Running down the daily blog roll, I found a particularly interesting comment on The Cunning Realist.
Not to mention a citizenry with very little interest in citizenship. It will take a great crisis to get things moving.
--Mary, July 8, 2008
This is a recurring theme in much of my recent reading (and viewing). Our culture has shifted so far toward capitalism, it is no longer a facet of life, but life itself. Citizenship, community, family and personal lives have all taken a back seat to our material aspirations.
From Bill Moyer's Journal:
Bill Moyers: Here we are, at the height of the holiday season. The malls and the shops are packed. Stuff is flying off the shelves. And like Grinch or Scrooge you stand up and say, "Capitalism's in trouble." Why?
Benjamin Barber: Because things are flying off the shelves that we don't want or need or even understand what they are, but we go on buying them. Because capitalism needs us to buy things way beyond the scope of our needs and wants to stay in business, Bill. That's the bottom line. Capitalism is no longer manufacturing goods to meet real needs and human wants. It's manufacturing needs to sell us all the goods it's got to produce.
I would encourage everyone to watch this interview in its entirety. Mr. Barber is on point regarding not only the American consumer, but also American capitalism. We work harder to produce and purchase more of what we do not need and corporations respond with an unwavering focus on developed markets. In an increasingly pluralistic and informed society, the focus is somehow progressively self-centered.
For example, global warming has become a hot-button issue and being "green" is very fashionable. Yet "green" equates to buying new light bulbs, new cars, new homes even. Two minutes on Google and our supposedly informed public can find that "the US consumes 25% of the world's energy (with a share of global productivity at 22% and a share of the world population at 5%)." (Wikipedia) The most effective and immediate way to be "green" is to reduce your consumption of energy and energy intensive products, not the other way around. It all seems fairly intuitive, but we are accustomed to the healing power of consumption and would hardly know how else to spend our time.
Similar concerns are voiced in an excellent Orion Magazine article:
Today "work and more work" is the accepted way of doing things. If anything, improvements to the labor-saving machinery since the 1920s have intensified the trend. Machines can save labor, but only if they go idle when we possess enough of what they can produce. In other words, the machinery offers us an opportunity to work less, an opportunity that as a society we have chosen not to take. Instead, we have allowed the owners of those machines to define their purpose: not reduction of labor, but “higher productivity”—and with it the imperative to consume virtually everything that the machinery can possibly produce...
Our modern predicament is a case in point. By 2005 per capita household spending (in inflation-adjusted dollars) was twelve times what it had been in 1929, while per capita spending for durable goods—the big stuff such as cars and appliances—was thirty-two times higher. Meanwhile, by 2000 the average married couple with children was working almost five hundred hours a year more than in 1979. And according to reports by the Federal Reserve Bank in 2004 and 2005, over 40 percent of American families spend more than they earn. The average household carries $18,654 in debt, not including home-mortgage debt, and the ratio of household debt to income is at record levels, having roughly doubled over the last two decades. We are quite literally working ourselves into a frenzy just so we can consume all that our machines can produce.
This brings us back to Mary's comment about the lack of interest in citizenship. Our competitive marketplace is not just amongst companies, but also the consumers. For most, the daily struggle is to prove your material worth. Intellectual challenge, intimacy with family and friends, artistic ability, health and fitness, service and charity, religious commitment... these are all nice and occasionally fit into our schedule, but they are no longer priorities.
Consider life's true gifts and consume vivaciously. Embrace your family and friends, your pet and the great outdoors, a nap on Sunday afternoon or conversation with friends, good music and laughter. Consume the material excesses less often and let your life be filled with authentic pleasures.
Showing posts with label Business. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Business. Show all posts
July 08, 2008
June 05, 2008
Bear Stearns
From today's Financial Times:
Bear Stearns sought rescue financing from Temasek of Singapore in the days before its sale to JPMorgan Chase but was rebuffed, underscoring the growing reluctance of sovereign wealth funds to make high-profile investments.
Could it be Temasek thought Bear Stearns was a bad investment and not necessarily concerned about being "high-profile" or not? More...
...Sovereign wealth funds from the Middle East and Asia that were recently asked to provide capital for Wachovia - another US bank with a strong domestic orientation - but refused.
The FT seems to imply that SWFs are not going to be interested in US businesses that are large and/or have a domestic focus. I think the conclusion should be poorly managed investment banks are never a good investment, regardless of whether its my money or a SWFs.
