SERVING THE QUANTITATIVE FINANCE COMMUNITY

 
User avatar
Traden4Alpha
Posts: 23951
Joined: September 20th, 2002, 8:30 pm

RIP Margaret Thatcher

April 13th, 2013, 11:11 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: exneratunriskQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: PaulFor the young ones here who never witnessed the 1970s, early 1980s UK, and for the senile who've forgotten, I'd like to paint a picture. Look at this man. He is Bob Crow, the modern equivalent of Arthur Scargill, the man who destroyed the mining industry and the livelihoods of many families: Imagine if he had the country by the cojones. Also imagine power cuts, reading by candlelight, rubbish in the streets because of strikes, the dead unburied because of strikes. Now add in a prawn cocktail, boil-in-the-bag cod in parsley sauce, an avocado bathtub...and voila, you have the 1970s! PIndeed! Trade unions are just greed dressed up in solidarity clothing.(That said, the organizations that suffer from unionized labour probably deserve their fate.)????? This is not a T4A analysis? I take this as propaganda, Sorry.It is a bit more differencated? Take VW as prototype. The majority owner is the state of Niedersachsen, they have a strong union base, the workers earn sifgnificantly more than the average in similar jobs and they are "a little" more successful than Opel the GM subsidiary (bailed out by the German tax payers several times) And you might want to study the Swedish way - with the unexpected: consevatives wanted state ownership of the core industry and the social democrates and unions said NO.There is cooperation between management and unions - not all are a bunch of Scargills.No, it is not that simple, ideologies, movements, clans and individuals are not just brillant or stupid, all-knowing or naive, altruist or selfish ... ?Yes, perhaps I've painted unions with an overly broad brush. As Cuchulainn has pointed out, it may be the difference between US and European unions. I've only worked at one company (a defense contractor) that had unions and it was horrible. No one could touch a typewriter except the unionized typists and no one could touch a tool except the unionized factory workers. And the processes for getting these unionized workers to do anything were so painful and slow that little got done. My father-in-law (also an engineer) had the similar experiences in the unionized beer brewing industry. So what I said wasn't propaganda, it was personal experience. More broadly, unions (in the US, at least) have saddled their companies (and governments) with unsustainable pension plans and inflexible work rules. Maybe unions are more reasonable in Europe, but in the US they act like nasty adversarial monopolists. (And, as I also said, the nastiness of those unions might reflect the nastiness of the companies that they've attacked.)
 
User avatar
Cuchulainn
Posts: 62623
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 7:38 am
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

RIP Margaret Thatcher

April 13th, 2013, 11:37 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: exneratunriskQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: PaulFor the young ones here who never witnessed the 1970s, early 1980s UK, and for the senile who've forgotten, I'd like to paint a picture. Look at this man. He is Bob Crow, the modern equivalent of Arthur Scargill, the man who destroyed the mining industry and the livelihoods of many families: Imagine if he had the country by the cojones. Also imagine power cuts, reading by candlelight, rubbish in the streets because of strikes, the dead unburied because of strikes. Now add in a prawn cocktail, boil-in-the-bag cod in parsley sauce, an avocado bathtub...and voila, you have the 1970s! PIndeed! Trade unions are just greed dressed up in solidarity clothing.(That said, the organizations that suffer from unionized labour probably deserve their fate.)????? This is not a T4A analysis? I take this as propaganda, Sorry.It is a bit more differencated? Take VW as prototype. The majority owner is the state of Niedersachsen, they have a strong union base, the workers earn sifgnificantly more than the average in similar jobs and they are "a little" more successful than Opel the GM subsidiary (bailed out by the German tax payers several times) And you might want to study the Swedish way - with the unexpected: consevatives wanted state ownership of the core industry and the social democrates and unions said NO.There is cooperation between management and unions - not all are a bunch of Scargills.No, it is not that simple, ideologies, movements, clans and individuals are not just brillant or stupid, all-knowing or naive, altruist or selfish ... ?Yes, perhaps I've painted unions with an overly broad brush. As Cuchulainn has pointed out, it may be the difference between US and European unions. I've only worked at one company (a defense contractor) that had unions and it was horrible. No one could touch a typewriter except the unionized typists and no one could touch a tool except the unionized factory workers. And the processes for getting these unionized workers to do anything were so painful and slow that little got done. My father-in-law (also an engineer) had the similar experiences in the unionized beer brewing industry. So what I said wasn't propaganda, it was personal experience. More broadly, unions (in the US, at least) have saddled their companies (and governments) with unsustainable pension plans and inflexible work rules. Maybe unions are more reasonable in Europe, but in the US they act like nasty adversarial monopolists. (And, as I also said, the nastiness of those unions might reflect the nastiness of the companies that they've attacked.)The unions in Ireland were like that the 70's. Maybe they modelled themselves on the UK, I don't. Can you imagine it, there was a postal strike in Ireland for 3 months once!!!! Every week someone from Trinity College would take the boat to Holyhead and post college stuff from there. Yes, these unionists were blackmailers. Question: who made the unions they way they have become in your country?
Last edited by Cuchulainn on April 12th, 2013, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Step over the gap, not into it. Watch the space between platform and train.
http://www.datasimfinancial.com
http://www.datasim.nl
 
