#undefendable

[nicklloydnow]

“In 1932, Adolf A. Berle Jr. and Gardner C. Means wrote a book entitled The Modern Corporation and Private Property. A critique of corporate management for being aloof and complacent, out of touch with the consumer and irresponsible to the stockholder, this volume became the bible of Marxists, left wing intellectuals and interventionist politicians. Under the banner of separation of ownership and control, the Berle-Means thesis led to an attack on the corporate structure from which today's top executives are still reeling.

With this background, one would have thought that the people urging a greater role for the public sector would have welcomed the advent of the corporate raider. For this new breed of capitalist has sent shivers down the spines of the denizens of the boardroom. Swooping down, launching "unfriendly" or "hostile" takeover bids, these corporate raiders have succeeded in replacing management from coast to coast in dozens of industries, and in frightening thousands of other out-of-touch chief executive officers into greater responsibility.

At least under the theory of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," it might have been expected that critics of the marketplace, noticeably the followers of Berle and Means, would have rallied `round the cause of the corporate raider.

In the event, however, this expectation has remained unfulfilled. Not only has the activity of the corporate raider been deprecated by the champions of government interference in the marketplace, but it has been roundly condemned by practically all pundits and commentators on public policy. In 1987, the left-leaning film director Oliver Stone distilled the common image of the corporate raider into the supposedly loathsome Gordon Gekko, brilliantly portrayed in an Oscar-winning performance by Michael Douglas. And this is the image of Gekko under which the corporate raider must labor in the present day.

Yet, despite this all-but-universal criticism, the unfriendly takeover bid has benefited consumers and stockholders, and served notice on complacent management across the board. In one celebrated case that unfolded shortly before Stone's film Wall Street was released, corporate guerrilla Carl Icahn put in a bid for a block of shares of Phillips Petroleum. Stung by Icahn's bid, Phillips' executives offered to improve a recapitalization plan they had been forced to put forth in response to an earlier planned takeover, this one by T. Boone Pickens. As a result, Icahn walked away with a cool $50 million, Pickens registered a profit of $89 million on a resale of his holdings to the company, all Phillips' shareholders gained from the better offer, and the oil firm itself was left far leaner and meaner than before.

Needless to say, neither Icahn nor Pickens nor any of the other masterminds of "the 1980s takeover boom," were publicly thanked for the good they had done. On the contrary: both men were not only mocked by Oliver Stone, they were also robbed of the opportunity to do any more such good by a rash of anti-takeover statutes adopted late in the decade. Henry Manne reported that hostile takeovers had "declined to four percent from fourteen percent of all mergers."

The conventional wisdom holds that this outcome is a good one for investors, but the facts show otherwise. No story of the corporate raider can ignore the role of the heroic Michael Milken. Assume there was a hotel worth $20 million as a present discounted capital value. Given an interest rate of 5%, this concern should throw off roughly $1 million to its owners. But stipulate that due to inefficiency, or general avarice, or to the fact that the CEO salary was far higher than justified, or a combination of all such phenomena, the owners were earning far less than that in dividends. And, guess what? The stock was trading at a lower value than might have prevailed, had these tape worm factors not been in operation.

Enter the "evil" Michael Milken. He swoops in, purchases enough of the stock in this corporation to kick out the old board and replace it with his own nominees. This is considered a "hostile" takeover by a corporate "raider." From whence springs the hostility? All Milken did was buy up a mess of stocks. Did he threaten any of these stock owners that they would walk the plank if they did not sell to him? No, of course not; we are talking arm's-length stock market deals here. We can logically infer that the owners of these stocks preferred the price offered them by the "raider," otherwise they would not have sold out. No, the "hostility," instead, stems from the CEO and his cronies who were mismanaging this hotel into the ground.

The Milkins of the world are akin to the canary in the mine; they are the Distant Early Warning Line for the economy.

