Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Failed business models

Seems like every now and then when I take a little vacation and come back there are some major upheavals and changes on the workfront and it got me to thinking during my walk today. Now I had a bad manager back in the day, may or may not have been a psycho but definitely an asshole and there was alot going on back then, had some health issues which seemed to start around then, blogged about some of them at the time yet Upper Management made a decision to bring him back. Dunno man but I say if somebody is at best a question mark let them be a memory, a part of Back in the Day but all this work stuff got me to thinking about bailouts and such. Now of course the bailouts didn't start with Obama, Bush really got them going but as a general statement I'm against bailouts philosophically and here's why. If you let the free market work as it's supposed to companies that deserve to go under are allowed to do so. It may sound harsh but there's a reason for everything, maybe they don't treat the workers right, maybe there's corruption, whatever but government throws these economic life rafts and blankets out constantly now and it interferes with the whole natural process, a kind of business Darwinism where the undeserving are allowed to fail. The usual rationale is but the people will be out of their jobs but they can always dust themselves off and find new employment with hopefully better companies but they tend to pigeonhole themselves (once a butcher always a butcher). Now let me ask you if a major company goes bankrupt and then has to file some austerity plan on orders of the Bankrupty Court and so then there's a wage reduction and then a wage freeze for years on end and other major gutting of certain bennies and perks hard fought by the Union over the years HOW is such a bailout beneficial to said workers as a whole? That's called Taking It Up The Ass, Thuganomics 101 and there's a certain loss of basic human dignity involved so what good are unions in the first place? Wouldn't it have been much better for the business to simply close up shop like in the old days because they were fiscally and even morally irresponsible throughout the years? That's the beautiful karma of the free-market system at work folks, the workers will dust themselves off and pick up better jobs if not now then down the road. So how is a massive bank or gov't bailout (really the same thing) gonna help change the Peter Principle? Back in the Day if a place went bankrupt there was a reason for it and there was no chance in hell of getting a bailout or recovery loan. Let me put it in more simple terms and we've all done this us men -- you screwed it up with a chick bigtime, that's all your fault and you have the rest of your life to think about it and chew it over but that's called learning from experience and starting over so when was the last time somebody came up to you and said I'm bailing you out with a new chick?

10 comments:

  1. Excellent analysis here my friend!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Business here in America, some of it's just plain corrupt. Not that that's a newsflash but a couple people have told me there's a major supermarket chain in this country where there are elements of the Mafia. Conventional wisdom goes they're kinda on their way out but it could explain why some major businesses are run into the ground all the time. The new manager coming back, even here two or three people have told me he's with the Mob in some way. I know one liberal person here thinks I come up with these paranoiac constructs all the time but this was told to me in all seriousness and I had not thought of it this way at all in the beginning. It could explain alot of things and the funny thing is he was demoted a few times and always gets bounced back to a managerial position. That's very unusual, usually if you're not cut out for the job that's it you proved yourself. In my experience it's not common to get the same manager 2X but that's the personal side here. Like my friend says about the upper bosses who make those decisions, they must be desperate and the brain trust must've left a long time ago and so the Peter Principle appears to be unchangeable. Bottom line I'm against the bailouts as a rule but even more so if there's corruption in the ranks or malfeasance or just plain not knowing how to handle the money.

    ReplyDelete
  3. & I have to say I'm totally into soapie's economic libertarianism thing although not on all the other social stuff. Lista says we need at least a few rules and regs but I'd like to get back to as pure a free market as we can although as soapie correctly points out what we really have here is a mixture. I think a free laissez-faire market really sorts things out and if the gov't or a bank bails out a major company if the honchos weren't correctly handling the money and making the right decisions before how are they gonna do that now? Many times failure is the best proving grounds for a good business education but we're afraid to fail in this country like it's a dirty word or something. Part of what makes America great or used to is the very freedom to fail.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Economic liberty good.

    Personal/Individual liberty bad.

    Yep...that's conservatism for ya.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What's more, true and honest advocates and promoters of free markets are more than content to allow advertisers or consumers of said goods and services within the market to make decisions regarding which goods and services they decide to purchase (afterall that is a market and how a market operates).

    [See Rush Limbaugh threads/comments for clarification]

    ReplyDelete
  6. Had to take a break to do some shopping: bottle of Johnnie Walker Red for my Dad, a Wilson basketball for my nephew and a box of Entenmann's for later and a Gillette Fusion (are they ever come out with 7 blades?). Your second point first, seems you're talking about boycotts here and I can't argue with that but seems to me a boycott of Rush let's say is to drive him off the air so it's hard for me to wrap my philosphical head around that one (two competing values here, anger at what was said vs. free speech). We've been over this ground before but I'm not as a rule a big fan of the boycott and that applies to Bill Maher as well. If Rush makes my drive on a long trip better and BB would rather count antelope so be it:)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Economic vs. personal liberty soap, here's my thing. I'm not a total 100% social conservative. Porn should remain legal and I also feel prostitution should be decriminalized although I feel it's a kind of scourge. Interestingly enough the arguments pro-choicers use all the time (my body/my right) seems to me are better suited to prostitution but where I have a problem is once you are dealing with a human life then I feel your personal liberty kinda ends right there so it's easier for you on this one than it is for me.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I didn't even bring up the element of a pregnant woman (will we ever have a conversation where that isn't invoked..).

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sorry but the only part of this post that I was able to understand was the part about the "Johnnie Walker Red"

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'd be glad to have a conversation where that isn't invoked but I kinda thought when libertarians and liberals invoke "personal liberty" it always ends up there in the womb. In fact it seems to be a kind of litmus test with some that if let's say I'm all for freedom most of the time that if I somehow make an exception in the case of abortion I'm not a good conservative or libertarian or whatever like everything else has to be thrown out because I'm not pro-choice.

    ReplyDelete