"If Love Were Oil, I'd Be A Quart Low"
"I Got In At 2 With A 10, And Woke Up At 10 With A 2"
"At The Gas Station Of Love, I Got The Self-Service Pump"
Saturday, January 23, 2010
The New Paradigm
A couple of posts at The Baseline Scenario point to some real-world examples of a creepy feeling I've had for several years - that the point of the exercise is no longer to honor your word and to deliver at least what you promised, but to make the customer force you to hold up your end of the bargain. It's like every business is adopting the Used Car Lot model.
James Kwak tags it as "Design or Incompetence", and has begun to lean toward Design. ie: they do it on purpose. The banks or the mortgage companies or whoever make the contract or the offer of service as complicated and opaque as possible in order to suck us in and then fuck us over. (first post - second post)
Most of us being 'hassle-averse', we're not inclined to press a point even when we think we're not being treated quite right. Applying this assumption to a business rolling out a new offer (using rough round numbers here): I'm trying to pull in $1M in new revenue, with a Net Target of $300K. I'm spending $500K getting it out to the public, and I'm offering discounts/rebates totaling another $200K. Then I sit back and watch the numbers as the calls come into Customer Service. But what if I make a coupla relatively simple adjustments? First, the offer of discounts is big and splashy, but I add several lines of disclaimers and eligibility requirements in very complex and jargony language. Then I take some steps to ensure that I'm weeding out the new prospects who are likely to insist on getting the good deal they think I'm offering (putting them on hold when they call in works wonders - but any hurdle will do); plus, I build in a way for the Cust Svc reps to get a little bonus by cutting into the discounts, or upselling, or counterselling, or whatever. It could also be as simple as not telling the reps what the offer actually requires the customer to do to be eligible for the deal. It's not quite Bait-n-Switch, but it's really close.
The point is that we're going way off into the weeds of Caveat Emptor. Companies that can make it obvious that they're working hard to earn back the trust of their customers will lead the economy back to solid footing. Without that trust and confidence, we don't have an economy.
James Kwak tags it as "Design or Incompetence", and has begun to lean toward Design. ie: they do it on purpose. The banks or the mortgage companies or whoever make the contract or the offer of service as complicated and opaque as possible in order to suck us in and then fuck us over. (first post - second post)
Most of us being 'hassle-averse', we're not inclined to press a point even when we think we're not being treated quite right. Applying this assumption to a business rolling out a new offer (using rough round numbers here): I'm trying to pull in $1M in new revenue, with a Net Target of $300K. I'm spending $500K getting it out to the public, and I'm offering discounts/rebates totaling another $200K. Then I sit back and watch the numbers as the calls come into Customer Service. But what if I make a coupla relatively simple adjustments? First, the offer of discounts is big and splashy, but I add several lines of disclaimers and eligibility requirements in very complex and jargony language. Then I take some steps to ensure that I'm weeding out the new prospects who are likely to insist on getting the good deal they think I'm offering (putting them on hold when they call in works wonders - but any hurdle will do); plus, I build in a way for the Cust Svc reps to get a little bonus by cutting into the discounts, or upselling, or counterselling, or whatever. It could also be as simple as not telling the reps what the offer actually requires the customer to do to be eligible for the deal. It's not quite Bait-n-Switch, but it's really close.
The point is that we're going way off into the weeds of Caveat Emptor. Companies that can make it obvious that they're working hard to earn back the trust of their customers will lead the economy back to solid footing. Without that trust and confidence, we don't have an economy.
The Crystal Ball
Fixing healthcare will not fix the economy. But if you don't fix healthcare, you can't fix the economy.
Here's a nice peek into the future of the debt from a CBO report put out a year before Obama took office.
Here's a nice peek into the future of the debt from a CBO report put out a year before Obama took office.
Friday, January 22, 2010
We Are So Fucked(?)
SCOTUS blows up a hundred years of 'settled law', and there's an awful lot of sturm und drang about the end of democracy as we know it. (BTW: I'm gettin' a little tired of Olbermann - seems like he's in full Drama Queen mode every 3rd day about some damned thing or another) I don't wanna lose my shit just because something scary is happening.
That said, I think the decision is pretty fucked up. It allows any given company's Executive Suite to dedicate a portion of every employee's work to a political agenda item that will likely NOT be in the best interests of those individual employees, even as it works to benefit that company. It concentrates way too much power in way too few hands.
None of this is certain, of course, but I don't wanna be all Zen Master-y, and just say, "we'll see", because there's a very real potential threat here. The first priority of power is to perpetuate itself. And since we haven't seen anybody resembling Geo Washington lately, I'm not expecting to see anybody walking away from power willingly. Not now. Every tin-plated martinet now has even greater incentive to grab whatever he can. The real kicker is how ironic the whole thing becomes in light of two things: 1) proponents of the decision and of big corporate power are likely to claim status as acolytes of Ayn Rand. 2) Ayn Rand detested the weakness of people who tried to use governmental influence to further the interests of a company, and addressed it well in Atlas Shrugged in the section called 'The Politics of Pull'.
