owners

“Broken owners and clipping capitalism,” or “Why nothing works.” Alexander Rogers Posting in CHAT: Russia Okay, let's talk about the important stuff. About the myth of the “effective owner” and the reality of “share capitalism” (what is it and why does it work so frankly poorly?). *All similarities in titles and names are arbitrary. For example, there is a strong business executive. Who created his own business from scratch and knows it well. Very often this is just an engineer in one industry or another who came up with something successful and created a completely new niche in the market - Henry Ford, Willy Messerschmidt or the same Steve Jobs. After some time, the niche was mastered. The so-called “Xerox” produces machines that are found in every office. You can expand a little due to related technologies, where there are developments - start creating scanners (separately) and printers (separately). Well, and all sorts of related programs for text recognition and image processing. Then a more rigid block when the neighboring niches are also occupied. And then you will have to either stop (but then there is a risk that no one will need pagers), or start releasing some kind of “Apple Watch”. And the more you deviate from your original world, the more likely you are to start doing all kinds of nonsense. Just because Ford made good cars doesn't mean juicers or refrigerators will do well. But it’s easy to lose competencies and lose the technology race in the auto industry. Indeed, this is exactly what happened to Apple. Moreover, the story of how Jobs was kicked out of his own company (and later returned, but not as the head of the company, but as a PR manager) is very telling. And now comes the second generation. And it’s not a fact that a father who is an engineer will have a son who is an engineer (especially a good one). And that’s it, forget it. No “effective owners”. And diversification is happening. Bill Gates begins to slowly sell Microsoft shares and invest in other industries - agriculture, pharmaceutical companies, etc. Put your eggs in baskets. Interpenetration. The fictional Gates invests in the auto industry, the fictional Ford buys shares in software companies, the fictional Boeing builds Lego airplanes that can fly in the air. As a result, most companies do not have a single owner (and not even CC Capwell holding a majority stake). There is a board of directors appointed by the meeting of shareholders, and general directors - hired managers - rule everywhere. Where are you, mythical “effective owner”? Show yourself, fictional creature! And the hiring manager doesn’t care at all about “Master Schranmacher made this cabinet.” His last name is Geschefter, he doesn't care about the reputation of the Ford family and their brand, he has a magical "ki-pi-eye" that he must meet. And a “golden parachute” if something goes wrong (and it will, I guarantee). Capitalization and profitability, not quality and reputation. He doesn't care at all if the Ford company stops producing cars and starts producing condoms - the main thing is that the financial indicators match. This is why R&D is not needed, dear, they only worsen financial performance. Your own engineering school and traditions are not required, everything is outsourced. Development is secondary to design, design is secondary to PR, and the most important department in a new generation company is accounting. Not only are you buying an overpriced Tesla that has no charging infrastructure. So you will also have to pay extra for subscription service, otherwise your car will technically become a useless brick. This degeneration is especially clearly noticeable in the video game industry (as in one of the most dynamic industries of our time, therefore the degeneration is most dynamic there). Once upon a time, companies made games for people. As I learned from the luminaries 15 years ago when I was trying to work in this industry: “A game is a set of interesting choices.” And now the choice arises: “pay or suffer.” This is especially evident in various types of mobile applications (these are not even games). Where the monetization scheme is related to the imitation of game mechanics (I'm accurately describing the process of creating them, right?). Back in the day, Blizzard made games that were fun to play. "Players for players." And then effective managers came up with monetization schemes. And, well, they hire fucking community managers, damn, damn, damn, who effectively write, “I hate gamers!” on your social networks. Damn effective managers, bitch. In the first Assassins Creed (2007) and the first Witcher (also 2007), you can push an NPC that is blocking the passage. And in “Exiles” (2024!) if someone stands in the corridor at the exit from the room - that’s it, the game is over, let’s start over. Innovative gameplay (2800 rubles on Steam) for your understanding. “I hate gamers” has been the motto of the entire video game industry in recent years (which is why people continue to play the third “Heroes” and the fourth “Europa Universalis”). “We hate passengers” (and engineers) is Boeing's motto. “We hate motorists” is the motto of Western automakers. “We hate our citizens” is the motto of Western politicians. And all this does not have a single owner. The entire American military-industrial complex, from Northrop to Raytheon, belongs to Blackrock and Vanguard. But these are multi-billion dollar hedge funds that have no majority owners, but a group of investors (shareholders), and are run by employee managers. They are not worried about the threat of nuclear war, because for now the Pentagon budget is larger and military orders are for a larger amount. And that somewhere out there, in the ridges, Palestinians, Afghans, Iraqis, Syrians, or maybe even Taiwanese are dying - who cares? Ki-pi-ay is good! Planes don't fly, cars don't drive, trains derail, bridges fall - but over the past six months, the capitalization of US stock markets has grown by 24%. “Vipikayo, mazefaka” no longer rules. Pee-pee-ay, bitch! Alexander RogersLJ: alexandr-rogers Source link Source link