Minbari technology development

[bakana]

I was wondering if the the thread is really about B5 any longer? Are we off topic?

Only a little.

Minibar Technology was one of the things Garibaldi was researching.

There, Now it's back on topic.

BTW, a NoPrize to the person who correctly IDs the joke.

[CRONAN]

Why can't we all just drive steam powered cars to work?

[grumbler]

Originally posted by Z'ha'dumDweller
Children...play Nice.

Okay, Unka Dweller! I'm done.

[WorkerCaste]

True. But, the MBA Programs Claim to be teaching the best ways to manage a Company,
Not The Best Way To Make Yourself Rich

I don't want to sound like I think things are black and white. Some of what is taught does help run a company the correct way. But claims and actions are often at odds. It isn't considered modestto put your interests first, so no prestigious institution would bill their program as enabling graduates to make buckets of money.

Still, what is the best way to manage a company? If there isn't significant focus on the short term, the stock will be traded down; financial institutions will downgrade credit ratings making it more difficult to secure capital; stories in financial magazines will describe a company having trouble; wages will likely freeze in the lower ranks creating a higher level of turnover; etc. Our culture makes it difficult for companies to sacrifice the present for the long view once they're out of the startup phase, and we are all to blame.

As an aside, the whole concept of the claim being different from the action is all over. In surveys, a majority of people claim to support public transportation, but a small minority will use it when a car is available. People also consistently claim that customer service is the most important factor, but after going to a specialty shop and asking all their questions, they'll buy from the cheapest source.

BTW, I'm enjoying this exchange greatly, but as I wrote this I was wondering if the the thread is really about B5 any longer? Are we off topic?

[bakana]

The universities are being paid tuituion to teach the individual, not to ensure the health of the nation.

True. But, the MBA Programs Claim to be teaching the best ways to manage a Company,
Not [/I]The Best Way To Make Yourself Rich[/I]

In that scenario, the long term financial health of the company IS important.
In fact, it should be crucial.

And, in fact, many CEOs do show evidence that they've been taught the value of Long Term thinking:
They have their corporations lobby for changes to tax laws that will benefit The CEO's Long Term ability to hang on to his Gold.

Or for changes in the law that allow things like Dick Cheyney getting $500,000/year from Haliburton while serving as VP of the US.
"Delayed Compensation". Yeah. To be paid just as long as Haliburton stays immune to prosecution for ripping off the Pentagon.
And get "No Bid" contracts to "rebuild" Iraq.

[WorkerCaste]

Originally posted by bakana
Actually, they would be doing a lot better to teach them the Advantages of Long Term Thinking over Short Term Thinking.

Particularly in terms of overall economic health of the nation.

A company that has been "Strip Mined" to provide golden parachutes is much more likely to Fail or need to be "Rescued" from financial disaster.
When that happens to a Lot of firms at the same time, you get a "Savings & Loan" Meltdown.

Or a Recession.

As far as the Mutual Funds, quick question: Who Votes those Shares during Stockholder meetings?

And when was the last time anyone checked to see if they were being voted in the Stockholder's Best Interests instead of in the CEO's best interest ??

If they were being voted in the Shareholder's best interests, those "Golden Parachutes" would be "Brass Parachutes". And CEO salaries in the US wouldn't be so high as to leave No Money for Dividends.

Too many people investing purely on the NASDAC Price. As was said earlier, no one plans to hold the stock until the Dividends come out anyway...

Your comments are true from perspective of the much larger group, but the core of what I was trying to get at is that we are more concerned as a society about our personal interests. The universities are being paid tuituion to teach the individual, not to ensure the health of the nation. Given the current systems of incentives, these are not often the same thing. It is in the best interests of these individuals to think in the short term since they have the mobility to leave a bad situation behind.

You are 100% correct about this kind of thinking potntially resulting in meltdowns. Not only savings and loans, but dot coms and the airlines form great examples, but that doesn't mean that a lot of people didn't come out ahead.

In mutual funds, the real way you vote your shares is to buy and sell sahres in the mutual fund. If you don't like what's happening, you sell and buy a different one. When I read your question, I had to admit that I don't even know if there's such a thing as shareholder meetings for the funds. The whole concept is that you are placing trust in the plan managers and allowing them to make all the decisions.

The whole stockholder thing comes back to a simple equation, though. If you like the return you're getting on your investment, you keep the stock. If not you sell it. It doesn't matter what the CEO is getting when the returns are high. It is only when a company under performs that people start looking at that. By and large, though, I don't think it is the golden parachutes, stock options, and what not that reflect the short term thinking the most. It is the over exploitation of product and the lack of investment in research for new products and services that ultimately hurts. That's where short term thinking takes its toll. Many of the things CEOs do for short term benefit aren't directly related to their personal finances other than the fact that they continue to have a job. If this quarter's result show spending down and profits up, the stock goes up and everybody's happy, even if the company's long term prospects suffer.

Like you, I think these are bad things, I just think that we share responsibility with the CEOs. Like most kinds of loyalty these days, stock loyalty is down. In my parents generation it was not uncommon to own stock in companies you worked for or believed in and to hold that stock no matter what. My retired mother still owns K-Mart stock because she worked there for many years. Money's always been tight, but when the company started a downhill run, she refused to sell. That's loyalty! Today, people rarely hold stock for any time, and that really does impact the way businesses are run.

