As seen on TV
I think I saw this phrase about a week ago as I flung another of the countless flyers we get in the mail into the recycle box. So how does “As seen on TV” make any product better than any other product, whether seen on TV or not seen on TV. The actor John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt was paid to act out a script touting the features of the Okey Dokey Wonder Tool. Is the Okey Dokey company going to say anything about the faults of their Wonder Tool? Oh, they might have a small print disclaimer like “results may vary” or “not to be used by children under twelve.”
Did you, dear astute reader, catch my meaningless word - countless? I am going to weasel on that one and state that countless doesn’t mean without end; it means I am not counting them.
Almost endless
How are the uses of any product almost endless? Or infinite? No matter how many uses of a product you find, you will have found only a finite number of uses. If everybody in the world found found even more uses, they will still have found only a finite number of uses. If all future generations found even more uses, they will still have found only a finite number of uses. And when the sun explodes or burns out, the number of uses found will still be a finite number.
Seamless operation
I thought this expression had fallen out of use, but Apple CEO Tim Cook used it at the recent developer’s conference. He really should visit the online Apple User Community to find out how seamless Apple software is not. Especially how operations that were once simple and obvious have become complex and obtuse.
It seems to me that the more complicated software becomes, the more glitches and operational quirks there are. Sure, I can do a lot more with computers than I did even five years ago, but I have an even longer list of problems that I haven’t found a round tuit to resolve.
Perfect gift
This “omniscient” phrase appeared in dozens of ads for hundreds of products before Father’s Day. “Just what Dad wants.” First, how do these advertisers even know what each and very father wants? Second, this father really didn’t want any of the products advertised. Third, our family doesn’t give gifts on Father’s Day. Fourth, our family doesn’t celebrate Father’s day. Fifth, this curmudgeonly father doesn’t even care.
Business friendly
Many judge cities and states on how “business-friendly” they are. That is, are taxes low, are subsidies given for relocation, are environmental laws relaxed? Rarely are cities and states judged by the “business-friendly” crowd as to how well the police and fire departments operate, how good the roads and utilities are, and how willing people are to move for reasons other than being moved there by the new or expanding company.
“Business-friendly” often means “corporate-friendly”. Local businesses are often the losers when a corporation moves in. What happened to the local stationery store when Office Depot moved into downtown Duluth? How many other local businesses were disrupted? How long did Office Depot stay in downtown Duluth? More and more chain drug stores have been opened in Duluth. When was the last time you visited a locally-owned pharmacy?
The good news is that there are still several locally-owned businesses in Duluth. Be truly business-friendly and support them with your business.
Voters decided/Investors decided
I wish journalists would stop using these sweeping generalizations to describe the choices of a minority. I’ve written over and over how a minority of eligible or even registered voters chose the eventual winners of an election. When it comes to “investors decided”, the proportion of “deciders” is a tiny fraction of “investors”.
First, how often are the “investors” day-traders? Second, how often are the “day-traders” computers programmed to look for the tiniest advantage?
The real investors are those who buy and hold for years. They invested because they believed in the purpose of the company, because they perceived long-term growth, or because they wanted steady dividends. These investors are not deciding the daily gyrations of the stock markets.
Conservative and liberal
It seems these terms have devolved into if you are one of these then you are on the good side and the other is the bad side. Conservatives have devolved from those who deliberated carefully to those who believe in a long list of bullet points, even if some of these are contradictory, like abortion is bad and war is good. Liberals have devolved from those who were generous to those in real need to those who support a long list of groups who they see as disadvantaged.
The “conservatives” have managed to put the “liberals” on the defensive.
Maybe someday we will once again have more conservatives like Ross Douthat and David Brooks and liberals like Paul Krugman and Eugene Robinson. These and several others in government and journalism look at the “big picture” rather than narrow interests.
Mel would have visited three locally-owned businesses the day he wrote this, but he wimped out when the wind blew dust on his contact lenses.
