Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

This is not a bad first response to Pompeo:



I'm not sure what gives Pompeo the ostensible authority to tell employees to ignore a facially valid subpoena.

So you agree with me. If presented with Executive defiance, Congress' remedy is impeachment. That is, in short, what Schiff was saying.

[Adder]

I'm a bad person because I hope that Bernie's cardiac episode will cause him to drop out of the presidential race (while making a full and speedy recovery).

If nothing else, it helps to winnow the field but it also will bring clarity that wouldn't be available if it comes down to a three way Biden-Warren-Bernie race.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

1. You ignore my point about about introducing instrinsic valuation to the discussion.

I am not ignoring it. I have assessed its intrinsic value and found it to be near-zero. Coincidentally, it's market value is also zero, judging from what I paid to read it on this chat board. You may think that the latter assessment is not right, an instance of market failure, but if you want to persuade people that things have an intrinsic value that is more robust for some purposes than market value, you are going to have to work a lot harder to make that case.

We all get the concept in principle. My dog likes to lick me but has figured out that I don't like it as much as she does, so she does this little thing when she wants affection, slipping her tongue in and out of her mouth as if licking the air in front of her nose -- it's super cute, and it did not cost me anything to buy, since she's a rescue dog and all, but it has obvious enormous intrinsic value.

Your challenge is to take the obvious point that market values aren't the be-all-and-end-all of human existence, and to build on that to, uh, go wherever it is you want to go with that. Maybe some underpants gnomes would get you closer, analytically?

2. I cannot hire people without certain credentials because the guilds prohibit it. That's the whole point.

Which "guilds" prohibit it? The fishmongers? The coopers? A moment ago you were making a point about how everyone unrealistically demands degrees that are unnecessary, but now you have segued to something more archaic. Maybe the guilds perceive an intrinsic value to those degrees that you have missed? That's the thing about intrinsic value -- it's a little squirrelly to pin down.

I've managed a lot more people than you have. I'm not bragging. It's just dumb circumstance that I happened to manage people, and trust me -- I didn't want to do it and don't want to do it again.

Algorithms, dude. That's how we do it now.

I found credentials (advanced degrees and certifications) were really poor indicators of who could succeed in a position. Because I like to do things like this, I gave huge responsibility to people I judged to be smart based on other factors. I gave one a five figure raise. I never had a problem. Except for the people who had credentials, who really resented taking orders from those who didn't. But YMMV.

Wait, so the guilds didn't prevent you from hiring the people you wanted to hire? Will you make up your mind?

3. Re zoning, agreed. As I said, there are numerous ways we rig the system.

Kumbaya, dude. Once we fix the zoning, will that fix congressional dysfunction?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Oh, you're quick to cite the environment. Why? Because that's one where you can duck the issues I raised.

Yes, ducking. That must be what I'm doing.

"Look, I care about something the GOP does not!"

Didn't you tell me that the right cares about climate change? It's hard to keep up with your mood shifts.

You're picking and choosing what you care about...

I believe my point was that there is congressional disfunction because we lack consensus, and our political system requires a lot of consensus to get things done.

BTW, I'm with you. I don't really want to change the system.

When did I say I didn't want to change the system?

I'm only interested in cutting through the bullshit "fixes" both parties are offering. We won't really ever tackle inequality. I'll just have the satisfaction of saying, "I knew that," point at upper middle class Ds doing their hand-wringing and lamenting how the evil Rs fuck the poor and say, "they know it too... they just lack the balls to admit their selfishness."

Yes, you like to enjoy the privileges you have while feeling superior to everyone who wants change.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

So you agree with me. If presented with Executive defiance, Congress' remedy is impeachment. That is, in short, what Schiff was saying.

*A* remedy is impeachment. I do not believe it is the *only* remedy for, e.g., a refusal to produce records or appear to testify.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Yes, ducking. That must be what I'm doing.



Didn't you tell me that the right cares about climate change? It's hard to keep up with your mood shifts.



I believe my point was that there is congressional disfunction because we lack consensus, and our political system requires a lot of consensus to get things done.



When did I say I didn't want to change the system?



Yes, you like to enjoy the privileges you have while feeling superior to everyone who wants change.

Real change would involve a scenario in which you earn about 30% less than now, and there are minimal if any future increases for you. You good with that?

Right. Hop in the limo.

It’s okay. You just had the misfortune of being born into a situation where you couldn’t really desire true meaningful economic change. We’re all conflicted about that... terrible privilege it is. But we bear it. Kudos to you on adopting right wing talking points about the wisdom of the market when someone starts prattling on about “intrinsic valuations.” That’s the spirit, old boy!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

When did I say I didn't want to change the system?