[Edited for a couple of typos]

[bakana]

For those who don't speak the language natively,

Gawrsh. Shucks. Darn.

Does that mean my Native Speaker card has been Revoked and all my As in English are going to be retroactively changed to Fs ?



Sometimes the Shift Key is less bother than [ I ] [ / I ] or [ B ] [ / B ]

So, I'm a lazy typist. Sue me.

Oops. Wait a minute. You might. Permission Revoked.

[Dr Maturin]

Children...play Nice.

[grumbler]

Originally posted by bakana
No. I capitalize for Emphasis. And Votes is a Verb, Who is a Pronoun.

There are actually ways in the English language to emphasise. One is bold, and the other is italics. For those who don't speak the language natively, it may seem that capitalization is a third. they are incorrect.

Do you Always use the word "All" when you're committting logical fallacies?

I use the phrase "it seems" to modify the term "all" (or "All" in Yerspeke) so as to avoid the logical fallacy (as you would have seen had you read the final two words of my post). Try it - it works.

[bakana]

you capitalize all other nouns, it seems.

No. I capitalize for Emphasis. And Votes is a Verb, Who is a Pronoun.

Do you Always use the word "All" when you're committting logical fallacies?

the idea that business schools should teach executives to behave in ways their stockholders would abhor

Why do you assume that stockholders would abhorr CEOs getting a better, more balanced education?

Long Term planning is part of a CEO's Job Description.

[grumbler]

I must admit that the idea that business schools should teach executives to behave in ways their stockholders would abhor (or even "in Ways their Stockholders would Abhor") is ivory-towerism (or "Ivory-Towerism") at its worst.

Stockholders get the business administrations that they desire. That is what stockholder meetings are about.

As for "Who Votes those Shares during Stockholder meetings?" my counter-question is why "meetings" wasn't capitalized. It is a noun, and you capitalize all other nouns, it seems.

[bakana]

The universities would be remiss if they didn't teach these future executives how to survive and advance themselves.

Actually, they would be doing a lot better to teach them the Advantages of Long Term Thinking over Short Term Thinking.

Particularly in terms of overall economic health of the nation.

A company that has been "Strip Mined" to provide golden parachutes is much more likely to Fail or need to be "Rescued" from financial disaster.
When that happens to a Lot of firms at the same time, you get a "Savings & Loan" Meltdown.

Or a Recession.

As far as the Mutual Funds, quick question: Who Votes those Shares during Stockholder meetings?

And when was the last time anyone checked to see if they were being voted in the Stockholder's Best Interests instead of in the CEO's best interest ??

If they were being voted in the Shareholder's best interests, those "Golden Parachutes" would be "Brass Parachutes". And CEO salaries in the US wouldn't be so high as to leave No Money for Dividends.

Too many people investing purely on the NASDAC Price. As was said earlier, no one plans to hold the stock until the Dividends come out anyway...

[WorkerCaste]

Originally posted by bakana
Bell Labs' Advanced Research department. Unfortunately, today's executives go to MBA schools like Yale & Harvard which no longer seem to teach anything beyond the Quarterly report.

Don't be too quick to dismiss our responsibility, collectively, for this. Ownership of companies, primarily through stock, is seen as a way to build wealth quickly. Stock holders used to take more pride in ownership and would hold their stock for long periods of time because they believed in the company. Today, a large percentage of ownership is through mutual funds which, in order to acheive an attractive ROI, will sell any stock this isn't delivering short-term returns. Likewise, even people who purchase individual stocks are much less likely to hold on to them for the long haul. When the returns go down, the stock is sold. Even privately held companies, which used to be much more tolerant of slow periods, are getting into the short attention span act. I've heard the statement "the owners could get a better return on the market, so they'll sell the company if dividends go too low." All this creates a reward system for executives that pay more attention to the quarterly report than the long term. Sure, you can argue that this can drive companies into the ground, but the top executives and investors will wimply leave the husk behind and move on to the next hot property. The universities would be remiss if they didn't teach these future executives how to survive and advance themselves.

[Edited just after submission: I noticed that I mistyped "simply" as "wimply" and was going to correct, but the context made the mistake somehow appropriate so I decided to leave my "error" ]

[Dr Maturin]

<<Unfortunately, today's executives go to MBA schools like Yale & Harvard which no longer seem to teach anything beyond the Quarterly report.>>

I wonder what it would be like if they started hiring execs by doing local versions of The Apprentice. Hell, you might find some smart kids out there.

[bakana]

Bell Labs' Advanced Research department.

Yeah. Trivial things like Transistors, LASERs, Integrated Circuits, etc. aren't worth wasting research dollars on. <Fe>

I believe that part of the problem with Bell Labs was that, because AT&T had a Monopoly, they weren't allowed to retain the Patents on a lot of the stuff Bell labs came up with. Which allowed a lot of Other Companies to cash in big time by patenting what were basically Engineering improvements on work that Bell Labs had done.

The Labs were created when Bell himself still had influence on the company. They lasted because of a combination of Pride, Bureaucarcy and the fact that many years worth of Bell executives understood the value of Long Term investments in science.

Unfortunately, today's executives go to MBA schools like Yale & Harvard which no longer seem to teach anything beyond the Quarterly report.