Tag: corpocracy

A failure of leadership

This is what happens when you buy into the tolerance trap and permit the lavender mafia entrance into your organization:

Employees and volunteers at Mozilla – the organisation which promotes open source software such as its Firefox browser – have called for new chief executive Brendan Eich to stand down because of his donations to political campaigns to ban gay marriage.

This week Mozilla named Brendan Eich as its new chief executive, following the resignation of Gary Kovacs which was announced in April last year. Eich was previously Mozilla’s chief technology officer and has a long history with the group dating back to before its formation from Netscape, having worked on the Navigator browser in the 90s and creating JavaScript in a marathon, ten-day programming session in 1995.

The controversy stems from a $1,000 donation he made in 2008 to support California’s Proposition 8, which opposed gay marriage. The donation was listed in a public database with Mozilla appearing next to Eich’s name as his employer. It caused controversy in the technology industry when it was uncovered in 2012.

Eich posted on his own blog to “express my sorrow at having caused pain” and promised an “active commitment to equality” at Mozilla. “I am committed to ensuring that Mozilla is, and will remain, a place that includes and supports everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, age, race, ethnicity, economic status, or religion,” he wrote.

But employees were unconvinced. Chris McAvoy, who leads Mozilla’s Open Badges project, took to Twitter last night to call for the new chief executive to stand down and said that he had been “disapointed” by his promotion. 

Eich is in over his head and clearly has no idea what he is dealing with here. He committed a major blunder with that statement; it’s rather like watching a gamma male shot down by a woman respond by supplicating even harder.

What he should have done is fired everyone who called upon him to resign and announced that anyone who would permit their political ideology to interfere with their work at Mozilla or Mozilla’s internal affairs would be fired. That would have brought the matter to a speedy close and prevented similar outbreaks of political insubordination. Instead, he poured gasoline on the fire by showing that he is vulnerable to ideological pressure.

When confronted by a pressure group, one should never apologize and never back down. Confront every challenger outside the organization and crush every challenger inside it. People respect strength and confidence in a leader, even when they disagree with him, because at least he shows that he is decisive and is capable of providing direction. Ironically, in his inept response to the attacks on him, Eich has shown that he is unfit for leadership because he is fundamentally a follower.

What he should have said is: “Like everyone else at Mozilla, I am free to donate to any political organization or cause I choose. It is no one’s business here to tell me to whom I can and cannot donate my money, in the past or in the future. I have donated another $10,000 to [some anti-homogamy outfit], fired Mr. McAvoy for cause, and I will fire any other Mozilla employee or volunteer who publicly demands that this organization to cater to his personal political or ideological beliefs instead of pursuing our corporate objectives.”

Free Trade is global fascism

I worked that out on my own, but it turned out to be unnecessary. This document from the 1967 Congressional Record should suffice to demonstrate that conservatives who favor free trade are being played like Ronald Reagan signing the 1986 Immigration Amnesty under the belief that it would reduce future immigration from Mexico:

“For the widespread development of the multinational corporation is one of our major accomplishments in the years since the war, though its meaning and importance have not been generally understood. For the first time in history man has at his command an instrument that enables him to employ resource flexibility to meet the needs of peopels all over the world. Today a corporate management in Detroit or New York or London or Dusseldorf may decide that it can best serve the market of country Z by combining the resources of country X with labor and plan facilities in country Y – and it may alter that decision 6 months from now if changes occur in costs or price or transport. It is the ability to look out over the world and freely survey all possible sources of production… that is enabling man to employ the world’s finite stock of resources with a new degree of efficiency for the benefit of all mandkind.

But to fulfill its full potential the multinational corporation must be able to operate with little regard for national boundaries – or, in other words, for restrictions imposed by individual national governments.

To achieve such a free trading environment we must do far more than merely reduce or eliminate tariffs. We must move in the direction of common fiscal concepts, a common monetary policy, and common ideas of commercial responsibility. Already the economically advanced nations have made some progress in all of these areas through such agencies as the OECD and the committees it has sponsored, the Group of Ten, and the IMF, but we still have a long way to go. In my view, we could steer a faster and more direct course… by agreeing that what we seek at the end of the voyage is the full realization of the benefits of a world economy.

