Global Economics Newsflash: You May Never Have a Chance to See the Mona Lisa Again


So, apparently France got themselves into a $2.6 trillion debt hole.  This translates into $42,623 of national obligations per each of 66 million French têtes.  Of course, the number is staggering.  However, I feel obligated to state that this is not as bad as what we have here, in our own beloved country with our very own $17.8 trillion burden pressing hard on 319 million of us with a weight of $55,684 per capita.

Still, someone just asked me the other day, how the hell France got itself so fucked.  It’s not like the country pays $42 billion into IMF every year; or covers 22% of the UN budget; or sticks its nose into every hot spot in the world, bankrolling military and whatever-else aid campaigns.  And it definitely doesn’t spend billions on artificially fueling the US stock market, even though if it crumbles the economies world-wide, including the French,  will be doomed.  It’s our government that borrows funds for all that. 

I’m no expert on French economy and I’m not about to embark on researching their problems in detail (God knows, I have more pressing things to do).  However, basic knowledge of European affairs is sufficient for a logical person to form some general ideas. 

This is what happens with the formerly wealthy, but already shaky (who isn’t now?), national economies when they decide to build an opposition to USA by combining as many European countries as they can into some utopian economic union: they start breaking their financial backs by carrying on their shoulders weaker (like, ahem… Greece) nations.  And, of course, the state needs resources to support domestic  industries (solely in the name of protectionism).  Add to that immigration policies driven by “special interests,” which result in a population seriously skewed toward multi-children families with idle heads of households, who don’t pay taxes but draw extensively on social programs.  And why not?  The majority of French population don’t want to work too hard anyway: shorter hours, exuberantly long vacations, early retirement (at 60!).  And again, why not when there is the Mandatory State Pension Provision in place?    

What the poor France to do?  Well, the French government came up with this brilliant idea: They are going to sell national treasures, starting with… Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa (!), which, thanks to king Francis I, has been in France’s possession since Leonardo’s death, i.e. nearly 500 years. 

Don’t tell me that this doesn’t sound like the end of the world:  Through ages of political rioting and religious massacres, twenty three wars, three full-blown revolutions, multiple colonial rebellions, and Nazi occupation France managed to hold on to Mona Lisa.  It’s the perverted foreign policies and socialistic interior governing of our foolish times that led to the total socio-economic bankruptcy of the formerly powerful country.

You and I may think that La Gioconda is priceless, but the French have already assessed its market price, i.e. how much money someone may be willing to shed for it.  During the 60s the best guess of the art-dealing community was around $100 million.  Now, 50 years later, the time-adjusted equivalent of that sum is $2.6 billion.  Never mind that this would cover only 0.1% of the debt in question.  As they used to say in pre-Euro France, every centime counts.

One can’t help but marvel at the utter stupidity and nearsightedness of the government that can entertain the idea of  eliminating one of the main reasons for the international tourism to the infamously snooty, unreasonably expensive, and ethnically unstable City of Lights (the Louvre is still #1 visited museum in the world).  Can these people see anything beyond their service terms?  I can clearly visualize the snowball of layoffs and business closures, which will unavoidably lead to the further drain on the state’s treasury.  But those are French problems.  So, fuck them!

What the rest of the world, especially those of us who care for the arts, should be concerned about is the distinct possibility that we may never ever have a chance to stand in front of the Mona Lisa and attempt to absorb (it’s really not that easy in the room full of tourists holding up their video and photo devices) Da Vinci’s masterpiece in person.  And this is especially heart-breaking because it is one of only 23 surviving major works that are either universally or generally attributed to Leonardo.

It’s dreamy to imagine one of the world’s major museums trying to acquire the painting.  However, it is unlikely that any such institution will be able to come up with a $2.6 billion check.  The third-ranked museum in the world, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, is America’s richest cultural institution with $2.7 – $3 billion annual endowment.  However, the $300 million operating budget and constant structural updates apparently eat away the majority of the funds – during the fiscal year of 2012 the Met spent only $39 million on new acquisitions.  Of course, there is an aggressive deaccessioning, which allows the museum to sell off “minor” pieces in pursuit of the “major works,”  but even with an average of $1 million per item, the institution will need to liquidate 2600 (!) works to collect the required amount.  Highly doubtful!