Also published in the Reader Weekly, 2014-07-03 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2014/07/03/3656_the_meaning_of_meaningless_words_and_phrases
Showing posts with label investors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label investors. Show all posts
Sunday, July 06, 2014
Thursday, September 20, 2012
One business group that wants more regulation
In the name of efficiency, one business sector has become inefficient, and that sector would like government regulation to restore efficiency.
The business sector: stock trading. The inefficiency: run-amok computer algorithms for high-frequency trading, HFT. There have been several cases where HFT algorithms have caused problems with initial public offerings and set off price-spikes that some firms couldn't handle. Firms may not put in sufficient checks on certain trades in order to gain speed.
"'Market participants at every level of the trade life cycle reported they are looking to regulators to establish best practices in risk management and to monitor compliance with those practices,' Carol Clark, senior policy specialist at the Chicago Fed, wrote in a summary of the survey's findings."
See "High Frequency Trading: Worse than You Thought", Jeff Cox, CNBC, 2012-09-20.
Next time a newspaper reports that "investors decided" ask yourself do they mean traders and do they mean trading computers.
The business sector: stock trading. The inefficiency: run-amok computer algorithms for high-frequency trading, HFT. There have been several cases where HFT algorithms have caused problems with initial public offerings and set off price-spikes that some firms couldn't handle. Firms may not put in sufficient checks on certain trades in order to gain speed.
"'Market participants at every level of the trade life cycle reported they are looking to regulators to establish best practices in risk management and to monitor compliance with those practices,' Carol Clark, senior policy specialist at the Chicago Fed, wrote in a summary of the survey's findings."
See "High Frequency Trading: Worse than You Thought", Jeff Cox, CNBC, 2012-09-20.
Next time a newspaper reports that "investors decided" ask yourself do they mean traders and do they mean trading computers.
Tuesday, March 01, 2011
Free markets and capitalism – their supporters don't want them!
Disclaimer: We own shares in some companies and mutual funds. In our retirement we will depend more and more on dividends and interest. However, we don't feel compelled to hide the warts in the system.
We read many complaints that the U.S. is becoming socialist and turning against free markets and capitalism. Well, we are seeing many efforts to erode free markets and capitalism, but these efforts are being made most strongly by those who proclaim them.
The classical definition of a free market is one with many buyers and many sellers and with both buyer and seller having all the information they need to make a decision. Oh, also, either the buyer or seller should be free to enter or leave the market.
We see many moves to reduce the number of sellers as companies gobble up their competitors. We also see some moves to reduce the number of buyers - Wal-Mart has become the sole buyer for many suppliers.
Many large corporations fight efforts to give buyers important information to make a good decision. The tobacco companies denying their products caused harm is one of the more egregious distortions of important information. Agribusiness companies don't want foods labelled as genetically modified. Many large dairy companies don't want competitors products labeled BGH-free (bovine growth hormone). Telecommunication companies make it difficult to know the exact cost of their services before a customer makes a purchase. How come the billing computers know exactly what a customer should pay but the sales computers supposedly don't have that information?
Freedom to enter and leave the market exists in varying degrees. There are certainly many products we can choose to buy or not buy. Suppliers with a single buyer can stop selling to that buyer, but they will have a lot of work to replace that buyer.
Capitalism - ah, a lovely concept when it started. Some people got together and pooled their money to form a company, each getting shares proportional to their contribution. Then markets developed to buy and sell those shares as owners wanted to reallocate their investments. All well and good. If Smith wanted to sell his shares in XYZ to buy a house and Jones was glad to buy XYZ shares because he missed out when they were issued, that's all above board.
I won't get into day-trading versus investing or all the derivatives that Wall Street thinks up. This is almost all smoke and mirrors and a long, long way from capitalism.