User avatar
Traden4Alpha
Posts: 23951
Joined: September 20th, 2002, 8:30 pm

RIP Margaret Thatcher

April 13th, 2013, 11:46 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: exneratunriskQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: PaulFor the young ones here who never witnessed the 1970s, early 1980s UK, and for the senile who've forgotten, I'd like to paint a picture. Look at this man. He is Bob Crow, the modern equivalent of Arthur Scargill, the man who destroyed the mining industry and the livelihoods of many families: Imagine if he had the country by the cojones. Also imagine power cuts, reading by candlelight, rubbish in the streets because of strikes, the dead unburied because of strikes. Now add in a prawn cocktail, boil-in-the-bag cod in parsley sauce, an avocado bathtub...and voila, you have the 1970s! PIndeed! Trade unions are just greed dressed up in solidarity clothing.(That said, the organizations that suffer from unionized labour probably deserve their fate.)????? This is not a T4A analysis? I take this as propaganda, Sorry.It is a bit more differencated? Take VW as prototype. The majority owner is the state of Niedersachsen, they have a strong union base, the workers earn sifgnificantly more than the average in similar jobs and they are "a little" more successful than Opel the GM subsidiary (bailed out by the German tax payers several times) And you might want to study the Swedish way - with the unexpected: consevatives wanted state ownership of the core industry and the social democrates and unions said NO.There is cooperation between management and unions - not all are a bunch of Scargills.No, it is not that simple, ideologies, movements, clans and individuals are not just brillant or stupid, all-knowing or naive, altruist or selfish ... ?Yes, perhaps I've painted unions with an overly broad brush. As Cuchulainn has pointed out, it may be the difference between US and European unions. I've only worked at one company (a defense contractor) that had unions and it was horrible. No one could touch a typewriter except the unionized typists and no one could touch a tool except the unionized factory workers. And the processes for getting these unionized workers to do anything were so painful and slow that little got done. My father-in-law (also an engineer) had the similar experiences in the unionized beer brewing industry. So what I said wasn't propaganda, it was personal experience. More broadly, unions (in the US, at least) have saddled their companies (and governments) with unsustainable pension plans and inflexible work rules. Maybe unions are more reasonable in Europe, but in the US they act like nasty adversarial monopolists. (And, as I also said, the nastiness of those unions might reflect the nastiness of the companies that they've attacked.)The unions in Ireland were like that the 70's. Maybe they modelled themselves on the UK, I don't. Can you imagine it, there was a postal strike in Ireland for 3 months once!!!! Every week someone from Trinity College would take the boat to Hollyhead and post college stuff from there. Yes, these unionists were blackmailers. Question: who made the unions they way they have become in your country?As I've said a couple of times, the U.S. organizations that suffer from U.S. unionized labour probably deserve their fate. And when those unionized US companies fail, both management and the workers probably deserve their fate.
 
