Joan Vennochi Needs Slaves

Boston Globe: Gillette deal a distortion of 'success'

IT OUGHT to be a crime -- the people v. Procter & Gamble; the people v. Gillette.

Procter & Gamble, which is headquartered in Cincinnati, reached an agreement to acquire the Boston-based Gillette Company in a stock transaction valued at about $56 billion.

Ms. Vennochi thinks two companies she does not own ought to do what she wants them to do. If they don't, the people who actually run those companies should be thrown in jail.

Yes, she needs slaves.

After spending a moment to remind the reader of the large compensation packages the executives of the two companies are likely to receive, she goes on:

Even more outrageous than such eye-popping payouts is the overall resignation which greets deals like this. That's capitalism, everyone shrugs. Suggest that this is capitalism perverted and you are labeled a socialist -- a bigger sin than overt, conscienceless greed, which chief executives like Kilts get to define as "success."

How would this be "perverted capitalism"? The essence of capitalism is self-interested profit-taking behavior in a system of tradable private property. The merger of Procter & Gamble and Gillette is just the latest example of such a trade, albeit one far more complicated and valuable than me giving a convenience store clerk $25 for a tank of diesel.

And, well, shit: If you don't think people should engage in free trade, then you are a socialist. Perhaps not of the Marxist/Leninist variety and perhaps collectivist might be a better term, but certainly a beast of an all-too-common pedigree.

The companies are already mapping out their plan to "integrate," which really means consolidate and shrink the workforce, the definition of "success."

I disagree about the "definition of success" as it is too personal and subjective a matter to just assume. However, it certainly is a good thing a person has as little a right to a job than I have a right to Ms. Vennochi's car. Otherwise, these mergers might pose a problem.

This deal is not a success for Massachusetts, which is losing another major employer to an out-of-state corporation.

If you want more employers - major or minor - to conduct business in Massachusetts, how about removing the obstacles to free trade and property rights that stand in the way of their desire to do business there? How about not frightening them with talk of throwing them in jail for not following your orders?

It is not a success for employees, generally; 6,000 workers, or 4 percent of the workforce, will lose their jobs as a result of this deal. Arguably, in the long run, the deal isn't a success for the free market either, just for the inner circle that runs corporate America and willingly sells out every asset they control for their own financial gain.

"The only way to preserve a free market is to have a regulated free market," says Massachusetts Secretary of State William F. Galvin. Unfettered, he says, "the free market will ultimately devour itself. The question becomes, 'how fast can we sell out everything?' "

"We had to destroy the village in order to save it."
"We must inflict harm on someone if there is the chance that person might be able to prevent harm to others."

We ought to aggress against you in order to stop aggression.

Anyone else see the vacuous stupidity in that man's words?

Everyone is talking about Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the need to protect his Social Security legacy, says Galvin; what about the antitrust legacy of Theodore Roosevelt, who waged war against the corporate barons of the early 20th century?

Roosevelt promoted continuous regulation of giant corporations and, as president, he pushed such legislation through Congress. He wanted to balance the interests of workers and business people. When did Teddy Roosevelt-type balance become unAmerican? If Procter & Gamble and Gillette need to join forces to stand up to Wal-Mart pricecutting, isn't that proof it is time to rein in Wal-Mart?

Tyranny has always been un-American. The extent to which that has been respected has varied over the years. This columnist wants to increase it.

Today, regulators close their eyes to that reality, preferring to convince themselves that the combinations of big companies benefit consumers and shareholders and that is all that matters. Antitrust review currently boils down to a preordained economic analysis. Basically, all merger partners have to demonstrate now is that their marriage will reduce costs and produce efficiencies. That argument always wins and it is why everyone shrugs about the inevitable.

That's because the reality trumps the delusion.

Yet if no one puts on the brakes, you don't have to be a business school graduate to see how this ends up. When corporate America is done devouring itself, it will be forced to look beyond American borders for merger partners. Then, the job loss and loss of decision-making clout will shift not only out of one state, but out of the United States.

Clearly, not even business school graduates can beat Ms. Vennochi's economic ignorance.

It's time to start redefining "success" as it applies to a business deal. It's time to look beyond the shareholders and the executives who reward themselves to a larger universe of stakeholders -- all the people affected in some way by a company's actions. That universe includes vendors, employees and their families, and the community at large. There is a middle ground between extreme socialism and extreme capitalism, and it is not that difficult to find.

Well, fuck. If that is to be the standard, you've crossed the line from simplistic collectivist loon to dangerous socialist moron. Does she even consider the vast difficulty and incalculable costs of such a standard? Does she even care what it would do to our standard of living, a standard far more important than the one she dreams up?

Besides, we've been mired in the muck of the middle-ground for quite some time. I say we leave the mud for the bureaucrats to play in.

Suppose the Procter & Gamble acquisition of Gillette was described like this to an average holder of Gillette stock: as a result of this merger, your 401(k) will increase in value by $300; but your cousin will lose his job.

Think of it like that and it is a crime.

© Copyright 2005 Globe Newspaper Company.

Another "full employment" jackass who thinks everyone has a right to their job, meaning employers should be held hostage to the desires of the state.

Oh yes, Joan Vennochi needs slaves.

Posted by Drizzten at February 01, 2005 10:35 AM