Read This First
Read the news today and you will see a lot of negativity, particularly directed towards the
"haves", the big-time companies and their employees. Message boards are littered with vitriol against the so-called "1%", with much "well, I don't see them giving back their huge bonuses" and "you should be ashamed of yourself".
Let's all take a minute to calm down and look at this from the other side.
As you can see in the article I linked, not everyone in the finance business is eating babies and deliberately plundering your life savings. Do those people exist? Yes. (Well, except for the baby eating, I don't think there is much of that going on even on Wall Street.) But the industry is also full of people doing their best to help their customers. The conflict is between the desire to help your customers and a desire to make a profit.
Nowadays, "profit" has become a bad word. It seems to conjure up an image of some greasy fat-cat with a cigar. We have decided as a society that since some people are making a lot more money than other people, that anyone who makes money is bad. Look around online, or ask around at the local pub, and I think you will find that a lot of people, particularly of the "blue collar" persuasion, think that "rich" people are generally bad. Everyone wants to make money, but people will go out of their way not to drive a car that makes them look pretentious or let people think they are "rich".
When did this happen? People talk about the "American Dream", the old mythical goal of "making it" and being set for life. Now, if you achieve it, you have to take pains not to look like it, otherwise people will hold you in contempt. Look at Mitt Romney for instance. One of his biggest liabilities in a party that is known for celebrating the accomplishments of the individual and generally support "trickle-down" economic theories is that he makes "too much money".
We all seem to want to be rich, but not have other people think of us as "rich people".
Greg Smith, who wrote the article above, was an executive director of Goldman Sachs, one of the firms viewed as a prime villain in the recent recession. As such, his compensation was probably in the millions of dollars per year. Most people look at numbers like that and say "Wow, what a ridiculous amount of money, I can't believe he gets paid that much." Take a moment, however, and read the article. He mentions that "my clients have a total asset base of more than a trillion dollars". Let's pause here, as there is a demonstrated and documented inability of humans to grasp the amount of money that represents. He manages over $1,000,000,000,000 dollars. Even if he is paid $10 million yearly, that is 1/100,000 of the amount of money he manages. That is equivalent to someone making $40,000 per year being responsible for $4 BILLION. If I told you I would hire you for those kinds of numbers, you would probably laugh at me. So let's stop claiming he is overpaid. In fact, most people in finance are compensated similarly. They make a lot of money, but that is because they are responsible for ridiculously large amounts. Even your local bank branch has millions of dollars in its care at any time.
Instead of "these people make way too much money", let's focus on the more important point that Greg Smith raises here: "these people are far too callous with their customers". This is the important part. Reading the article, you can see a corporate culture that has changed to prioritize making money off of the customer rather than making money for the customer. This is a fundamental change. Goldman Sachs spent over 100 years as an extremely reputable firm. They built their success and reputation by making their customers a great deal of money. In the past decade or so they, along with many other financial institutions, seem to have transitioned to a point where they feel large enough that they don't need to worry about making money for their customers as much as making money for themselves. This attitude has led to a number of irresponsible and unethical policies, and seems to have contributed a great deal to the economic downturn.
I applaud Mr. Smith for his courage and principle in standing up, throwing back the curtain, and showing us the problems at the center of the system. Many people, even in the comments on his article, are lambasting him for not leaving sooner, or implying that he should give the money back. Let's not be ridiculous. It is difficult enough to throw away your colleagues, associates, and friends that you have gained through 12 years at a company. On top of that, he is giving up a very lucrative salary to blow the whistle. Whether you make $20,000 a year or $20 million, it is not an easy thing to give up on principle. Credit him for the integrity he has shown by coming forward, and demand more of the same from your banks and financial institutions.
Is the system a problem right now? Yes. Is it hopeless? No. There are still people with integrity in the business, let's support them. By vilifying the people who manage your money, you only give them more reasons to disregard your opinions. On top of that, you will force the people who value your opinion out, leaving only the dregs. Greg Smith did a very difficult thing, let's learn a lesson from it and try to improve the situation.
Showing posts with label Discussion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Discussion. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Monday, February 27, 2012
. . . On A Lighter Note
The Story Today
So I decided to take some time away from my normal topics today. I realized that all I was ever writing about were the things that made me angry. Don't worry though, I will be back to outraged disbelief before we know it.