When they get active, it is in response to something rotten that is going on. And what was the public reaction to this corporate raider? Instead of hoisting him up on their shoulders and holding ticker tape parades in his honor, he was given the back of the public's hand to his face. To wit, he was prosecuted by the Securities and Exchange Commission for insider trading, violations of U.S. Securities Laws and other financial felonies. He pled guilty only after the authorities threatened to go after his ailing brother. For shame.” - Walter Block, ‘Defending the Undefendable II’ (2013) [p. 41 - 44]

[whenthewallfell]

Stuck on the reservation, listening to the elders' stories of the old ways roaming the great plains, it's no wonder Howling Gale has little patience for the white men who claimed their lands and is so frustrated by Rains Fall's pacifism. Still, despite the wild temper he was named for, he's a charismatic and thoughtful young man who loves nothing more than exploring the last fragments of wilderness his homeland has to offer. He also has a knack for tinkering and likes to keep his hands busy; often he can be found improving the tribe's traps and weapons or carving wooden toys for the children.

[voisbian]

Love your little goober, plant upon their head 3 kisses for me please

as you wish

[taxus-fraud]

My opponent just called upon the Oracles and scattered most of my pieces across space and time. Does anyone know the best counter in this situation?

[kalashnikovlobotomy]

in the past three days ive done like 20h of straight homework and now my commissions are turning out weird looking. this kind of daydream caname instead

[jackoshadows]

Jamie Lee Curtis shares a photo of terrified children looking up at the skies, because she thinks they're Israeli. They're actually Palestinians.

[aliusfrater]

obsessed with his voice that's going for something monotonous but is conveying familiarity paired with the fear on his face <3

[kazz-brekker]

listen, i understand house of the dragon decided to move the battle of the gullet to season 3 (probably because sea battles are insanely expensive to make), and i understand them not wanting to end the season with either the battle of red fork or the battle of honeywine since those were both green victories and ending with one of them would kind of undermine rhaenyra's new position of strength with her new dragonriders, but they ABSOLUTELY should have ended with the fall of king's landing as a symbolic victory for the blacks and it's bizarre that they didn't

[count-woe-laf]

heyy

[revvethasmythh]

Treviso, most beautiful city in the world, I'd never let you get blighted baby

[nicklloydnow]

“Dwarves, or little people as they are sometimes called, engage in a variety of professions. But some heed a rather unique calling, that of the use of themselves as human projectiles. Sometimes they are thrown, and the contest depends upon distance, or hang times, or grace through the air, or some other such criterion. On other occasions, they are used as human bowling balls, with the number of pins knocked down as the earmark of success. But, whatever wacky activity they are engaged in, all have two things in common. First, not even one of these midgets is ever forced to take part in these "sports" against his will and only adults can take on these jobs. If any little people were coerced into such occupa-tions, libertarians would be opposed, but to the compulsion, not to the job. Secondly, this practice is universally reviled by all busybodies and do-gooders. In other words, these games consist of "capitalist acts between consenting adults." Thus, they are grist for the mill of this book, which defends behavior which is out of favor on the part of many, and yet violates no stricture of libertarian law.

Why do the little people allow themselves to be used in such a manner? This is similar to the question put to Willie Sutton: "Why do you rob banks?" His answer? "That's where the money is." In like manner, one of the motivating forces in the present context is the lure of the payoff. The practice of dwarf throwing offers more money than many other careers or pastimes.

And what explains that phenomenon? This is part and parcel of the economics of compensating differentials. First, it is a dangerous occupation. They may fly through the air with the greatest of ease, but they must come back down to earth at some point and when they do it is, at the very least, a jarring experience, no matter how much padding they wear. Secondly, many of these diminutive human beings may well have an aversion to being treated in such a manner. If so, it will take even more in the way of compensation to induce them to put up with what they regard, quite reasonably, as an indignity. If these are not their motivations, wages will be unaffected. If they enjoy the experience and see the social aspects of their calling in a positive manner, then money wages will fall as they queue up to take these jobs.

Economists know that, all things considered, dwarves make a profit on every "jump" they undergo. Were this not the case, they would scarcely agree to be used in such a manner. If a dwarf is paid one hundred dollars to be hurled, we can deduce that all the negative aspects of this experience—the risk of being injured, the alternatives they must forego to take part in this game, the possible shame they may suffer—are together of less import to them than the amount of money they are paid. The difference is profit accruing to the midget.

Why do the do-gooders do what they do? Why are they dead set in their attempt to call a halt to these goings on? Part of the explanation must be that they are would-be dictators, ever ready to impose their views over the choices made by others. Another part may be that they are disgusted by the specter of people being (mis) treated in this manner. Further, they may be poor economists and do not realize that all voluntary acts are necessarily beneficial at least in the ex ante sense. That is, after being tossed the small person may come to regret what he has done (or, rather, allowed to be done to him). For example, he may wish he had not participated in the tossing if he is injured, or "outed" to his family. But, beforehand, he expected more benefit than harm, or he would not have agreed to the deal.