In Law School in a jurisprudence course we were taught about a movement called "Critical Legal Studies." It was a group of peeps that wanted to bring down the system, but was realistic enough to know that would never happen from the outside- it was centered at a school in Boston that was well-regarded, so its grads could move into the upper tier of firms.

The plan was to ingratiate oneself into the team working on the next big brief to fuck the environment, or the people, etc. THEN the night BEFORE the brief is due the "insider" will do shit like dump a virus into the computers or break the copy machines or fax machines to tank the effort. POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!!

Ever break a fax machine?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Real change would involve a scenario in which you earn about 30% less than now, and there are minimal if any future increases for you. You good with that?

I could be OK with that, if other things change too. Why minimal increases? I am helping to run a company that is growing rapidly. Does your Marxism mean I don't get to see the upside?

But I seriously question the premise. What do you believe is inflating my earnings? There are not a lot of people who do what I do. What change do I get?

Kudos to you on adopting right wing talking points about the wisdom of the market when someone starts prattling on about “intrinsic valuations.”

I bet I have read a lot more Karl Marx than you have, and I also have spent a long time as an antitrust lawyer, so I don't need you to condescend to me about the wisdom or failings of either.

[Replaced_Texan]

BTW

[Tyrone Slothrop]

You talk about “non-carbonated fraud” that WeWork may have committed. Do you think there will be investigations?

I don’t know. To be fair, I don’t think anyone’s accused them of presenting numbers that were fraudulent. There have been some postings about the way they were classifying expenses. I don’t know that it’s illegal, but the fact that someone took out three-quarters of a billion dollars and you’re going to have 15,000 employees, I would imagine that somewhere between 1,000 and 3,000 thought they were going to be millionaires in a couple weeks, and they’re getting zero. There’s going to be a lot of anger toward Adam Neumann. I don’t know how that manifests itself. There’s definitely going to be civil suits. There’s definitely going to be lawsuits. But it will be interesting if an attorney general sees a path to the governor’s mansion by filing some sort of suit. We have not heard the last of this. Adam Neumann fired? He was liberated. This guy just played this perfectly. Could you imagine what his life would be like right now? If he was still CEO? Showing up every day to an office where he had sold $750 million and everybody else was trying to figure out how they were going to pay the rent on the new apartment they had moved into because they thought they had $7 million in We stock?

It really makes you rethink that picture of Neumann walking around barefoot in the middle of the tempest.

Why wouldn’t you be happy? You haven’t even begun to see the anger that will be unleashed on Adam Neumann. He has 15,000 people right now who are stuck cleaning up. They feel like circus clowns shoveling the shit behind the elephant of Adam Neumann. He has taken $750 million and left a toxic-waste cleanup.

Is this a case of self-delusion? Did Adam Neumann believe his own story?

I don’t know. I speak from some experience as a CEO in the ’90s in the internet days: If you tell a 30-year-old male he’s Jesus Christ, he’s inclined to believe you.

link

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Real change would involve a scenario in which you earn about 30% less than now, and there are minimal if any future increases for you. You good with that?

Right. Hop in the limo.

It’s okay. You just had the misfortune of being born into a situation where you couldn’t really desire true meaningful economic change. We’re all conflicted about that... terrible privilege it is. But we bear it. Kudos to you on adopting right wing talking points about the wisdom of the market when someone starts prattling on about “intrinsic valuations.” That’s the spirit, old boy!

I consider real change where Hank earns 30% less.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

In Law School in a jurisprudence course we were taught about a movement called "Critical Legal Studies." It was a group of peeps that wanted to bring down the system, but was realistic enough to know that would never happen from the outside- it was centered at a school in Boston that was well-regarded, so its grads could move into the upper tier of firms.

The plan was to ingratiate oneself into the team working on the next big brief to fuck the environment, or the people, etc. THEN the night BEFORE the brief is due the "insider" will do shit like dump a virus into the computers or break the copy machines or fax machines to tank the effort. POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!!

Ever break a fax machine?

As an outsider, you can throw yourself against the armor of The Machine over and over, and you'll just end up another bug smashed on The Man's windshield. But once you're on the inside, all you need to do is remove a few key bolts, and The Machine will come crashing down upon itself in a cataclysm that is as beautiful as it is violent. More than a few Innocents will certainly be lost in the wreckage, but out of the ashes of The Machine will arise a new Hope, and without the numbing consumerism of the Post-Capitalist Consumption Society, minds and souls will be free, the boundaries between art and everyday life will be erased, and each person's every act will be an expression of pure egalitarian creativity and Love. It will be like the world that we read about on Instagram.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

As an outsider, you can throw yourself against the armor of The Machine over and over, and you'll just end up another bug smashed on The Man's windshield. But once you're on the inside, all you need to do is remove a few key bolts, and The Machine will come crashing down upon itself in a cataclysm that is as beautiful as it is violent. More than a few Innocents will certainly be lost in the wreckage, but out of the ashes of The Machine will arise a new Hope, and without the numbing consumerism of the Post-Capitalist Consumption Society, minds and souls will be free, the boundaries between art and everyday life will be erased, and each person's every act will be an expression of pure egalitarian creativity and Love. It will be like the world that we read about on Instagram.