Bear Stearns sought rescue financing from Temasek of Singapore in the days before its sale to JPMorgan Chase but was rebuffed, underscoring the growing reluctance of sovereign wealth funds to make high-profile investments.
Could it be Temasek thought Bear Stearns was a bad investment and not necessarily concerned about being "high-profile" or not? More...
...Sovereign wealth funds from the Middle East and Asia that were recently asked to provide capital for Wachovia - another US bank with a strong domestic orientation - but refused.
The FT seems to imply that SWFs are not going to be interested in US businesses that are large and/or have a domestic focus. I think the conclusion should be poorly managed investment banks are never a good investment, regardless of whether its my money or a SWFs.
January 17, 2008
Detroit Auto Show
The Detroit Auto Show has finally given us some interesting news. Emerging markets are fueling demand for new cars and, as sales there outpace developed countries, these customers will be increasingly important to major auto companies. The most recent demand is for an ultra-low cost (~$2,500 - 4,000) vehicle.
This type of car would open the door to innumerable new drivers. Temporarily ignoring the increased congestion and adverse effects on the environment, the prospect of a new paradigm in car manufacturing is a relief.
Americans are particularly fond of their large, comfortable automobiles. Current pricing differentials on small to mid-size vehicles are not enough of an incentive to buy a smaller car. However, if the price tag dropped to $4,000 on a small vehicle, I predict many buyers will reevaluate how much space they really need. The price would create a breaking point to finally separate Americans from over sized and inefficient vehicles.
Another benefit of the $4,000 car option is greater flexibility for American consumers. The U.S. personal savings rate in November was negative 0.5%. With finances stretched to the limits, it is no wonder we are dealing with the sub-prime mortgage crisis and a looming recession. The sensitivity of American consumers is levered so tightly to home prices and interest rates, the rest of the economy falters soon after any housing disturbances.
Below are a few scenarios based on estimated car prices and basic assumptions for payment. Specifically:
- $300 Monthly Payment
- $1,500 Down Payment
My conclusion is the economy, the environment and our culture would be improved dramatically by shifting priorities away from ostentation to conservative and thrifty consumption.
This type of car would open the door to innumerable new drivers. Temporarily ignoring the increased congestion and adverse effects on the environment, the prospect of a new paradigm in car manufacturing is a relief.
Americans are particularly fond of their large, comfortable automobiles. Current pricing differentials on small to mid-size vehicles are not enough of an incentive to buy a smaller car. However, if the price tag dropped to $4,000 on a small vehicle, I predict many buyers will reevaluate how much space they really need. The price would create a breaking point to finally separate Americans from over sized and inefficient vehicles.
Another benefit of the $4,000 car option is greater flexibility for American consumers. The U.S. personal savings rate in November was negative 0.5%. With finances stretched to the limits, it is no wonder we are dealing with the sub-prime mortgage crisis and a looming recession. The sensitivity of American consumers is levered so tightly to home prices and interest rates, the rest of the economy falters soon after any housing disturbances.
Below are a few scenarios based on estimated car prices and basic assumptions for payment. Specifically:
- $300 Monthly Payment
- $1,500 Down Payment
My conclusion is the economy, the environment and our culture would be improved dramatically by shifting priorities away from ostentation to conservative and thrifty consumption.
January 08, 2008
Schultz Back at Starbucks
It seems Howard Schultz is one of the informed readers of Earnest Observer. The company replaced Jim Donald with Schultz yesterday and it finally appears Starbucks is concerned with serious issues raised in a recent post.
From the Financial Times:
A company statement said the move was part of a set of initiatives aimed at "refocusing the company on providing customers with the distinctive Starbucks experience, and building on Starbucks' legacy of innovation."
This is a good decision for Starbucks and possibly the last chance for a company on its way to competing with McDonald's:
McDonald's is setting out to poach Starbucks customers with the biggest addition to its menu in 30 years. Starting this year, the company's nearly 14,000 U.S. locations will install coffee bars with "baristas" serving cappuccinos, lattes, mochas and the Frappe, similar to Starbucks' ice-blended Frappuccino...
The coffee chain has evolved into more of a filling station. It is now battling fast-food outlets for some of the same customers and meal dollars. Today, about 80% of the orders purchased at U.S. Starbucks are consumed outside the store. The average income and education levels of Starbucks customers have gone down, the company has said. As part of a big push into food, Starbucks sells lunch at more than two-thirds of its company-owned locations in the U.S.
