ON DEMAND STARTUPS THAT COME AND GO AND HAVE NO LASTING STRUCTURE.
This was Obama's and Clinton neo-liberals' goals these several years as they used URBAN LEAGUE, GREATER BALTIMORE, and Wall Street Baltimore Development to break down all public and corporate structures in US cities deemed International Economic Zones. What were healthy US corporations have been gutted of value and assets and now we have a global hedge fund investment structure owning all global corporations. This is the global 1% and their 2% controlling corporations through these global hedge fund financial groups and Baltimore is being filled with these structures.
What Might Replace the Modern Corporation?
Uberization and the We
b Page Enterprise
Gerald F. Davis
The number of public corporations in the United States has been in decline for almost twenty years. Alternative forms of organization, from LLCs and benefit corporations to Linux and Wikipedia, provide robust competition to traditional corporations, while short-lived, project-based enterprises that assemble supply chains from available parts are increasingly cost effective. Yet our understanding of corporate governance has not kept pace with the new organization of the economy and we continue to treat the public corporation with dispersed ownership as the default form of doing business. Meanwhile, many of the corporations going public in recent years have abandoned traditional standards of corporate
governance and give their founders extraordinary voting shares that effectively guarantee their control in perpetuity.
The public corporation Seattle University Law Review
seems to be an increasingly anachronistic form of enterprise in the United States.
Nikefication turned the corporation into a nexus-of-contracts, organizationally separating design from production and distribution.
Entrepreneurs grew skilled at assembling contractors into a virtual enterprise. More recently we have seen Uberization, which allows on-demand labor to be contracted by the task via online platforms. Uberization threatens to turn jobs into tasks,
to the detriment of labor. Every input into the enterprise become
s possible to rent rather than to buy, and employee-free organizations are increasingly feasible. Enterprises increasingly resemble a web page, a set of calls on resources that are assembled on demand to create a coherent performance.
In Part I of this Article, I first summarize evidence on the declining number of public corporations in the United States and suggest that it is not regulations that are responsible
but the changing nature of production. I also summarize some of the atavistic governance practices of recent IPOs and predict that they will not survive long. In Part II, I describe
how Jensen and Meckling’s contentious 1976 article came to prominence and ultimately provided a rationale for Nikefication. In Part III, I describe how Uberization—making labor inputs available on demand—removes one of the last remaining rationales for the corporation, and indicates that it may usher in a new dark era for labor
The global 1% and their 2% will still have those global corporations they simply will no longer be IPOs---they will be global corporate boards with private shareholders while the rest of the global economy will be those startups that come and go with fads. The global 1% having decided there will be no more developed nation middle-class and people owning small and regional businesses----since the ONE WORLD WAGES ARE $3-6 A DAY FOR GLOBAL FACTORY AND $20-30 A DAY FOR SWEAT SHOP WHITE COLLAR PROFESSIONALS----no one will be consuming much. We will be lucky to wear global corporate uniforms. This will kill the kind of manufacturing geared to selling to mass numbers of consumers so now they are building DESIGNER MANUFACTURING. These are global factories that market to the global 1% and their 2% providing products that will cost plenty because the number of consumers buying these products will be that small percent. The UBER RICH and the FILTHY RICH won't mind. WE THE PEOPLE will not be consumers ---we will live, eat, work, and be schooled on global corporate campuses and global factories wearing no doubt their brand clothing working 15-18 hours a day we will not need to buy products.
One example is global patents for what is becoming that designer manufacturing-----global health tourism with its expensive designer medical procedures---medical devices----PHARMA. Trans Pacific Trade Pact is written to protect those global patents and these consolidated, profit-drive state health systems are already tied to global corporations tied to global hedge funds.
THE POINT IS THIS: THEY ARE KILLING WHAT WE KNOW AS IPO CORPORATIONS---PUBLIC STOCK MARKET SHAREHOLDERS SO ALL OF THE STOCK WE OWN AS 401Ks etc will soon be worthless. The bond market is being pushed to collapse so those investments will be gone as well. It is all deliberate---Congress, state assemblies, and city halls passed the laws these several years just to do this. This was what all the deregulation, the stagnant economies in our US cities filled with corporate NGOs instead of real small businesses had as a goal.