Maybe we'll get a better idea of how it plays out by watching to see who moves first &/or most aggressively &/or most stealthily, &/or whatever.
I think, if he wants to get back on top of things, Obama needs to pick a fight over this - we saw some of that yesterday(?) when he took some rhetorical shots at Wall Street Bankers and Special Interests. His SOTU next week is the perfect platform to launch a brand new campaign. Big opportunity; big risk; big potential payoff.
This post is rambling around the bend.
That said, I think the decision is pretty fucked up. It allows any given company's Executive Suite to dedicate a portion of every employee's work to a political agenda item that will likely NOT be in the best interests of those individual employees, even as it works to benefit that company. It concentrates way too much power in way too few hands.
None of this is certain, of course, but I don't wanna be all Zen Master-y, and just say, "we'll see", because there's a very real potential threat here. The first priority of power is to perpetuate itself. And since we haven't seen anybody resembling Geo Washington lately, I'm not expecting to see anybody walking away from power willingly. Not now. Every tin-plated martinet now has even greater incentive to grab whatever he can. The real kicker is how ironic the whole thing becomes in light of two things: 1) proponents of the decision and of big corporate power are likely to claim status as acolytes of Ayn Rand. 2) Ayn Rand detested the weakness of people who tried to use governmental influence to further the interests of a company, and addressed it well in Atlas Shrugged in the section called 'The Politics of Pull'.
Maybe we'll get a better idea of how it plays out by watching to see who moves first &/or most aggressively &/or most stealthily, &/or whatever.
I think, if he wants to get back on top of things, Obama needs to pick a fight over this - we saw some of that yesterday(?) when he took some rhetorical shots at Wall Street Bankers and Special Interests. His SOTU next week is the perfect platform to launch a brand new campaign. Big opportunity; big risk; big potential payoff.
This post is rambling around the bend.
Weird Science
Via True/Slant
Researchers have turned to a slime mold for tips on work efficiency. While that’s just another day at the office for me, the researchers seem impressed.
They say Physarum Polycephalum built a replica of the Tokyo train system in 26 hours that’s just about as efficient, reliable and “expensive” to run as the real thing. It could be the ultimate outsourcing strategy, but Japanese and British scientists see another opportunity.
Researchers have turned to a slime mold for tips on work efficiency. While that’s just another day at the office for me, the researchers seem impressed.
They say Physarum Polycephalum built a replica of the Tokyo train system in 26 hours that’s just about as efficient, reliable and “expensive” to run as the real thing. It could be the ultimate outsourcing strategy, but Japanese and British scientists see another opportunity.
Government By Minority
From James Fallows:
Counting the new Republican Senator Scott Brown from Massachusetts, the 41 Republicans in the Senate come from states representing just over 36.5 percent of the total US population. The 59 others (Democratic plus 2 Independent) represent just under 63.5 percent. (Taking 2009 state populations from here. If you count up the totals and split a state's population when it has a spit delegation, you end up with about 112.3 million Republican, 194.7 million Democratic + Indep. Before Brown's election, it was about 198 million Democratic + Ind, 109 million Republican.)Let's round the figures to 63/37 and apply them to the health care debate. Senators representing 63 percent of the public vote for the bill; those representing 37 percent vote against it. The bill fails.
Quote For Today
Sully posted this one today.
"Much indeed to be regretted, party disputes are now carried to such a length, and truth is so enveloped in mist and false representation, that it is extremely difficult to know through what channel to seek it. This difficulty to one, who is of no party, and whose sole wish is to pursue with undeviating steps a path which would lead this country to respectability, wealth, and happiness, is exceedingly to be lamented. But such, for wise purposes, it is presumed, is the turbulence of human passions in party disputes, when victory more than truth is the palm contended for," - George Washington, in a letter to Timothy Pickering, July 27, 1795.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Holy Warriors, Batman!
Washington's Blog
TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2010
U.S. Military Officially Endorses Crusade
I've written numerous posts showing that the war on terror is really a religious crusade, at least for troops on the ground (I've pointed out that the officials ordering the troops into battle may not be religious at all, but may be faking religious sentiment to rally the troops).
Now, an official Pentagon spokesman is making it clear that the U.S. military endorses the crusade. As Raw Story notes:
A Pentagon spokesman says there is nothing wrong or illegal with the armed forces using rifle sights inscribed with references to biblical passages.