User avatar
Cuchulainn
Posts: 62623
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 7:38 am
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

RIP Margaret Thatcher

April 13th, 2013, 11:49 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: exneratunriskQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: PaulFor the young ones here who never witnessed the 1970s, early 1980s UK, and for the senile who've forgotten, I'd like to paint a picture. Look at this man. He is Bob Crow, the modern equivalent of Arthur Scargill, the man who destroyed the mining industry and the livelihoods of many families: Imagine if he had the country by the cojones. Also imagine power cuts, reading by candlelight, rubbish in the streets because of strikes, the dead unburied because of strikes. Now add in a prawn cocktail, boil-in-the-bag cod in parsley sauce, an avocado bathtub...and voila, you have the 1970s! PIndeed! Trade unions are just greed dressed up in solidarity clothing.(That said, the organizations that suffer from unionized labour probably deserve their fate.)????? This is not a T4A analysis? I take this as propaganda, Sorry.It is a bit more differencated? Take VW as prototype. The majority owner is the state of Niedersachsen, they have a strong union base, the workers earn sifgnificantly more than the average in similar jobs and they are "a little" more successful than Opel the GM subsidiary (bailed out by the German tax payers several times) And you might want to study the Swedish way - with the unexpected: consevatives wanted state ownership of the core industry and the social democrates and unions said NO.There is cooperation between management and unions - not all are a bunch of Scargills.No, it is not that simple, ideologies, movements, clans and individuals are not just brillant or stupid, all-knowing or naive, altruist or selfish ... ?Yes, perhaps I've painted unions with an overly broad brush. As Cuchulainn has pointed out, it may be the difference between US and European unions. I've only worked at one company (a defense contractor) that had unions and it was horrible. No one could touch a typewriter except the unionized typists and no one could touch a tool except the unionized factory workers. And the processes for getting these unionized workers to do anything were so painful and slow that little got done. My father-in-law (also an engineer) had the similar experiences in the unionized beer brewing industry. So what I said wasn't propaganda, it was personal experience. More broadly, unions (in the US, at least) have saddled their companies (and governments) with unsustainable pension plans and inflexible work rules. Maybe unions are more reasonable in Europe, but in the US they act like nasty adversarial monopolists. (And, as I also said, the nastiness of those unions might reflect the nastiness of the companies that they've attacked.)The unions in Ireland were like that the 70's. Maybe they modelled themselves on the UK, I don't. Can you imagine it, there was a postal strike in Ireland for 3 months once!!!! Every week someone from Trinity College would take the boat to Hollyhead and post college stuff from there. Yes, these unionists were blackmailers. Question: who made the unions they way they have become in your country?As I've said a couple of times, the U.S. organizations that suffer from U.S. unionized labour probably deserve their fate. And when those unionized US companies fail, both management and the workers probably deserve their fate.In von Nemann jargon, this is a zero-sum game.
Step over the gap, not into it. Watch the space between platform and train.
http://www.datasimfinancial.com
http://www.datasim.nl
 
