Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
It wouldn't have been implausable for them to have been on Amazon's trajectory. Gotta love mismanagement.
My first thought was Wow, he could've said that quicker with just "I'm a douchebag".
One thing that strikes me about Sears today vs. ten years ago is how shabby the stores are and how depressed the staff seem, and I thought this long before I heard anything about its new corporate policies. Sears is fraying at the edges at least as badly as Macy's, maybe even more so.
Never mind, there is nothing more stupid/
Second, not to dampen the fun of seeing a big fall, but Lampert is not impoverished or living on the streets. In 2012 he was STILL worth $3.1 billion. That's BILLION.
Despite ruining the lives and incomes of thousands of people, Lampert will never be jailed, never starve, he will always fly at least business class and own a big boat and several vacation homes.
Lampert and his heirs will be extremely comfortable for the rest of their lives.
The reality is he won. That's what sucks.
To borrow a couple of words from metabolic processes...
Anabolic capitalism seems like a positive thing. Business formation and capitalization creates jobs, commerce, markets and products. Private money is used to build assets, hire talent, buy the necessities to engage in business. Innovative individuals bring us technological advances, important discoveries, and fun diversions, for which anabolic capitalism allows them to realize dreams and be rewarded. When we think of the socially desirable things that result from capitalism, they're mostly in this category. Without anabolic capitalism, economies stagnate and societies can become very dull. Yes, there are problems and abuses and over-emphasis on consumerism and too much advertising, but nothing's perfect.
Catabolic capitalism adds nothing. Instead, it takes away, funneling assets into private wealth, making jobs disappear, productive enterprises shrink, and often, the original long-term shareholders poorer in the process. "Vulture capitalism" is another name for what hedge funds and leveraged buyouts do. Takeovers put competing businesses out of the competing business, allegedly justified for "synergy" and "efficiency."
Whatever its faults, Anabolic Capitalism is about creating stuff through private risk, and if people are going to take that risk, I see net value in letting them.
Catabolic Capitalism, on the other hand, creates nothing of net value to society. It destroys. As some of us learned during Romney's run for President, many venture capital firms hunt for old-line companies with large pre-funded pension accounts, so they can basically loot them. Actions like these are euphemistically called "releasing value."
Just because someone can put together a fund to take over a company, doesn't mean we should let them. Not much good ever comes of it, from a public perspective.
...if you are a sociopath.
College sports coaches are the same way.
This is the American caste system.
@16, the high salaries of CEOs is not an accident. Virtually all CEOs have contracts that explicitly specify that their compensation must be in the upper percentiles, often the top decile, of all CEOs. It is of course mathematically impossible for everyone to be above average, but the attempt sends their pay into the stratosphere no matter how they perform. It's called the "Lake Wobegon effect":
Except that it actually gives away a huge secret, so read the rest of the books first.... This one is pretty on point about how the US works regarding CEOs though.
This Lampert dude did a bunch of evil short-sighted shit and made BILLIONS of dollars.
That's why there is no reason for the smug schadenfreude in this thread. Lampert succeed spectacularly at making Lampert rich and happy. The villain did NOT get his comeuppance.
Seems to me that's a complete ringing endorsement for the Randian economics of selfishness.
It's unfortunate but we have system that reinforces everything this guy did.
Until the company got so bureaucratic and inward-focused that it lost its ability to respond to market threats, and finally had nothing left but its name brand and people's preference for the status quo over the unknown. At that point its doom was just a matter of time.
Objectivism works middling well at a family level. If your kid wants go mow some lawns, etc. As a parent, make them do everything they can do themselves, themselves. But it breaks down because the kid might be able to go to a laundrymat, but that would be a dick move as a parent. That kid certainly isn't going to buy a washer. Spooky socialism starts to rear it's ugly head.
Objectivism fails miserably outside of 2 people. *Someone* had to put the grass there to mow. Someone had to design a washer. Expecting everyone to reinvent society is asinine.
But... as a personal philosophy applied only to the self, it's fine. You'll be an asshole, but being an asshole is right that too few people cherish.
An excellent summary of the poorly-named "Objectivism."
@19 - I'm deeply envious. The only die hard Rand-ian fantasist friend I've got just barely escaped foreclosure before being forced to admit he was another one of those "deadbeats who shouldn't have been given a mortgage in the first place" (he was actually just the victim of a corporate swindler like Lampert and laid off - he had not borrowed imprudently).
Objectivism: poor people deserve to be poor - it's their own fault.
Work accident claims
Work accident claims
Did he abolish the Federal Reserve?
Because she opposed even having it.
The fact is that Greenspan ceased being an Objectivist long ago and that's why he helped destroy the economy.