Air Force Maj. John Redfield, a spokesman for US Central Command, said the sights from Michigan-based Trijicon -- which are now the target of controversy following news reports earlier this week -- "don't violate the [military] ban on proselytizing because there's no effort to distribute the equipment beyond the US troops who use them," the Associated Press reports.
"This situation is not unlike the situation with US currency," Maj. Redfield said. "Are we going to stop using money because the bills have 'In God We Trust' on them? As long as the sights meet the combat needs of troops, they'll continue to be used."
Meanwhile, a lawyer and former training officer for the US Army Reserves says that any attempt by the US government to cancel its contracts with an arms supplier that enscribes biblical references on its rifle sights would be "discrimination."
Play any word games you like ... the truth is that the military has just officiallyacknowledged that it endorses a crusade.
Nice work creating new terrorists, you morons.
TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2010
U.S. Military Officially Endorses Crusade
I've written numerous posts showing that the war on terror is really a religious crusade, at least for troops on the ground (I've pointed out that the officials ordering the troops into battle may not be religious at all, but may be faking religious sentiment to rally the troops).
Now, an official Pentagon spokesman is making it clear that the U.S. military endorses the crusade. As Raw Story notes:
A Pentagon spokesman says there is nothing wrong or illegal with the armed forces using rifle sights inscribed with references to biblical passages.
Air Force Maj. John Redfield, a spokesman for US Central Command, said the sights from Michigan-based Trijicon -- which are now the target of controversy following news reports earlier this week -- "don't violate the [military] ban on proselytizing because there's no effort to distribute the equipment beyond the US troops who use them," the Associated Press reports.
"This situation is not unlike the situation with US currency," Maj. Redfield said. "Are we going to stop using money because the bills have 'In God We Trust' on them? As long as the sights meet the combat needs of troops, they'll continue to be used."
Meanwhile, a lawyer and former training officer for the US Army Reserves says that any attempt by the US government to cancel its contracts with an arms supplier that enscribes biblical references on its rifle sights would be "discrimination."
Play any word games you like ... the truth is that the military has just officiallyacknowledged that it endorses a crusade.
Nice work creating new terrorists, you morons.
Ten Years Of Hell
I posted earlier about the collapse of the USSR, and how the defensive spin was that "Communism didn't fail; the Soviet leaders just weren't true to the core tenets of Real Communism."
We've been hearing the same crap from the Bush apologists (we need more conservatism because Bush wasn't really a conservative and didn't stick to conservative values), and now we're hearing it from the Free Market purists.
From Dan Geldon at The Baseline Scenario:
Over the past year, there has been much discussion about how the financial crisis exposed weaknesses in free-market theory. What has attracted less discussion is the extent to which the high priests of free-market theory themselves destroyed meaningful contracts and other bedrocks of functioning markets and, in the process, created the conditions for the theory’s weaknesses to emerge.
The story begins before Wall Street’s capture of Washington in the 1980s and 1990s and the deregulatory push that began around the same time. In many ways, it started in 1944.
In that year, Frederich von Hayek published The Road to Serfdom, putting forward many of the ideas behind the pro-market, anti-regulatory economic view that swept through America and the rest of the world in the decades that followed. Von Hayek’s basic argument was that freedom to contract and to conduct business without government meddling allowed for free choice, allocated resources efficiently, facilitated economic growth, and made us all a little richer. Milton Friedman built on Hayek, creating an ideology that resonated with conservatives and ultimately became the prevailing economic view in Washington.
With apologies to Mr Gandhi: "What do I think of free market capitalism? I think it's a good idea - you should try it."
We've evolved an economic system that doesn't actually produce anything. The point of the exercise in business now is all about Acquisition and Disposal of Assets, with the goal of Equity Extraction by way of Debt Leveraging - whatever the current lingo is. It's become a zero sum game of 'I can't win if you don't lose'. The system can't sustain itself because eventually it has to eat itself.
We've been hearing the same crap from the Bush apologists (we need more conservatism because Bush wasn't really a conservative and didn't stick to conservative values), and now we're hearing it from the Free Market purists.
From Dan Geldon at The Baseline Scenario:
Over the past year, there has been much discussion about how the financial crisis exposed weaknesses in free-market theory. What has attracted less discussion is the extent to which the high priests of free-market theory themselves destroyed meaningful contracts and other bedrocks of functioning markets and, in the process, created the conditions for the theory’s weaknesses to emerge.
The story begins before Wall Street’s capture of Washington in the 1980s and 1990s and the deregulatory push that began around the same time. In many ways, it started in 1944.
In that year, Frederich von Hayek published The Road to Serfdom, putting forward many of the ideas behind the pro-market, anti-regulatory economic view that swept through America and the rest of the world in the decades that followed. Von Hayek’s basic argument was that freedom to contract and to conduct business without government meddling allowed for free choice, allocated resources efficiently, facilitated economic growth, and made us all a little richer. Milton Friedman built on Hayek, creating an ideology that resonated with conservatives and ultimately became the prevailing economic view in Washington.
