Considering how persistently we refer to our planet as a "small" and "inter-connected" world, it's remarkable to what extent every single country differs from others – even from the immediate neighbors, let alone those separated by oceans, social structures, wealth, religion, culture, etc. And as someone who's been in international business practically all of her career, I am inclined to say that some of the most disparate, incompatible, and frequently irreconcilable national distinctions are the tax laws.
There is a tremendous variation in rules and rates used by governments in order to hack away a chunk of revenues from native, resident, and even passing-through individuals and businesses. Moreover, the relationships between the national tax legislatures are so complicated, they make international tax attorneys into some of the richest bloodsucking professionals. This bullshit, frequently dictated by nationalism, makes the lives of international businesses and cosmopolitan persons alike very complicated and overly expensive. More frequently than not human and artificial taxpayers (thouse who don't cheat and try to avoid going to jail for ridiculous violations) end up paying double, triple, and quadruple taxes.
I personally know people who gave up their US citizenship in order to avoid giving away their entire wealth to multiple governments. Even though, as a financial professional, I totally support their decisions, it always made the patriot in me very sad. But the fact that an American treasure, Tina Turner, will be Swiss now in the name of tax savings – that's just heartbreaking, granted she has been residentially foreign to her homeland for the past 18 years. (By the way, my mind simply refuses to deal with Gerard Depardieu's becoming a Russian).
Robert Wood's article for Forbes (see the link below) is not necessarily the most coherent, but it's relatively brief and full of illuminating numbers that many of my readers will find interesting. Enjoy it!
There are
quite a few optimistic economists out there who convinced themselves
that, even though the Industrial Revolution, which was responsible for the unprecedented economic development of the United States since the 19th century, is pretty much over, there is no need to panic and envision impending doom. According to them, we are yet to pull through. Do you know what will save us? Artificial intelligence and 3D printing, i.e. fucking robots and compressed plastic powder.
Ok, let's leave the 3D printing alone for now. I'm quite impressed with the replication capabilities of the so-called printers: the manufacturing of complex forms, moving parts and all directly from scanned or modeled images looks like magic; and I do think that this innovation will revolutionize toy-making and change sculpture forever. However, because the "printing" powder recipes are kept secret, I cannot really say anything about the quality and/or safety of the household items, tools, auto parts, etc. made this way. I hear the plastic guns shoot people dead pretty well, but what else is new?
I am more curious about the robotized future though. From the vantage point of the economists in question, 65% of American employees are engaged in tasks that they classify as "information processing" (sounds pretty arbitrary to me, but let's go with it) and these poor "dehumanized" worker bees will be replaced with super-efficient highly intelligent machines, who never get depressed because information is what they do. And it doesn't matter that the damn toasters will never be able to look at a plant and pick an appropriate tool to trim it (it's just something that cannot be programmed).
In case you are wondering, the other 35% will be occupied in professions and functions that require superior intelligence and talent: executive management (you wouldn't believe how many executive dumbasses I know, but whatever!), strategic planning, creative work, and of course, gardening (on account of the robots' deficiencies mentioned above).
Seriously though, I hope you agree with me that defining ALL tasks performed by office employees as "information processing" essentially turns these people into some sort of robots already, which creates an illusion that replacing imperfect human tools with slick intelligent machines is an efficient, easy, and necessary process. And yes, some of the office routines can be tedious and dehumanizing. Yet, the reality is that only in large companies, marked by narrow specialization, standardization, and redundancy, work can be likened to the repetitive conveyor operations. Everywhere else people multitask!
Ever since my doctoral studies of economics (many year ago), I had a problem with the pervasive tendency of theoretical generalization; with the application of the macroeconomic approach to microeconomic systems. Again, maybe such abstractions are somewhat pertinent to giant enterprises, but you and I know that every small business operates differently – none of them will fit into an artificially constructed etalon. It scares me to think that these pseudo-scientists possibly envision the future without any entrepreneurship at all – just fucking GMs, GEs, Microsofts, Starbucks, Smithfields, Apples, Googles, COSTCOs, and Carl's Jr. (Wait a minute, doesn't this ring a pretty loud bell?)
But what if this nightmare doesn't come true? (Call me a fucking optimist!) Imagine that 20 years from now small businesses still exist, but now they can be outfitted with highly efficient (and affordable!) intelligent machines available to step in as your trusted office workers. Let's conduct a mental experiment and see how a robot will deal with three (could've been 100) straightforward issues customarily handled by one of my most reliable and teachable subordinates of all time (I call her "my Paige"). In other words, let's see if a robot can really replace my Paige.
