> I live here, I think I'd notice if events like the current Belfast riots happened on a more regular basis.
The island of Ireland has had pretty low immigration (not to mention not even having open borders in the sense usually meant by "Europe has open borders", other than between a pair of neighbouring countries with very strong cultural ties), if that's where you mean by "here" you may have been insulated from it. Where I was, while it didn't spill out into rioting (mostly) there was a palpable uptick in xenophobia when Romania and Bulgaria were admitted into the EU, and another with the 2015 migrant crisis (which ultimately lead to many of those open borders being closed, temporarily or "temporarily").
> I'm from there, so I'd be interested to know what time period that would be?
Pre-1902; one could haggle over the exact date depending on what one considers an open border.
> the claim that something by itself is enough has to explain why most companies are able to be destroyed, even though they have really good leadership
I think most of us are happy to believe that most companies simply have bad leadership, that leadership quality really is the axis on which Costco differs from others. If you want us to believe that other (destroyed) companies' leadership is just as good as Costco's, you need to make that case.
> Costco is protected by a very distinctive thing I call a "governance fortress." This fortress (and not merely their leadership) is the reason why they have been able to endure for forty years.
Can you sketch out your actual argument here (I think doing so would help rather than hinder your book sales, though of course that's a biased judgement)? What is this "governance fortress", and why should we believe that that, rather than the personal qualities of this one guy, is the reason they kept the hot dog?
Sure, happy to. This is a very common source of confusion, so definitely worth clarifying. We agree that Costco's difference is due to its superior leadership. The question is why has the company been able to maintain this leadership advantage over multiple generations of managers, when other companies have not.
In the book, I give dozens of examples of companies that were well-lead and then suddenly destroyed, often by outside actors who found a way to profit from their destruction. This often happened at the governance layer, while leadership watched helplessly from the sidelines.
So why hasn't this happened to Costco? I don't think it's a coincidence that Costco has a variety of "bad governance" provisions, such as a super-majority (of all shares, not just votes) provision threshold for shareholder votes, as just one example. When activists, analysts and other Wall Street actors have tried over the years to force Costco to change, its leadership has been insulated from this pressure. I think that is a structural factor that is important.
Again, structure does not _cause_ ethos. It protects it. My argument in the book is you need both.
> ... Costco has a variety of "bad governance" provisions, such as a super-majority (of all shares, not just votes) provision threshold for shareholder votes
Do you believe there's a fundamental tradeoff between structural constraints (i.e. the 'democratic' model, where dispersed shareholders and markets have a voice) vs. insulated leadership (i.e. the 'benevolent dictator' model, where competent leaders are shielded from short-term shareholder pressure)?
"I think most of us are happy to believe that most companies simply have bad leadership"
I don't believe this for a second.
I don't know if this makes me the minority or not though!
It trivializes forces influencing large public companies.
Yes - there can be good and bad leadership - and bad leadership is just bad.
But good leadership can be totally helpless in a public company.
Not recognizing this is a huge gap.
The other forces that incluence a company:
- Board
- Shareholders (via board)
- Banks. Lots of companies have loans. The banks generally have the companies by the balls and can dictate many things when things go south - either due to leaderhip or just prevailing market winds
As an example of shareholder/board direct and rapid influence: an activist purchases shares. Installs board member. Causes rapid change in one or more aspects of business structure or strategy to support _their_ portfolio strategy (of course aligned with interests of other shareholders).
I think you’re right, however, I think the person you’re replying to may also.
And is shorthanding “everyone without direct experience of the influential power of market forces” into “most of us.”
I think it’s fair to say that the fact that more or most people _don’t_ understand that and _do_ think it’s “all just leadership” explains much of the sentiment about capitalism generally.
It all makes sense once you realise the purpose is to maximise the amount of car storage. You're allowed to build car storage in every zone. Many zones even have a minimum amount of car storage required to accompany anything else you want to build.
Friedrichstraße was famously like that during the Cold War (West Berliners riding the lines were not permitted to exit into East Berlin), although of course the stairs physically existed. I think it's unusual for an underground station to be built without digging from the surface, so there's normally at least a fire escape.
I'm upset that we allow people like you to avoid paying their fair share of taxes, possibly indefinitely, so anything that makes that harder even "accidentally" is ok by me.
I would rather capital gains be taxed at income rates but indexed to inflation. I am fine with that being a fair bit more.
But ripping off pension funds so you can tax me more, as a side effect of enriching people that engage in these shennanigans, doesn’t seem like a great move.
Holy shit, all that and then they paid? Worse, decided to use this product on an ongoing basis? I'm not sure who I hate more, Blacksmith for doing this or OP for being such a doormat about it.
Organisations that are serious about promoting privacy should have been avoiding the US since the '90s and/or '50s, but the second best time to reincorporate in a safe jurisdiction is today.
Then you haven't been paying attention.
> South Africa by contrast does not have open borders, and is currently going through another bout of violent xenophobia.
Arguably a legacy of the time when it did.
reply