Monthly Archives: December 2011

Merry Christmas!

Hey folks, I hope you all have a fabulous Christmas and a fantastic 2012! And before you get ticked off that I didn’t bother to send you a card, think of the trees. Won’t anyone think of the trees! 🙂

Have a great time!

Love and best wishes



We aren’t doing too badly it seems.

Have a read of this. It is not the whole story I don’t think, and the number of commments suggesting there are other things to consider would back this up, but, over-all,  it does paint a pretty good picture that Australians, by and large, are doing pretty well. Which is good to hear because for a while (about a nano-second) I was really beginning to feel for the ‘battlers’ on $150,00 with the spectre of a $500 for the Carbon Tax hanging over their heads. But apparently, bleeding heart articles about how people on high incomes are struggling because of decision they made to buy f*&k-off big houses are just another way our media sucks.

As I said I don’t think the article is the whole story. I don’t think the difference between the growth in income between the richest 10%  and poor 10% has been handled well for instance. It’s  all very well to talk about there only being 1% difference, in favour of the richest 10%, in the growth of incomes but it glosses over the fact that 4% of a large salary is a lot more than 4% of a small salary. And it also doesn’t cover the idea that the biggest problem is the top 1% versus the rest of us, a problem whose size is show here. And, as a large number of commenters  have indicated, it is a bit hazy how the issue of private debt it dealt with. It seems that we Australians have taken the chance while things are good to put ourselves in to debt up to our eyeballs. I would also have liked to have seen something on the disparity between mining and no-mining incomes as well. I imagine that if you are working in a non-mining job in a place like Karratha then life might be a bit tougher for you. It also, as some commenters have indicated, skates around any other measures of succes such as happiness, quality of environment, over-all  social equality etc.

But, over-all, I think it is a thought provoking article. Hopefully it will make more people think twice before complaining about how bad their lot is.

Staggeringly exciting! :-)

First up I would like to apologise in advance for the total lie that passed as a title for this entry. I mean, I was actively involved in what I am writing about and I only found it of passing interest. 🙂 But have a read  anyway, you never know!

I am constantly amazed by coincidence. I was doing some prep work for a lecture I am giving next week on Emotional Intelligence and was mulling some of the ways I could develop the discussion around it. I’m planning on taking the Devil’s Advocate route and asking a question like ‘do emotions have any place in an organisation’ and then, if the discussion heads in the ‘yes’ direction, bringing up that a company has a fiduciary duty to maintain shareholder value and, on occasions, shareholders have sued directors for trying to do empathetic things that have cost money that could have gone to shareholders. Now this got me thinking that I really should check whether this fiduciary duty actually exists or whether it is one of those things that have just become accepted as being true. It is something I have been meaning to do for ages because I am sick of it constantly being used as an excuse for business decisions that make people redundant or put a thousand people under mortgage stress or do some environmental damage etc. You know the ‘I am legally obliged to do this’ argument. So, having decided to do this, I immediately forgot about it and moved onto something else. I can be a bit of a goldfish at times to be honest.

Anyway, later on in the day I was reading an article on the Harvard Business Review blog (just how impressive am I hey! 🙂 ) when I read the line ‘There is debate whether this duty exists, but it is such a dominant perception among directors that it is the practical reality’ where the aforementioned duty was indeed the fiduciary duty in question. So I followed the link provided to the more complete article on the subject and bingo, I had my answer! It’s cool how life works sometimes isn’t it. 🙂

Oh, by the way, for those of you who are still awake the answer is that the supposed fiduciary duty is apparently bollocks. As the article behind the link says ‘so we conducted a systematic analysis of a century’s worth of legal theory and precedent. It turns out that the law provides a surprisingly clear answer: Shareholders do not own the corporation, which is an autonomous legal person. What’s more, when directors go against shareholder wishes—even when a loss in value is documented—courts side with directors the vast majority of the time.’ So next time some CEO justifies a cold-blooded decision by insinuating that they are legally obliged to maximize shareholder value you’ll know different. Not sure it’ll change anything but you can enjoy a warm feeling of smugness, never a bad thing. 🙂 By the way, how many of you just glossed over the sentence ‘Shareholders do not own the corporation, which is an autonomous legal person. ‘? Have a think about that for a second.

Oh, before I go, here is a another shot in my increasingly eccentric campaign against Facebook.:-)

A wee problem

Folks, I have a wee problem. Over the last couple of weeks I have developed a real degree of sanguinity, or is it sanquinicity, which is really nice. I am feeling really relaxed and calm. Loving life in fact, even more than usual. It’s fantastic, obviously, in lots of way. But as far as blogging goes, it sucks!:-)
I mean, how the hell am I supposed to rant when my standard response to just about everything these days is meh! In fact the only thing that I can get a bit aggravated about these days is the fact that I’ve got f&@k all to get aggravated about. So any suggestions would be greatly appreciated because reading back over this it is sadly apparent that when I’m not ranting I’m pretty much as boring as bat piss.:-)