#mckinsey & co

[tenth-sentence]

McKinsey in particular drove home the message that head office had to be further pared back, with the head-office staff of 1,100 cut by up to 60 per cent, and that would entail drastic reductions in the economics and strategy units.

"Westpac: The Bank That Broke the Bank" - Edna Carew

[mostlysignssomeportents]

How America's oligarchs lull us with the be-your-own-boss fairy tale

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/16/narrative-capitalism/#sell-job

Capitalism is a vibes-based system. Sure, we all know about Keynes's "Animal Spirits" that see "bulls" and "bears" vying to set the market's future, but beyond that, there's just a hell of a lot of narrative.

Writing for The American Prospect, Adam M Lowenstein reviews two books that tell the histories of the stories that are used to sell American capitalism to the American people – the stories that turn workers into "temporarily embarrassed millionaires":

https://prospect.org/culture/books/2024-02-16-stories-corporations-tell-williams-waterhouse-review/

The first of these books is Taming the Octopus: The Long Battle for the Soul of the Corporation, by Kyle Edward Williams, a kind of pre-history of "woke capitalism":

https://wwnorton.com/books/9780393867237

Taming is a history of the low-water marks for Big Business's reputation in America, and how each was overcome through PR campaigns that declared a turning point in which business leaders would pursue the common good, even at the expense of their shareholders' interests.

The story starts in the 1950s, when DuPont and other massive firms had gained a well-deserved reputation as rapacious profit-generation machines that "alienated workers and pushed around small businessmen, investors, and consumers." This prompted DuPont's PR chief, Harold Brayman, to write a memo called "The Attack on Bigness," where he set out a plan to sell America on a new cuddly image for corporate giants.

For Brayman, the problem was that corporate execs were too shy about telling their social inferiors about all the good that businesses did for them: "The businessman is normally reluctant to talk out loud. He frequently shuns the spotlight and is content with plugging his wares, not himself."

This was the starting gun for a charm offensive by American big business that included IBM president Thomas Watson Jr ("I think there is a world market for about five computers") going on a speaking tour organized by McKinsey & Co, where he told audiences that his company's billion dollar annual profits had convinced it to assume "responsibilities for the broader public welfare."

This set the template for a nationwide mania of "business statesmanship" that Fortune celebrated with an editorial announcing "a great transformation, of which the world as a whole is as yet unaware" that put the "profit motive…on its last leg."

Fortune then spent the next seventy years recycling this announcement, every time the tide went out on business's popularity. In 2019, Fortune platformed IBM president Ginni Rometty for an announcement that the company was orienting its priorities to the public good: "It’s a question of whether society trusts you or not. We need society to accept what it is that we do."

The occasion for Rometty's quote was a special package on the Trump tax-cuts, a trillion-dollar gift to American big business, which lobbyists for the Business Roundtable celebrated with an announcement that American capitalism would now serve "stakeholders" (not just shareholders). Fortune celebrated this "change" as "fundamental and profound."

Fast forward five years and corporate leaders are still telling stories, this time about "stakeholder capitalism" and "ESG" – the dread "woke capitalism" that has right-wing swivel-eyed loons running around, hair afire, declaring the end of capitalism.

For Williams and Lowenstein (and me), all this ESG, DEI, and responsible capitalism is just window dressing, a distraction to keep the pitchforks and torches in people's closets, and to keep the guillotines in their packaging. The right-wing is doing a mirror-world version of liberals who freak out when OpenAI claims to have built a machine that will pauperize every worker – assuming that a PR pitch is the gospel truth, and then repeating it in criticism. Criti-hype, in other words:

https://sts-news.medium.com/youre-doing-it-wrong-notes-on-criticism-and-technology-hype-18b08b4307e5

Think of ESG: the right is freaking out that ESG is harming shareholders by leaving hydrocarbons in the ground to appease climate-addled greenies. The reality is that ESG is barely disguised greenwashing, and it's fully compatible with burning every critter that died in the Mesozoic, Cenozoic, and lo, even the Paleozoic:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/03/15/sanctions-financing/#profiteers

The reason this tactic is so successful is that Americans have also been sold another narrative: that American problems are solved by American individuals as entrepreneurs and businesspeople, not as polities or as members of a union (let alone the working class!).

This is the subject of the second book Lowenstein reviews, One Day I’ll Work for Myself: The Dream and Delusion That Conquered America, by Benjamin Waterhouse:

https://wwnorton.com/books/one-day-ill-work-for-myself/

A keystone of American narrative capitalism is the idea that the USA is a nation of small businesspeople, Jeffersonian yeoman farmsteaders of the US economy. But even a cursory examination shows that the country is ruled – economically and politically – by very large firms.

Uber sells itself as a way to be your own boss ("No shifts. No boss. No limits.") – even though it's a system where the app is your boss, and thanks to that layer of misdirection, Uber gets to be the worst conceivable boss, while its workers have no recourse in labor law:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/12/algorithmic-wage-discrimination/#fishers-of-men

In labor fights, Uber represents itself as the champion of innumerable "small businesspeople" who drive its unlicensed taxis. In consumer protection fights, Amazon claims to be fighting for "small businesspeople" who sell on its platform. In privacy fights, Facebook claims to represent "small businesspeople" who buy its surveillance advertising.

But large firms are actively hostile to small firms, seeing them as small-fry to be rooked or destroyed (recall that when Amazon targeted small publishers for bankruptcy-level discounts, they called the program "The Gazelle Project" and Bezos told his executives to tackle these firms "the way a cheetah pursues a sickly gazelle").

