(#200-1) April 21 2015. At last someone with serious clout, Blackrock Chairman Larry Fink, is criticizing the current American Business Model is a very fundamental way.

THE FOLLOWING PIECE DESCRIBES A FAIRLY FEROCIOUS ATTACK ON CURRENT U.S. CORPORATE BEHAVIOR

I CAN BUT CHEER!

The following terrific and important piece was written by William A. Galston and Elaine Kamarck and published in Brookings.edu/blogs

When the head of the world’s largest investment fund raises fundamental questions about U.S. corporations, we should all pay attention.

In a letter earlier this week to the Fortune 500 CEOs, BlackRock Chairman Larry Fink criticized the short-term orientation that he believes shapes too much of today’s corporate behavior. “It concerns us,” he declared, that “in the wake of the financial crisis, many companies have shied away from investing in the future growth of their companies. Too many have cut capital expenditure and even increased debt to boost dividends and increase share buybacks.” And he concluded, “When done for the wrong reasons and at the expense of capital investment, [returning cash to shareholders] can jeopardize a company’s ability to generate sustainable long-term returns.”

Fink is correct on all counts. In a new Brookings paper out today, University of Massachusetts economist William Lazonick states that the 454 companies listed continuously in the S&P 500 index between 2004 and 2013 used 51 percent of their earnings to buy back their own stock, almost all through purchases on the open market. An additional 35 percent went to dividends. “Buybacks represent a withdrawal of internally controlled finance that could be used to support investment in the company’s productive capabilities,” he said.

This is bad for the economy in two ways. As the growth of the U.S. workforce slows dramatically, economic growth will depend increasingly on improved productivity, must of which comes from raising capital investment per worker. Failing to make productivity-enhancing capital investments will doom our economy to a new normal of slow growth.

Many business leaders say that they are reluctant to make long-term investments without reasonable expectations of growing demand for their products. That brings us to the second way in which corporate short-termism is bad for the economy. Most consumer demand comes from wages. If employers refuse to share gains with their employees, growth in demand is bound to be anemic.

Although he clearly cares about his country, Fink is also acting as the steward of $4.8 trillion in investments. In an article published by McKinzie earlier this month, he warns that although the return of cash to shareholders is juicing equity markets right now, investors “will pay for it later when the ability to generate revenue in the long term dries up because of the lack of investment in the future.”

Unlike most other corporate leaders who express concerns about these developments, Fink is unwilling to rely on moral suasion alone. Because current incentives are so perverse, he argued, “It is hard for even the most dedicated CEO to buck this trend.” The constant pressure to produce quarterly results forces executives to go along—or risk losing their jobs. That pressure comes from investors who are, in Fink’s words, “renters, not owners, who are going to trade your stock as soon as they can pocket a quick gain.”

This logic leads BlackRock’s chairman to propose changing the tax code by lengthening to three years the the period needed to qualify for capital gains treatment while taxing trading gains at an even higher rate than ordinary income for investment held less than six months. To encourage truly patient capital, the capital gains rate would be stepped down to zero over a period of ten years.

We can argue the merits of this idea, and we should. But the main point should be beyond argument. We need more builders and fewer traders, more Warren Buffetts and fewer Carl Icahns. And to get them, we’re going to have to change the laws governing corporate and investor behavior. Fink has opened up a crucial debate, and it’s time for Congress and presidential aspirants to join it.

VOR words c.20

---

(#199-1) April 2015. Again and again, the services disseminate bad data to further their interests. And the Department of Defense can’t even be audited. This situation continues year after year with no remedial action being taken. This is a reflection of a culture of corruption.

IF SOLDIERS ARE BADLY LED, OR DON’T DO INTERESTING THINGS, THEY BECOME BORED AND UNHAPPY 

THAT SHOULDN’T BE A SURPRISE—NEITHER SHOULD THE ARMY’S HABIT OF FIDDLING ITS FIGURES TO ACHIEVE A MORE POSITIVE OUTCOME

The U.S. has a serious management problem based upon the notion that authoritarianism is what works best—and that if you have the authority, you don’t have to treat those under you very well. After all, you have the authority.

One way or another, you can force them to do stuff. Power is just that.