AND YES, THOSE WALL STREET BALTIMORE DEVELOPMENT 'LABOR AND JUSTICE' ORGANIZATION LEADERS KNEW THIS.
'ACKNOWLEDGEMENTFDA wishes to acknowledge the contributions of the Global Harmonization Task Force (GHTF) Study Group 3 to the development of this guidance. As has been stated in the past, FDA is firmly committed to the international harmonization of standards and regulations governing medical devices. The GHTF was formed in 1992 to further this effort. The GHTF includes representatives of the Canadian Ministry of Health and Welfare; the Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare; FDA; industry members from the European Union, Australia, Canada, Japan, and the United States; and a few delegates from observing countries'.
The 1% hated Ford Motor Company for creating mass manufacturing and the middle-class needed to buy all those cars. So the 1% are now going to building cars specially designed to a rich buyer-----charging huge prices -----taking WE THE PEOPLE out of the consumption loop.....AND STOCK HOLDER LOOP.
Is mass manufacturing coming to an end?
Peter Acton Writer
Friday 12 December 2014
After two or three centuries during which manufacturing consolidated into larger and larger enterprises, technology is restoring opportunities for the lone craftsman making things at home, with extraordinary consequences for careers and lifestyles. The powerful trends towards making things oneself and to choosing freelance careers over full-time employment recreate some of the economic and social dynamics of Athens between 500 and 300 BC, and pose important challenges to businesses and to society.
ONE WORLD ONE GLOBAL CORPORATE RULE IS NOT GOING TO CLASSICAL GREECE NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES THEY TRY TO SELL THIS. THEY ARE TAKING THE US TO MAOIST CHINA----JOHNS HOPKINS IS TURNING OUR MARYLAND INSTITUTE COLLEGE FOR ARTS INTO A TRADE APPRENTICESHIP WORKSHOP STRUCTURE.
If we understand the forces behind the changes in industry structure since those times, we will have a better sense of how and why those dynamics are reversing and what that might mean for our daily lives.
To build a large business, you have to win more volume than others in a competitive marketplace; this means having an advantage your competitors cannot match. For a competitive advantage to be of value, it must be manifested in one of the elements of return on capital: revenues, costs, or capital employed. In classical Athens, with no industrial machinery and much of the work done by slaves whose maintenance costs were identical and whose capital cost reflected their skills, it was not possible to get an advantage in costs or in capital utilization. To compete successfully, you had to differentiate your product to make it worth more than your competitors’.
A talented jewelry maker could differentiate his work, but would struggle to expand if customers associated the work with him as an individual. To form a large enterprise, it was necessary to have a product whose quality mattered but had to be made by a team of people. Shields are a fine example; their quality mattered very much to purchasers and each required a team of eight to manufacture. Athens’ largest manufacturing operation was a shield factory said to employ 120 slaves.
For a huge range of other products, which made up most of consumption, like everyday clothes, basic ceramics, simple metalwork, and carpentry, there was no basis for differentiation. Almost all Athenian citizen households would have made their own clothes. Some might make a surplus to sell, others would have to buy some clothing. Many households would have made simple wooden, ceramic or metal objects for their own use and sometimes to exchange with neighbours or sell in the marketplace.
The nature of a society in which most households participate, at least occasionally, in making goods is radically different from the world we are used to. For Athenian citizens, the flexibility offered by casual manufacturing formed a vital income-earning component in a portfolio of activity. Probably because it was a slave society, citizens generally avoided working for others. If hard-pressed you might agree to help a neighbor on his farm and be paid for it, usually in kind, but you wouldn’t sign up for long. Some civic duties were paid, including military service, attending the assembly, and being selected as a juror — but except in times of war, these payments would not support a family year round. Most citizens had a small farm, which provided some but generally not all of their food.