-- Wall Street Journal, January 7, 2008
From the Financial Times:
A company statement said the move was part of a set of initiatives aimed at "refocusing the company on providing customers with the distinctive Starbucks experience, and building on Starbucks' legacy of innovation."
This is a good decision for Starbucks and possibly the last chance for a company on its way to competing with McDonald's:
McDonald's is setting out to poach Starbucks customers with the biggest addition to its menu in 30 years. Starting this year, the company's nearly 14,000 U.S. locations will install coffee bars with "baristas" serving cappuccinos, lattes, mochas and the Frappe, similar to Starbucks' ice-blended Frappuccino...
The coffee chain has evolved into more of a filling station. It is now battling fast-food outlets for some of the same customers and meal dollars. Today, about 80% of the orders purchased at U.S. Starbucks are consumed outside the store. The average income and education levels of Starbucks customers have gone down, the company has said. As part of a big push into food, Starbucks sells lunch at more than two-thirds of its company-owned locations in the U.S.
-- Wall Street Journal, January 7, 2008
January 03, 2008
Hoping for Cautious Captains
From yesterday's Financial Times:
In politics, business and finance, as on the seas, the hero is the person who tackles a problem, rather than the person whose actions prevent the problem arising. The statesmen we need are those who avert wars and prevent depressions, but such individuals gain little credit.
I thought about posting the entire article written by John Kay. It raises questions about politics and the leaders we choose, businesses and the compensation and stature afforded top executives and even challenges the integrity of modern capitalism and the pursuit of a career therein.
I have not conducted a detailed study, however, it seems that many of the problems in business and politics are faced by the very leaders who created them. President Bush and the Iraq war and bank CEOs and the subprime financial crisis are the most obvious recent examples. The public often praises fortitude and resolve during these events, rather than the intelligence to avoid the situation altogether. (However, in these two events, the failure has been so widespread and pronounced the public has lost its willingness to watch in awe as the leaders charge ever onward. "Stay the course" as a slogan has lost its appeal.)
In business and politics, praise is often directly related to compensation and success. The cautious manager is in danger of producing average results, but will rarely lead a company or country to ruin. Whereas the "bold" leader will more likely achieve stellar results or massive failures. These failures not only affect their reputation and legacy, but also have lasting effects on the citizens and employees who count on their judgement and expertise.
Steady growth and progress in business and politics are admirable goals. However, steady usually isn't associated with fame, fortune and unfettered praise. Consider the potential inverse relationship between these desires and a future leaders results.
In politics, business and finance, as on the seas, the hero is the person who tackles a problem, rather than the person whose actions prevent the problem arising. The statesmen we need are those who avert wars and prevent depressions, but such individuals gain little credit.
I thought about posting the entire article written by John Kay. It raises questions about politics and the leaders we choose, businesses and the compensation and stature afforded top executives and even challenges the integrity of modern capitalism and the pursuit of a career therein.
I have not conducted a detailed study, however, it seems that many of the problems in business and politics are faced by the very leaders who created them. President Bush and the Iraq war and bank CEOs and the subprime financial crisis are the most obvious recent examples. The public often praises fortitude and resolve during these events, rather than the intelligence to avoid the situation altogether. (However, in these two events, the failure has been so widespread and pronounced the public has lost its willingness to watch in awe as the leaders charge ever onward. "Stay the course" as a slogan has lost its appeal.)
In business and politics, praise is often directly related to compensation and success. The cautious manager is in danger of producing average results, but will rarely lead a company or country to ruin. Whereas the "bold" leader will more likely achieve stellar results or massive failures. These failures not only affect their reputation and legacy, but also have lasting effects on the citizens and employees who count on their judgement and expertise.
Steady growth and progress in business and politics are admirable goals. However, steady usually isn't associated with fame, fortune and unfettered praise. Consider the potential inverse relationship between these desires and a future leaders results.
December 06, 2007
Starbucks Today
Starbucks recently made announcements regarding its corporate strategy and new advertising initiative. From the Wall Street Journal:
Chief Executive Jim Donald said Starbucks is getting into TV advertising because "as we grow our stores, we're trying to reach out to this broader audience that maybe [has] not had the chance to experience Starbucks."
Regardless of what the company says, this is a direct response to the following developement:
The average number of transactions in Starbucks U.S. stores fell for the first time during the most recent quarter...