With apologies to Mr Gandhi: "What do I think of free market capitalism? I think it's a good idea - you should try it."
We've evolved an economic system that doesn't actually produce anything. The point of the exercise in business now is all about Acquisition and Disposal of Assets, with the goal of Equity Extraction by way of Debt Leveraging - whatever the current lingo is. It's become a zero sum game of 'I can't win if you don't lose'. The system can't sustain itself because eventually it has to eat itself.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Senator Brown From Massachusetts
Hey, Democraps. Coakley lost because people got the impression she felt entitled to the position; and because people tho't the Mass Dems gave her the nomination because they felt entitled to public support for any stupid fucking thing they do; and because people are gettin' a little pissed off, thinking they haven't seen much of the change they were promised when they voted for Obama, so they're still voting for change.
Yes, there was an awful lot to do. And yes, political headwinds have been fierce. But while Obama has managed to get some good things done, his messaging hasn't hammered any of it home, and his supporting players in Congress have looked weak and timid. Also, he's seen as being way too cozy with Wall Street assholes and K Street pimps - basically, it seems like nobody's really sure whose side he's on.
It's a little weird, but it's like people got so used to being spoon fed Republican Brand Bullshit for so long, they're exhibiting some kind of withdrawal symptoms. I guess they all voted for Bush because he helped 'em believe the issues were cut-and-dried, and all you needed was some common sense and a firm commitment to a few simple principles - that we don't really have to do any thinking or any real work to make decisions about how we govern ourselves.
The system is in a major state of flux again. I think what's really going on here is that we're trying to make some decisions on what exactly we want this little experiment in self-government to look like. I guess you could say that's always what's going on in a democracy, but I think there are times when we really have to concentrate on it. Like now.
One quick tho't: democracy stops working when people stop participating.
Yes, there was an awful lot to do. And yes, political headwinds have been fierce. But while Obama has managed to get some good things done, his messaging hasn't hammered any of it home, and his supporting players in Congress have looked weak and timid. Also, he's seen as being way too cozy with Wall Street assholes and K Street pimps - basically, it seems like nobody's really sure whose side he's on.
It's a little weird, but it's like people got so used to being spoon fed Republican Brand Bullshit for so long, they're exhibiting some kind of withdrawal symptoms. I guess they all voted for Bush because he helped 'em believe the issues were cut-and-dried, and all you needed was some common sense and a firm commitment to a few simple principles - that we don't really have to do any thinking or any real work to make decisions about how we govern ourselves.
The system is in a major state of flux again. I think what's really going on here is that we're trying to make some decisions on what exactly we want this little experiment in self-government to look like. I guess you could say that's always what's going on in a democracy, but I think there are times when we really have to concentrate on it. Like now.
One quick tho't: democracy stops working when people stop participating.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Monday, January 18, 2010
Divisive Is As Divisive Does
A couple of posts from RedState.com (first and then second) indicate some interesting dynamics are at work in Republand.
It strikes me as positively karmic that the Karl Rove school of wedge-and-pick-off politics is now being practiced in earnest within the Repub ranks; and that it's scarin' the crap outa people like Erick Erickson. This guy has made a name for himself over the last several years by demanding obedience and lockstep agreement with his vision of Party Orthodoxy. Now, suddenly, he's begging forbearance as he gets a taste of his own medicine.
It strikes me as positively karmic that the Karl Rove school of wedge-and-pick-off politics is now being practiced in earnest within the Repub ranks; and that it's scarin' the crap outa people like Erick Erickson. This guy has made a name for himself over the last several years by demanding obedience and lockstep agreement with his vision of Party Orthodoxy. Now, suddenly, he's begging forbearance as he gets a taste of his own medicine.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Who Do You Trust?
My oldest is on some kind of list, and it makes things just that much more difficult for the whole family every time we fly. We've been told he's on this list, but nobody will tell us what it is or what we can do about it.
On the one hand, it seems nice for an onerous government agency to offer a way to fix problems. But what if they're just gathering more info on people to use it against us?
Where are the Reaganites? Why are the Teabaggers and Libertarians not attacking TSA as an example of "Government's Not The Solution, It's The Problem"?
Just tho't I'd throw ya a little extra paranoia today - enjoy.
TSA - Travelers Redress Inquiry Program
On the one hand, it seems nice for an onerous government agency to offer a way to fix problems. But what if they're just gathering more info on people to use it against us?
Where are the Reaganites? Why are the Teabaggers and Libertarians not attacking TSA as an example of "Government's Not The Solution, It's The Problem"?
Just tho't I'd throw ya a little extra paranoia today - enjoy.
TSA - Travelers Redress Inquiry Program
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)