In the civilian world, it is accentuated by low pay, job insecurity, anti-social scheduling, inadequate hours, wage theft, excessive CEO pay—and much else besides. And so you get a Wal-Mart—magnificent in some ways—an insult to human decency in others.

It appeals to its customers (Who doesn’t like low prices?) but it treats its people abominably—and has for years.

It breaks my heart to say so—because I have a great weakness for that institution—but the Army is little different. And its people lie because they think defending the Army regardless is the way to get promoted.

It almost certainly is. That is the current culture. Therein lies the tragedy.

More than half of some 770,000 soldiers are pessimistic about their future in the military and nearly as many are unhappy in their jobs, despite a six-year, $287 million campaign to make troops more optimistic and resilient, findings obtained by USA TODAY show.

Twelve months of data through early 2015 show that 403,564 soldiers, or 52%, scored badly in the area of optimism, agreeing with statements such as "I rarely count on good things happening to me." Forty-eight percent have little satisfaction in or commitment to their jobs.

The results stem from resiliency assessments that soldiers are required to take every year. In 2014, for the first time, the Army pulled data from those assessments to help commanders gauge the psychological and physical health of their troops.

The effort produced startlingly negative results. In addition to low optimism and job satisfaction, more than half reported poor nutrition and sleep, and only 14% said they are eating right and getting enough rest.

The Army began a program of positive psychology in 2009 in the midst of two wars and as suicide and mental illness were on the rise. To measure resiliency the Army created a confidential, online questionnaire that all soldiers, including the National Guard and Reserve, must fill out once a year.

Last year, Army scientists applied formulas to gauge service-wide morale based on the assessments. The results demonstrate that positive psychology "has not had much impact in terms of overall health," says David Rudd, president of the University of Memphis who served on a scientific panel critical of the resiliency program.

The Army offered contradictory responses to the findings obtained by USA TODAY. Sharyn Saunders, chief of the Army Resiliency Directorate that produced the data, initially disavowed the results. "I've sat and looked at your numbers for quite some time and our team can't figure out how your numbers came about," she said in an interview in March.

However, when USA TODAY provided her the supporting Army documents this week, her office acknowledged the data but said the formulas used to produce them were obsolete. "We stand by our previous responses," it said in a statement.

Subsequent to USA TODAY's inquiry, the Army calculated new findings but lowered the threshold for a score to be a positive result. As a consequence, for example, only 9% of 704,000 score poorly in optimism.

Such blatant institutional intellectual dishonesty (as reflected in the last four paragraphs) defies reasonableness—and is enough to make those who fundamentally support the organization weep.

Who do these idiots think they are kidding—and why is such corrupt behavior tolerated?

But it is—because it is cultural—and so we stagger from one ineffective, tragic, bloody war to another.

Some—a privileged few—get ever richer. Most others suffer, bleed, and die.

American democracy sits idly by.

(#198-1) April 19 2015. A culture of military mediocrity that suits the MICC. Yes, I mean the Military Industrial Congressional Complex (which thrives off unending war).

THE THEME EXPRESSED IN THE FOLLOWING---BASED UPON OTHER STATEMENTS—WOULD SEEM TO APPLY TO ALL THE SERVICES.

IS IT ACCURATE?

I SUSPECT IT IS.

The officer quoted below is Anna Granville.

I love the Navy, it has been an honor to serve, but I want this incredible organization to be better.

Officer promotions are not, at least for the foreseeable part of a junior officer’s career, based on performance, but rather on “hitting the wickets,” meaning that you are judged by how closely you followed a highly-scripted career path, not necessarily how you performed at those jobs.

As long as you don’t get fired, don’t fail a physical fitness test, don’t get a DUI, nor get caught fraternizing, you can probably get promoted to at least lieutenant commander. Furthermore, how you are ranked against your peers at a particular command — of the paramount importance to promotion — is based more on seniority than performance.

This model is widely accepted as the norm in the Navy. This means that if you are a brand new lieutenant and outperform all the lieutenants at your command, you will really be ranked against the lieutenants with the same level of seniority as you; a lieutenant who is eligible to board for lieutenant commander will always be ranked ahead, even if that officer is incompetent.

There is a wide reluctance to give lackluster officers poor performance reviews, and instead it’s much easier to wait for mediocre officers to transfer out of the command and become someone else’s problem. There is a reason people joke that anyone who “fogs a mirror” can make lieutenant commander.