Ignoring the advertising initiative and focusing on the company's broader strategy, a few observations come to mind. Hardly a victim, the success of Starbucks will force the company to make further changes to its business model and target market. My experience with Starbucks is limited to the recent past. I am not familiar with its early stores or original culture. However, I have witnessed changes within the company. The most obvious changes are related to the environment of its stores and the ubiquity of the brand.
Despite the evolution of the business, management clings to tennants of the original strategy.
Starbucks likes to think of itself as a collection of thousands of corner cafes that sponsor the local zoo and have baristas who know their customers' favorite drinks
While this strategy provided the catalyst for its impressive growth, it has now reached a point where that game will no longer work. "Thousands of corner cafes" is inherently oxymoronic and the company is too large to maintain a local feel. This is particularly true when the "corner cafe" is hawking espresso machines, DVDs, CDs, packaged coffee, cups, etc, etc. Most Starbucks stores no longer resemble a cafe, maybe a "Coffee Wal-Mart", but not a cafe.
Now, compound the changes in environment with the ubiquity of the brand. Living near the center of Houston, I could locate at least 5-7 Starbucks stores in the time it would take to locate 1 McDonalds. If the cafe theme is still a goal, how is this prevalence aiding the company in meeting its objectives? The corporate feel of the stores is sharply enhanced by the corporate image invoked by seeing a Starbucks on every corner (or two on every corner, circled here on West Gray Street in Houston).
The money quote from the Wall Street Journal article hints at the fate of Starbucks.
"There is a huge battle of the coffee brands and everyone is encroaching on Starbucks's turf," says Dean Crutchfield of Wolff Olins, a branding firm owned by Onmicom Group. "The competitiveness is diluting and commoditizing the entire coffee category, so it's critical that Starbucks maintains its message in the marketplace."
The most interesting thing about this observation is his focus on the commoditized portion of the market. I believe he is referring to McDonalds and Dunkin Donuts and ultimately comparing Starbucks to these down-market competitors. Starbucks has not maintained its message to the marketplace and therefore will be forced to compete with the national chains. The quality of the coffee will most likely begin to resemble these chains rather than the local coffee shops and cafes. A lower quality product, marketed to the masses is inevitable. The corporate strategy has deviated too far its the original intent to return now. Also, the logistics of supplying thousands of stores with coffee does not allow for local or heterogeneous experiences.
The size and culture of Starbucks indicate further shifting in strategy. I believe this shift will be toward the lower end of the coffee market and allow local coffee shops and cafes to fill the "corner cafe" gap left behind. Hopefully that means a few more places like the one below.
Chief Executive Jim Donald said Starbucks is getting into TV advertising because "as we grow our stores, we're trying to reach out to this broader audience that maybe [has] not had the chance to experience Starbucks."
Regardless of what the company says, this is a direct response to the following developement:
The average number of transactions in Starbucks U.S. stores fell for the first time during the most recent quarter...
Ignoring the advertising initiative and focusing on the company's broader strategy, a few observations come to mind. Hardly a victim, the success of Starbucks will force the company to make further changes to its business model and target market. My experience with Starbucks is limited to the recent past. I am not familiar with its early stores or original culture. However, I have witnessed changes within the company. The most obvious changes are related to the environment of its stores and the ubiquity of the brand.
Despite the evolution of the business, management clings to tennants of the original strategy.
Starbucks likes to think of itself as a collection of thousands of corner cafes that sponsor the local zoo and have baristas who know their customers' favorite drinks
While this strategy provided the catalyst for its impressive growth, it has now reached a point where that game will no longer work. "Thousands of corner cafes" is inherently oxymoronic and the company is too large to maintain a local feel. This is particularly true when the "corner cafe" is hawking espresso machines, DVDs, CDs, packaged coffee, cups, etc, etc. Most Starbucks stores no longer resemble a cafe, maybe a "Coffee Wal-Mart", but not a cafe.
Now, compound the changes in environment with the ubiquity of the brand. Living near the center of Houston, I could locate at least 5-7 Starbucks stores in the time it would take to locate 1 McDonalds. If the cafe theme is still a goal, how is this prevalence aiding the company in meeting its objectives? The corporate feel of the stores is sharply enhanced by the corporate image invoked by seeing a Starbucks on every corner (or two on every corner, circled here on West Gray Street in Houston).