User avatar
exneratunrisk
Posts: 3559
Joined: April 20th, 2004, 12:25 pm

RIP Margaret Thatcher

April 13th, 2013, 11:57 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: exneratunriskQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: PaulFor the young ones here who never witnessed the 1970s, early 1980s UK, and for the senile who've forgotten, I'd like to paint a picture. Look at this man. He is Bob Crow, the modern equivalent of Arthur Scargill, the man who destroyed the mining industry and the livelihoods of many families: Imagine if he had the country by the cojones. Also imagine power cuts, reading by candlelight, rubbish in the streets because of strikes, the dead unburied because of strikes. Now add in a prawn cocktail, boil-in-the-bag cod in parsley sauce, an avocado bathtub...and voila, you have the 1970s! PIndeed! Trade unions are just greed dressed up in solidarity clothing.(That said, the organizations that suffer from unionized labour probably deserve their fate.)????? This is not a T4A analysis? I take this as propaganda, Sorry.It is a bit more differencated? Take VW as prototype. The majority owner is the state of Niedersachsen, they have a strong union base, the workers earn sifgnificantly more than the average in similar jobs and they are "a little" more successful than Opel the GM subsidiary (bailed out by the German tax payers several times) And you might want to study the Swedish way - with the unexpected: consevatives wanted state ownership of the core industry and the social democrates and unions said NO.There is cooperation between management and unions - not all are a bunch of Scargills.No, it is not that simple, ideologies, movements, clans and individuals are not just brillant or stupid, all-knowing or naive, altruist or selfish ... ?Yes, perhaps I've painted unions with an overly broad brush. As Cuchulainn has pointed out, it may be the difference between US and European unions. I've only worked at one company (a defense contractor) that had unions and it was horrible. No one could touch a typewriter except the unionized typists and no one could touch a tool except the unionized factory workers. And the processes for getting these unionized workers to do anything were so painful and slow that little got done. My father-in-law (also an engineer) had the similar experiences in the unionized beer brewing industry. So what I said wasn't propaganda, it was personal experience. More broadly, unions (in the US, at least) have saddled their companies (and governments) with unsustainable pension plans and inflexible work rules. Maybe unions are more reasonable in Europe, but in the US they act like nasty adversarial monopolists. (And, as I also said, the nastiness of those unions might reflect the nastiness of the companies that they've attacked.)Maybe they are not that different. In my country, in the large they tend supporting strikes of airline pilots, instead of the lousy paid cleaners ... but in many cases they are indispensable ... BTW, I never would like to work for VW, not for much more money, but this is another story .. I am one of the lucky ... We are far away from a reasonable, self-developing emplyer-employee relationship ... many of the promises and change announcemt on new management and leadership approaches (tons of them in HBR ...) .... are nice to read but in reality they seem to land in the trash. Or even worse, created as fog to hide the ongoing prctices of "slave work". Like risk managemnt theory and practice ... we need stupid regulators, because we are so stupid ...and we need unions, because we are so greedy, unfair, .....
Last edited by exneratunrisk on April 12th, 2013, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Traden4Alpha
Posts: 23951
Joined: September 20th, 2002, 8:30 pm

RIP Margaret Thatcher

April 13th, 2013, 1:01 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: exneratunriskQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: exneratunriskQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: PaulFor the young ones here who never witnessed the 1970s, early 1980s UK, and for the senile who've forgotten, I'd like to paint a picture. Look at this man. He is Bob Crow, the modern equivalent of Arthur Scargill, the man who destroyed the mining industry and the livelihoods of many families: Imagine if he had the country by the cojones. Also imagine power cuts, reading by candlelight, rubbish in the streets because of strikes, the dead unburied because of strikes. Now add in a prawn cocktail, boil-in-the-bag cod in parsley sauce, an avocado bathtub...and voila, you have the 1970s! PIndeed! Trade unions are just greed dressed up in solidarity clothing.(That said, the organizations that suffer from unionized labour probably deserve their fate.)????? This is not a T4A analysis? I take this as propaganda, Sorry.It is a bit more differencated? Take VW as prototype. The majority owner is the state of Niedersachsen, they have a strong union base, the workers earn sifgnificantly more than the average in similar jobs and they are "a little" more successful than Opel the GM subsidiary (bailed out by the German tax payers several times) And you might want to study the Swedish way - with the unexpected: consevatives wanted state ownership of the core industry and the social democrates and unions said NO.There is cooperation between management and unions - not all are a bunch of Scargills.No, it is not that simple, ideologies, movements, clans and individuals are not just brillant or stupid, all-knowing or naive, altruist or selfish ... ?Yes, perhaps I've painted unions with an overly broad brush. As Cuchulainn has pointed out, it may be the difference between US and European unions. I've only worked at one company (a defense contractor) that had unions and it was horrible. No one could touch a typewriter except the unionized typists and no one could touch a tool except the unionized factory workers. And the processes for getting these unionized workers to do anything were so painful and slow that little got done. My father-in-law (also an engineer) had the similar experiences in the unionized beer brewing industry. So what I said wasn't propaganda, it was personal experience. More broadly, unions (in the US, at least) have saddled their companies (and governments) with unsustainable pension plans and inflexible work rules. Maybe unions are more reasonable in Europe, but in the US they act like nasty adversarial monopolists. (And, as I also said, the nastiness of those unions might reflect the nastiness of the companies that they've attacked.)Maybe they are not that different. In my country, in the laarge they tend supporting strikes of airline pilots, instead of the lousy paidcleaners ... but in many cases they are indispensable ... BTW, I never would like to work for VW, not for much more money, but this is another story .. I am one of the lucky ... We are far away from a reasonable, self-developing emplyer-employee relationship ... many of the promises and change announcemt on new management and leadership approaches (tons of them in HBR ...) .... are nice to read but in reality they seem to land in the trash. Or even worse, created as fog to hide the ongoing prctices of "slave work". Like risk managemnt theory and practice ... we need stupid regulators, because we are so stupid ...and we need unions, because we are so greedy, unfair, ....Yes, it's an artifact of bounded rationality -- each group (management, pilots, factory workers, regulators, etc.) can only see the system from their point of view.But the deeper issue WRT unions is that they are based on a soon-to-be obsolete industrial model of labour that has a strong dichotomy between decision-making, white-collar employees and physical-making, blue-collar employees. When most workers were just cogs on the machine, they did need some kind of representation to help avoid overwork, abuse, hazards, etc. But all that machine-like labour is being replaced by machines. Even China's Foxconn is replacing workers with robots.I suspect that more and more workers will need to be decision-making employees. What is the role of a union in an organization that is 100% management?
 
