3 ms·

You could make a nuanced argument like that, sure. But if you did that, you'd have to actually flush it out, and making an argument like that actually work is q

by darawk 8y ago

You could make a nuanced argument like that, sure. But if you did that, you'd have to actually flush it out, and making an argument like that actually work is quite hard. Which is why this article doesn't bother to attempt it. They just state it, and hope nobody is paying attention.

mlthoughts2018 8y ago
Why is it hard to make such an argument? Intuitively, just from the basic operation observable of most large companies and the ubiquity of corporate dysfunction, it seems obvious. To the degree that the burden of proof would go the other way. It’s exceptional to me to say that companies pursue maximizing shareholder value in a way that generally accomplishes that goal, or to disagree with the conclusion that companies are mostly stagnant in terms of actual productivity measures and have been for a while (something that highlights the current extreme incongruity between aggregate financial metrics and societal productivity metrics). Those positions require extreme, special evidence since they are so at odds with reality.
- darawk 8y ago
  Play the tape all the way through. You are proposing that there exists free money to be made by companies willing to invest more in their employees, right? And you are proposing that most companies are unwilling to pick that money up off the ground because their time horizon is too short. People make multi-decade investments all the time. The idea that business people are out there systematically avoiding any and all long term investments is patently false and completely unsupported by any evidence i'm aware of.
  - mlthoughts2018 8y ago
    > “You are proposing that there exists free money to be made by companies willing to invest more in their employees, right?“ No, I did not suggest that. > “People make multi-decade investments all the time.“ No, that’s a bonkers and ridiculous claim. Some extremely small group of people might make such long-term investments, usually real estate consortiums and mining rights consortiums, but it is an extreme minority of all investment activity, and even more extreme if weighted by dollar value. And even after all that, such investments are still usually made based on net present value calculations with short time horizons, combined with forecasts on the liquidity of the asset (e.g. secondary markets for long-term debt instruments or options or futures for rights-based initiatives). > “The idea that business people are out there systematically avoiding any and all long term investments is patently false and completely unsupported by any evidence i'm aware of.” This seems like a statement about what you’re aware of, and not a statement about long-term investing, which it seems by your own admission, you’re not aware of.

by darawk 8y ago

mlthoughts2018 8y ago

Why is it hard to make such an argument? Intuitively, just from the basic operation observable of most large companies and the ubiquity of corporate dysfunction, it seems obvious. To the degree that the burden of proof would go the other way. It’s exceptional to me to say that companies pursue maximizing shareholder value in a way that generally accomplishes that goal, or to disagree with the conclusion that companies are mostly stagnant in terms of actual productivity measures and have been for a while (something that highlights the current extreme incongruity between aggregate financial metrics and societal productivity metrics). Those positions require extreme, special evidence since they are so at odds with reality.

darawk 8y ago
Play the tape all the way through. You are proposing that there exists free money to be made by companies willing to invest more in their employees, right? And you are proposing that most companies are unwilling to pick that money up off the ground because their time horizon is too short. People make multi-decade investments all the time. The idea that business people are out there systematically avoiding any and all long term investments is patently false and completely unsupported by any evidence i'm aware of.
- mlthoughts2018 8y ago
  > “You are proposing that there exists free money to be made by companies willing to invest more in their employees, right?“ No, I did not suggest that. > “People make multi-decade investments all the time.“ No, that’s a bonkers and ridiculous claim. Some extremely small group of people might make such long-term investments, usually real estate consortiums and mining rights consortiums, but it is an extreme minority of all investment activity, and even more extreme if weighted by dollar value. And even after all that, such investments are still usually made based on net present value calculations with short time horizons, combined with forecasts on the liquidity of the asset (e.g. secondary markets for long-term debt instruments or options or futures for rights-based initiatives). > “The idea that business people are out there systematically avoiding any and all long term investments is patently false and completely unsupported by any evidence i'm aware of.” This seems like a statement about what you’re aware of, and not a statement about long-term investing, which it seems by your own admission, you’re not aware of.