5 ms·

Am I exceptionally cynical because reaction to this quote: "I had (naively) assumed that senior-level employees of a $50B company would know right from wrong"

Am I exceptionally cynical because reaction to this quote: "I had (naively) assumed that senior-level employees of a $50B company would know right from wrong" was to think "that's not naive, that's flat out stupid. Of course they know the difference, they just don't care."?

javert 14y ago
Yes, you are exceptionally cynical. Cheating is not a reasonable strategy over the long run. It's no small coincidence that it's Best Buy, a notoriously mediocre company, that had cheaters at the helm. This would be less likely at a better company.
- AlexandrB 14y ago
  > Cheating is not a reasonable strategy over the long run. That might depend on what you mean by cheating. Microsoft did pretty well back in the day with their anti-competitive practices. Likewise, Intel managed to kill AMD.
  - javert 14y ago
    "anti-competitive practices" is an anti-concept (look that term up in an epistemology book if you don't know it). Microsoft didn't initiate force or fraud against anyone; therefore, they weren't cheating. In the long run, had they continued those practices, Linux and Apple (or some other competitor in the marketplace) likely would have risen farther/faster. Forcing everyone to use IE was not a viable strategy back when that was a death sentence for computer security. AFAIK AMD is alive and well.
    - _delirium 14y ago
      Microsoft was cheating; your strange Randian views are neither the law, nor philosophically defensible. In the real world, abusing monopoly power is cheating, both legally and ethically.
      - javert 14y ago
        MS didn't have a monopoly (i.e., exclusive right to sell something granted by the government); they were operating in a free market. People were always free to use a different OS, and many have. You haven't offered a counterargument to this obvious fact. You haven't explained why you think MS was cheating by selling software configured in a particular way (nor why countless analogous examples in other industries don't constitute cheating). I find your bald assertion that my views are not philosophically defensible to be below the belt. I can (and often do) rigorously defend my views, and can point to further information. I take claims contrary to my views seriously. People who aren't interested in what I have to say can easily avoid me. strange Randian views By the way, hasn't it been said that good, novel solutions will often appear strange, and not to discount ideas for that reason? Isn't that a reason to investigte? Especially since philosophers have not engaged with or been able to offer counter-arguments to Rand, and since there is a growing persence of Objectivist philosophers in university philosophy departments?
        _delirium 14y ago
        First, a government-granted monopoly is only one kind of monopoly. Surely you have read enough economics since the 17th century to be aware of that? Even Adam Smith discussed it as a possibility. Secondly, there is not actually a growing presence of Objectivist philosophers, excluding those who are explicitly bought, like Roderick T. Long. If you want a demolition of her philosophical views from people who are politically sympathetic to libertarianism, see Robert Nozick's "On the Randian Argument", or Murray N. Rothbard's "The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult". Rothbard's satirical play, "Mozart was a Red!" [1], is also somewhat funny, though it is not very well-produced. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mGpMpaHGM4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mGpMpaHGM4
        javert 14y ago
        Roderick Long is not an Objectivist. I don't know how you calculate Objectivist presence in academia, but I strongly suspect the numbers are growing, although I think that growth will probably plateau soon (but maybe I'm wrong). But, that doesn't really matter. Do you not think that all academic philosophers are bought? (OK, I know what you mean, though.) views from people who are politically sympathetic to libertarianism People who are sympathetic to libertarianism are (generally) anti-Objectivist, since they are basically a splinter group off of Objectivism, so that doesn't really mean anything. Anything by Rothbard can pretty much be dismissed out of hand, especially with a factually incorrect title like that. I think I've seen it before, but I'll double check. I think I've also see Nozick's "On the Randian Argument," and found that he hadn't actually grasped AR's methodology at all and had not made a legitimate critique, but I will double check that, too.
    - AlexandrB 14y ago