Implied in this, of course, is a considerable erosion of the rigid concepts of national sovereignty, but that erosion is taking place every day as national economies grow increasingly interdependent, and I think it desirable that this process be consciously continued. What I am recommending is nothing so unreal and idealistic as a world government, since I have spent too many years in the guerrilla warfare of practical diplomacy to be bemused by utopian visions. But it seems beyond question that modern business – sustained and reinforced by modern technology – has outgrown the constrictive limits of the antiquated political structures in which most of the world is organized, and that itself is a political fact which cannot be ignored. For the explosion of business beyond national borders will tend to create needs and pressures that can help alter political structures to fit the requirements of modern man far more adequately than the present crazy quilt of small national states. And meanwhile, commercial, monetary, and antitrust policies – and even the domiciliary supervision of earth-straddling corporations – will have to be increasingly entrusted to supranational institutions….

We will never be able to put the world’s resources to use with full efficiency so long as business decisions are frustrated by a multiplicity of different restrictions by relatively small nation states that are based on parochial considerations, reflect no common philosophy, and are keyed to no common goal.

Fascists are always all about “efficiency”. If the thought of global efficiency doesn’t put a shiver down the spine of a God-fearing free trader and cause him to rethink his position, well, there isn’t much hope for him. Note that “the idea behind getting rid of these barriers wasn’t about free trade, it was about reorganizing the world so that corporations could manage resources for “the benefit of mankind””

Corporate resource management in the name of freedom. That’s what “free trade” is.

The Darth Vader dilemma

The more they squeeze, the more regulatory resistance slips through their fingers like sand:

Consider what administration officials announcing the new exemption for medium-sized employers had to say about firms that might fire workers to get under the threshold and avoid hugely expensive new requirements of the law. Obama officials made clear in a press briefing that firms would not be allowed to lay off workers to get into the preferred class of those businesses with 50 to 99 employees. How will the feds know what employers were thinking when hiring and firing? Simple. Firms will be required to certify to the IRS – under penalty of perjury – that ObamaCare was not a motivating factor in their staffing decisions. To avoid ObamaCare costs you must swear that you are not trying to avoid ObamaCare costs.

Welcome to the USSA. You can’t understand leftist reasoning until you grasp that everything they do is based on a static universe. From evolution to health care regulation, their policies inevitably involve the Ricardian Vice of reducing the situation down to the simplest possible binary choice, then being mystified when their actions inspire a reaction.

Followed, of course, by their futile attempts to use force to demand compliance.

The biggest problem won’t be firms laying off workers to get into the preferred class, but rather, all the firms that will no longer grow out of it.

Mailvox: frying the pig

Not content with the crashing and burning of his political wise man act, Porky dives into the boiling oil again:

Porky: I’m not surprised that the libertarians here are falling over themselves
to praise the leftist for coming up with a hi-tech version of the Jew
badge. Funny how they hate the NSA for creating dossiers on citizens
minding their own business, but they drool like Pavlov’s dog at the
thought of being able to have a dossier on any complete stranger. As I’ve said previously, libertarians are the pupal stage of authoritarians.

VD: As we’ve all observed previously, you’re an idiot.

 Porky: Yet here you and the ilk are… giddily peeing your pants at the thought of spying on some stranger’s magazine subscriptions. ie:
Josh, who never lets me forget that libertarians “just want to be left
alone” yet salivates over the idea of an internet dossier on private
citizens.

What Porky is clearly failing to take into account is that the system DH is creating is actually a technological recreation of the virtual one that is already in place in the government, in the universities, and in the big corporations.

All of the blackballing and stigmatizing goes only one way. The Left forcibly keeps those of the Right out of its organizations and institutions while the Right blithely permits leftists to infiltrate and suborn those that remain to it. The Right doesn’t realize this, in part because it keeps creating new ones, then losing control of them within a generation or two. Or sometimes, as in the case of Facebook, within a few weeks.

Opposing the idea that small private companies should have the same ability to defend themselves from infiltration by their political enemies that the giant left-leaning institutions do is little different than advocating gun control for the people while the government and police remain armed.