User avatar
Anthis
Posts: 4313
Joined: October 22nd, 2001, 10:06 am

RIP Margaret Thatcher

April 13th, 2013, 8:57 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4Alpha What is the role of a union in an organization that is 100% management?If managers do not have significant ownership rights and corporate control, then they are just employees legally. Probably some of them at the higher end of the employee spectrum, but still employees. Unions are to represent employees "against" employers.
 
User avatar
Cuchulainn
Posts: 62623
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 7:38 am
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

RIP Margaret Thatcher

April 14th, 2013, 10:09 am

Hillsborough memorials unveiled in Liverpool At the time, an attempt was to blame the Liverpool supporters for this disaster??Thatcher government toyed with evacuating Liverpool after 1981 riots
Last edited by Cuchulainn on April 13th, 2013, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Step over the gap, not into it. Watch the space between platform and train.
http://www.datasimfinancial.com
http://www.datasim.nl
 
User avatar
Cuchulainn
Posts: 62623
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 7:38 am
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

RIP Margaret Thatcher

April 14th, 2013, 10:20 am

Another issue: what were the captains of industry doing during the 1970's? Did they take their eye of the ball? Did they fail to see the rise of the Japanese auto industry??Is it too early for an official history of that period?
Last edited by Cuchulainn on April 13th, 2013, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Step over the gap, not into it. Watch the space between platform and train.
http://www.datasimfinancial.com
http://www.datasim.nl
 
User avatar
Traden4Alpha
Posts: 23951
Joined: September 20th, 2002, 8:30 pm

RIP Margaret Thatcher

April 14th, 2013, 4:05 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnAnother issue: what were the captains of industry doing during the 1970's? Did they take their eye of the ball? Did they fail to see the rise of the Japanese auto industry??Is it too early for an official history of that period?Clayton Christensen's Innovator's Dilemma -- I've seen him talk on this topic -- has a pretty convincing explanation for why incumbents so often fail to counter the rise of upstarts. Those early Japanese cars were small and crappy so it was easy for incumbents to dismiss them. But then Toyota et al got better or something like the first energy crisis hits to flip customer's preferences for the "inferior" product.When the threat becomes more obvious, the threatened company often first reacts by focusing on what they do best, what provides the highest profits, what made them successful in the first place, and how they can best use their existing assets (factories & workforces) to compete. But the nature of disruptive innovations is such as historical strategies and historical assets are entirely wrong for the new environment.And it doesn't help if the captains of industry have bad relationships with their workers such that it impedes changes in work practices and workforce reductions. In the US, both the steel and auto industries created a self-imposed death spirals -- they paid for very large and expensive labour forces (both in factories and pensioners) that made their products too expensive. The more they lost marketshare, the worse the labour_cost/unit_production became, and the more uncompetitive they became.
 