This encourages mediocrity and almost guarantees that the best, most energetic junior officers to leave active duty. I’ve worked for some absolutely incredible leaders and mentors, but I’ve worked for or with three times as many bad or mediocre leaders. It’s certainly a leadership lesson, but it’s incredibly demotivating to know that your peers who are putting in half the effort at a less challenging assignment will likely get promoted at the same rate as you. This begs many to ask, What’s the point?

While it may be true that those who outperform their peers are promoted first for commander or captain, does it really make sense to tell junior officers, “Don’t worry, your efforts will be rewarded in about 15 to 20 years?” when their efforts can result in more responsibility at a much younger age, whether or in the public or private sector?

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, an Operation Iraqi Freedom veteran, was elected to Congress at age 31. Yet, despite being a nationally elected leader, she remains only a captain (the Army equivalent of a Navy lieutenant) in the Hawaii National Guard. Here on Task & Purpose, there are daily stories of entrepreneurial and visionary veterans who have started successful businesses or nonprofits.

And for the junior officers who find themselves filling big shoes early on, where is there to go? Many of my peers, myself included, have found ourselves filling the shoes of a field-grade officer for months on end, with measured success and no extra pay. Others have been assigned to units with exciting, unconventional missions. It’s very difficult to go to a watch floor or staff job after that.

The U.S. is the most powerful nation militarily in the world—by far—yet we have a pretty miserable track record when it comes to actually winning our wars. In fact, our mediocre performance in this area goes as far back as the Korean War which started 65 years ago—and, technically, still isn’t over.

Why do we achieve such poor results? The military like to blame politicians for getting us into the wrong wars in the first place—and they certainly have a point—but the military, themselves, are far from blameless. They also have a habit of not learning from history—the military culture is, by and large, anti-intellectual—so tend to make the same mistakes again and again.

A core problem is that our officer corps is not nearly as good as it needs to be—and the above piece helps explain why. Since the officer corps is the source of all our generals, it is not hard to see why so many of our generals are mediocre too.

This is a known problem (see Tom Rick’s book The Generals—not to mention their track record) )which we are doing nothing to resolve. It helps to explain why we get into the military messes we do—and have an extraordinarily hard time getting out of them. We certainly do have some good generals—but they are the exception rather than the rule.

A few good generals are not good enough. The rank is so critical, we need exceptional generals—and fewer of them—with a great deal more moral courage than is generally evident today.

There is a worrying extra dimension to all this. The MICC (Military, Industrial, Congressional Complex) benefits greatly from our seeming inability to resolve conflicts—so likes things just the way they are.

Mediocrity in the military pays. Following the money explains most things in the U.S.

Money is a fine and useful thing but it works best when balanced out with values. By and large, we seem to have chosen to ignore that fact.

The consequences are apparent.

VOR words 243.

---

(#197-1) April 18 2015. There are things I understand—and things I decidedly don’t. The latter would include why women continue to tolerate the gender pay gap.

THE GENDER PAY GAP IS UNFAIR, UNJUST, ECONOMICALLY INEFFICIENT—AND SHOULD BE REGARDED AS INTOLERABLE—YET WOMEN TOLERATE IT.

NEITHER SEX SHOULD TOLERATE IT. FOR ALL KINDS OF OBVIOUS REASONS—IT HAS GOT TO GO.

TIME FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

---

(#196-1) April 17 2015. Greed is out of control. The U.S. economy is currently so rigged and distorted that it is hard to find the words to describe it effectively. To say it is predatory is an understatement of magnitude. Yet there is surprisingly little fight back. It’s a tragedy.

THE COSTS OF THIRD LEVEL HAVE ROCKETED WAY AHEAD OF INFLATION—TO THE POINT WHERE STUDENT DEBT HAS BECOME A NIGHTMARE FOR MANY

YET ONE OUT OF FOUR COLLEGE ADJUNCT FACULTY ARE GETTING PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

WHAT KIND OF AN ECONOMY ARE WE RUNNING? AND WHY DO WE TOLERATE SUCH EGREGIOUS DISTORTIONS?

College tuition and fees have gone up 1,120% since 1978—whereas the Consumer Price index has gone up by little more than 200%. Earnings for most of us, in real terms, have scarcely budged. As a consequence, student debt has soared to well over a trillion dollars.