      AMD the company is alive and well, but this is despite their CPU division, not because of it. For a sizeable part of the 2000's AMD was the price/performance leader in CPUs. Intel leveraged their position with OEM's to keep AMD out of many PCs during this period. The extent of the damage is debatable, but currently AMD's CPUs are quickly becoming relegated to the low-end, low-margin market. Without strong profits to fund R&D, AMD will likely stay there. Ars Technica has a good writeup that sums up the whole affair here: http://arstechnica.com/business/2010/01/intel-response-to-ftc-hints-at-depth-of-amd-mismanagement/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2010/01/intel-response-to-ft... Note how much market share AMD has lost in the enthusiast market already: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/market_share.html http://www.cpubenchmark.net/market_share.html
      - javert 14y ago
        Sorry for my delayed response. I haven't read those links yet (I am planning to, but don't want to forget to comment) but... if AMD lost out because Intel had deals with the OEMs, AMD should have made those kind of deals, even if they had to pay a pretty penny, or AMD should have created it's own end-to-end PC business, or AMD should have purchased an OEM, or whatever. It's just business strategy. At the end of the day, if AMD could not make it happen, they should have let their IP be acquired by someone else and let someone else have a go at it. Or they should have diversified their business (which I guess they did do, successfully) and then waited for a better opportunity to go after the CPU market later. Ultimately, it's barbaric for the government to use guns to stop Intel from making its own business decisions in the market, which is what people are directly advocating whenever they accuse Intel of being "anti-competitive" or a monopoly.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- chiph 14y ago
  The long run doesn't matter for them. I give BB 2 years before they follow Circuit City into liquidation. 3 if they're lucky.
  - javert 14y ago
    Exactly.
- freshhawk 14y ago
  > Cheating is not a reasonable strategy over the long run The financial industry disagrees. Politics disagree. History disagrees. Evolution disagrees since the populations of sociopaths seem stable. Game theory disagrees quite strongly. > This would be less likely at a better company What do you mean by better? More profitable? That's blatantly false given the financial industry. More honest? That's just tautological.
ghshephard 14y ago
In my experience with senior executives at $10B+ companies making these decisions, it's not a case of knowing the difference, or not caring, it's more a case of, at that level, the concept of "Right" and "Wrong" are immature concepts that aren't relevant. Executives that have reached that level, frequently take an almost purely game-theoretic position in any decisions they make, where they do a risk-assesment, consult their attorneys, determine what their exposure is, and then simply make a decision that is going to yield the greatest NPV (Net Present Value) inclusive of those risks. The problem at Best Buy is their GC did a poor job of training the company on the importance of not leaving behind discoverable material. That's the real lesson that I'm sure Best Buy's CEO took away from this who event. Don't be too surprised if Best Buy shifts to 90 day retention on email.
- rthomas6 14y ago
  What experience do you have, out of curiosity? It's interesting to think that top executives consider breaking the law in their options when making decisions.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - snowwrestler 14y ago
    Without addressing the broader question of corporate decision-making, it seems to me that Best Buy broke a contract, not the law--which is why it was civil trial, not criminal.
  - ghshephard 14y ago
    The experience I had typically fell the categories of Revenue Recognition . Things like round-trip revenue exchanges with other companies, Shipping gear with the understanding that return would occur at the end of the quarter, and capitalizing OpEx. The thing was - these executives (CEOs, CFOs, and EVPs of sales) never used words like "Wrong" and "Right" - they just made sure their activity wasn't discoverable and would pass muster of the Auditors (Auditors, who, were hired by those very same executives and were also doing consulting work for the company in other lucrative deals.) Anything that they could get away with, they simply presumed to be the best course of action. And, you really buy into that mindset when you're with them - and don't really realize what you are involved with until you hear about your CFO being indicted for something she got caught doing.