User avatar
Cuchulainn
Posts: 62623
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 7:38 am
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

RIP Margaret Thatcher

April 14th, 2013, 4:35 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnAnother issue: what were the captains of industry doing during the 1970's? Did they take their eye of the ball? Did they fail to see the rise of the Japanese auto industry??Is it too early for an official history of that period?Clayton Christensen's Innovator's Dilemma -- I've seen him talk on this topic -- has a pretty convincing explanation for why incumbents so often fail to counter the rise of upstarts. Those early Japanese cars were small and crappy so it was easy for incumbents to dismiss them. But then Toyota et al got better or something like the first energy crisis hits to flip customer's preferences for the "inferior" product.When the threat becomes more obvious, the threatened company often first reacts by focusing on what they do best, what provides the highest profits, what made them successful in the first place, and how they can best use their existing assets (factories & workforces) to compete. But the nature of disruptive innovations is such as historical strategies and historical assets are entirely wrong for the new environment.And it doesn't help if the captains of industry have bad relationships with their workers such that it impedes changes in work practices and workforce reductions. In the US, both the steel and auto industries created a self-imposed death spirals -- they paid for very large and expensive labour forces (both in factories and pensioners) that made their products too expensive. The more they lost marketshare, the worse the labour_cost/unit_production became, and the more uncompetitive they became.Maybe it was a form of lethargy. The same thing happened in the 80's when Europe started to outsource manufacturing to countries with cheaper currencies. And a sense of hubris maybe that things would remain the same as during the 60's economic miracle.
Last edited by Cuchulainn on April 13th, 2013, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Step over the gap, not into it. Watch the space between platform and train.
http://www.datasimfinancial.com
http://www.datasim.nl
 
User avatar
Traden4Alpha
Posts: 23951
Joined: September 20th, 2002, 8:30 pm

RIP Margaret Thatcher

April 14th, 2013, 4:49 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnAnother issue: what were the captains of industry doing during the 1970's? Did they take their eye of the ball? Did they fail to see the rise of the Japanese auto industry??Is it too early for an official history of that period?Clayton Christensen's Innovator's Dilemma -- I've seen him talk on this topic -- has a pretty convincing explanation for why incumbents so often fail to counter the rise of upstarts. Those early Japanese cars were small and crappy so it was easy for incumbents to dismiss them. But then Toyota et al got better or something like the first energy crisis hits to flip customer's preferences for the "inferior" product.When the threat becomes more obvious, the threatened company often first reacts by focusing on what they do best, what provides the highest profits, what made them successful in the first place, and how they can best use their existing assets (factories & workforces) to compete. But the nature of disruptive innovations is such as historical strategies and historical assets are entirely wrong for the new environment.And it doesn't help if the captains of industry have bad relationships with their workers such that it impedes changes in work practices and workforce reductions. In the US, both the steel and auto industries created a self-imposed death spirals -- they paid for very large and expensive labour forces (both in factories and pensioners) that made their products too expensive. The more they lost marketshare, the worse the labour_cost/unit_production became, and the more uncompetitive they became.Maybe it was a form of lethargy. The same thing happened in the 80's when Europe started to outsource manufacturing to countries with cheaper countries. And a sense of hubris maybe that things would remain the same as in the 60's economic miracle.Yes, it's the curse of success. The incumbent leader simply can't see how the inferior upstart will beat the superior incumbent. And if the upstart does win a few battles in some niche markets, the leader dismisses it as a fluke and retrenches to their "core markets". But pretty soon, the upstart just get better and better and the core shrinks to nothing. Sometimes a company's greatest asset becomes their greatest liability. There's also the issue of sycophants in the company -- the leader believes their own propaganda.It's happening right now with Nokia/Blackberry/Microsoft vs Android/Apple, Intel/AMD vs. ARM, as well as Japan vs. China.
 
