Game Stop, Robinhood, Reddit, and Fake News

On January 27, 2020, Game Stop was caught in a classic short sellers squeeze which forced the stock price of Game Stop to soar and the market to "crash" as short sellers covered their positions. I'm not going to go into any of the details concerning this. Its very complex. What I will touch on, is the reaction of a financial pundit. In exacerbation he sarcastically remarked (paraphrased): "Where where the fact checkers"!!!

The financial pundits reaction was monumental. First, in publicly recognizing that the social media platforms can be utilized for market manipulation. Second, that a person who would normally be considered "outside" the world of hypercritical political hysteria would actually reference the atrocious use of "fact checkers" by social media platforms to suppress conservative thought, even to the point of de-platforming Parler.

The financial pundit's remark was sarcastic. I speculate that it was an extension of social media platforms use of questionable "fact checkers" repressing conservative speech under the claimed auspices preventing, as some examples: "fake news" and "misinformation".  "Fake news" and "misinformation" are the "bread and butter" of those participating in stock market manipulation. In conclusion, the financial pundit was highlighting the absurdity of social media platforms using "fact checkers" to suppress conservative thought, but then allowing stock market manipulation to occur through the use of their platforms without "fact checking" content control supervision. A double standard.

The Facebook Kerfuffle, A Huge "Nothing Burger"

Recently the eyes of the world fell like an exploding nova on Facebook concerning its privacy policies and the release of private information. This has led to a wave of hysteria concerning how private companies acquire and use information that is ostensibility private. What is surprising is that the collection and selling of private information has been going on for years, and until now has been virtually ignored. Over the years I have posted my concerns. I have several pre-Facebook kerfuffle posts concerning how companies abuse privacy and sell your personal data. So why has this seemingly neglected issue of privacy all of a sudden exploded into a hysterical cause célèbre?

When a relatively unknown issue explodes into the public consciousness with extreme outrage and vehemence, there is usually a trigger. A black swan event occurred arising out of the use of Facebook's data by Cambridge Analytica by  the Trump campaign.

Time for the tinfoil hat. A large percentage of the media and Democrats are vehemently, to the point of irrationality, anti-Trump and suffer from TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome).  The media and the Democrats upon hearing of the apparent data abuse by Cambridge Analytica began salivating at how this disclosure could be used to bring an end to the Trump administration. So the media and Democratic war drums began to beat ever more loudly and intensely.

As an ironic aside and as an example of duplicity. When the Obama campaign used social media to enhance its campaign, this was considered "innovative", "brilliant", etc. The Trump campaign, seeing the success of the Obama campaign, copied the use of social media. Now the use of social media information is considered "criminal", "a violation of privacy", etc.

The Facebook kerfuffle finally highlights the abuse of personal information by private companies into the public's consciousness. But that is not is not the real reason for why this issue is being discussed. It is an incidental tool being used by some to manipulate the mob (public) and to bring down the Trump administration. As such this kerfuffle is a "nothing burger".  Nevertheless, for now the issue is similar to exploding nova were the incidental public outrage could result in private companies implementing better privacy policies.

Perhaps too soon to tell. A lot will depend on whether a new cause célèbre will soon be hatched to replace the transient Facebook kerfuffle. In any event, private companies will hopefully view this "nova" as a wake-up call and revise their privacy policies to be more cognizant of their customers rights.

A Post Christmas Wish

Following the Christmas mayhem, I decided to take a quick look at my Amazon wish list. In doing so, Amazon provided me with a list of games that they believed I would like to buy. Surprising, as I did did not research any games on Amazon. Then I remembered that Amazon monitors your internet traffic to feed you desired results. (That was one of the prescient take-a-ways of the film: Minority Report. Anyway, I digress.)

The critical issue is that many of the Civilization games have been "bricked" and will no longer play on newer versions of MS Windows. TechDirt article: DRM Still Breaking Games Nearly A Decade After Purchase.  Another article: September 2015 Windows updates KB3086255 breaks many games. (I suspect, by now, that some dedicated fans have developed workarounds for this.)

My post Christmas wish is that retail companies such as Amazon and Target implement one or more of the  following retail policies.

