..a question for you…are taxes a moral thing? what’s the meaning of “fair share” in the paragraph?
I’d say that either you comply with tax law or not…that makes the issue legal or not…but moral? I wouldn’t say so!…just MHO
Amazon, Google and Starbucks Attacked over U.K. Tax Avoidance
The public accounts committee of the House of Commons, the parliamentary spending watchdog, has released a report where it condemns Amazon, Google and Starbucks of “immoral” use of offshore schemes, royalties and complex structures in order to avoid paying tax on profits generated in the U.K. It also criticises HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) for being “way too lenient” in the way it negotiates with companies that pay little or no corporation tax. The chair of the committee, Margaret Hodge MP, said that “this is outrageous and an insult to British businesses and individuals who pay their fair share”. Additionally, she said HMRC “should be challenging this but its response so far to these big businesses and their aggressive tax planning has lacked determination”. Starbucks has already announced that it is reviewing its tax approach to Britain with a view to paying more tax internally. Danny Alexander, the Treasury chief secretary, said “I might be able to buy a coffee from Starbucks again soon”.
“ You can get help from teachers but you have a lot to learn by yourself sitting alone in a room”
taken from http://thisisnthappiness.com/post/35384755124/you-can-get-help-from-teachers-but-you-have-a-lot
This from the always engaging blog Farnam Street
Farnam Street Two Classes Of Management
A thought provoking article on strategy. I found this bit particularly insightful:
Practitioners of strategy insist on this distinction between strategic management and lower-order operational management. Strategic (i.e. top) management is a complex, reflective, and cerebral activity that involves interpreting multidimensional matrices. Operational management, by contrast, requires merely the mechanical replication of market practices in order to match market returns. It is a form of action, suitable for capable but perhaps less intelligent types.
This picture of CEO-superdeciders helps justify their huge compensation and the congratulatory press coverage, and yet again, it also has little foundation in fact or logic. The strategy business thus lasted so long in part because it supports and advances the pretensions of the C-suite.
Porter’s strategy theory is to CEOs what ancient religions were to tribal chieftains. The ceremonies are ultimately about the divine right of the rulers to rule—a kind of covert form of political theory. Stewart cites Brian Quinn that it is “like a ritual rain dance. It has no effect on the weather that follows, but those who engage in it think that it does.”
The Peter Principle
Laurence J. Peter and James Hull defined The Peter Principle: “In a hierarchically structured administration, people tend to be promoted up to their level of incompetence.”
I think that’s fairly well understood, but what does it look like if we frame it in an evolutionary perspective?
The evolutionary generalization of the principle is less pessimistic in its implications, since evolution lacks the bureaucratic inertia that pushes and maintains people in an unfit position. But what will certainly remain is that systems confronted by evolutionary problems will quickly tackle the easy ones, but tend to get stuck in the difficult ones. The better (more fit, smarter, more competent, more adaptive) a system is, the more quickly it will solve all the easy problems, but the more difficult the problem will be it finally gets stuck in. Getting stuck here does not mean “being unfit”, it just means having reached the limit of one’s competence, and thus having great difficulty advancing further. This explains why even the most complex and adaptive species (such as ourselves, humans) are always still “struggling for survival” in their niches as energetically as are the most primitive organisms such as bacteria. If ever a species would get control over all its evolutionary problems, then the “Red Queen Principle” would make sure that new, more complex problems would arise, so that the species would continue to balance on the border of its domain of incompetence. In conclusion, the generalized Peter principle states that in evolution systems tend to develop up to the limit of their adaptive competence.
Sent with Reeder
Found this list interesting…haven’t read all of them. 1984 and 100 years of solitude are highly recommendable…also War and Peace. Warning!, it’s a real long book
Do you know how to lead while following and follow while leading?