This story comes from one of the more innovative sites of the last few years. Bill Simmons' Grantland (www.grantland.com) is a delightful mash-up of sports, pop culture, and general "hanging-out-with-the-guys" discussion. With the big business that sports coverage has become in the last decade, even such tongue-in-cheek organizations as ESPN have become insufferably serious. Grantland breaks out of this, offering an uncensored take on the sports world, complete with the off-the-wall conversations you might have at the local sports bar.
Among the discussions of Bill Simmons' childhood sports memories and Katie Baker's ruthless wedding pages coverage, you will come across some gems such as the article I have linked to. If you happen to listen to sports radio, particularly ESPN radio (like I do), you will hear story after story of "[Player X] used [Substance Y] and it is the worst thing in the history of EVER!" Charles P. Pierce seems to have a knack at stripping the self-importance out of the story.
The insistence that performance-enhancing drug (PED) use is "ruining" sports is rampant throughout the broadcast landscape. Whether it is Lance Armstrong, cycling, and blood doping or Barry Bonds, asterisks, and steroids, we attach far too much importance to the drugs.
Pierce makes a fantastic point in the article, speaking of the two reasons for getting upset about performance-enhancing drugs. The first, player health, is far and away the best reason to support these policies. It is also the weaker of the two arguments. It has been established that steroids are harmful, especially for young children and teenagers. However, javelins are dangerous too, which is why you cannot have javelin as a high school event in many states. This does not, however, mean that it is outlawed. It is merely restricted to levels where enough caution and oversight is involved to make it relatively safe. If javelin were treated like steroids, it would be universally illegal because young children might see someone throwing a javelin on TV and suddenly decide to do it themselves.
Other PEDs have been shown to have far fewer negative effects. In fact, things like blood doping are entirely natural, often using the athlete's own blood cells. Many other PEDs, such as Human Growth Hormone (HGH) are already common treatments for a number of illnesses. Are there possible side effects? Yes, absolutely. But there are also documented toxic side effects of taking excessive amounts of Vitamin C. If these treatments and methods were taken out of the locker rooms and trainer's offices and allowed to be properly administered by physicians, the vast majority of these issues would be negated.
This brings us to the second, and far more nebulous, argument against PEDs. Morality, ethics, and fair play. "Fairness" is a word that has come to have near-holy connotations in America. We are obsessed with "fair." I fail to see how there can be any unfairness involved at the Major League Baseball level. Even the poorest of teams can afford to spend millions on fringe players and luxuries in the clubhouse. There is absolutely nothing preventing them from providing these PEDs to their players. As far as on-the-field, there is once again little validity. These PEDs are no more game-changing than the scientifically balanced and exactingly prepared training diets, exercise routines, and hundred-thousand dollar personal trainers that are used today. Add to that the space-age supplements and various "legal" medicines that are used every day, and I fail to see the distinction. It is well known that many athletes, particularly in football, regularly receive cortisone injections to treat significant injuries such as sprains, pulls, and even shoulder separations. I believe I could reasonably argue that any shot (which by the way happens to be a steroid) that allows you to continue playing at a high level despite injuries which would require hospital attention in civilians qualifies as a Performance Enhancing Drug.
Pierce's piece brings these elements out front masterfully. When will we stop and look at the War on Sports Drugs and realize it has all the same failings as the War on (Real) Drugs. It has been a sink of multiple millions of dollars, and hasn't accomplished a whole heck of a lot. All that happens is that the drugs people are using get fancier and harder to spot. On top of that, the witch-hunt culture that has sprung up around these Anti-PED/Anti-Drug campaigns has gotten out of hand. Much like the potheads who are busted for possession and end up with longer sentences than rapists, you have Ryan Braun being threatened with a 50-game suspension for a first-offense PED violation. In contrast, Cincinnati Reds pitcher Johnny Cueto received a 7-game suspension. The difference between the two is that Cueto didn't do something as heinous as use artificial testosterone. All he did was repeatedly kick at an opponent's face with his baseball spikes. Thank goodness Braun was going to be punished seven times as much, we can allow good-natured face-kicking, but god forbid someone tries to improve their on-field performance!
