I still have not tried Domino’s new pizza, but I like the short company documentary about the project: “The Pizza Turnaround.” You may watch it below:
It is easy to forget that there are many real people behind every product sold, every ware peddled. Mass production obfuscates the human side of industry. Of course, the public relations team at Domino’s wants to humanize the company to the veiwers of the video for business purposes, but it is nonetheless true that workers—even the human cogs of the modern industrial machine—tend to see their products as something intimately connected with themselves. My uncle who worked at General Motors on the line felt that he was a part of the automobiles of G.M. His job was not simply a wage to him; it was an identity. Perhaps, many factory workers do not take pride in their work and only put in their time to earn a wage, but the view that wage earning is the height of noble work available in mass production is an upper class conceit. Such an opinion does not come from the workers, themselves. Men crave meaning, and the lower classes seek relevance in their action as much as upper class, educated men.
This spring, I had a conversation with a wealthy young man who thought that the lives of the masses were worthless and that it was the purpose of the state to bring dignity to the proletariat through educational and artistic programs. Do all socialists believe such—that life is not worth living unless one attends an Ivy League university and has season tickets to the symphony? Socrates may have been correct to state that the unexamined life is not worth living—for himself and for the philosophically oriented—but I find it ridiculous to reduce the lives of all men lesser than Socrates to dust. Even the peasant in the fields may find joy and fulfillment in life. There is no shortage of opportunities to experience the splendor of God, even in the meanest of circumstances. Moral evil and destitution that endangers survival take their toll on the soul of man, but the dearth of riches robs no one of contentment. A beautiful soul may even live a good life making pizza.
A BIG but digestible mistake by a financial institution with abundant profits and capital should normally be viewed as the market equivalent of an electric shock, a jolt that leads to smarter behaviour. The response to JPMorgan Chase’s $2 billion (and rising) loss on a position taken by its chief investment office could not have been more highly charged.The loss has reinforced the political appeal of bashing banks, no matter what the facts. Barack Obama went on a TV chat show on May 14th and responded to questions about the loss by implying it would have been blocked under the Volcker rule banning proprietary trading. Given the proposed wording of the rule and the apparent nature of the trade, which seems to have started out as an attempt to hedge risk, that assertion is at best a stretch.Elizabeth Warren, a senatorial candidate in Massachusetts, also jumped on the bandwagon. “Wall Street isn’t going to change its ways until Washington gets serious about strong oversight and real accountability,” ran a campaign ad. Yet JPM is already among the most heavily regulated institutions in America, if not the world. Supervisors have employees climbing all over the bank; they routinely review its credit and business practices. Perhaps to pre-empt criticisms of inept oversight, a string of regulators has nonetheless announced investigations into the trade.Competing financial firms...
A RARE slip-up by lawyers has helped shed some light on a high-profile legal battle, the details of which some of the largest Wall Street firms have been fighting to keep under wraps. The case concerns allegations of illegal “naked” short selling, where the rules have been tightened several times over the past seven years.In 2007 Overstock sued 11 brokers, alleging that they had caused its share price to fall by helping their clients to naked-short the Utah-based retailer. In a normal short sale, shares are borrowed (or at least “located”) with a broker’s help before being sold. In the naked version, there is no attempt to borrow or locate the stock. This can create “fails to deliver”, where the trade is not settled when it should be, and messes with the laws of supply and demand, allowing shorting to take place beyond the natural limits set by the number of borrowable shares.As the pre-trial discovery period proceeded, Overstock narrowed its focus to two firms, Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch, now part of Bank of America. Before the case was set to go to trial in California, however, the judge dismissed it on jurisdictional grounds, ruling that not enough of the alleged wrongdoing had taken place in the state. Overstock appealed and pushed for all of the evidence to be unsealed. The defendants objected. Four media groups, including The Economist,...
IN 1900 America had around 500 carmakers; by 1908 it had 200. In 1960 Britain had 16 banks; ten years later it had just six. In both cases, this rapid consolidation came about because of a flurry of mergers. From soft drinks to steelworks, plenty of other industries have seen similar patterns. Mergers happen in waves, so the number of firms collapses suddenly rather than dwindling over time. And the next one may soon crest.