So, if the transaction does materialize, it most likely will be funded by private wealth.  You can pack a large ballroom with people from different corners of the world whose wealth amounts to multiples of the asking price.  For the sake of my personal amusement we can entertain another beautiful fantasy:  How grand would it be if one of our openly super-rich individuals with strong philanthropic inclinations shelled out a chunk of his wealth for La Gioconda and then gave it away to the Met, so that the grateful general public could continue enjoying it (only now in my own backyard)!     

It would take only 4.4% of Warren Buffett’s worth or 3.2% of Bill Gates’s.   But both of them are too preoccupied with keeping the world healthy and the US technologically comfortable (don’t ask me why) to bother with art gifts like that.  And by the way, the Codex Leicester, the most famous of Da Vinci’s scientific journals, which Gates bought in 1994 for $31 million, is kept in the MS mogul’s own private vault.  It is considered a great generosity that the Codex is let for display once a year in different cities around the world.  Yes, it is hard to imagine that anyone would give away the Mona Lisa as a gift to an institution or a nation.

The way I see it, the buyer will probably be someone whose immeasurable wealth you can’t find on some Forbes list, because it is not valued in the ephemeral public-stock prices.  This multi-billionaire is someone who keeps a low profile and his name would mean nothing to the majority of the world even if he walked into the Louvre in person.  But such an individual will transact through multiple proxies, and when all is done the Mona Lisa will disappear from the public eye into a secret stronghold.  We will be left with reproductions and copies, while a handful of people will enjoy the privilege of up-close peering into the delicate strokes of oil paints applied by the genius’s hand to a piece of poplar wood. 

Some Economists Say That a Robot Can Replace My Paige. For Real?



RobotThere 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?  

  

Quote of the Week: More on Declining Quality of… Everything


1000835_4786_A_400A conversation between two young women overheard by The Frustrated CFO:

Young Woman #1: "Oh, those wreaths are beautiful!  Have you had them for a long time?"

Young Woman #2: "When I was growing up we went to the Renaissance Faire several times.  Every time we went, I bought one."

Young Woman #1: "Well, how do you know, which one is from which Faire?"

Young Woman #2: "By the quality.  The older the wreath, the better it's made."


Ten Reasons Why “CFO Techniques” Is a Must-Read for Entrepreneurs


GI_98327_CFO TechniquesReason #1.

You are a part of a proud cohort of just a few millions of people who summoned their courage and said, "I will not work for the Man anymore! I will be my own boss!"

While your company is growing, it will need to keep its overhead lean. Meanwhile, you can use "CFO Techniques" as a surrogate for a seasoned executive that will provide you with clear guidelines for financial and administrative management.

Reason #2.

Don't let the title fool you. "CFO Techniques" is not a bean-counting manual. It's written with a view to achieving commercial success and places business considerations ahead of everything else.

ImagesReason #3.

It will arm you with a flexible framework for structuring your business in a logical and sensible way.

Figure 5-1
Reason #4.

"CFO Techniques" is not an academic textbook either. It manages to shed new light on various aspects of finance and business in a fun and easy language. The book is organized into a bite-sized chapters sprinkled with familiar cultural references and illustrations from the author's professional life.

10 reasons ent collage

Reason #5.

Yet, it's packed with practical advice,

Adviceinstructive suggestions, step-by-step guidelines,

Step-by=stepchecklists,

Checklist
and visual examples.

Figure 22-2

Reason #6.

"CFO Techniques" will provide you with a comprehensive breakdown on acquisition of capital resources necessary to sustain and grow your business.

Reason #7.

An entire section of the book is devoted to assessment, reduction, and transfer of the internal and external risks your company may encounter in a normal course of business and in extraordinary circumstances.

Reason #8.

"CFO Techniques" will show you that one of the most critical determinants of whether your company will fail or prosper is the active attention to its performance. The book rejects the rigidity of the uniform approach to business intelligence and underscores the importance of selecting specific indicators that will have the most significant impact on your decision-making process.

KPIs

Reason #9.

Anticipating your furture needs, the book describes the fundamental steps of strategic planning and basic techniques for explorting opportunities as well as diminishing external threats.