By reducing their expenditure and bringing in some income through making simple household products, Athenian citizens managed to enjoy a rich and varied life. They had time to go to the theater and games and some evidently had time to philosophize. Not having permanent commitments to an employer, they could respond instantly to a military call-up and were able to vote in the assembly and act as jurors when required. Some might choose to work very hard to improve their income but few saw that as a major objective. This varied freelance lifestyle underpinned the practice of democracy and Athens’ wonderful achievements in architecture, drama, art, and philosophy.
The Industrial Revolution changed the economics of manufacturing by creating new forms of advantage based upon operating costs and capital investment. Starting in the 18th century, the lower costs offered by mechanization, mass production, and shared information drove production into fewer and larger units and the amateur craftsman in the family workshop was squeezed almost out of existence. From a social point of view, manufacturing had ceased to be an opportunity for modestly skilled craftsmen to supplement their living, mixing it with a range of other useful or interesting activities. By the 20th century, pretty much the only way to earn money manufacturing things was in full-time employment, and those involved had little time for anything else.
Now, though, the Information Revolution is reversing the consolidating effect of the Industrial Revolution. The internet eliminates many of the information advantages of colocation and cost sharing. There is less need for in-house knowledge or apprenticeships: online courses range from a few hours to many months in any handicraft you can name. Plenty of sites will help you keep up with fashions or innovations in your chosen craft. Raw materials, even specialized ones, can be sourced on the internet, and to any required degree of pre-processing. Makers’ Row, Etsy, Alibaba, and similar ventures enable makers to find customers without heavy advertising or distribution expenditure. Crowdfunding sites like Indiegogo and Kickstarter can help with finance. And the physical process itself is being simplified and transformed through programmable micro controllers, desktop CNC milling and routing, and 3D printing. It is now much easier and cheaper than ever to make high quality products to your own designs.
The implications for the individual, for society and for manufacturing companies are significant. For the individual, the restoration of competitive equality between the home craftsman and the large factory creates real opportunities for the freelance lifestyle our young people aspire to. As Forbes reported last year, 60% of millennials in the USA stay less than three years in a job and 45% would prefer more flexibility to more pay. In a recent survey, 87% of UK graduates with first or second class degrees saw freelancing as highly attractive and 85% believe freelancing will become the norm. Many are attracted to the idea of making things for themselves; hence the revival in craft markets and fairs. Make magazine has a paid circulation of over 100,000 and growing fast, and 195,000 people attended “Maker Faires” in California and New York in 2013.
For a long time now, most people in the developed world have been spending the prime of their life pursuing a specific full-time career. Now many of them plan to divide their time between various forms of income and leisure activities, as the mood and financial necessity take them. Can we use the opportunities this freedom brings to create a great society in the way the Athenians did, or will there be a lot of idle hands the devil can make work for? And what are the implications for health care, unemployment benefits, food stamps, pension plans, mortgages, military service…?
Some manufacturing businesses will face a completely new challenge, one in which the stock weapons of increasing efficiency and reducing costs will be of little use. Few makers will cost their time in a very businesslike way, given the psychic rewards they find in exercising their craft. Now that the other components of cost are available at rates not much different from those achieved by large enterprises, would-be makers will not be deterred by price cuts from established players. The number of people choosing to make things for themselves may not turn out to be a very large proportion of the population, but it will vary significantly among products and even a small volume reduction in industries with a high level of fixed costs (most manufacturing) can lead to more aggressive competition and serious margin erosion.
Manufacturers should start by assessing the vulnerability of their output to substitution by the home craftsman. Analyzing the nature of the items that were made in large enterprises before the Industrial Revolution will suggest what types of product line are most defensible. Relevant independent variables might include bulk, product complexity, the ability to personalize design or features, and the potential for display. Strategies for the most vulnerable products might need a complete rethink.
This article is published in collaboration with Harvard Business Review. Publication does not imply endorsement of views by the World Economic Forum.
To keep up with Forum:Agenda subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
Author: Peter Acton is the founding President of Humanities 21 and the author of Poiesis: Manufacturing in Classical Athens (Oxford University Press, 2014).