The money quote from the Wall Street Journal article hints at the fate of Starbucks.
"There is a huge battle of the coffee brands and everyone is encroaching on Starbucks's turf," says Dean Crutchfield of Wolff Olins, a branding firm owned by Onmicom Group. "The competitiveness is diluting and commoditizing the entire coffee category, so it's critical that Starbucks maintains its message in the marketplace."
The most interesting thing about this observation is his focus on the commoditized portion of the market. I believe he is referring to McDonalds and Dunkin Donuts and ultimately comparing Starbucks to these down-market competitors. Starbucks has not maintained its message to the marketplace and therefore will be forced to compete with the national chains. The quality of the coffee will most likely begin to resemble these chains rather than the local coffee shops and cafes. A lower quality product, marketed to the masses is inevitable. The corporate strategy has deviated too far its the original intent to return now. Also, the logistics of supplying thousands of stores with coffee does not allow for local or heterogeneous experiences.
The size and culture of Starbucks indicate further shifting in strategy. I believe this shift will be toward the lower end of the coffee market and allow local coffee shops and cafes to fill the "corner cafe" gap left behind. Hopefully that means a few more places like the one below.
November 13, 2007
Texas Rail
I've often wondered how well a high speed train system would work in Texas. Trains in Europe are reaching speeds of 200 - 357 miles per hour.
These speeds make previously dreaded road trips or flights unnecessary. For example:
Houston to Dallas by:
- Car = 4 hours
- Train at 200 mph = 1 hour 12 minutes
- Train at 357 mph = 40 minutes
San Antonio to Dallas by:
- Car = 4 hours 30 minutes
- Train at 200 mph = 1 hour 22 minutes
- Train at 357 mph = 46 minutes
Even shorter times separate cities like Austin from the rest of the state's major business districts (due to its central location). This would not only make business travel easier, but would also enable residents of one city to easily work in another. I know many people who would love to live in a different Texas city, but are constrained due to their employment situation.
One caveat for any development plans, however, involves the sprawl of a city like Houston. Personal transportation after a train ride is a necessity. This isn't Europe and walking or even biking are not a feasible options. Fortunately, MIT engineers are making progress on an innovative solution.
Meant to work more like a car sharing service than that of a personal vehicle, MIT hopes to change the way that we think about personal transportation. Stacks of vehicles could be placed throughout the city to create a small network that is linked to the existing mass transportation systems within the city. When a person comes gets off a bus or train, they can just hop into one of these vehicles and go about their business. They can either drop it off at the vehicle stack at their destination, if there happens to be one, or returned to their original stack, where the vehicle will be recharged and wait for the next person to take it.
via Inhabitat
These speeds make previously dreaded road trips or flights unnecessary. For example:
Houston to Dallas by:
- Car = 4 hours
- Train at 200 mph = 1 hour 12 minutes
- Train at 357 mph = 40 minutes
San Antonio to Dallas by:
- Car = 4 hours 30 minutes
- Train at 200 mph = 1 hour 22 minutes
- Train at 357 mph = 46 minutes
Even shorter times separate cities like Austin from the rest of the state's major business districts (due to its central location). This would not only make business travel easier, but would also enable residents of one city to easily work in another. I know many people who would love to live in a different Texas city, but are constrained due to their employment situation.
One caveat for any development plans, however, involves the sprawl of a city like Houston. Personal transportation after a train ride is a necessity. This isn't Europe and walking or even biking are not a feasible options. Fortunately, MIT engineers are making progress on an innovative solution.
Meant to work more like a car sharing service than that of a personal vehicle, MIT hopes to change the way that we think about personal transportation. Stacks of vehicles could be placed throughout the city to create a small network that is linked to the existing mass transportation systems within the city. When a person comes gets off a bus or train, they can just hop into one of these vehicles and go about their business. They can either drop it off at the vehicle stack at their destination, if there happens to be one, or returned to their original stack, where the vehicle will be recharged and wait for the next person to take it.
via Inhabitat
Subprime
The subprime fallout and subsequent roller-coaster financial markets are not entirely funny (after all, lowering my year-end bonus is no laughing matter). However, the decisions and business practices leading to this turmoil are quite amusing. Below is a short primer about the events leading to our current situation, made tolerable by British wit.
November 12, 2007
Peak Oil?