Strategy

Reason #10.

And when you are looking to hire a CFO, a valuable member of your executive team, the book may serve you as a benchmark in evaluating the candidates' breadth of expertise and depth of knowledge.

Self-Deprecating Ageism, or Impressions From Tool Concert


IMG_2543When iconic bands like Tool go on tours the good tickets land onto scalping sites almost instantaneously. Well, a middle-aged CFO with uber-eclectic cultural tastes is used to it: the same is true for Radiohead, Kanye West, The Cure, Wilco, Florence and the Machine, etc., and The Met charges scalping prices in its own box office. The biggest concern is handling the crowd: you want to be on the floor, but you are too old to fight off the crashing violent tendencies and the crowd-surfing of the young fans. It's fine to be in the front row of the GA pit at the Radiohead concert as there is no pushing and shoving, but the Tool audience may get carried away in the pit.

So, when fate brings an assigned-seat concert (the audience rocks standing close to their ticketed seats) and as near as East Rutherford, NJ (Tool have not given a full performance in NYC since 2006), you thank the blessed benefactor for the floor tickets and go. After all, who knows if you can summon the courage for the next time.

I guess, the front-man, Mr. Maynard James Keenan, who is mere 3 years younger than me, for a hot second felt middle-aged as well. The sentiment was rather of the nostalgic than the physical nature: he looked as robust as ever and his voice did not loose an iota of its incredible beauty and strength. But this is what happens: you get to a place and a memory of seeing Van Halen there 25 years ago hits you – fuck, I've been alive for quite some time already.

So, Maynard addressed the audience as if it consisted 100% of younglings born before his experience of the band with the most #1 hits on the Billboard Mainstream Rock chart. This was absolutely unjustified – to my quick eye the distribution of attendees was pretty much even over a broad spectrum of age groups, from 19 to mid-50's, with slightly higher density of late 20s to early 30s. But as I said, he felt like it, so he promised us that the band will "try" to perform some tracks that they have not touched for some time… as long as they "don't forget" what they are supposed to do, because they "are old". "So," he said, "if you see us wondering away in search of mashed potatoes…"

This made me laugh. Not because it was funny (Maynard is capable of better jokes), but because it reminded of me of myself always telling younger people how "the most brilliant I've ever been was at the age of 25-27, when I was writing my dissertation," and how "I used to have a near-photographic memory, but it's not the same anymore," and how "when you get older, the expertise replaces originality," and so on and so forth.

Pretty much the same coquettish crap that Maynard was trying to feed us right before him and his band-mates pulled off a set to die for, a performance one can never forget (there was a woman next to us who said that she saw Tool eighteen times and this was THE BEST CONCERT EVER!). Indeed, they were rocking like fucking hell, testing the reality and the nature of humanity with their existential lyrics and mind-blowing visuals. Their force transcended all ages; the generations converged and disappeared, chanting in unison the haunting lyrics of "Forty-six & 2" and "Aenema."

You know what? We, boys and girls born in the 60s, the so-called Generation X – the first generation conceived with The Beatles and The Stones playing in the background, potty-trained with the Pink Floyd's accompaniment and hit over the head by puberty while Led Zeppelin was hitting the Big Time, we should really stop this self-deprecating bullshit.

Nobody bought Maynard's "old-age" tirade, just like nobody buys my "I am not the same" crap. I just wrote a book full of novel ideas, I still enter companies and within a few weeks uncover their weaknesses, embarking on solving their problems and quickly coming up with solutions.

Is anybody going to think of Quentin Tarantino (1963) or Richard Linklater (1960) as "middle-aged" directors? How about Eddie Vedder (1964) or Thom Yorke (1968), would we qualify them as "middle-aged" rockers? If the beloved Kurt Cobain (1967) did not act on his disdain for human existence and kill himself at the age of 27, would we think of him as "old" now? C'mon, his fucking widow (1964) still acts like a juvenile delinquent. I can go on and on.

For better or worth, we are made differently. We count our years and we think, "Oh, I should be changing," but we are not getting "old" and we don't want to. And I don't think we will. 25 years from now, if the world is still in one piece, I intend to be at a Tool concert and expect Maynard to rock his hardest ever.

IMG_2566