Image: The Skoda Fabia car is seen in a test room exposed to high temperatures simulating the sun shining in the Skoda Auto Technological Center in Mlada Boleslav, December 14, 2010. REUTERS.
After the 2008 Wall Street crash there were all kinds of financial reports that the Wall Street Exchange corporations were simply going to be sold. The 1% kept them going for these final massive Wall Street frauds----bond market fraud and the sending of corporations to bankruptcy.
As Baltimore City Hall sent our police and fire department pensions to 401Ks---and they will no doubt do the same to all public employee pensions after this coming crash saying it is the only affordable option----they do this knowing all 401Ks will be invested in stocks that will fail.
CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA POLS REALLY HAVE IT OUT FOR WE THE PEOPLE!
Wall Street’s stock-selling business is the worst in 20 years
Published: Sept 22, 2016 6:35 a.m. ET
So far this year, banks have taken in just $3.7 billion in fees from U.S.-listed equity deals
A trader on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange in 2015.The battered IPO market and a flood of cheap funding for companies have cut so deeply into the business of selling stocks that some on Wall Street worry the pillar of investment banking may never fully recover.
U.S. equity-capital-markets revenue for banks is lower than it has been in more than 20 years, according to Dealogic.
So far this year, banks have taken in just $3.7 billion in fees from U.S.-listed equity deals, which besides initial public offerings include share sales for companies that are already public and convertible-debt issues, according to Dealogic data this week.
That’s the lowest since 1995, when the business generated $2.6 billion up to this point in the year, or $4.1 billion after adjusting for inflation. At the height in 2000, it was a $9.1 billion business year to date, or $12.7 billion adjusted for inflation.
The prime reason: cheap capital. With interest rates plumbing historic lows, companies, which are increasingly shunning public equity, have an abundance of low-cost funding options. When they do tap it, they are finding ever cheaper ways to do so.
So, rather than get public capital through IPO listings and making citizens corporate partners---they are simply feeding all Federal, state, and local tax revenue in corporate subsidy.....from partner to serf.
Below we see to where all the Federal, state, and local tax revenue went CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA. In US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones all of what would have been local economic development----small and regional businesses and communities kept healthy---were misappropriated to building these global corporate campuses like GLOBAL JOHNS HOPKINS. So, instead of fulfilling LEGAL contractual obligations to fund our public and corporate pension funds----they used all that revenue to expand globally while telling workers they were building a retirement fund.
This is why it is so important to hold power accountable because US cities have a wealth of revenue tied to these global corporations.
THEIR MONEY IS WE THE PEOPLE'S MONEY.
I keep speaking about the development in Baltimore using terms like GLOBAL INVESTORS are tied to this----global investors are tied to that----global investors were given our Port of Baltimore----etc. While they PRETEND these are not corporations they are ----and as we see below Johns Hopkins is now merely a global investment firm----High Star investment as its endowment is one of several global hedge fund investment corporations. This is what makes Hopkins BLOOMBERG INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ZONE 2 NORTH AMERICA----it is not a local university---it is a global corporation owned by hedge funds and it is indeed taking all of Baltimore's real estate, becoming all of our economy, and runs Baltimore like a CORPORATE PLANTATION.
Hopkins is no longer only health care it is a massive global investment firm that creates venture capitalist investment startups across all industries.
WE THE PEOPLE must stop being afraid or think things are hopeless---all of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA was illegal and unconstitutional and we simply need to reinstate US Rule of Law and national, state, and local sovereignty to claw back all this looted citizen and government wealth.
Johns Hopkins Medicine International
Johns Hopkins Medicine International Leadership
To learn more about the leaders who direct Johns Hopkins Medicine International, please see below.
