chasfh Posted January 13 Author Share Posted January 13 (edited) Burned in the face with a hot irony Edited January 13 by chasfh 1 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 Found this while doom scrolling for JJ and Harbaugh rumors Boeing needs to up its game. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 4 hours ago, romad1 said: Found this while doom scrolling for JJ and Harbaugh rumors Boeing needs to up its game. If they made MBA/Finance degrees illegal US productivity would probably go up an order of magnitude. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toddwert Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 35 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: If they made MBA/Finance degrees illegal US productivity would probably go up an order of magnitude. throw in the accountants Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Echoes Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said: If they made MBA/Finance degrees illegal US productivity would probably go up an order of magnitude. I resemble that description. Thank you very much. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 (edited) 57 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said: I resemble that description. Thank you very much. Here is the engineers basic lament: It's not that the finance guys aren't good at what they do, it's that too much of what they they do is not useful to the larger society (maximize the extraction profit from other productive activity regardless of the impact to that productive capacity) . And TBF, that is mostly the Federal government's fault for making the kind of activity that the finance guys do more profitable in proportion to it's overall economic utility. There is obvious a necessary place for finance in the economy - it's just vastly outsized in our version. No-one in the 99% would have any reason to shed a tear if a company like Bain Capitol had never existed. Edited January 14 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 4 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: Here is the engineers basic lament: It's not that the finance guys aren't good at what they do, it's that too much of what they they do is not useful to the larger society (maximize the extraction profit from other productive activity regardless of the impact to that productive capacity) . And TBF, that is mostly the Federal government's fault for making the kind of activity that the finance guys do more profitable in proportion to it's overall economic utility. There is obvious a necessary place for finance in the economy - it's just vastly outsized in our version. No-one in the 99% would have any reason to shed a tear if a company like Bain Capitol had never existed. the "can do" vs. "should do" element of the economy makes the MBA laugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 The "should do" part of the economy isn't in the vocabulary of many engineers either though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Echoes Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 (edited) 20 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: Here is the engineers basic lament: It's not that the finance guys aren't good at what they do, it's that in the main what they they do is not useful to the larger society (maximize the extraction profit from other productive activity regardless of the impact to that productive capacity) . And TBF, that is mostly the Federal government's fault for making the kind of activity that the finance guys do more profitable in proportion to it's overall economic utility. Rebuttal: A) Having terrible finance guys can destroy a company (Enron, Arthur Anderson, etc...); or at the very least can lose sight of the long-term deleterious effects of misunderstanding Costs versus Profit (the Big 3 automakers, who lost out to the UAW, and to pension funding expenses, in lieu of absolutely required Manufacturing/ Engineering flexibility and Cash Flow & Expense Containment/ Cost/ Funding in (wildly) general. B) There are Finance guys who have become CEO's and been just as successful as any: Engineer/ Sales/ Marketing/ etc. guy. C) On the bolded part... It's the Stock Market, not the Federal government's fault, that the bottom line can often override good business decisions. Whether that's Engineering or an investment in Sales/ Marketing or Capital Expenditures... etc. D) After reading Romad... Yeah... Engineers "Want" to do something is not necessarily smart either. In fact, it can often be quite dumb when it is simply a waste of money that doesn't help the company in any way. BTW: That's what "outside" R&D is for: Universities or nuclear research facilities or what not. But... I've had my engineering teams get "stars in their eyes" sometimes and sorry... but my response will end up being: "sorry dudes... that just costs too much." Read: Try getting a Research Grant for that instead... I absolutely take exception to what we do not being useful to the larger society. Incorrect. But what you've described, or what you've taken exception to: is actually BAD finance rather than smart finance. I take exception to BAD finance as well. If the bottom line (or extraction profit in your parlance) overrides productive capacity or ANYTHING else that weakens a business... Then it's bad business decision-making, no matter where that comes from. Edited January 14 by 1984Echoes 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 as per usual, i have a Mitchell and Webb sketch for this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 1 hour ago, 1984Echoes said: There are Finance guys who have become CEO's and been just as successful as any: Engineer/ Sales/ Marketing/ etc. guy. My compliant isn't as much about the finance people in operating companies - as you note - managers in operating companies can be either good or bad no matter what their history, but the US has a huge standalone financial industry that spends too much time and effort raiding/derivatizing/privatizing gains and socializing losses (and lobbying to protect it all). If you want to say it's all the stock markets fault i'll come back with an arg that different tax policies would make for different incentives in the stock market. But direct stock value is only a part of the story in how the value is often squeezed out of otherwise stable operating businesses and competition stifled by M&A activity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Echoes Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 Well, you're talking about some of the "vulture financing" that exists... I don't know if that's good or bad... some companies are outmoded and dragging along each year and losing out to more modernized companies so... stripping them for value doesn't bother me too much. I mean... that sucks for the workers. But what bothers me even moreso, is when finance guys don't really have any idea what they've created (derivatives) and demand more supply for their monster so everyone says "Well **** the rules, and common sense"... With the Fed government just looking the other way. And then we have the Great Recession of 2008. "COCKY" and Finance do NOT go together very well. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Echoes Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 PS: As for M&A as the only topic: Again, it depends on judgement. A lot of companies benefit hugely from M&A and it's a great benefit for all concerned. Both companies, stockholders, even the public. Usually there will be some employee losses; but that's my last concern because I'm of the mind of "be adaptable/ roll with the punches." And I say that with regard to myself as well... it's not an anti-employee stance. But I am pro-business entity efficiency proponent. Other company's... not so much. And that may go to your anti-M&A stance... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 1 hour ago, 1984Echoes said: PS: As for M&A as the only topic: Again, it depends on judgement. A lot of companies benefit hugely from M&A and it's a great benefit for all concerned. Both companies, stockholders, even the public. Usually there will be some employee losses; but that's my last concern because I'm of the mind of "be adaptable/ roll with the punches." And I say that with regard to myself as well... it's not an anti-employee stance. But I am pro-business entity efficiency proponent. Other company's... not so much. And that may go to your anti-M&A stance... I watched one Fortune500 go down the tubes because they didn't have a cost accounting system that actually captured their cost and they weren't interested in learning why. I was with another where the marketing guys took a successful horizontally integrated firm down the tubes because they were too fool to maintain the good will of their long standing specialty divisions and thought they could more successfully sell their new mothership marketing efforts. Customers didn't know the mothership from Adam - didn't care about it. Company ended up in the hands of GE, then the venture guys, then finally re-leveraged as a shadow of its former self. Watched the numbers guy spike maintenance for so long that one of the oldest and most integrated refiners in the country ended up out of business because of serial devastating operational failures So yeah -- I seen some 'creative destruction' where the creative came up more than a little short. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 19 hours ago, gehringer_2 said: If they made MBA/Finance degrees illegal US productivity would probably go up an order of magnitude. couldn't help but notice you didn't include middle managers in this list 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 34 minutes ago, pfife said: couldn't help but notice you didn't include middle managers in this list Oddly enough my experience with middle managers hasn't been bad. The SO defintely suffered through years of bad middle management though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 (edited) 58 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: Oddly enough my experience with middle managers hasn't been bad. The SO defintely suffered through years of bad middle management though Mine has been really really good except very recently I had one that was horrific. I left the company. I haven't been one in a long time now but the joke is still funny. Edited January 15 by pfife Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 (edited) The boobs on the loony right and their Russian friends are blasting "No CR" on socials. So, yeah...holding funding for everything up so they can have fascist border controls and witch hunts for abortion recipients sounds like a good sane plan. For example: IF, there is a shutdown. Shut it all down. No social security checks. No F-22 fuel, etc. Learn what a shutdown means. Learn the cost of regular order. Edited January 18 by romad1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewsieg Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 I don't know why anyone would want to go into middle management at my company. I feel like unrealistic goals are set by upper mgmt and middle mgmt has to scrounge to meet those while not pissing off their employees. That said, i've ran into some that do nothing but cook the numbers to make upper mgmt happy and their teams are worthless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motor City Sonics Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 The Repugnantcans are about to throw another speaker out.............What a disgrace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 Lmao what a clownshow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 For real? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Echoes Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 Yeah, I haven't seen anything concrete about dumping Speaker Johnson... Just rumblings. Which don't amount to squat if that's what's being squawked about above... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 (edited) 1 hour ago, 1984Echoes said: Yeah, I haven't seen anything concrete about dumping Speaker Johnson... Just rumblings. Which don't amount to squat if that's what's being squawked about above... If it were to come to pass, it would be when the departmental bills start comming up. The other factor is that the GOP has lost a couple of members, which narrows their majority even more. If they get down to 1 or 2 due to additional deaths or incapacitations (or indictments....) that's another wild card in the calculation because if it begins to look conceivable that the dems could pick off one or two reps to flip the majority, that might force the radicals to trim their sails--- or not! At any rate it would be another add to the chaos. Edited January 19 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 Bannon blasts Johnson for saying Biden presidency is ‘God’s will’ | The Hill Steve Bannon is using chaos as a ladder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.