This is yet another example of the havoc being wrought by the financialization of the U.S. economy. For the vast majority of Americans, it has become impossible to live without incurring major debt.

Debt now dominates the American Way of Life.

“(MarketWatch) Nearly 100,000 of these part-time faculty, generally known as adjuncts, benefit from the earned income tax credit and, to a lesser extent, Medicaid and the CHIP health-care program for children, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, previously known as food stamps, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, according to the study.

“It’s shocking, but it’s the reality,” said Carol Zabin, research director at the Center for Labor Research and Education. “Universities are depending much more on part-time and adjunct faculty.”

“Indeed, the American Association of University Professors reported this week that well over half of the college academic labor force is part time. That includes both graduate teaching assistants, which account for 12.2%, and other part-timers, or adjuncts, which are 46.7% of the total.”

VOR words c.100

---

(#195-1) April 16 2015. Given that writing is an open secret—which you can study at your leisure—you would think it would be easier!

IF YOU ARE LEARNING TO WRITE, (AND THAT’S A LIFELONG ACTIVITY) NOT ONLY CAN YOU READ HOW OTHERS DO IT

BUT THERE ARE SOME EXCEPTIONAL BOOKS ON WRITING OUT THERE AS WELL.

The following is from that helpful website www.contently.net If you are a writer, it is worth checking out.

The best way to learn how to write is to read a great deal—widely and well. If you do so, you will absorb much without conscious effort. That said, I have found books that focus on writing itself vastly helpful.

5 Books About Writing Every Freelancer Should Read

• April 13, 2015
• Spenser Davis

Whether you’re an experienced writer or just getting started, learning about your craft can be an essential ingredient to professional and personal growth. For those without any idea where to start, books can help you get a handle on the fundamentals; for experienced writers, the texts might offer help for a specific problem like writer’s block.

Thousands of books have been written about writing, largely because there’s such a demand for them. But most of that huge pile of books in your local bookstore’s “Writing/Reference” section is—to put it bluntly—garbage. Often, as is the case with a lot of self-help books, they recycle intuitive tips without discussing anything all that interesting.

But there are some gems in the rough every writer should read. We’ve compiled a list of five of the best books about writing. Not all are specifically about freelancing, but they all contain extremely valuable wisdom and practical advice for those who write for a living.

 

1. On Writing

Excerpt: “If you want to be a writer, you must do two things above all others: read a lot and write a lot. There’s no way around these two things that I’m aware of, no shortcut.”

The quintessential writing manual, Stephen King’s book is part memoir and part study about the art of fiction writing. King’s narrative is inspiring—his journey mirrors that of most freelance writers. He submitted a ton of stories from a young age, getting rejected hundreds of times before he became an international bestseller. The tips on writing might be focused on fiction, but the nuts and bolts that King describes are vital to any kind of writing, including pieces of advice like making sure research doesn’t overshadow a story and eliminating distractions when working.

Many writing instructors recommend and teach this book, and I refer back to it constantly for my own writing.

 

2. On Writing Well

Excerpt: “Examine every word you put on paper. You’ll find a surprising number that don’t serve any purpose.”

Another classic, this book by brilliant nonfiction writer William Zinsser covers the basics of good journalism as well as some advanced tips for writers looking to carve out a specialty.

First published in 1976, On Writing Well has become an essential text in creative nonfiction and journalism courses in both high school and college, and manages to stay very relevant in a writing world that has changed a lot since the book was published.

Freelancers hoping to get a thorough education on writing clean, clear, and concise nonfiction should pick up this book and keep it handy.

 

3. Bird by Bird

Excerpt: “It reminds me that all I have to do is to write down as much as I can see through a one-inch picture frame. This is all I have to bite off for the time being.”

In addition to being the first book I ever read about writing, Bird by Bird has been a major influence on how I’ve approached my life as a writer. Anne Lamott’s book stands out above other writing manuals because the author doesn’t presume to have all of the answers—or that there is a single set of answers in the first place.

Her advice starts small: Just write, and write honestly. Start from your earliest memories and work your way forward. New freelancers aren’t always sure where to start, and even if your goal isn’t to write personal essays, Lamott guides you through the inferno of the writing life.