JHI Executive Leadership Team
Pamela D. Paulk M.B.A. President
Mohan Chellappa, M.D. Executive Vice President and President, Global Ventures
Dinesh Ganesan, M.B.A, M.A., A.C.A, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
John Ulatowski, M.D., Ph.D., M.B.A. Vice President and Executive Medical Director
Katherine DeRuggiero, D.N.P., Vice President, Patient Services
Karen Haller, Ph.D., Vice President, Nursing and Clinical Affairs
Charles Wiener, M.D., Medical Director, Academic Affairs
Samuel H. Clark, Jr., J.D. Senior Counsel
Renata J. Matsson, PhD, J.D. Chief Compliance Officer
JHI Leadership TeamSoraia Angiuoli, M.H.A., Director, National Capital Region
Hortenzia Beciu, M.D., M.P.H. Director, Global Services
Julia Beresford, D.H.A., Director, International Programs, Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital
Rhonice Burnett, M.A., M.B.A. Director
Karen Frankson, M.A. Director, Johns Hopkins USA
Heitham Hassoun, M.D., F.A.C.S Medical Director, Global Services
Christina Hawk, M.A. Director, Global Services
Rachel L. Hoover, M.Sc., M.B.A., Director, Global Services
Hamed Ibrahim M.H.A. Managing Director
Susan Kulik, D.N.P., M.B.A., Director of Accreditation and Regulatory Affairs
Jason Miller, M.S.H.I. Director of Business and Clinical Data Analytics
Laurent Moreau, M.D., M.B.A. Managing Director
Lawrence W. Patrick, M.H.A. Chief Executive Officer, Johns Hopkins Singapore
Irma Purisch, M.B.A. Managing Director
Ramish Rambissoon, M.B.A. Director, Global Services
Nicole Rosson, M.H.A. Director, Global Services
Lindsay Roylance Rothstein, M.A. Director, Marketing and Communications
Patty Satjapot, M.S. Assistant Director, Business and Project Management
S. Dominic Seraphin, M.H.S.A. Managing Director, Global Services and Administrator, International Clinic & Medical Services
Christine Shipley, M.B.A. Senior Director of Human Resources
Eli (Tony) A. Timoll, M.D. Patient Ombudsman and Clinical Medical Director
Carlos Tobar M.B.A. Director, Global Services
Fedor Vidal, M.B.A. Director of Information Technology
Sanford Wu, M.I.A. Managing Director
JHI Board MembersJanie Elizabeth (Liza) Bailey
S. Andrew Banks
David H. Bernstein
Samuel H. Clark, Jr., J.D. (Secretary)
Patricia M. Davidson
Jack Dunn, IV
Daniel G. Ennis M.B.A.
R. Christian Banghart Evensen
David C Hodgson
Christopher W. Kersey M.D., M.B.A. (Chairman)
Michael J. Klag M.D., M.P.H. (ex officio)
Robert C. Lieberman, Ph.D.
Morris W. Offit M.B.A., L.H.D.
Pamela D. Paulk M.B.A. (ex officio)
Ronald R. Peterson M.H.A. (ex officio)
Paul B. Rothman M.D. (Vice Chairman)
Charles P. Scheeler
Alfred Sommer M.D., M.H.S.
James L. Winter M.B.A.
Traveling for care?
Learn about our medical concierge services
Request an Appointment
While Republicans and far-right Clinton/Obama neo-liberals are pushing everything to 401Ks even what is our public Social Security Trust---they keep blaming the structures of retirements rather than the failure of elected pols to protect and serve WE THE PEOPLE. It was our failure to educate and be citizens knowing bad candidates from good---and being that good candidate when all are bad---as TODAY. We must return to public banking---NO, NOT MAKING OUR POST OFFICES BANKS----where we place our money in savings with an interest rate to allow it to gradually grow. It was simple and basic before the deregulation and breaking of GLASS STEAGALL--opened our banking to the hands of Wall Street investors. EASY PEASY----DON'T ALLOW THE RIGHT-WING TELL SOCIAL DEMOCRATS OUR POLICIES WERE BAD----we know all this mess was created by REAGAN neo-liberals and Republicans working for extreme wealth and extreme power.
'The 401(k) revolution changed this. Low-income Americans are more likely to have jobs that don’t offer 401(k) plans. And as financial risks are shifted to individual employees, the poor are increasingly unable to afford to put portions of their paychecks into their own retirement funds. Relatively complex 401(k) plans are also more difficult to understand when compared to having a pension benefit manager handle the details'.