1. Inform the customers (in big bold print) on the companies retail website of the product deficiencies. For example that the product will no longer work with the current version of MS Windows.
2. Allow customers to return products, no questions asked, for a full refund.
3. Withdraw from sale products that no longer function.
4. The underlying product manufacture should also provide a method for the customer to obtain a full refund in the event that the customer does not accept the odious "terms of service".  Retail companies should refuse to sell any products that do not provide such an refund option.

CNN's Deplorable Disgusting Twisting of Facts to Fraudantly Bolster the "Living Wage" Concept

This morning CNN news had a segment discussing excessive executive compensation and the corresponding lack of growth in the compensation received by the generic normal employee. Nothing new with that, it has been a long term issue that has only gotten progressively worse instead of better.

CNN unfortunately twisted this issue to propose that the US government enter the fray to mandate that employees are entitled to better pay and should share in the profits that a corporation makes. Mandated better employee pay does nothing to resolve the issue of executive compensation. Logically, since the US is supposed to be a free market enterprise system, CNN's analysis was absurd because it was comparing oranges to apples.

Based on free market principals, if executive compensation is considered excessive, it is the corporate board of directors who should be squelching it as it is their fiduciary responsibility. Unfortunately, corporate board of directors have failed in this regard. They have been nothing more than rubber stamps for the executives they are supposed to supervise.

That leaves me in a quandary since excessive corporate pay has not been squelched by the board of directors. Ideally, corporate executives should recognize that they are employees (just like anyone else) and should not receive excessive compensation. Given that the board of directors have failed I wouldn't mind government intervention to force the board of directors to act responsibly to protect shareholders from excessive executive compensation.

CNN instead of recognizing that excessive executive compensation has been a market failure, twisted that theme to insist that the US government must step in (in the name of fairness) to increase the wages of employees and the hiring more employees. That is directly contrary to free market principles. One example was an absurd proposition that college students who are graduating with massive debt must be paid very well so that they can pay-down that debt. Companies do not exist for altruistic purposes. They should not be forced to pay "high" wages or to hire unnecessary employees.

CNN should not have twisted the issue of excessive executive compensation into a rallying call for government mandated increased employee compensation. It will not solve the issue of excessive executive compensation.

American Airlines Bad

It's been a while since my last vent against despicable corporate behavior. In this case the finger-of-disapproval is pointed at American Airlines. In this example, my daughter and a girl friend planned to take a cross country road trip which involved picking-up our car in Santa Fe, New Mexico. To get there, they had to fly to Albuquerque where another daughter would pick them up. Unfortunately, the girl friend's grandmother got sick at the last minute and my daughter's girl friend could not go.

No problem we thought. I could just use my daughter's girl friend's ticket. Well American Airlines claimed that the ticket was not transferable. That is unconscionable, tickets are for "renting" a seat on the airplane. Who is occupying that seat should not matter.

American Airlines also refused to give a refund on that ticket. I can sympathize, to a degree, with that position since the tickets were bought in advance at a discount. My sympathy with that, however, vaporizes with the fact that American Airlines would not provide reasonable customer service (allowing a ticket transfer) given the extenuating circumstance of the girl friend's grandmother getting sick. In a sense, American Airlines "rented" that seat twice.

Washington Post article: "The travel industry’s one-sided cancellation policies are due for cancellation".

Super Bowl - Groupon - Crowd Sourcing

The Super Bowl, of all places, raised two issues related to trends trends in economics and corporate governance.  In the first instance, the New York Times raised the issue of: "Did Groupon Cross the Line in Super Bowl Ad Debut?" In that ad, Groupon blatantly uses the suffering of Tibetans as a commercial marketing gimmick.

Here is a substitute reference link to replace links that are no longer available: Nobody Liked Groupon’s Super Bowl Commercials, Least of All China.

Like many I was shocked. When I read the New York Times' article, it reiterated my belief that the real shock was how morally corrupt our advertising is. All that Groupon did was take an advertising concept to an extreme logical conclusion.

There is an old joke where a guy asks a woman if she will sleep with him for $1 million dollars and she responds with an affectionate yes. He comes back with an offer of $1 and the woman is offended and with moral indignation: "NO! What kind of woman do you think I am." His response was the classic line of "We already established that, now we are just haggling price."

Peter Principle had a somewhat terse response: "The utter vacuity and moral nihilism of 21st century corporate capitalism on full public display."

The Dilbert Cartoon below also provides an pithy summation.