As economies grew, so did the companies originally financed with stock. But as they grew, the shareholders became more and more distant from the operation of the company. They had to hire executives and board members to run the company. All well and good. But with all the buying and selling of shares, the shareholders had little interest in the company other than it grew and turned a profit. Few had any interest in the day-to-day running of the company.
As time went on, the board members nominated themselves for successive terms, without any competition. Shareholders could either accept them or withhold their votes; the boards made any mechanisms to offer a different slate extremely difficult. To make matters worse, many of the shares were owned by mutual funds and other institutions; in general, the operators of these institutions exercised their "fiduciary responsibility" and voted with the board.
In many democratic countries, the boards lobbied their friends in governments to put up various hindrances to any shareholder control beyond the above yes or no votes.
These board members grant their appointed executives shares in the company for their "performance" and grant themselves the same. In other words, they are giving themselves more and more of the company and more and more of the votes. The board members often get over $100,000 per year for showing up for six meetings. Nice work if you can get it.
Many define this whole process as capitalism and as a great good. I call it capturism; the few have captured control of a company to run as they see fit. At least, unlike many oligarchies, they don't throw dissidents in jail.
We read many complaints that the U.S. is becoming socialist and turning against free markets and capitalism. Well, we are seeing many efforts to erode free markets and capitalism, but these efforts are being made most strongly by those who proclaim them.
The classical definition of a free market is one with many buyers and many sellers and with both buyer and seller having all the information they need to make a decision. Oh, also, either the buyer or seller should be free to enter or leave the market.
We see many moves to reduce the number of sellers as companies gobble up their competitors. We also see some moves to reduce the number of buyers - Wal-Mart has become the sole buyer for many suppliers.
Many large corporations fight efforts to give buyers important information to make a good decision. The tobacco companies denying their products caused harm is one of the more egregious distortions of important information. Agribusiness companies don't want foods labelled as genetically modified. Many large dairy companies don't want competitors products labeled BGH-free (bovine growth hormone). Telecommunication companies make it difficult to know the exact cost of their services before a customer makes a purchase. How come the billing computers know exactly what a customer should pay but the sales computers supposedly don't have that information?
Freedom to enter and leave the market exists in varying degrees. There are certainly many products we can choose to buy or not buy. Suppliers with a single buyer can stop selling to that buyer, but they will have a lot of work to replace that buyer.
Capitalism - ah, a lovely concept when it started. Some people got together and pooled their money to form a company, each getting shares proportional to their contribution. Then markets developed to buy and sell those shares as owners wanted to reallocate their investments. All well and good. If Smith wanted to sell his shares in XYZ to buy a house and Jones was glad to buy XYZ shares because he missed out when they were issued, that's all above board.
I won't get into day-trading versus investing or all the derivatives that Wall Street thinks up. This is almost all smoke and mirrors and a long, long way from capitalism.
As economies grew, so did the companies originally financed with stock. But as they grew, the shareholders became more and more distant from the operation of the company. They had to hire executives and board members to run the company. All well and good. But with all the buying and selling of shares, the shareholders had little interest in the company other than it grew and turned a profit. Few had any interest in the day-to-day running of the company.
As time went on, the board members nominated themselves for successive terms, without any competition. Shareholders could either accept them or withhold their votes; the boards made any mechanisms to offer a different slate extremely difficult. To make matters worse, many of the shares were owned by mutual funds and other institutions; in general, the operators of these institutions exercised their "fiduciary responsibility" and voted with the board.
In many democratic countries, the boards lobbied their friends in governments to put up various hindrances to any shareholder control beyond the above yes or no votes.
These board members grant their appointed executives shares in the company for their "performance" and grant themselves the same. In other words, they are giving themselves more and more of the company and more and more of the votes. The board members often get over $100,000 per year for showing up for six meetings. Nice work if you can get it.
Many define this whole process as capitalism and as a great good. I call it capturism; the few have captured control of a company to run as they see fit. At least, unlike many oligarchies, they don't throw dissidents in jail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)