#1. A commercial customer has a $300K credit line. The total of the customer's open invoices is $265K. A $51K order for the product your company really needs to move is transmitted for the robot's credit approval. Of course, a discretionary flexibility is programmed into the algorithm (robot designers are not stupid) – it's 5% above the limit (remember, standardization is unavoidable with machines), making the total allowable credit exposure $315k. But approving the order would exceed it by a mere $1,000. The robot rejects it, denying its employer an opportunity to move the product, increase the revenue, make a nice profit. In addition, the relationship with a long-time customer is at jeopardy over a thousand bucks; and the salesperson is mad because he lost his commissions. And what are you going to do? Fire the robot? It cost the company a fucking mint!
#2. The operations department (also robots) needs to make sufficient room in the storage facility to accommodate the upcoming delivery of 5000 mt of a product from overseas. They transmit a message to Sales to start pushing the shit faster. Sales plea and beg customers to take as much product as they can – discounts and all kinds of other tokens of gratitude are flowing. One customer says that he can take a delivery on September 29th, but he doesn't want the inventory on his books just yet and the invoices must be dated October 14th (the "I do something for you, you do something for me" principle). This information is relayed to my accounting robot. It's perplexed: It's programmed to record sales according to the order terms; the terms in this case are Delivered; the proof of delivery transmitted into his system by the trucking branch states September 29th; yet, somebody is overriding his algorithm and forces the wrong date! SCREECH! SYSTEM FAILURE!
#3. The payments-to-suppliers program kicks in. The robot tallies all invoices that need to be paid – the total is $3.3M. Now, funds-sufficiency program kicks in: there is only $300K available on the account and the robot transmits a funding request to the CFO's all-in-one communication device installed into her left ear's diamond stud. The borrowing and investing functions are still done by the human CFO, because the risk of some crafty thief hacking into a fucking toaster is, as you can imagine, pretty high. The problem is that the CFO is in London dining with a Financial Director of a company her employer targeted for acquisition. She is trying to pump the stiff for some information beyond the official reports, and she just got him talking, and there is no way she can lose this opportunity on account of some payments. But the robot must do his job – he must be timely, the payments must be made. Yet, he sees that, if he actually makes the payments, the account will be overdrafted by $3 million. The conflicting algorithms are tearing the machine apart, literally – it short-circuits.
What? Are you telling me that the economists don't have these tasks in mind; that these are semi-managerial-somewhat-analytical duties? Guess what, Mr. Big-Shot-Futurologist? That's what's going on in small businesses with flat structures: Every sector of the value chain is manned by one executive/manager and a handful of her direct reports aka the "the information processors." No middle management. You cannot possibly reassign these minute but essential issues to CFO's and Controllers – that's just too expensive in terms of the compensation, wasteful in terms of the time taken away from more strategic obligations, and demeaning in terms of the moral incentives. And if I have to buy robots AND keep my subordinates for the semi-managerial-somewhat-analytical work, what kind of progress is that?
According to the US Census data, there are over 6 million companies in this country with less than 100 employees. Obviously, they are too small to see from the top of the theoretical mountain. So, in articles for academic magazines and thick manuscripts for Wiley publications, their diverse office workers first get bundled together with the narrow-niched redundant zombies of large bureaucracies, and then replaced by robots in one sweep of a Montblanc pen.
Just for argument's sake let's get back for a second to the scary possibility: The economists, politicians , and the big businesses paying for them actually erase small companies from the national map. The intellectual flexibility is ignored in the interest of standardization, and all of the "information processors" in the remaining giant conglomerates are replaced by machines. What kind of plans do the movers and shakers have for these 65% of American workers? How about their children, lately multiplying at the three-per-family rate? Considering the dramatically falling IQs of the general population, it's unlikely that they will be viable candidates for high-level managerial or creative work. So, how is the robotization going to make the whole nation wealthier in the same way the Industrial Revolution did? I see a more polarized society with hordes of people pushed below the poverty level.
But the biggest question I have for the big-time big-picture economists is: Where the fuck are you going to get the energy to power all those robots and their managing network servers?
I wasn't planning on dignifying this new chapter in the government's bullshit with any words at all, but yesterday, during my news-reading self-torture, I came across the short bit cited below. I don't always agree with this journalist's points of view. However, in this instance she appears to channel my own libertarian position on several key issues. I couldn't say it better myself, so here you go:
"This week was dominated by the shutdown.
It's as much a shutdown of the executive functions of the brain as it
is of the government. A monument to monumental stupidity, it's also a shutdown of possibility, and of whatever residual trust the public still has in the American political system. Even those doing the right thing by fighting it were reduced
by the sheer absurdity of the situation. All to try to reinstate a
sequester-level budget that is itself horrifically self-destructive
(note to media: the Affordable Care Act and sequester are the compromises,
and bad ones, at that). That's right — we've now sunk to a level in
which the merely horribly self-destructive is a goal that seems out of
reach. So our leaders play games instead of even attempting to address
the real problems, like the roughly 20 million unemployed or underemployed Americans. That's for August. The September numbers weren't released on Friday — because of the shutdown."