At lunch time, CNBC news also reviewed the Groupon ad. But they also raised another unexpected issue, that of user generated content (crowd sourcing).

David Faber asks Miles Nadal (of MDC Partners, the guest speaker) the question of what happens to professional advertisers if amateurs can produce ad content. Mr. Nadal skillfully parries the question.

Why is Mr. Faber's seemingly innocuous question important? In today's economic system, though we profess to follow free-market principles, those who are classified as professionals attempt to "lock-out" amateurs. Copyright law and patent law have morphed into mechanisms to protect business monopolies and discourage "amateurs" from generating new innovative content. Whether Mr. Faber was intending to go down that path with his question, I do not know. But the point is that the free-market should not protect a corporate income stream. If people seek to produce content for free, great.

10/16/2019 UPDATE: Underlying reference links no longer functional. The CNBC video clip that I had is no longer available.

Julian Assange & Forbes Magazine

Andy Greenberg of Forbes Magazine writes: "Admire Assange or revile him, he is the prophet of a coming age of involuntary transparency. ... What do large companies think of the threat? If they’re terrified, they’re not saying. None would talk to us. Nor would the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. ...  How can an American corporation respond to a Wiki attack? Lawsuits won’t work: ... The best protection? With a dash of irony Icelandic Wiki­Leaks staffer Kristinn Hrafnsson suggests that companies change their ways to avoid targeting. “They should resist the temptation to enter into corruption,” he says."  (emphasis added)

Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, Staples, Intuit, PayPal, Ebay, Best Buy, Comcast, Bank of America and numerous others - clean-up your act.  If you want employee and consumer loyalty you must earn it.  The free-market is not about ripping the consumer off to make short-term profits.

Pfizer - A Fiefdom for Corporate Managers?

Jeffrey B. Kindler, the now former CEO of Pfizer, had a sudden case of "retirement".  Previously I wrote that Pfizer needed to fire Kindler.  Under Kindler's so-called leadership the stock of Pfizer has been in a long term decline and the dividend was cut. The New York Times notes that "shareholders lost about 20 percent of their investment during his four-and-a-half-year tenure." So, while the stockholders suffered, Kindler was awarded bonuses for his "brilliant" leadership. Its a sad case of corporate greed when management destroys the value of a widow/orphan stock that many people depend on for their retirement income. Finally, a dim light-bulb must have been turned on resulting in the Pfizer Board becoming motivated to do something. As the Times notes "... it’s far too early to judge whether he jumped or was pushed." Either way, it is a good piece of news for the shareholders.

Regretfully, Kindler gets a paid "vacation". The Times writes "Pfizer, the world’s largest pharmaceutical company, said in a regulatory filing on Thursday that it had agreed to give Jeffrey B. Kindler a $4.5 million severance payment after his sudden retirement on Sunday as chairman and chief executive." Perhaps the most irksome aspect of his departure is that Kindler gets "... $3.2 million cash bonus for 2010 and $1.8 million under an incentive plan ..." for destroying shareholder value.

PS: We own shares of Pfizer.

Verizon Wireless to Pay Millions in Refunds

Two stories, seemingly unrelated, illustrate how our free-market principles have been corrupted and polarized. David Pogue working in cooperation with the New York Times has exposed a disingenuous business practice by Verizon .  To summarize the issue, Edward Wyatt wrote: "In the last three years, the F.C.C. has received hundreds of complaints from Verizon Wireless customers who said they were charged for data use or Web access at times when their phones were not in use or when they mistakenly pushed a button that activated the phone’s Web browser."  David quotes Verizon: " “Approximately 15 million customers who did not have data plans were billed for data sessions on their phones that they did not initiate,” the company said on Sunday."  Evidently, this scam has been going on for sometime.

This incident, once again raises the specter that these companies are purposely implementing underhanded "things" to separate the consumer from their money. Think of it this way, Verizon is a technologically sophisticated company selling very sophisticated smart phones.  So given all the technological expertise at their disposal, Verizon should be able to design a simple "safety switch" to prevent these "accidental" charges. The fact that they have not implies that the management of Verizon is purposefully and willfully promoting disingenuous business practices.