To make matters worse, Braun's suspension was overturned by an arbitrator. "How can that be a bad thing?" you are probably asking. It's bad for a number of reasons. To begin with, it was overturned not because evidence showed that Braun did not take a banned substance, but rather because of improper procedure in the handling of his urine sample. On top of that, Major League Baseball took umbrage with the ruling and is threatening to appeal in court. Mind you, this is part of a collective bargaining agreement that MLB agreed to, and the would absolutely be chewing on the walls if a player had the temerity to challenge the arbitrator's ruling. Finally, despite the suspension being overturned, Braun is now face with a huge number of fans who believe that he is guilty, and merely got away with it.
Did he do it? I don't know, I'm inclined to believe he did. But that doesn't matter. His suspension was overturned. More importantly, he was part of a fantastic story last year for the small-market Milwaukee Brewers, and his fantastic performance was a large part of a very entertaining season. Let's all back off of the rhetoric and enjoy the show. And once again, if you haven't checked out Grantland, you should, it's a great read.
So I decided to take some time away from my normal topics today. I realized that all I was ever writing about were the things that made me angry. Don't worry though, I will be back to outraged disbelief before we know it.
This story comes from one of the more innovative sites of the last few years. Bill Simmons' Grantland (www.grantland.com) is a delightful mash-up of sports, pop culture, and general "hanging-out-with-the-guys" discussion. With the big business that sports coverage has become in the last decade, even such tongue-in-cheek organizations as ESPN have become insufferably serious. Grantland breaks out of this, offering an uncensored take on the sports world, complete with the off-the-wall conversations you might have at the local sports bar.
Among the discussions of Bill Simmons' childhood sports memories and Katie Baker's ruthless wedding pages coverage, you will come across some gems such as the article I have linked to. If you happen to listen to sports radio, particularly ESPN radio (like I do), you will hear story after story of "[Player X] used [Substance Y] and it is the worst thing in the history of EVER!" Charles P. Pierce seems to have a knack at stripping the self-importance out of the story.
The insistence that performance-enhancing drug (PED) use is "ruining" sports is rampant throughout the broadcast landscape. Whether it is Lance Armstrong, cycling, and blood doping or Barry Bonds, asterisks, and steroids, we attach far too much importance to the drugs.
Pierce makes a fantastic point in the article, speaking of the two reasons for getting upset about performance-enhancing drugs. The first, player health, is far and away the best reason to support these policies. It is also the weaker of the two arguments. It has been established that steroids are harmful, especially for young children and teenagers. However, javelins are dangerous too, which is why you cannot have javelin as a high school event in many states. This does not, however, mean that it is outlawed. It is merely restricted to levels where enough caution and oversight is involved to make it relatively safe. If javelin were treated like steroids, it would be universally illegal because young children might see someone throwing a javelin on TV and suddenly decide to do it themselves.
Other PEDs have been shown to have far fewer negative effects. In fact, things like blood doping are entirely natural, often using the athlete's own blood cells. Many other PEDs, such as Human Growth Hormone (HGH) are already common treatments for a number of illnesses. Are there possible side effects? Yes, absolutely. But there are also documented toxic side effects of taking excessive amounts of Vitamin C. If these treatments and methods were taken out of the locker rooms and trainer's offices and allowed to be properly administered by physicians, the vast majority of these issues would be negated.
This brings us to the second, and far more nebulous, argument against PEDs. Morality, ethics, and fair play. "Fairness" is a word that has come to have near-holy connotations in America. We are obsessed with "fair." I fail to see how there can be any unfairness involved at the Major League Baseball level. Even the poorest of teams can afford to spend millions on fringe players and luxuries in the clubhouse. There is absolutely nothing preventing them from providing these PEDs to their players. As far as on-the-field, there is once again little validity. These PEDs are no more game-changing than the scientifically balanced and exactingly prepared training diets, exercise routines, and hundred-thousand dollar personal trainers that are used today. Add to that the space-age supplements and various "legal" medicines that are used every day, and I fail to see the distinction. It is well known that many athletes, particularly in football, regularly receive cortisone injections to treat significant injuries such as sprains, pulls, and even shoulder separations. I believe I could reasonably argue that any shot (which by the way happens to be a steroid) that allows you to continue playing at a high level despite injuries which would require hospital attention in civilians qualifies as a Performance Enhancing Drug.