Oh, the infinite wisdom of Matt Simmons:
"If the world is nearing peak oil supply output, alternative fuels take on a more ominous urgency," said Matt Simmons, chief executive of Simmons & Co., a Houston-based investment bank. Simmons, a long-time proponent of peak-oil theory, popularized the idea with his 2005 book, "Twilight in the Desert."
--Dow Jones, October 23, 2007
It amazes me how often people talk without saying anything. Anyway, "nearing peak oil supply output" is broad and hard to criticize, but this surely doesn't help his argument:
Last week's news centred on the Tupi field - at present, little more than a couple of exploratory wells 280km off Brazil's coast in the Santos Basin. But those two wells have confirmed that the field holds between 5bn and 8bn barrels of oil, not far short of the entire reserves of Norway.
--Financial Times, November 12, 2007
Further developments to watch:
The president of Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, said the discovery of reserves that may total as much as eight billion barrels of oil and natural gas might lead the country to join the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.
--Bloomberg News
"If the world is nearing peak oil supply output, alternative fuels take on a more ominous urgency," said Matt Simmons, chief executive of Simmons & Co., a Houston-based investment bank. Simmons, a long-time proponent of peak-oil theory, popularized the idea with his 2005 book, "Twilight in the Desert."
--Dow Jones, October 23, 2007
It amazes me how often people talk without saying anything. Anyway, "nearing peak oil supply output" is broad and hard to criticize, but this surely doesn't help his argument:
Last week's news centred on the Tupi field - at present, little more than a couple of exploratory wells 280km off Brazil's coast in the Santos Basin. But those two wells have confirmed that the field holds between 5bn and 8bn barrels of oil, not far short of the entire reserves of Norway.
--Financial Times, November 12, 2007
Further developments to watch:
The president of Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, said the discovery of reserves that may total as much as eight billion barrels of oil and natural gas might lead the country to join the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.
--Bloomberg News
My How Things Change
I'm too young to have full knowledge of what I'm about to say, but for posting sake I'll count movie watching and book reading as "industry experience."
A common expression regarding leveraged buyouts is "cutting/trimming the fat." This references any unnecessary or superfluous spending within a company. Once the private equity firm has acquired the company, a significant amount of new debt is partially intended to instill discipline in the company's operations.
Because of their leverage they cannot afford bureaucracy and excess fat; they need shorter lines of communication to customers, employees, suppliers and other constituents. They need to invest their capital in highly productive assets. They need to address the very concerns that business critics have leveled at American industry in its recent years of decline. Because they have few near-term prospects for liquifying their investment, they must take the long-term view.
--Wall Street Journal, May 31, 1984
Fast forward to the height of the subprime fallout and halting of LBO deals and the expression suddenly carries the opposite meaning:
Compare that to Blackstone and KKR, which larded their deals with ever increasing amounts of borrowings until investors turned off the high-yield spigot this summer. Until that spigot opens again, big U.S. buyout firms will largely be sitting on their hands, not exactly a recipe for cranking out the profits public shareholders will expect from them.
--Wall Street Journal, November 12, 2007
I believe more profound shifts in rhetoric will surface regarding "sustainable" and "renewable" energy sources. Sure, corn and soybeans are renewable resources, but are they viable sources for renewable energy?
A common expression regarding leveraged buyouts is "cutting/trimming the fat." This references any unnecessary or superfluous spending within a company. Once the private equity firm has acquired the company, a significant amount of new debt is partially intended to instill discipline in the company's operations.
Because of their leverage they cannot afford bureaucracy and excess fat; they need shorter lines of communication to customers, employees, suppliers and other constituents. They need to invest their capital in highly productive assets. They need to address the very concerns that business critics have leveled at American industry in its recent years of decline. Because they have few near-term prospects for liquifying their investment, they must take the long-term view.
--Wall Street Journal, May 31, 1984
Fast forward to the height of the subprime fallout and halting of LBO deals and the expression suddenly carries the opposite meaning:
Compare that to Blackstone and KKR, which larded their deals with ever increasing amounts of borrowings until investors turned off the high-yield spigot this summer. Until that spigot opens again, big U.S. buyout firms will largely be sitting on their hands, not exactly a recipe for cranking out the profits public shareholders will expect from them.
--Wall Street Journal, November 12, 2007
I believe more profound shifts in rhetoric will surface regarding "sustainable" and "renewable" energy sources. Sure, corn and soybeans are renewable resources, but are they viable sources for renewable energy?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