Concerning the second story. Adam Thierer of the Technology Liberation Front wrote an article: Problems in Public Utility Paradise, Part 14: Muni Wi-fi Postmortem. Sadly this article is simply another typical diatribe lambasting attempts by Municipalities to provide their citizens with Wi-Fi services. The theme of the Technology Liberation Front is "... the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology." So what has this got to do with Verizon?

Verizon, as well as many other technology companies have been caught doing underhanded activities that are injurious to their customers. When companies pursue these strategies and piss-off enough people, regulations happen.  Furthermore, if companies truly want a free-market free of regulations; they need to realize that freedom also means responsibility. 

Unfortunately, many of the posts on the Technology Liberation Front are postured to vilify government without questioning the business practices of the private sector.  It's time for the Technology Liberation Front to look into the mirror  for some serious self-reflection concerning who is responsible for the ills in the American economy. If the Technology Liberation Front is truly championing the concept of keeping the politicians away, I would expect some of the commentators to expose bad corporate behavior and demand that the corporations clean-up their business practices.  It is a sad commentary on American culture when freedom is considered a right to steal and blogs supposedly defending the free-market, such as the Technology Liberation Front remain silent.  For a site based on Libertarian principles, this seems very un-Libertarian

As for me, if a company can't accept responsibility for the freedoms they enjoy, regulate.

What Happened to Honesty?

Today the Washington Post revealed that the House ethics committee formally unveiled charges against Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.). But this post is not about the ethical lapses of Rangel, but about the growing lapses in honest marketing, specifically Time-Warner. Cable.  Both Rangel and Time-Warner Cable demonstrate that those in power have little regard for ethical behavior.

In this case, we received a brochure from Time-Warner Cable informing us of a free Showtime preview.  The glossy we are your friend brochure had some instruction on how to locate the channel.  When I tried those instructions, I could not find the channel.  So I decided to call customer service - surely they would know what channel the free showing would be on. Well, I was greeted to a recorded message informing me of a 20 minute wait time.  I had a cordless phone, so I was able to do other things while holding. As I listened to the recording, over, and  over, I developed the list below. This is only a short list of an even longer list.

1. Time-Warner claimed that customer service was one of their top priorities.  So why would I have to wait 20+ minutes to get customer service.
2. Time-Warner advertised how they offered movies before they hit certain stores.  Of course Time-Warner does not mention that they entered into agreements with these stores so that the stores would delay the rental of certain movies. Seems like restraint of trade, not the free-market at work.
3. The most irritating part of the experience was the remote control  Who would think that the remote control would be purposely programmed to be "difficult". In searching for the free preview I scrolled through some of the premium channels.  It turns out that if you are in the remote's program guide and are on a premium channel you can not exit back to your program! With the free channels you can simply press "exit" and get back to your program.  With the premium channels you have to get back to the guide (step 1), then use the program guide to find a free channel (step 2), then when you find a free channel you can then exit the guide (step3), but to return to the channel that you were previously watching you have to find it again (four steps in all)! Unbelievable
4. Time-Warner claims blazing fast internet speed, but they have never clearly articulated what you are actually getting. Time-Warner also advertises that for some extra $$$ you can get power boost.  I seem to remember that this was part of our subscription, but I really can't remember.  Nevertheless, I am left with a suspicious feeling - me being a conspiracy type - that the service may have been initially offered, then silently discontinued; and now being offered as an extra feature that you have to pay for.  Unfortunately, I don't know whether that is the case or not.  But after Comcast's boondoggle of "traffic shaping" you have to wonder.

 After listening to the endless stream of sales pitches the customer service representative finally answered.  He was very helpful and after fumbling a few times finally figured out what channel we needed.  The customer service guy did a great job, but it also illustrates how poorly implemented marketing strategies that are quite disingenuous in nature create customer ill will and actually cost companies money.

When our political leaders (Rangel) and our corporate leaders (Time -Warner) act soley out of their self-interest it sets a bad example. If they do not feel constrained to act in an ethical manner, then why should the general population?  Anarchy anyone?  Individually, these examples, within the context of the whole US economy, may not seem significant; but when you add in spectacular failures such as Enron and Lehman Brothers you have to wonder where honesty went.