The Right has very little to fear from the proposed service. Everyone who is even remotely outspoken is already banned from employment with many, perhaps even the majority of existing companies in America. The persecution is real, even though it is passive, reactive, and remarkably gentle in historical terms. Keep in mind that I have not only been expelled from the SFWA for a single tweet, (an infraction of the sort committed by no less than 60 other current members), but I have experienced contractors told by major NGO’s that they would lose their contracts if they continued to work with me. The Left is playing hardball while the Right isn’t even aware that the game has begun.

So, like the Jews of the European ghettos, we of the traditionalist Right have no choice but to work with each other since no one else wants us around. We have no choice but to work harder, to work smarter, and to make ourselves more valuable than those who persecute us. And we can do that, because working harder and smarter has always been our strength; we are the builders. But how can the ants hope to build up new institutions if the moment they begin to succeed, their organizations are infiltrated and co-opted by the grasshoppers who are opposed to everything they believe?

We need to know that the prospective employee is a self-appointed activist who boasts of having no morals and a predilection for attacking those with whom he disagrees. Pajamaboy is hardly going to bring that up when he’s applying for a job now, is he? We need to know that the girl trying to sell us computers is a fire-breathing Jezebelle who believes all sex is rape. We need to know that the professed libertarian is heavily partial to left-wing entertainment. We need to know that the student applying for seminary is a radical homosexual whose primary interest in the priesthood is access to altar boys.

Above all, we have to bypass the corporate gatekeepers and take our case directly to the people. We have to become the very populists they fear. They will call us names, they will call us Nazis, they will call us fascists, they will call us a hundred other names that don’t reasonably apply to us. That doesn’t matter, because we have two things on our side that will always triumph over their vast edifice of temporal power: our faith in God and our acknowledgement for objective Reality.

As always, Porky is arguing in favor of despair, surrender, and unilateral disarming on the part of the Right. Perhaps this is because he is short-sighted, perhaps this is because he is an agent provocateur, or perhaps he is simply an idiot. It doesn’t really matter, all that matters is that he is wrong.

DH explains:

I see this as exactly what VD is talking about. I can work really well with libertarians. I can work really well with populists. But I can’t work well with GOP true believers. If you spend your working day listening to Shawn Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and thinking they are the greatest thing ever, it’s over. We are not going to work well unless it is quite literally a work-for-hire remote employee contracted position. Same thing with Glenn Beck. If you are real Glenn Beck believer, it’s probably not going to work out. I certainly can’t have you interacting with my clients and risking going into hysterics about whatever he was talking about the radio today. Oddly, almost the same thing is true of Rachael Maddow fans. If you are an activist liberal firebrand it’s probably not going to work out. In the real world Obama is a failure and everyone knows it. I can’t have you representing to the world otherwise. And what’s a good way to find this out? If I know you’ve posted 8,000 messages to TheBlaze.com, or Glenn Beck’s forums, if you’ve re-tweeted Rachael Maddow 500 times, those are great indicators you won’t fit in.

How, precisely, can anyone reasonably argue with that? Conversely, if you are a true blue Real American in the Hannity sense, do you really want to be dependent upon the Maddow retweeter? Those of us whose views are already public have nothing to fear from this sort of thing because we already deal with it on a daily basis. Seeing the playing field leveled and applied to everyone on both sides hardly seems unfair.

Mutual assistance

One thing most of you are going to have to understand is that the days of go along to get along are over. The Left is coming for you no matter what you do, no matter how careful you are to keep your head down and your mouth shut. One phrase I’m now seeing over and over again of late is an idea that was brought up often during the SFWA kerfluffle:

“Regardless of the reasons Kluwe was cut, if his description of Priefer’s
homophobic comments is accurate, then Priefer could (and should) face
NFL discipline. Open expressions of bigotry should have no place in the
NFL.”

“Hate speech, whether is it about race, gender or sexual preference has no place in any workplace.”

“I am a supporter of gay rights and equality. I also think that Kluwe is
telling the truth about Priefer. There is no place for a man like that
in any professional org.”

“Hate speech has no place in a work environment.”

And who defines bigotry and hate speech? Not you, that’s for sure. So, the Left can advocate the end of religion, the elimination of all Christians and anything else that they find desirable, and it will neither be considered hate nor bigotry, but if you even fail to show what is presently deemed sufficient enthusiasm for their latest insanity, there will be no place for you.