User avatar
zerdna
Posts: 3856
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

RIP Margaret Thatcher

April 14th, 2013, 5:04 pm

There are a couple of heinous facets of unions affect on economy and society that go beyond them just suffocating certain industries they conquer.Most important facet is the right and obligation of employers to deny a job to a non union member who otherwise qualifies for it. Its hard to fathom that the same people who bend over backwards to eliminate race or gender discrimination would applaud a more drastic, total discrimination against non union members that became an official law in the US. I am stunned that this could be constitutional. Another obvious aspect of the situation is that unions finance and vote for a party that is subsequently allowed to direct public resources to repeatedly bail out unionized industries. If unions have positive role in economics, let them do their union collective bargaining magic with steel, auto, or airline management and either make these companies succeed or go bankrupt, without the government robbing bondholders and taxpayers. Again, i fail to understand why GM bondholders didn't sue Obama government when it robbed them in the last bailout. But in any event, this quid pro quo means that unions will perpetually metastasize whatever industry they are able to subvert, without any hope for its recovery.
 
User avatar
exneratunrisk
Posts: 3559
Joined: April 20th, 2004, 12:25 pm

RIP Margaret Thatcher

April 15th, 2013, 4:44 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: zerdnaThere are a couple of heinous facets of unions affect on economy and society that go beyond them just suffocating certain industries they conquer.Most important facet is the right and obligation of employers to deny a job to a non union member who otherwise qualifies for it. Its hard to fathom that the same people who bend over backwards to eliminate race or gender discrimination would applaud a more drastic, total discrimination against non union members that became an official law in the US. I am stunned that this could be constitutional. Another obvious aspect of the situation is that unions finance and vote for a party that is subsequently allowed to direct public resources to repeatedly bail out unionized industries. If unions have positive role in economics, let them do their union collective bargaining magic with steel, auto, or airline management and either make these companies succeed or go bankrupt, without the government robbing bondholders and taxpayers. Again, i fail to understand why GM bondholders didn't sue Obama government when it robbed them in the last bailout. But in any event, this quid pro quo means that unions will perpetually metastasize whatever industry they are able to subvert, without any hope for its recovery.So, the inverse summary of this statement is: rather derstroy an industry thats workers are organized in unions.Yes, that is the core of Thatcherism.There is a clever marketing strategy: two-sided markets, subsidize one side to get much more from the other. Gilette the prototype. You mean this should be forbidden on the country, state, ... level? Why do we have countries, states, .. at all, if we ban marketing stategies (and others) in the large? We could just remove borders, delete constitutions, give up waelth pool accounting, ..? IMO, this has nothing to do with the fact that many countries have stupid marketing strategies.BTW, a contemporary car has a fiew hundred physical parts but 10 mio lines of code, in minimum.
Last edited by exneratunrisk on April 14th, 2013, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
exneratunrisk
Posts: 3559
Joined: April 20th, 2004, 12:25 pm

RIP Margaret Thatcher

April 15th, 2013, 6:45 am

A little about naivety:I distinguish between naive and blueprint technologies and I believe that naive technologies have much more potential for growth (the only?). In concrete cases they make blueprint technologies outdated. To me it was always clear that the information technology sector will "kill" the telephone sector (Sorry, Motorola ..., Nokia, Samsung, ... you know where the door is). And it is my strong believe, that on the long run, the naive people will outperform the strictly science-, concept-, rule-driven, ....So, I am happy to belong to the faction-of-the-naive Interestingly enough the promotors of a deregulated economy and social system often argue like law&order groupies (Thatcher did, IMO) - especially when they want to erect barriers and define constraints for the "others".Why are we so sure that we are on the right side? Because of passport photos of some players (beside the fun factor - people in the public sector need to accept "caricatures"), stories about their pathological implementation of ideologies, ..? Right vs left. Is it really nazism vs pol potism?
ABOUT WILMOTT

PW by JB

Wilmott.com has been "Serving the Quantitative Finance Community" since 2001. Continued...


Twitter LinkedIn Instagram

JOBS BOARD

JOBS BOARD

Looking for a quant job, risk, algo trading,...? Browse jobs here...


GZIP: On