Time Warner Joins the Dark Side

Well Time-Warner has just joined Staples, Verizon, and Intuit in my wall of shame. In this case Time-Warner proclaims that as a valued customer that they will continue to offer me a Price Lock Guarantee. As is typical with these so-called contracts, the only obligation is on the customer to pay. Time Warner, however, reserves to itself the right to discontinue any service at any time. In theory, Time-Warner could cut me off from all services and still charge me. (Click on the text to see it better) I learned of this from Christina Tynan-Wood's Gripe Line blog "Tales of misguided customer service". Soon after reading I received my own personal invitation to sign my life away. To be fair to Time-Warner, I do not have any complaints about their service. Also Time-Warner need some flexibility as does the subscriber. Nevertheless, it points to corporations abusing the English language and making promises that upon inspection are empty. Of course I can't resist using Time-Warner's non-nonsensical motto: "The Power of You"

Change We Can Believe In

Ron Paul appeared on CNBC: "Ron Paul on CPAC Straw Poll Win" Very good interview. I hope that you will watch it.

Posting this in light of some of my prior posts concerning Libertarians, why a positive reference to Ron Paul? He seems to be broadcasting an honest and consistent policy. Which is something I can respect. Of course, I will not agree with many of his positions concerning government regulation, the environment, and foreign policy. (On foreign policy I agree with him that we cannot be the World's Policeman, but I also think that if Iran proves to be a threat that it is OK to take military action.) Nevertheless, he really seems to want to restore this country to a small government with a real free-market economy. Ron Paul represents a change we can believe in.

General Electric - Another Coffin Nail?

Big snowstorm in Washington D.C. today. I take a look at the Washington Post to read about the storm and see the following: "Paulson's book details GE chief's private concerns in 2008 over company's debt". Like many we invested in General Electric and have since watch the stock decline. The big question, in the face of this corporate decline (both in reputation and performance), why hasn't Immelt resigned or been fired?

Jeff Gerth, in his article writes:

"As the financial crisis worsened toward the end of 2008, chief executive Jeffrey Immelt and other leaders at General Electric repeatedly assured the public there was no need to worry about the company's ability to access credit markets and refinance its massive debts as they came due.

But in private conversations that alarmed then-Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., Immelt laid out a different picture of GE's credit situation, according to Paulson's new book about the crisis."

One would think that "big" investors, such a Buffet and the mutual funds would also be concerned about the decline of General Electric since they are shareholders too. By now I would have expected them to have stepped in to "protect shareholder value". So far no visible action. I wonder why?

A Long Battle for the Hudson River

In scanning the New York Times, I ran across the interactive time-line: "A Long Battle for the Hudson River". This time-line and related editorial deal with: "the decades-long duel between the Environmental Protection Agency and General Electric to purge the Hudson River of toxic chemicals." Now, its not unusual for a company to attempt to squirm out of cleaning-up the environment. What is interesting is the back-story.

The election of Obama, as President, promised a "Green" revolution. General Electric has joined this revolution and its moto is "Imagination at Work". The CEO of General Electric happens to be Jeff Immelt. Mr. Immelt also appears politically close to Obama who has appointed him to his Economic Recovery Advisory Board. So instead of dragging it's feet, one would assume that General Electric would be leading the charge to clean-up the Hudson River. It would make for good public relations and would be a superb demonstration of commitment to cleaning up the environment. Deeds over empty words.

Back in July of 2006 Vanity Fair wrote: "Vanity Fair Profiles GE's Jeffrey Immelt", which stated:

"While Wal-Mart's CEO Lee Scott is likely the corporate chieftain that perplexes Treehuggers the most, General Electric's Jeffrey Immelt runs a close second. The 125-year-old company bears responsiblity for massive environmental damages over the years, including the infamous contamination of the Hudson River with PCBs in the mid-20th century. Many observers would claim that Immelt has staked out a position not far from that of his combative predecessor Jack Welch on the Hudson River issue:he is unapologetic even as he seeks to settle decades of litigation. At the same time, Immelt is also the driving force behind Ecomagination, a company campaign to revolutionize the way GE makes products and produces energy. The campaign's motto, "Green is Green," signifies a commitment to increasing shareholder value through clean technology, sustainable design and complete accountability."

While the Times is to be commended for keeping this environmental concern alive, what is regrettable is that the Times, in typical fashion, has not challenged a supposedly green CEO on why General Electric has not demonstrated leadership in meeting the green obligation of cleaning up the Hudson River. The Times does report that dredging began in May 2009, so maybe things are looking up. Finally substance over stonewalling rhetoric?

