SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the promote-them-to-where-they-can-do-the-least-damage dept.
Geert Hofstede's "Culture's Consequences" is one of the most influential management books of the 20th century. With well over 80,000 citations, Hofstede argues that 50 percent of managers' differences in their reactions to various situations are explained by cultural differences. Now, a researcher at the University of Missouri has determined that culture plays little or no part in leaders' management of their employees; this finding could impact how managers are trained and evaluated globally.
"We all want a higher quality of life, a desirable workplace environment and meaningful work -- no matter our home country," said Arthur Jago, professor of management in the Robert J. Trulaske College of Business at MU. "In management theory, we focus more on leaders' differences rather than their similarities. By analyzing the data in a new way, I found that managers across country borders and across cultures are more alike than different."
Crud. Does this mean you can't get away from PHB's no matter where you go?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday December 25 2016, @06:51AM
I actually do agree we should, as i'm sure some corporate hack who will fry in the abyss would put it, "regulate smarter, not harder."
That said, you spend a dozen or so paragraphs to say very nearly nothing, though. Except "well fuck everyone else, especially those future-living fucks, fuck 'em all to hell, I don't give a fuck, where's MY right to be as stupid as them, derk-a-duhhhr?!" (Yes I am going to keep comparing you to the "they terk erh jehrbz!" guys every time you say something stupid and evil).
Do you ever stop and preview your own posts before you send them? Not for grammar or spelling issues, but moral content? All you got out of this was "chasing the nuisance?" Jesus, every time you post I lose more and more respect for you.
Here's your main moral failure: "For a transaction with an externality, everyone has a different viewpoint on the proper cost of the externality and they most certainly will not agree on that." Yes, this is tautologically true, because every individual necessarily has a different set of viewpoints, experience, etc.
What you're deliberately glossing over, though, is that these "externalities" as you so glibly refer to them can consist of ruining entire cities or segments of the economy, and different actors have vastly different capabilities to mitigate the damage said externalities do to them...not to mention, these externalities very often affect third parties who had little or nothing to do with whichever hypothetical trade you're thinking of in the first place.
This isn't, when you get right down to it, really about any specific system of economics. In theory, *any* economic system from utter hive-minded collectivism to absolute anarchy could work, and work equally well. In practice, we know certain things about human behavior, and we know those things are awful matches for specific systems of economic organization in the real world no matter what theory would have us believe. You want to elide this for some benefit to yourself, whether monetary or some twisted kind of ideological purity.
And I. Won't. Let. You.
You're not as clever as you think, and you can't gaslight me...or anyone else who reads your posts with a critical eye. Everything you say here condenses down to "fuck you, I got mine, might makes right," and I will continue to point this out in excruciating anatomical detail for all and sundry to see so everyone knows exactly what you and yours are trying to do.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 25 2016, @12:09PM
Here's your main moral failure: "For a transaction with an externality, everyone has a different viewpoint on the proper cost of the externality and they most certainly will not agree on that." Yes, this is tautologically true, because every individual necessarily has a different set of viewpoints, experience, etc.
It's a truism not a tautology. And I shouldn't have had to remind you of it.
What you're deliberately glossing over, though, is that these "externalities" as you so glibly refer to them can consist of ruining entire cities or segments of the economy, and different actors have vastly different capabilities to mitigate the damage said externalities do to them...not to mention, these externalities very often affect third parties who had little or nothing to do with whichever hypothetical trade you're thinking of in the first place.
Well, yes, affecting third parties is the definition of externality. And seriously, what externalities of that scale are still left in the developed world? Regulation is one of the few areas left that can still create and grow externalities to the appropriate scale. Government corruption undermining that regulation is another. Capitalism was tamed decades ago. It's the controlling apparatus that generates the problems today.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday December 25 2016, @04:26PM
Okay, we're done. You've made it quite clear you don't give a damn about anyone and anything but yourself, and you'll bend the entire world around your delusions if allowed. This is willful ignorance. There's no saving you.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...