javert 14y ago

Yes, you are exceptionally cynical. Cheating is not a reasonable strategy over the long run. It's no small coincidence that it's Best Buy, a notoriously mediocre company, that had cheaters at the helm. This would be less likely at a better company.

AlexandrB 14y ago
> Cheating is not a reasonable strategy over the long run. That might depend on what you mean by cheating. Microsoft did pretty well back in the day with their anti-competitive practices. Likewise, Intel managed to kill AMD.
- javert 14y ago
  "anti-competitive practices" is an anti-concept (look that term up in an epistemology book if you don't know it). Microsoft didn't initiate force or fraud against anyone; therefore, they weren't cheating. In the long run, had they continued those practices, Linux and Apple (or some other competitor in the marketplace) likely would have risen farther/faster. Forcing everyone to use IE was not a viable strategy back when that was a death sentence for computer security. AFAIK AMD is alive and well.
  - _delirium 14y ago
    Microsoft was cheating; your strange Randian views are neither the law, nor philosophically defensible. In the real world, abusing monopoly power is cheating, both legally and ethically.
    - javert 14y ago
      MS didn't have a monopoly (i.e., exclusive right to sell something granted by the government); they were operating in a free market. People were always free to use a different OS, and many have. You haven't offered a counterargument to this obvious fact. You haven't explained why you think MS was cheating by selling software configured in a particular way (nor why countless analogous examples in other industries don't constitute cheating). I find your bald assertion that my views are not philosophically defensible to be below the belt. I can (and often do) rigorously defend my views, and can point to further information. I take claims contrary to my views seriously. People who aren't interested in what I have to say can easily avoid me. strange Randian views By the way, hasn't it been said that good, novel solutions will often appear strange, and not to discount ideas for that reason? Isn't that a reason to investigte? Especially since philosophers have not engaged with or been able to offer counter-arguments to Rand, and since there is a growing persence of Objectivist philosophers in university philosophy departments?
      - _delirium 14y ago
        First, a government-granted monopoly is only one kind of monopoly. Surely you have read enough economics since the 17th century to be aware of that? Even Adam Smith discussed it as a possibility. Secondly, there is not actually a growing presence of Objectivist philosophers, excluding those who are explicitly bought, like Roderick T. Long. If you want a demolition of her philosophical views from people who are politically sympathetic to libertarianism, see Robert Nozick's "On the Randian Argument", or Murray N. Rothbard's "The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult". Rothbard's satirical play, "Mozart was a Red!" [1], is also somewhat funny, though it is not very well-produced. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mGpMpaHGM4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mGpMpaHGM4
        javert 14y ago
        Roderick Long is not an Objectivist. I don't know how you calculate Objectivist presence in academia, but I strongly suspect the numbers are growing, although I think that growth will probably plateau soon (but maybe I'm wrong). But, that doesn't really matter. Do you not think that all academic philosophers are bought? (OK, I know what you mean, though.) views from people who are politically sympathetic to libertarianism People who are sympathetic to libertarianism are (generally) anti-Objectivist, since they are basically a splinter group off of Objectivism, so that doesn't really mean anything. Anything by Rothbard can pretty much be dismissed out of hand, especially with a factually incorrect title like that. I think I've seen it before, but I'll double check. I think I've also see Nozick's "On the Randian Argument," and found that he hadn't actually grasped AR's methodology at all and had not made a legitimate critique, but I will double check that, too.
  - AlexandrB 14y ago
    AMD the company is alive and well, but this is despite their CPU division, not because of it. For a sizeable part of the 2000's AMD was the price/performance leader in CPUs. Intel leveraged their position with OEM's to keep AMD out of many PCs during this period. The extent of the damage is debatable, but currently AMD's CPUs are quickly becoming relegated to the low-end, low-margin market. Without strong profits to fund R&D, AMD will likely stay there. Ars Technica has a good writeup that sums up the whole affair here: http://arstechnica.com/business/2010/01/intel-response-to-ftc-hints-at-depth-of-amd-mismanagement/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2010/01/intel-response-to-ft... Note how much market share AMD has lost in the enthusiast market already: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/market_share.html http://www.cpubenchmark.net/market_share.html
    - javert 14y ago
      Sorry for my delayed response. I haven't read those links yet (I am planning to, but don't want to forget to comment) but... if AMD lost out because Intel had deals with the OEMs, AMD should have made those kind of deals, even if they had to pay a pretty penny, or AMD should have created it's own end-to-end PC business, or AMD should have purchased an OEM, or whatever. It's just business strategy. At the end of the day, if AMD could not make it happen, they should have let their IP be acquired by someone else and let someone else have a go at it. Or they should have diversified their business (which I guess they did do, successfully) and then waited for a better opportunity to go after the CPU market later. Ultimately, it's barbaric for the government to use guns to stop Intel from making its own business decisions in the market, which is what people are directly advocating whenever they accuse Intel of being "anti-competitive" or a monopoly.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
chiph 14y ago
The long run doesn't matter for them. I give BB 2 years before they follow Circuit City into liquidation. 3 if they're lucky.
- javert 14y ago
  Exactly.
freshhawk 14y ago
> Cheating is not a reasonable strategy over the long run The financial industry disagrees. Politics disagree. History disagrees. Evolution disagrees since the populations of sociopaths seem stable. Game theory disagrees quite strongly. > This would be less likely at a better company What do you mean by better? More profitable? That's blatantly false given the financial industry. More honest? That's just tautological.

ghshephard 14y ago

In my experience with senior executives at $10B+ companies making these decisions, it's not a case of knowing the difference, or not caring, it's more a case of, at that level, the concept of "Right" and "Wrong" are immature concepts that aren't relevant. Executives that have reached that level, frequently take an almost purely game-theoretic position in any decisions they make, where they do a risk-assesment, consult their attorneys, determine what their exposure is, and then simply make a decision that is going to yield the greatest NPV (Net Present Value) inclusive of those risks. The problem at Best Buy is their GC did a poor job of training the company on the importance of not leaving behind discoverable material. That's the real lesson that I'm sure Best Buy's CEO took away from this who event. Don't be too surprised if Best Buy shifts to 90 day retention on email.

rthomas6 14y ago
What experience do you have, out of curiosity? It's interesting to think that top executives consider breaking the law in their options when making decisions.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- snowwrestler 14y ago
  Without addressing the broader question of corporate decision-making, it seems to me that Best Buy broke a contract, not the law--which is why it was civil trial, not criminal.
- ghshephard 14y ago
  The experience I had typically fell the categories of Revenue Recognition . Things like round-trip revenue exchanges with other companies, Shipping gear with the understanding that return would occur at the end of the quarter, and capitalizing OpEx. The thing was - these executives (CEOs, CFOs, and EVPs of sales) never used words like "Wrong" and "Right" - they just made sure their activity wasn't discoverable and would pass muster of the Auditors (Auditors, who, were hired by those very same executives and were also doing consulting work for the company in other lucrative deals.) Anything that they could get away with, they simply presumed to be the best course of action. And, you really buy into that mindset when you're with them - and don't really realize what you are involved with until you hear about your CFO being indicted for something she got caught doing.