayton

The rabble versus Andy Taylor.

They must not realize that Taylor is just about the worst anti-white race panderer in St. Louis’s constellation of very high level business and corporate executives.





Induces Headaches

23 06 2015

Philadelphia

First, the video:

Rush asks:

So when I saw this story about Tylenol, I said, “Well, this isn’t about separating people from their money. This is an entirely different objective here.” It’s a CNN story, and it is about a 30-second commercial from Johnson & Johnson, manufacturers of Tylenol, and it opens with the question: “When were you first considered a family?” And then it depicts traditional heterosexual couples and families. And then the ad asks the question: “When did you first fight to be considered a family?” And this is followed by images of a lesbian couple at what appears to be a prom, a mixed-race wedding followed by a mixed-race couple with a kid and then a couple with adopted kids of different races.

And the ad ends with an image of two gay men doting over a baby as the voiceover says, “Family is not defined by who you love, but how you love.” And here we have a headache pill — (interruption) Snerdley are you erupting over a caller in there again? (interruption) Oh, you’re reacting to the story? He is really fuming and spitting in there. (interruption) That’s the point. This isn’t advertising anymore. Because gay couple, gays are 2% of the population, yet here’s Johnson & Johnson advertising Tylenol in a gay friendly way. This can’t be about strictly moving the product. This has got to be something else going on here.

Now, everywhere you look — and this has been the case for probably five years and maybe longer — practically every night on prime time TV you can find at least one show, and if you go to the movies you can find a lot of those, that depict gay people uniformly as happy and normal and healthy, be allowed to adopt children. They’re smarter, they’re more sensitive, they’re hipper. It’s a major campaign that’s been undertaken here, and what this means is that politically active people who have this as one of their issues are now working in the media buying and creative departments of advertising agencies.

So that advertising normally designed to make you want to buy the product is now designed to make you feel good about the product, make you feel the product is… (interruption) Well, here’s the thing… (interruption) Well, the question is being asked of me, why just this social issue? Why is it just about gay relationships? Why don’t they tackle other social issues? Give ’em time. But right now the gay population that populates media and entertainment, I mean, they have the power to devise these campaigns, the creative, the production and all that.

Here’s my point. What appears as standard fare in the prime time entertainment program has now made the jump and is starting to pop up in advertising. Again, less than 2% of the population is gay. So this is not about attracting buyers, which to me is a really interesting thing about advertising. This is not about that. This is political activism. And they’re free to do it. I mean, it’s a free country, and it’s Tylenol, Johnson & Johnson, and if they want to take their brand, if they want to use Tylenol to push a particular political agenda, social agenda, have at it. Just a heads up that that’s what’s happening here.

Notice that before we get to the gays, we see interracial and mixed race families.  Don’t think that was an accident, either.

As for the point of this ad?  Well, we all know that selling Tylenol isn’t the goal here, the point is that LGBTQetc dominate the media and PR, and increasingly, ad agencies.  They’re showing off their cultural power.

But, there could be an angle here to hawk Tylenol — Watching this ad gives me a headache.





Nine Letters

23 06 2015

Greenville, South Carolina

Greenville News:

GE chief says he’d move jobs if Ex-Im isn’t re-authorized

Jeffrey Immelt, chief executive of General Electric Co., is playing hard ball with congressmen such as Jeff Duncan of South Carolina.

Caught in the crossfire are more than 3,000 GE jobs in Greenville.

Immelt is among the U.S. business leaders who want Congress to re-authorize the Export-Import Bank of the United States.

That arm of the federal government finances export deals of American companies, including some of the overseas sales of the power turbines that GE designs and makes in Greenville.

Congressional authorization for the bank will expire at the end of the month unless Congress votes to renew it.

Like some other Republicans, Duncan thinks export financing is generally a matter for the private sector, not the federal government.

He voted against re-authorizing the bank in 2012, setting aside objections that the United States shouldn’t abandon the program when so many other countries have their own versions.

With the deadline for bank re-authorization approaching again, opponents and proponents are battling it out.

Immelt raised the stakes on Wednesday, saying GE would move U.S. jobs to Canada or Europe rather than lose business for a lack of export financing.

In my day, we used a couple of nine-letter words to describe this sort of thing:

Extortion

Blackmail








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,449 other followers