Pierce's piece brings these elements out front masterfully. When will we stop and look at the War on Sports Drugs and realize it has all the same failings as the War on (Real) Drugs. It has been a sink of multiple millions of dollars, and hasn't accomplished a whole heck of a lot. All that happens is that the drugs people are using get fancier and harder to spot. On top of that, the witch-hunt culture that has sprung up around these Anti-PED/Anti-Drug campaigns has gotten out of hand. Much like the potheads who are busted for possession and end up with longer sentences than rapists, you have Ryan Braun being threatened with a 50-game suspension for a first-offense PED violation. In contrast, Cincinnati Reds pitcher Johnny Cueto received a 7-game suspension. The difference between the two is that Cueto didn't do something as heinous as use artificial testosterone. All he did was repeatedly kick at an opponent's face with his baseball spikes. Thank goodness Braun was going to be punished seven times as much, we can allow good-natured face-kicking, but god forbid someone tries to improve their on-field performance!
To make matters worse, Braun's suspension was overturned by an arbitrator. "How can that be a bad thing?" you are probably asking. It's bad for a number of reasons. To begin with, it was overturned not because evidence showed that Braun did not take a banned substance, but rather because of improper procedure in the handling of his urine sample. On top of that, Major League Baseball took umbrage with the ruling and is threatening to appeal in court. Mind you, this is part of a collective bargaining agreement that MLB agreed to, and the would absolutely be chewing on the walls if a player had the temerity to challenge the arbitrator's ruling. Finally, despite the suspension being overturned, Braun is now face with a huge number of fans who believe that he is guilty, and merely got away with it.
Did he do it? I don't know, I'm inclined to believe he did. But that doesn't matter. His suspension was overturned. More importantly, he was part of a fantastic story last year for the small-market Milwaukee Brewers, and his fantastic performance was a large part of a very entertaining season. Let's all back off of the rhetoric and enjoy the show. And once again, if you haven't checked out Grantland, you should, it's a great read.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
The Beginning
Hi Everyone,
Having spent some time recently poking around various political discussion on the internet, I've come to a decision. I rarely, if ever, come across people whose viewpoints mirrior mine. I generally describe myself politcally as a "Radical Centrist". Mainly tongue-in-cheek, I see it as a way to communicate my apparently old-fashioned views.
Politics is a game of compromises. Modern political commentary has painted this as a bad thing. No more despicable an epithet can be hurled in the primaries than "waffler". For some reason we have come to the point that changing your viewpoint is seen as the ultimate sin.
Our world has developed to the point that we are all interconnected. I can have a meaningful real-time interaction from my computer in Massachusetts with someone at an internet cafe in Madagascar. I can even play a fast-paced video game like Call of Duty with someone from down the street and someone from Rio de Janeiro simultaneously.
This interconnection makes ironclad viewpoints outdated and frankly dangerous. If we cannot assimilate the various inputs available and change our opinions as a result, we are doomed to provincialism and irellevancy.
I will try to bring the various interesting and provocative stories and articles I find to this blog, and I encourage people to comment and discuss. All I ask is that we try to avoid emotional statements and instead focus on logical and thoughtful discussion.
Feel free to forward anything you think is interesting, let's set up a reasonable forum for discussion, and try to avoid any type of buzzword agendas.
Having spent some time recently poking around various political discussion on the internet, I've come to a decision. I rarely, if ever, come across people whose viewpoints mirrior mine. I generally describe myself politcally as a "Radical Centrist". Mainly tongue-in-cheek, I see it as a way to communicate my apparently old-fashioned views.
Politics is a game of compromises. Modern political commentary has painted this as a bad thing. No more despicable an epithet can be hurled in the primaries than "waffler". For some reason we have come to the point that changing your viewpoint is seen as the ultimate sin.
Our world has developed to the point that we are all interconnected. I can have a meaningful real-time interaction from my computer in Massachusetts with someone at an internet cafe in Madagascar. I can even play a fast-paced video game like Call of Duty with someone from down the street and someone from Rio de Janeiro simultaneously.
This interconnection makes ironclad viewpoints outdated and frankly dangerous. If we cannot assimilate the various inputs available and change our opinions as a result, we are doomed to provincialism and irellevancy.
I will try to bring the various interesting and provocative stories and articles I find to this blog, and I encourage people to comment and discuss. All I ask is that we try to avoid emotional statements and instead focus on logical and thoughtful discussion.
Feel free to forward anything you think is interesting, let's set up a reasonable forum for discussion, and try to avoid any type of buzzword agendas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)