7 Feb
2013
7 Feb
'13
2:16 p.m.
I don't think the drift of the conversation to condemning banking people
will play well with some fine list members. I certainly think where the
execution of bad management and risky practices at some banks is
certainly fair game, I don't think the condemnation of "bankers" is the
same as the bean counters which were the original topic.
I think the general topic of having people who are locked on short term
performance and measures which have nothing to do with technical
excellence are valid points. The fact that all companies have been
broken by this in general is more than just a problem for technology
companies. The whole economy is now essentially governed by sociopathic
entities with nothing to loose or feel if they overstep their bounds or
hurt other entities.
As long as dollars are the only object it will only get worse. Used to
be there were other goals.
On 2/7/2013 1:34 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 02/07/2013 04:25 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
In other words: "Fucking
SUITS!"
Any
technology company that's either run by an MBA or has one in a
significant role is a failed company that doesn't know it yet.
The same could
be said for banks hiring compulsive gamblers for
management--except that some government official (probably a classmate)
bought into the "too big to fail" argument.
It used to be that a banker was pillar of the community and probably the
most strait-laced conservative fellow you'd ever have the pleasure of
knowing.
Now, they vacation in Gstaad and St. Croix (flown there on private jets)
and live in ultra-secure digs, have bodyguards and drivers. To them,
Henry F. Potter was a wimp. Sounds like the way a mob boss would
operate. Probably not much difference.