So, it is time to start making sure that there are places for you and for others like you who do not subscribe to the Left’s madness. DH’s new project is only one brick in a vast structure that will have to be built, because our predecessors failed us. To paraphrase the immortal words of Otter, they fucked up, they trusted the left. And now the left is running rampant through the institutions, just as Antonio Gramsci dreamed.

I received this email the other day from a self-described “Libertarian SQL Geek”

Vox, my current position will be eliminated in two weeks.  Yes, I’m being caught up in the Obamacare “we need to downsize to cover the costs of medical” rush. I view it as an opportunity.  If you have need of a database geek for projects, or know of anyone else in the who might have need of my services, please let me know, and feel free to pass my name along.

If you’re looking for a SQL guy, email me and I’ll pass it along. And actually, if you’re looking for anyone, let me know and I’ll post it here.

This time it isn’t different

The astonishing story of a thrice-failed Spanish bank:

Consider the story of Bankia.

Bankia was formed by merging seven bankrupt regional Spanish banks in 2010. The new bank was funded by Spain’s Government rescue fund… which received “preference shares” in return for over €4 billion (from taxpayers). These preference shares were shares that a) yielded 7.75% and b) would get paid before ordinary investors if Bankia failed again.

So right away, the Spanish Government was taking taxpayer money to give itself preferential treatment over ordinary investors. Indeed, those investors who owned shares in the seven banks that merged to form Bankia lost their shirts. They were wiped out and lost everything.

Bankia was then taken public in 2011. Spanish investment bankers convinced the Spanish public that the bank was a fantastic investment. Over 98% of the shares were sold to Spanish investors.

One year later, Bankia was bankrupt again, and required the single largest bailout in Spain’s history: €19 billion. Spain took over the bank and Bankia shares were frozen on the market (meaning you couldn’t sell them if you wanted to). When the bailout took place, Bankia shareholders were all but wiped out, forced to take huge losses as part of the deal. The vast majority of them were individual investors (the bank currently faces a lawsuit for over 140,000 claims of mis-selling shares).

So that’s two wipeouts in as many years.

The bank was taken public a year a second time later in May 2013. Once again Bankia shares promptly collapsed, losing 80% of their value in a matter of days. And once again, it was ordinary investors who got destroyed. Indeed, things were so awful that a police officer stabbed a Bankia banker who sold him over €300,000 worth of shares (the banker had convinced him it was a great investment).

Which brings us to today.

Bankia remains completely bankrupt. But its executives and the Spanish Government continue to claim that things are improving and that the bank is on the up and up. Indeed, just a few weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal wrote an article titled “Investors Show Interest in Bankia.” The story featured a quote from Spain’s Finance Minister that, “… it is logical. The perception of Spain has improved and Banki has improved a lot.”

Bear in mind, this is a bank that has wiped out investors THREE times in the last THREE YEARS. So that’s three different rounds of individual investors being told that Bankia was a great investment and losing everything. Every single one of these wipeouts was preceded by both bankers and Spanish Government officials claiming that “everything had been fixed” and that Bankia was a success story.

And now the Spanish Government is trying to convince them to line up for a fourth round.

Keep this in mind when you read the reassurances that this time, the green shoots really have been spotted, that the economy is growing at more than 4 percent per quarter, and stocks are cheap at their all-time highs if you only look at them in just the right way.

Diversity and collapse

Most people who have paid any attention to the financial crisis know the Bush administration’s pathological fixation on expanding homeownership among Hispanics played a contributing role in blowing the housing bubble, but I didn’t realize that diversity dogma also played a part in the collapse of Lehman Bros. Steve Sailer quotes from A Colossal Failure of Common Sense, a book by an ex-Lehman executive, describing how the president of Lehman was more interested in diversity and inclusion than in risk management.

One of these was our corporate president, Joe Gregory, the right-hand
man of the reclusive CEO, Dick Fuld. … But Joe Gregory was a regular,
run-of-the-mill, ho-hum financial sycophant, devoted to his master,
Richard Fuld, … Joe’s fixation was a subject called diversity. He was
consumed with it. His aim was the mission of inclusion. He had an entire
department devoted to it, headed up by a managing director. Great
rallies were staged in New York’s auditoriums, with free cocktails and
hors d’oeuvres served for up to six hundred people, all listening to Joe
or one of his henchmen pontificating. “Inclusion! That must be our
aim!” he would yell, as if we were running a friggin’ prayer meeting.
… Which was all very well, but down in the trenches, where a trader
 might sweat blood to make a couple of million dollars, most of us were a
bit tetchy about Joe Gregory going off and spending it on a cocktail
party for six hundred people..

