Jump to content

What are you reading?


khay
 Share

Recommended Posts

What were the examples?

Ruskoff presents a matrix of how he says business will have to develop from vampire squids sucking up everything in order to meet the growth demands of investors, to being more employee and customer focused businesses with social conscience. Googled but can't find the matrix, but the FT review is on the money...

 

"He applauds the intergenerational vision of private companies such as Riso Gallo, the Italian rice producer, whose owners say they are only borrowing the company from their children. He is also a fan of not-for-profit organisations, local currencies and the possibilities of distributed finance via the blockchain.

 

Imagine a world that moves from an extractive to a distributive model, in which Amazon is owned by its sellers, Uber is owned by its drivers, and Facebook is owned by the people who create its content.

 

That world may be a better one, but Rushkoff provides frustratingly few clues about how we might travel there"

 

Etsy and bitcoin are the most successful examples of the direction he argues for. Alternatives to eBay, Amazon and Uber which he's effusive about I looked up but they seemed to be abandoned already or have miniscule subscriber bases.

 

I'm only just past the prologue in Klein's book, but her counter argument to how catastrophic the situation is, her "all is not lost" argument seems to be only that the situation is so catastrophic that the planet will no longer support capitalism. Once the climate finally kills capitalism then we'll have to come up with something else anyway, so let's have the global state of emergency sooner rather than later and start dismantling the society that pollutes and rebuild the green society now.

 

As much as I agree with the sentiment of both, neither seem to offer any ideas to hang your hat on. Probably expecting too much for either to provide a roadmap to prosperity and longevity... but the lack of either is what's depressing about reading them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine a world that moves from an extractive to a distributive model, in which Amazon is owned by its sellers, Uber is owned by its drivers, and Facebook is owned by the people who create its content.

That sounds like a complete disaster.  Most people aren't programmed to run companies, by committee or otherwise.  

 

I do think we need to move further in the direction you're discussing, though.

 

Just pray for the singularity and benevolent AI tbh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The book is more interested in workers having a stake in the companies success than running the company and making decisions. Rather than vast corporations piling up profits while paying minimum wage they should pay dividends to workers that encourage commitment and workplace satisfaction. They should go toward generous pensions rather then pension pots being cut and borrowed against which  places the risk of investment on the worker but shares none of the reward.

Workers should get all of this while also reducing their working hours. As robots replace people and the workforce train for more skilled jobs that are more keenly fought for, there are more people than jobs, so what jobs there are should be shared. 2 people working 20 hour shifts and each getting the pay they currently would for working 40 hours a week.

These companies will succeed not because investors gamble on their growth which is the one measure of success for their leaders. Leading to boom and bust. Success will be that leaders are able to employ more people. That these companies just remain profitable whether they increase scale or not and that they are carbon neutral.

It challenges leaders to move in this direction, not workers, who will only keep doing what they do and enjoy the rewards.

The only incentive he offers leaders though is that the companies they're fluffng up to hit quarterly growth targets can't always sustain it and die. He appeals to their ambition to build a company on solid foundations rather than building vast personal wealth that the markets give them at the cost of their companies growing beyond the scale they're fit and ready for.

I don't imagine many leaders have a preference to do that though. They're mostly in a race to get onto the stock market and cash in on what they have built when the company peaks before walking away from the board of directors with their reward as the company struggles to maintain the stock price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The book is more interested in workers having a stake in the companies success than running the company and making decisions. Rather than vast corporations piling up profits while paying minimum wage they should pay dividends to workers that encourage commitment and workplace satisfaction. They should go toward generous pensions rather then pension pots being cut and borrowed against which  places the risk of investment on the worker but shares none of the reward.

 

Workers should get all of this while also reducing their working hours. As robots replace people and the workforce train for more skilled jobs that are more keenly fought for, there are more people than jobs, so what jobs there are should be shared. 2 people working 20 hour shifts and each getting the pay they currently would for working 40 hours a week.

 

These companies will succeed not because investors gamble on their growth which is the one measure of success for their leaders. Leading to boom and bust. Success will be that leaders are able to employ more people. That these companies just remain profitable whether they increase scale or not and that they are carbon neutral.

 

It challenges leaders to move in this direction, not workers, who will only keep doing what they do and enjoy the rewards.

 

The only incentive he offers leaders though is that the companies they're fluffng up to hit quarterly growth targets can't always sustain it and die. He appeals to their ambition to build a company on solid foundations rather than building vast personal wealth that the markets give them at the cost of their companies growing beyond the scale they're fit and ready for.

 

I don't imagine many leaders have a preference to do that though. They're mostly in a race to get onto the stock market and cash in on what they have built when the company peaks before walking away from the board of directors with their reward as the company struggles to maintain the stock price.

Ah ok, that makes a lot of sense, cheers.   :good:

 

And what @@Alex said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally got round to starting Wolves of Calla (Dark Tower #5).

 

Absolutely crazy so far, which is obviously what you expect from King, but I'm really enjoying the series so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just read "Case Closed" by Gerald Posner, a great read but firmly entrenched in the lone gunman theory of the JFK assassination, as biased towards the Oswald argument as the numerous Conspiri-tard books are biased to the Maffia/Cuban/Russian/ theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah one geezer with an old bolt action rifle. ;)

 

 

If I'm honest, I've changed my mind over the last few years, I think Oswald did it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moves to Texas. Starts believing the lone gunman theory. :scratchchin:

 

In all honesty it started to become more believable since I visited Dealey Plaza.  :country:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all honesty it started to become more believable since I visited Dealey Plaza.  :country:

They chose the Plaza because it had multiple lines of sight.

 

Remember the cavalcade slowed down and the 'agents' jumped off the car to open up the shot.

Edited by Park Life
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They chose the Plaza because it had multiple lines of sight.

 

Remember the cavalcade slowed down and the 'agents' jumped off the car to open up the shot.

 

 

as opposed to when the president only travels through tunnels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all honesty it started to become more believable since I visited Dealey Plaza. :country:

I'd like to do that actually. Can you get into the Plaza and look out the window?

 

They love turning an assassination into a museum. The motel where MLK was killed is now the Museum of Civil Rights and you can look into the room/onto the balcony where he nutted a bullet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to do that actually. Can you get into the Plaza and look out the window?

 

They love turning an assassination into a museum. The motel where MLK was killed is now the Museum of Civil Rights and you can look into the room/onto the balcony where he nutted a bullet.

 

 

the whole book suppository building is a museum dedicated to the assassination, the main exhibit area is the 6th floor but the snipers nest is enclosed in glass so you can't look out of the same window, but you can on the 7th floor, and my first reaction was that the kill shot (which is tastefully marked on the road) was a lot closer than I had imagined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.