PS: We own shares in General Electric, unfortunately not enough to make a dent in how the company is managed.

Surreal Contracts

Contract law is one of the fundamental building blocks or our free-market democratic society. When people enter into a contract, they have entered into a mutual agreement for whatever action they have agreed to, such as buying a car or remodeling a house. Contracts, or at least some people claim they are, are used when you purchase a cell phone plan. Over at the Technology Liberation Front Adam Thierer wrote: "What is All This Nonsense about Smartphone Early Termination Fees?" The theme of his article is that early termination fees are a necessary business decision by the cell phone companies to recoup the cost of selling their phones below cost to attract customers. I won't be discussing that issue here.

What I will be discussing is his misplaced comment that: "AND THEN THEY FORM A CONTRACT WITH THE BUYER TO MAKE THE DEAL WORK. And that contract obligates both sides to live up to their end of the deal." Technically, Adam is correct - people negotiate a contract that defines the obligations of both parties to assure that the agreement is carried out. Unfortunately the reality of the situation, from my point of view, is that cell phone contracts are NOT valid contracts.

First, has anyone ever heard of an off-the-street consumer walking into the friendly neighborhood cell phone store negotiating (forming) a "contract"? Do the cell phone companies allow you to cross out sections on the "contract" that you don't like? I have not heard of the consumer being able to negotiate.

Second, contracts obligate both parties to live up to their end of the deal. Well the cell phone companies have a standard clause that they can change the terms of agreement anytime they wish. No such luck for the consumer, the consumer is locked in. Here is the what Verizon has: "Can Verizon Wireless Change This Agreement or My Service?" In that section, Verizon states: "We may change prices or any other term of your Service or this agreement at any time, but we'll send you written notice first. If you use your Service after the change takes effect, that means you're accepting the change. But if a change to your Plan or this agreement has a material adverse effect on you, you can cancel the line of Service that has been affected within 60 days of receiving the notice with no early termination fee." (Emphasis added).

Adam concludes with: "But, if you default on that loan by breaking your contract, you’ll be hit with a penalty — an early termination fee — since it would leave the carrier without a way to recoup the cost of that shiny new mobile mini-computer that they handed you on the cheap when you just absolutely had to have the hot new toy in town." But what recourse does the consumer have if the cell phone company cuts him or her off? The cell phone becomes a paper weight. I guess Adam believes that consumers are not hurt financially should their cell phone service be unceremoniously terminated.

While I don't consider cell phone contracts to be valid, there is an aspect of contract law related to adhesion contracts. Cell phone contracts could be considered adhesion contracts. Adhesion contracts, to me, are not valid since they cannot be negotiated. But then there is debate within the legal community about whether adhesion contracts are valid. I will leave that up to you to review. As for me, I am NOT a lawyer and my comments simply reflect my personal opinion.

Nobel Peace Prize Travesty

Paul Johnson published an excellent article: Nothing Noble About Nobel in Forbes Magazine. Mr. Johnson writes:

"Awarding President Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize does him no good and devalues the prize. This award has gone to some dubious recipients in recent decades, but at least they had demonstrated their virtues (and vices) by actions as opposed to mere words."

Tom Tooles also has an excellent cartoon concerning the insolence of granting the award.


In theory, we need to earn our "awards" through actual performance. Obama has yet to perform. In fact, he is sending an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan clearly prolonging an existing war.

Leaders serve as role models for the citizens of our country. As such they are supposed to lead by example. Obama will not be setting a good example in accepting an unearned award. Along those lines, the news this past week was unfortunately not kind to Tiger Woods. He projected a squeaky clean image, unusual for most so-called sport "heroes". Unfortunately he has now joined the ranks of those (political, corporate, Hollywood, and sport) leaders who have tarnished their image through scandal. In this case, the scandal was one or more mistresses.

So what sort of message is sent to the citizens of this country when the President receives and unearned award and other people who are perceived to be highly regarded role models turn out to be nothing more than fictitious constructs?

Verizon's Onerous Terms of Use

The terms and conditions of use for this card are incredibly troublesome. Nothing new here, but its still worth looking at the disingenuous logic. (To see the terms and conditions better, click on the image.)