Luke Skywalker wasn’t a Stormtrooper man.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

I could be OK with that, if other things change too. Why minimal increases? I am helping to run a company that is growing rapidly. Does your Marxism mean I don't get to see the upside?

I'm not mandating minimal increases. I'm saying the changes would cause you to see minimal increases. If workers at the bottom have to be paid more, to compensate them for their real value, it's got to come from somewhere.

But I seriously question the premise. What do you believe is inflating my earnings?

The market is perverted. It assumes a GCs have value far in excess of what they're actually worth. GC'ing is easy. You think in broad strokes and hire outside counsel to do the grunt work. You get paid for "strategy" in many instances. That's cheap thinking.

There are not a lot of people who do what I do. What change do I get?

You get to stay well compensated, but not at a huge multiplier relative to employees below, as their values are increased.

Yes, this involves some instrinsic valuation. I don't like it either, but to go back to something TM wrote a few weeks ago, CEO pay is out of whack. It seems CEO and exec pay is based on nothing, just as you say instrinsic value is ascertained. Why is one bullshit number better than another?

Was Michael Eisner worth $150 mil a year? Is anyone, ever?

I bet I have read a lot more Karl Marx than you have, and I also have spent a long time as an antitrust lawyer, so I don't need you to condescend to me about the wisdom or failings of either.

I bet you have. But that's immaterial. What's material is whether you can consider what you've memorized and use it in independent thoughts of your own. Whether you can take the concepts and expand upon them with an open mind. Intrinsic value has a place in the future, I believe, because the market is delivering perverted results. Unless, of course, you think a hedge fund manager should earn 1000X more per year than an emergency room surgeon.

Intrinsic valuation is a form of positive elitism. It's helpful. Too many people do boring things and only do them for money in the current system. Does the world need more analysts? More lawyers? More executive VPs of operations?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm not mandating minimal increases. I'm saying the changes would cause you to see minimal increases. If workers at the bottom have to be paid more, to compensate them for their real value, it's got to come from somewhere.

But you're just making shit up. Maybe my company does a good job of paying people what they're "worth," and in fact we're all going to make more money because of all the increased spending by previously undercompensated people in the rest of the country. Moreover, if you think you're making things better, then there's going to be more growth, and we'll all see more than minimal increases.

The market is perverted. It assumes a GCs have value far in excess of what they're actually worth. GC'ing is easy. You think in broad strokes and hire outside counsel to do the grunt work. You get paid for "strategy" in many instances. That's cheap thinking.

That's nonsense. No one in the market is thinking about a GC's value in the abstract. They are looking at what they'll have to pay to get a person in the door, and what the gain is relative to not hiring that person. GC'ing may or may not be easy, but the question for the employer is, what happens if I hire a less qualified person (and I'm talking about qualifications, not credentials)? You may scoff at strategy, but the reason why I get my jobs is that I have knowledge about the world and business which is valuable to my employers and which not a lot of people have.

You get to stay well compensated, but not at a huge multiplier relative to employees below, as their values are increased.

Why? What if the difference between what I do and what they do is worth lots to the company?

Yes, this involves some instrinsic valuation.

Since you can't explain how that works, it appears that's a euphemism for "making shit up."

I don't like it either, but to go back to something TM wrote a few weeks ago, CEO pay is out of whack. It seems CEO and exec pay is based on nothing, just as you say instrinsic value is ascertained. Why is one bullshit number better than another?

Was Michael Eisner worth $150 mil a year? Is anyone, ever?

One can think that CEO pay is out of whack (and identify specific reasons for that) without thinking that everyone's pay across the whole economy is out of whack and needs to be replaced with a number that you made up.

I bet you have. But that's immaterial. What's material is whether you can consider what you've memorized and use it in independent thoughts of your own. Whether you can take the concepts and expand upon them with an open mind. Intrinsic value has a place in the future, I believe, because the market is delivering perverted results. Unless, of course, you think a hedge fund manager should earn 1000X more per year than an emergency room surgeon.

Intrinsic valuation is a form of positive elitism. It's helpful. Too many people do boring things and only do them for money in the current system. Does the world need more analysts? More lawyers? More executive VPs of operations?

I think you are saying that you aspire to making shit up as a way of making a living, and I say, good luck to you.