However, the same may be said of any human action from buying, selling, renting, gambling, indeed, getting out of bed in the morning. We all engage in such acts because we perceive the gain as greater than the loss. And, as with any activity, sometimes we err. Thus there is nothing unique about dwarf tossing.

Then, too, the same considerations apply to the manager who organizes dwarf bowling. He, too, expects to make a profit: the returns from the ticket sales will be greater than all the costs. Sometimes, he also can be disappointed.

So, no matter how reviled is this practice, it is one that must be permitted in the free society. And, for agreeing to be thrown, in the face of ridicule, opprobrium, and revulsion, the dwarf tossee (and tosser as well) must be considered heroic.” - Walter Block, ‘Defending the Undefendable II’ (2013) [p. 219 - 222]

[luna-azalea106]

I WANNA DO A CHARACTER ANALYSIS ON LEONA SO BADDD BC HES SO MISCHARACTERIZED AND COMPLEX AND PEOPLE DO NOT GET ITTTTTTT AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHG

[psychopomp-namine]

// first playthrough, day 24

oh, this is the second time kako has said something insightful. I think I need to start paying attention to what she says because she comes up with some really interesting theories

so far, her theories (at least the ones I remember, I don't remember if she said anything about sirei):

someone brought hiruko outside, killed her (? maybe? or left her outside the wall anyway), and came back (thus the fire extinguishers would still be in place, also makes it impossible to say that hiruko went outside herself)

someone spiked the food during the barbecue, which is why shouma didn't sleep in the next day (he didn't eat) while everyone else (besides the culprit) slept in, giving the culprit the chance to sabotage their food supplies (shouma said earlier at the rooftop that he stayed in his room when he realized no one was waking up)

also I'm ??? so confused why everyone thinks it's a good plan to put all the fighters on scout duty outside the academy and leave only the non-fighters inside. so when the school gets attacked, what then? this is not a good plan!! I mean I guess worst case scenario this will force the remaining students to fight if they have to (I feel like ima at least will do it if kako is in danger). but still!

"wow, eito got everyone organized. he'd make such a good leader ☺️" no takumi! this is a terrible plan!! very short-sighted!! hiruko would never approve this plan!!

[thiswaycomessomethingwicked]

Authors making literary choices about their characters that add an edge that could be hard for the audience to sit with is, in fact, a good thing

[mio-nika]

whenever you feel better i wpuld love to hear more about your comic!! it is very interesting so far :]

And here is the other problem. This comic doesn't have a plot, only random floating scenes. So I can't even discuss it. But I can write about a couple of scenes of them, since I would probably not draw them. For different reasons.

-- One of them is Phantom killing a guy and cutting the bullet out of him. I think it's a Simon's gun and they are in some dangerous situation (don't ask why a guy who's famous for using a sword has a gun, I DONT KNOW). And Simon like. Too scared to kill this guy, bc he's not a killer even tho he loves to talk big. And was in jail for murder. So Phantom does it for him truly a problem solver. And after that cuts the bullet out, since you can trace the murder weapon. This scene is obviously axed for giant jumps of logic.

-- Second one is Athena's "therapy sessions". While Phantom was in jail, she was trying to talk to him. And it's this serious of scenes where she trying to make him talk and he just. Not interacting with her at all. I mean, he's literally says something like "your ability works only when you hear a voice". And after he gets a positive answer, he's just silent. This axed for "too much complicated dialogue, but no action" disease.

-- The last one is kinda spoilerish to a part 5, but it's happy kid with his parents. He stands smiling with award in his hands. You know this type of winning cup. I don't know which award it is, but he quite young like. Fourteen I think? This one axed for having like. No filling or some deep continuation. It just an additional content for part 5.

Dats all. The other scenes are more murky. I need to watch them more closely, but it will be after I draw the thing I need to draw. Even tho Im really interested in listening to their talk about dreams.

[uncaught-coolfish]

Needed to clean space off on my computer for blender shit and upon seeing the Natlan character designs I now have an idea for how! :D