From the chapter on so-called “shitty first drafts” (and the author’s memorable tips on quieting the voices in your head), to tips for dealing with jealousy, Bird by Bird can help writers find their footing on the page and in the world.

 

4. Good Prose

Excerpt: “Every story has to be discovered twice, first in the world and then in the author’s study. One discovers a story the second time by constructing it. In nonfiction the materials are factual, but the construction itself is something different from fact.”

The spiritual successor to Zinsser’s book, Good Prose is the product of a lifetime of work and collaboration between Tracy Kidder (the writer) and Richard Todd (the editor). The pair began their professional journey at The Atlantic, where Kidder was a freelance writer and Todd a staff editor.

This book mainly looks at three types of writing the authors dealt with in their career: writing about the world, writing about ideas, and writing about the self. Freelancers looking to dabble in writing and/or editing will get a ton out of this slim but helpful text.

 

5. Daily Rituals: How Artists Work

Excerpt, from novelist Anne Rice: “I certainly have a routine, but the most important thing, when I look back over my career, has been the ability to change routines.”

A bit different than the rest of the list, this book by Mason Currey focuses on the daily rituals and habits of a long list of writers and artists from Flaubert to Murakami to Mozart. I’ve found that most beginner freelancers have difficulty with the actual routine of writing—this book could provide some much needed encouragement and inspiration.

Overall, the author makes it clear that there is no “wrong” creative routine; everyone is different and requires specific methods to achieve maximum productivity. Some routine actions work for a lot of people, like writing for a set amount of time every morning. But not every writer functions that way. French novelist Gustave Flaubert usually wrote at night since daytime noises seemed to distract him. A lot of freelancers (such as yours truly) will sympathize with F. Scott Fitzgerald, who found strict routines quite difficult to follow and often did his best work in random spurts regardless of the time.

If all of these books have a common thread, it’s that they offer paths to success that are clearly defined. Freelancers can glean great ideas about their own writing habits by learning about the extremely varied routines of famous artists and thinkers. And if I have any advice of my own, it’s to read the best books out there until you find an approach that works for you.

---

(#194-1) April 15 2015. Why do we put up with such an extraordinarily unfair economic system? It is blatantly biased to favor the ultra-rich and the corporations they control.

AN EXAMPLE OF THE AMERICAN BUSINESS MODEL IN ACTION—CORPORATE WELFARE

WE NEGLECT THE TRULY NEEDY BUT SUBSIDIZE CORPORATIONS TO THE TUNE OF $153 BILLION A YEAR—AND THAT IS ONLY THROUGH SUBSIDIZING INADEQUATE PAY.

CORPORATIONS ARE HELPED IN COUNTLESS OTHER WAYS. TAX HAVENS ALONE SAVE THEM ANOTHER $110 BILLION A YEAR—AND IT DOESN’T STOP THERE.

We talk about—and practically worship—the free enterprise system, but we don’t practice it. Again and again, if you look, you find that major corporations are subsidized in some way—frequently, a wide variety of ways. Tax breaks and waivers are only part of it.

The U.S. economic system is, indeed, rigged.

Congress—given that elections are increasingly funded by corporate interests—pays its donors back through cutting special deals. At the heart of it all lies the Federal Reserve which pumps vast sums of money into financial corporations.

The following extract is from a Huffington Post story.

Poverty wages cost U.S. taxpayers about $153 billion each year, according to a recent report from the University of California, Berkeley. That's because, when families depend on low-wage jobs to survive, they're forced to rely on government programs like Medicaid and food stamps to make ends meet.

The Berkeley report looks at how much states and the federal government are spending on programs like Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, the Temporary Aid to Needy Families program, the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as food stamps. The report found that the federal government spends about $127.8 billion per year, and states collectively spend about $25 billion per year, on public assistance programs for working families.

Currently, the federal minimum wage is stalled at a paltry $7.25 an hour. A parent working full-time at that rate over the course of the year won't bring in enough money to live above the poverty line for a family of two, which means leaning on government assistance.

So when a company like McDonald's, for instance, pays a worker the minimum wage, you, the taypayer, end up subsidizing her pay. A 2013analysis from the National Employment Law Project found that the 10 largest fast food companies cost taxpayers about $3.8 billion per year.