1. The card requires that you acknowledge reading the terms and conditions of use. Yet the card states: "Terms and Conditions of use are subject to change without notice." (emphasis added). So what is the point of agreeing to terms and conditions of use, if the company can change them at any time? (While this is not an online terms of service, take a look at District Court in Texas Rejects Online Terms of Service as Illusory and Unenforceable.)

2. Technically this card is supposed to be a convenience feature to prepay for your future use of the phone. One of the conditions is that: "Airtime expires 30 days from the date it is added to the account". So after thirty days your remaining money evaporates! This is a blatant rip-off.

So why does Verizon use in its ads the image of a friendly sympathetic guy backed-up by a large "we are there for you" staff? Based on the terms of use, this does not compute.

Intuit - A Despicable Company

Maybe my nerves are frayed today and that resulted in me having an extreme visceral reaction to the TechDirt article: "The End Of Microsoft Money: Big Company Doesn't Always Win". Maybe it was because Mike Masnick mentioned two of my all time "favorite" companies in one post and was off-base with his analysis to boot. Mike's off-base comment was that Intuit "won" the personal accounting product "war" because "Smaller companies are often more innovative and effective at taking on big companies."

The realty is quite different, Intuit, the seller of Quicken, is NOT an innovative company. Intuit "won" this contest because of marketing. In fact, Mike has a link to the underlying Cnet article: "How Intuit managed to hold off Microsoft". What is not mentioned in either the Cnet article or in Mike's analysis is the overly aggressive hyper abusive marketing strategies used by Intuit to sell their products. Additionally, Intuit does not disclose all the onerous business practices they impose to force the buyers into unnecessary "upgrades". Quicken, the personal finance program, is simply a cash cow for Intuit.

Intuit didn't win because it had a better product, it "won" because the more inept company, Microsoft, decided to drop out.

When Quicken was first released, it was a good program, it was innovative, and I had no complaints about Intuit's corporate policy. Over time Intuit has become a despicable company. I won't bore you with the mind numbing details of my negative experience. I'll end it here, but I would suggest doing an internet search so that you can form your own opinion.

PS: Paragraph above corrected based on the comment provided by Anonymous Coward. Also added a link to the Intuit, Inc. page on Wikipedia.

Jim Cramer's Wall of Shame

Jim Cramer has a popular financial show on CNBC, Mad Money. Recently he re-invigorated his CEO Wall of Shame identifying those CEO's who have succeed in destroying their companies. As part of this process Jim has been soliciting the audience to suggest nominees to who have earned a "coveted" spot on this wall of shame. In today's business environment that shouldn't be hard.

Last night it was the turn of Lewis Campbell, the CEO of Textron to get roasted and placed on the Wall of Shame. Textron, in many respects is very similar to General Electric. Like Textron General Electric has virtually collapsed. Forbes reports, in an aptly titled article: "Dim Bulb", that under Immelt guidance that GE's "stock has delivered a negative 12% annual return, 11% less than the S&P 500 Index, taking GE's market value from $390 billion to $198 billion." Forbes goes on to write that "This record and Immelt's average annual pay of $14.4 million over the last six years put him near the bottom of our performance-versus-pay scorecard. He has some contrition about this. In 2008 he declined a bonus and earned only $5.3 million."

So Campbell gets his own special spot on the Wall of Shame but Immelt is quietly passed over. General Electric, it should be noted, is the owner of CNBC news. Consequently, Jim's boss just happens to be Immelt, the CEO of General Electric. If equality means anything, when will Immelt be placed on the Wall of Shame?

PS: We own shares of General Electric

Search Engine Shortcomings

A long standing complaint that I have had with search engines is that they disgorge a lot of irrelevant results in the form of sales pitches. Of particular concern, when searching for for product reviews, you get websites that do not have real reviews and in some cases don't even have the product! Yet you are stuck wading through this morass looking for that proverbial needle.

Of course, to be fair, these search engines would not exist if it were not the for the fact that companies are paying the search engines for this advertising. Nevertheless, it is a disservice to simply dump on the user irrelevant content. After a while, the user will get discouraged and simply not use the search engine. Displaying relevant results, in the end will promote business and user satisfaction/trust will be a lot higher. Ubersoft has an excellent cartoon related to Microsoft's new search engine Bing, that also highlights the detrimental effects of giving the user irrelevant results. (To see the image better, click on it or on the word Ubersoft.)