… Especially when it emerged that the top dog in diversity was earning
well over $2 million a year and that the diversity division had a
bigger budget and more people than risk management!

Joe’s mission for diversity drove [Christine Daley, head of
distressed-debt research] mad. She had no time for any of it, but Joe
Gregory had us all over a barrel: he had major control over our bonus
compensation, and he made it clear there would be extra money for those
who rallied to his cause. Most of us did not care about the cause, but
the prospect of this thirty-first-floor sycophant lopping a couple of
hundred thousand off our annual check because we weren’t in there
pitching for the cause of the day was seriously irritating. Harsher
judges than I considered Joe hid behind his unusual fixation,
appearing to fight the world’s woes while staying well clear of the
gundeck.

As go corporations, so go nations. The ongoing fixation of the USA’s politicians and body politic on diversity and inclusion means that the country is unlikely to sustain itself any more successfully than Lehman Bros. did.

A casino called Dow Jones

This announcement demonstrates why it is the height of stupidity to imagine that it is meaningful to compare the Dow Jones Industrial Average from one year to the next as anything but a measure of social mood:

The Dow Jones industrial average is getting a new look, with one of Wall Street’s oldest and modest venerable names getting added to the mix. While the Dow tinkers with its 30 components periodically, often with only modest fanfare, this one will be noticed.

Gone are Alcoa (AA), the company that traditionally kicks off earnings season, along with Bank of America (BAC), which is the second-largest financial institution in the U.S., and Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), which has been in the blue chip index for 16 years.

In their place will be Goldman Sachs (GS), Nike (NKE) and Visa (NYSE:V). The changes take effect after the close of trading Sept. 20. The changes will cause alterations to the why the index is weighted. Visa and Goldman Sachs will have the second- and third-highest respective weightings, according to Bespoke Investment Group.

In addition to not accounting for inflation, the DJIAA simply doesn’t always measure the same thing from one year to the next.  It is like claiming the New England Patriots beat the Bills 58-21 last week because the NFL tinkered with the Patriots roster and replaced Tom Brady with Peyton Manning.

Notice that the unhealthy and dying companies are being replaced with much healthier companies that are being given much higher weightings than their importance to the economy would appear to indicate.  Don’t be fooled. It’s all a giant casino designed specifically to separate most common investors from their savings.

Can you win from time to time? Sure. That’s an integral part of the draw. But as the rejiggering proves, the odds aren’t what you think they are and the house always wins in the end.

Worker unrest at Walmart

I’m considerably less unsympathetic to this labor action than my natural hostility to unions might indicate.

Walmart workers and their supporters are planning to launch protests in stores in 15 cities across the US on Thursday, as part of a small but vociferous movement to raise wages and improve conditions for some of the nation’s lowest paid workers.

The action follows strikes last week by fast food workers demanding a higher minimum wage and a civil disobedience action in Washington DC in August, where a coalition of Walmart workers and unions called for a minimum annual wage of $25,000 and the reinstatement of 20 employees they claim were illegally fired by the company after strikes in early June.

OurWalmart, a union-backed members group, says it has filed more than 100 unfair labour practice charges against Walmart with the National Labor Relations Board, including 20 illegal terminations and 80 disciplinary actions. The board said it was looking into “several cases”.

I’ve seen some commentators pointing out that the Walmart workers don’t seem to realize that their wage demands would eliminate the corporation’s operating profits. Whether that is true or not, I think it is totally insane to expect low-income workers to demonstrate more concern for the health of the corporation than the vast majority of Fortune 500 executives do.

We’ve spent the last five years watching bank executives rape their banks of more than FIFTY PERCENT of the profits, then pay themselves bonuses as the federal government hands them trillions to prevent them from going under.  Why on Earth shouldn’t the Walmart workers feel justified in demanding a mere $25k annual minimum wage?  It’s a lot more affordable than bailing out the banks again.