Every time the proverbial wool is pulled over the masses' eyes, this question materializes in my mind in a very specific way: Can't you see? Pumped with drugs, submerged into the water, and literally attached to a supposed crime-fighting machine, the main precog Agatha (Samantha Morton) pleads with Tom Cruise's John Anderton to see the truth: to clear his mind and look behind the foggy wall of deceit; to figure out what is right and what is wrong, who is a victim and who is a real criminal, where is the true justice and where is the pure greed for power and domination?
Can't you see? With their latest search-engine revamp (aka the Hummingbird offensive), Google is trying to deprive you of your basic rights (particularly those guaranteed by the First and the Ninth Amendments) and turn the last bastion of freedom, the Internet, into the same corrupt mess our tangible world has become – the wasteland, where the bigger your teeth and claws are the larger the piece of the pie you will grab.
Even though the implementation of the "hummingbird" algorithm was publicly revealed on the day of Google's 15th anniversary, it had been enacted several weeks ago. I noticed something new a month back: Like everyone else who writes, from time to time I go online to look for the best choice of words. For years, Thesaurus.com has been the first-listed result. It still is, but right above it (above everything) appears a lightly-bordered box with a Google-provided selection of synonyms, word origin, etc. Even on the 21" screen it dominates most of the initially visible space – you have to scroll down to see other results. If all you need is basics, you don't need to go to any other dictionary site – it's all right there, in the box.
Now, try to google, for example, Advil and you will see the same (only larger) box at the top, filled with medical information on this over-the-counter drug. Type 3D Printing in the search field, and you will get featured ads (powered by Google's AdSense) at the top and the hummingbird's box on the right with the top four choices for 3D printers from Google's Shopping. And don't be deceived by the fact that many of your searches don't bring back the ghostly box just yet – the knowledge base will self-educate and expand with incredible speed, just you wait.
They are not too shy about it either: In the midst of listing all the "innovative" features of the hummingbird algorithm, they freely speak about their strategy to squash the other online information purveyors. During the unveiling ceremony, Google's search executive Tamar Yehoshua constructed his demonstration specifically around queries related to nutrition. The first results were long lists compiled by Google and shown on Google's own site. No need to go to WebMD – one of thousands of online businesses dependent on the Internet users' ability to "find" them.
Wow! First, they started tracking your web patterns in order to "suggest" ads and rank search results according to your "tastes" (how are you supposed to find, buy, learn anything new, if Google keeps polluting your visual field with old, familiar shit all the time?), and now this?! They want to monopolize the Information Superhighway; they want to own your mind and hinder your psyche! This is much worse than anything Snowden has revealed about Big Brother. Can you imagine the breadth of opportunities for manipulations?
How about the unlimited possibilities for murky dealings? Just think of the fees you can charge a company for the right to be a part of Google's knowledge database, to be included into that top-of-the-page box. Judging by the experience so far, we will never know how much exactly: While making the basic AdSense pricing available to everyone, Google makes sure that it is impossible to find out how much it costs to guarantee that your ad or product always appears in the featured boxes, bypassing hundreds of others.
For many, Google's true intentions of global domination are obscured by gimmicks, oh, so attractive to the techno-savvy Internet users. You've got complex, multiword queries; you've got voice recognition with detectable accents – Google pretty much promises to come up with search results in response to your mumbling something in your sleep. Everybody's like, "Oo-la-la! Symantic search capabilities!" That's all great, except don't lead me straight to your own websites, bro, let me make my own choices!
What happened to Sergey Brin, who came here from the Soviet Union in 1979, at the tender age of 6? Didn't his parents teach him anything about the importance of personal freedom and the dangers of totalitarianism? And why? What, $24.5 billion is not enough?
I don't really know if the algorithm's nickname is an unabashed display of gall and an inside joke hinting at Google's true intentions, but I find its selection uncanny: Hummingbirds, pretty and quick, are essentially omnivores – sucking out flowers's nectar and praying on insects' protein, all in the course of one meal.
I sold my Google stock as soon as they monopolized the online advertising, and I wish I could tell you that I plan to stop googling, or use Maps. Unfortunately, I am not able to take such a pledge: no matter how hard other search engines try (and I would like them to try harder), as of this moment they cannot match Google's speed and range. Yet, I refuse to give into their tricks: I will not be boxed out neither by the AdSense tracking my Internet movements nor by the hummingbird's hijacking the top spot of the informational ladder. I will continue to exercise my freedom of going to the search results that I believe are relevant. What about you? Can you force yourself not to be lazy and bypass Google's conveniently positioned traps? Can you brush off that wool and see?
