Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Herbert Nowell's avatar

Two, two comments (mainly because the first one was done halfway through because it hit a nerve).

"The irony is that, to achieve the fifteen-minute city, all the Utopian planners need do is…stop planning."

Yes, but as you said:

"We Americans tend to bridle at talk of “walk-able neighborhoods” and “fifteen-minute” cities because we have nearly a century of experience of the cascade of unmitigated disasters that central planning creates"

Central planning has a track-record that would be improved if it got to god awful.

Yet it persists.

Part of it is the fact it is now on its third or fourth generation of being received wisdom.

But the larger reason is it fulfills the largest need of the central planner, control. As writers from C. S. Lewis ("those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience") to Ayn Rand (who describes Ivy Starnes with "if you ever want to see pure evil, you should have seen the way her eyes glinted when she watched some man who'd talked back to her once and who'd just heard his name on the list of those getting nothing above basic pittance.").

They want power. They've even gotten a branch of philosophy, post-modernism, to claim all that really exists is power struggles, essentially claiming even efforts to remove the "state of nature" are just expressions of it (I have developed issues with Locke et al's state of nature and war of all against all for unrepeated reasons so my aversion is deeper).

But we have accepted a world designed to please sadists and not the fun kinky kind but the nasty, destructive kind (although there is overlap).

Expand full comment
Herbert Nowell's avatar

"(“shareholder value”—which, you’ll notice, is not the same as “profit”)"

Not sure if this is pushback or something else, but the problem isn't "shareholder value" but the exceedingly narrow definition of that term in usage today. While a little more complex it basically boils down to "the current quarterly stock price relative to the prior quarter" or, if you're very, very lucky you can replace quarterly with annual.

The odd thing is an early element in the elevation of shareholder value, Dodge v. Ford Motor Co., was made to force Ford to do something the current model cannot sustain, pay a dividend.

I think it is worthwhile to look at the two competing ideas of what "shareholder value" in that case were: the ability to reinvest and create a more valuable company (thus increasing share price over the long term) versus providing a steady stream of payments (thus leading to either a stable or slow rising share price as the value of the stream changes, but to a degree tying share price to interest rates).

Both are reasonable measures. Yet today even advocating for the more short term (in the eyes of Ford et al at the time) and risky measure is today what renegade fund managers and investment advisors aim for: a reliable stream of payments.

What I find interesting is both can be viewed as meeting Buckminster Fuller's measurement of wealth: how many days into the future can you survive without working but at different levels. The Ford method of retained earnings and expansion could be seen as "how long can you survive without sales" and the latter measures the shareholder's ability to convert past work (by purchasing shares) into work free living (with dividends).

This is a bit of a bugaboo for me because the reduction of "shareholder value" to "what does the ticker say today" has aided every major financial scandal of this century and much before that. If Enron had to pay dividends not show rising stock prices, it couldn't have done what it did. You can hide loses off book to fool the market but you cannot write checks you lack the cash to cover (at least without on the books debt).

A tangent I know, but one that is probably relevant via feedbacks to the topic at hand.

Expand full comment
3 more comments...

No posts