Republicans and CLINTON/OBAMA neo-liberals are now trying to sell the notion to poor citizens that they missed out on 401K wealth----dragging the poor citizens wages into a criminal Wall Street.....PREDATORS OF THE POOR---CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA
While the corporate labor unions were largely men during industrial days the government unions were mostly women and black citizens ---and both pension systems are targeted for implosion---
The Retirement Revolution That Failed: Why the 401(k) Isn’t Working
March 4, 2016
Across the political spectrum, people warn of a coming time bomb in our retirement system. Many analysts believe the growing population of retirees will overwhelm the Social Security program, and that something must be done to shore up its finances.
However, there’s another slow-moving time bomb out there, and that’s the gradual retirement of workers in an era where 401(k)-style defined-contribution plans have become dominant, replacing defined-benefit pensions. A new study of the state of U.S. retirement shows that this change leaves Americans woefully unprepared for their non-working years, with resources too meager to uphold their standard of living.
Economist Monique Morrissey of the Economic Policy Institute makes this case with 32 charts that present a sobering picture for our nation’s retirees. She first analyzed data from the Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances for all families with heads of household between the ages of 32 and 61, covering the thirty years before Social Security’s early retirement kicks in at age 62. And she found major disparities caused by the shift from pensions to 401(k) plans.
Retirement savings have mostly stagnated since the turn of the century for large cohorts of Americans. On average, families had $95,776 saved in 401(k) or IRA plans in 2013 (the last year studied), compared to $91,243 in 2001. This is not nearly enough to make up for the disappearance of defined-benefit pensions. More important, the averages, which include people who have saved millions, don’t show the whole picture.
Nearly half of all working-age families have no money in retirement accounts at all. The median family has $5,000 saved. Even for people between the ages of 56 and 61, the median retirement account savings is a paltry $17,000. While the top 10 percent have at least $274,000 saved, the bottom 50 percent have next to nothing. “We are moving toward a retirement system that magnifies inequality instead of just reflecting it,” Morrissey said on a conference call Thursday.
This was not always the case. Pensions used to be far more egalitarian, held by people of modest incomes as much as the wealthy. Pensions were even held relatively equally by white and black populations. (Hispanics, Morrissey points out, always lagged behind.)
The 401(k) revolution changed this. Low-income Americans are more likely to have jobs that don’t offer 401(k) plans. And as financial risks are shifted to individual employees, the poor are increasingly unable to afford to put portions of their paychecks into their own retirement funds. Relatively complex 401(k) plans are also more difficult to understand when compared to having a pension benefit manager handle the details.
As a result, higher-income families are ten times as likely to hold a retirement account as lower-income families. Most African-Americans and Hispanics have no retirement savings, and the ones that do have smaller balances. Families without college education mostly don’t have retirement accounts, and 82 percent of those lacking a high school diploma don’t. Single Americans are also less likely to have retirement accounts.
Looking at retirees through U.S. Census data, Morrissey found that pension plans remain a far more important source of income than retirement accounts, twenty-five years after 401(k) plans became more popular. Interestingly, African-American and female retirees especially benefit from pensions, likely because they hold a disproportionate share of public-sector jobs, among the few that still offer defined benefits.
This switch to 401(k) plans began at the same time that Social Security benefit cuts kicked in with 1983 legislation raising the retirement age. Also in this period, wages started to lag behind productivity, with the labor share of income falling.
“The timing couldn’t have been worse for switching to a 401(k) system,” Morrissey said. But they are so lucrative to Wall Street fund managers, with much higher fees than pensions, that reverting back to pensions wholesale is an unlikely scenario.
In effect, we have kicked two of the legs out of the three-legged retirement stool. Individual savings have stagnated along with wages, as more and more of workers’ paychecks cover little more than everyday needs. The pension has been substituted with a stock plan that was never intended to serve as an adequate replacement. The new 401(k)’s “were initially viewed as a supplement to traditional pensions,” Morrissey said. “It’s not surprising that they haven’t worked out, because they weren’t intended to serve that purpose.”