A knack for making small talk is a valuable social skill. Only when we speak to people who are close to us (family, friends, coworkers), or completely transient (sales people, customer service reps), we can direct a conversation straight to the subject matter. And it's not a simple following the polite protocol either: The opening banter became a custom pretty much in all cultures because it is natural for most humans.
Barely a handful of people have absolutely no psychological barriers regarding social interactions and feel comfortable in any environment. The rest of us can always use some warming-up, some beating-around-the-bush. It is necessary for all parties involved because it lets us step over the initial awkwardness. While it helps a lot in private communications, in business it's simply mandatory.
One must always keep in mind, though, that the diapason of topics acceptable for small talk is not that broad. And it varies depending on your audience. The idea is that it should be something trivial enough for the person on the other side of the conversation to find an easy response. That is why, sports in general and football in particular is the natural choice for the heterosexual-male crowd: they are on common ground there, even if they root for different teams. Female execs, such as myself, have no choice but to familiarize themselves with the subject of football in order to keep up with their male peers.
Do you remember Mike Nichols's The Birdcage? The hilarious small-talk lesson aka "How about those Dolphins?" moment? When prepping his partner (Nathan Lane) for the meeting with an ultra-conservative right-wing politician, the South Beach cabaret owner (Robin Williams) goes straight to the subject of Miami Dolphins – the most natural ground-softening topic for a white male chauvinist. Conversely, when you talk with a homosexual men, you will be better off discussing Broadway's latest Tennessee Williams starring Zachary Quinto.
The pervasive demands of political correctness made the small-talk "safety" into a concern. Many topics of common interest for the majority of people are considered absolute taboos – politics and religion are the first on the list. Some issues, while not completely prohibited, are still qualified as "dangerous territory." Nowadays, people rarely ask the kids-and-family questions – they fear the possibility of opening a can of worms: divorces, adoptions, sexual orientation, stands on the women's choice, population issues, autism, etc.
Entertainment used to be a relatively safe harbor, especially television. But there is too much of it now: some programs cater to millions, while others are intended for relatively small audiences. It's never guaranteed that you will find mutual cultural interests with some new business acquaintance. So, many people avoid it.
Yet, the WEATHER is somehow still the first thing that pops out of everyone's mouth – on the phone, when shaking hands in the meetings, after ordering food at business lunches, and around the proverbial water cooler. People still think that because we are all exposed to atmospheric conditions it's an easy topic.
Well, I think it stopped being a "safe" topic long time ago.
It's September 28th in NYC (it's in the NORTH-east, in case you didn't know), yet it's 74 fucking degrees outside! The forecast indicates that it will be 79 on Wednesday and 80 on Thursday! And it's not like the air is summary. No, it's the unbarricaded UV rays – so hot, they fry the Earth. (And the fucking UN's environmental commission just published a report yesterday saying how it's now scientifically proven that humans are responsible for "at least" 50% of the global warming!) I am unpleasantly aware of this sun while walking down Broadway in the Financial District. Yet, the guy walking right in front of me turns to his girl and says, "What a gorgeous day!" Are you kidding me? I want to kick him; I want to swing my handbag real hard and land it on his head! No sir, it's not a safe topic for me.
But there is more: Nowadays, it seems to me that everyone is desperately clutching to conversations about the weather out of fear that they may betray their dissatisfaction with Life; not just to the others, but to themselves. Moreover, they rather blame the weather for the way they feel than face the truth. I came to this realization when I noticed that people started resorting to the "weather talks" even when there is no need for any ice-breaking.
At work I'm constantly exposed to people: they call, I call; I have internal and external meetings, lunches, dinners; people keep their office doors opened and you cannot help but overhear their conversations. And it's all day long: "How's the weather over there?" and "It's very cloudy today, but they promise a lot of sunshine tomorrow!" or "Aw, the mornings are getting chillier – I will have to get my coats out." Why the fuck everyone wants it to be warm and sunny all the time? Because that's going to make them feel better? We are supposed to have four seasons!
If you are as bitchy as I am, you can try to see what happens when you stall the weather talk and get real for a hot second. In the middle of a wonderfully gloomy day, after an unpleasant marketing meeting, one exec deliberately crossed the hall from her office to mine only to say, "Oh, my God! This weather really brings me down!" My response was: "Yes, life is depressing, and sunny days are scary to me." She acted literally like a fish out of the water – her mouth silently opened and then closed; she turned on her hills and swam away. Hopefully she will think about it before blabbering about weather next time, but I'm not holding my breath.
The Frustrated CFO 