Decades of this tale have produced "a profound shift from a shared belief that individuals might come together to solve problems, into a collective faith in individual effort." America's long love-affair with rugged individualism was weaponized in the 1970s by corporations seeking to shed their regulatory obligation to workers, customers, and the environment.

As with Big Tech today, the big business lobby held up mom-and-pop businesses as the true beneficiaries of deregulation, even as they knifed these firms. A telling anecdote comes from someone who worked for the Chamber of Commerce's magazine Nation's Business: when this editor pointed out that many of the magazine's subscribers were small businesspeople and asked if they could start including articles relevant to mom-and-pops, the editor in chief said, "Over my dead body."

The neoliberal era has been an unbroken string of platitudes celebrating the small business and policies that annihilate their chances against large firms. Ronald Reagan's dewy-eyed hymns to American entrepreneurship sounded nice, but what matters is that he attempted to abolish the Small Business Administration and refused to address the 20,000 attendee "White House Conference on Small Business."

In the years since, American has sacrificed its small businesses while pulling out all the stops – bailouts and tax cuts and elite bankruptcy – to keep its largest firms growing. New regulations like Dodd-Frank were neutered in the name of saving mom-and-pop shops, even though the provisions that were cut already exempted small businesses.

Today, millions of Americans are treading water in a fetid stew of LLC-poisoning, rise-and-grind, multi-level-marketing, dropshipping and gig-work, convinced that the only way to get a better life is to pull themselves up by their bootstraps:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/10/declaration-of-interdependence/

Narrative does a lot of work here. The American economy runs on bubbles, another form of narrative capitalism. Take AI, a subject I sincerely wish I could stop hearing about, not least because I'm certain that 99% of that thinking is being wasted on whatever residue remains after the bubble pops:

https://locusmag.com/2023/12/commentary-cory-doctorow-what-kind-of-bubble-is-ai/

AI isn't going to do your job, but its narrative may convince your boss to fire you and replace you with a bot that can't do your job. Like what happened when Air Canada hired a chatbot to answer customer inquiries and it started making shit up about bereavement discounts that the company later claimed it didn't have to honor:

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/air-canada-s-chatbot-gave-a-b-c-man-the-wrong-information-now-the-airline-has-to-pay-for-the-mistake-1.6769454

This story's been all over the news for the past couple of days, but so far as I've seen, no one has pointed out the seemingly obvious inference that this chatbot probably ripped off lots of people. The victim here was extraordinarily persistent, chasing a refund for 10 weeks and then going to the regulator. This guy is a six-sigma self-advocate – which implies a whole bell-curve's worth of comparatively normal people who just ate the shit-sandwich Air Canada fed them.

The reason AI is a winning proposition for Air Canada isn't that it can do a customer service rep's job – it can't. But the AI is a layer of indirection – like the app that is the true boss of Uber drivers – that lets Air Canada demoralize the customers it steals from into walking away from their losses.

Nevertheless, the narrative that AI Will Change Everything Forever is powerful – more powerful than AI itself, that's for sure. Take this Bloomberg headline: "Nearly all wealth gained by world's rich this year comes from AI":

https://www.business-standard.com/world-news/nearly-all-wealth-gained-by-world-s-rich-this-year-comes-from-ai-124021600006_1.html

Dig in and you find even more narrative. The single largest beneficiary of AI stock gains last year was Mark Zuckerberg ($161B!). Zuck is American Narrative Capitalism's greatest practitioner: the guy who made billions peddling a series of lies, from "pivot to video" to "metaverse," leaping from one lie to the next just ahead of the mass stock-selloffs that wiped out lesser predators.

The Narrative Capitalism Cinematic Universe has a lot of side-plots like AI and entrepreneurship and woke capitalism, but its main narrative arc was articulated, ad nauseum, by Margaret Thatcher: "There is no alternative." This is the most important part of the story, the part that says it literally can't be otherwise. The only way to organize society is through markets, and the only way to organize markets is to leave them alone, no matter how much suffering they cause.

This is a baffling story, because it's so easily disproved. Zuck says the only way to have friends is to let him surveil you from asshole to appetite, even though he once ran Facebook as the privacy-forward alternative to MySpace, and promised never to spy on you:

https://lawcat.berkeley.edu/record/1128876

Likewise, the business leaders – and their chorus of dutiful Renfields – who insist that monopoly is the natural and inevitable outcome of any market economy just handwave away the decades during which anti-monopoly enforcement actually kept most businesses from getting too big to fail and too big to jail.

I'm no champion of market efficiency – especially not as the best and final arbiter of social and economic questions – but when I hear my comrades repeating the Thatcherite claims that all forms of capitalism necessarily degrade into monopolistic quagmires, that there is no alternative, it sounds like more criti-hype.

This is a frequent point of departure during discussions of enshittification: some people dismiss the whole idea of enshittification as "just capitalism." But we had decades of digital services that either didn't degrade, or, when they did, were replaced by superior competitors with a minimum of switching costs for users who migrated from the decaying incumbent to greener pastures.

The reality is that while there are problems with all forms of capitalism, there are different kinds of capitalist problems, and some forms of capitalism are less harmful to working people and more capable of enacting and enforcing sound policy than others.

Enshittification is what happens when the constraints on the worst impulses of companies and their investors and managers are removed. When a company doesn't have competitors, when it can capture its regulators to trample our rights with impunity, when it can enlist those regulators to shut down would-be competitors who might free us from its "walled garden," and when it can fire any worker who refuses to enact harm upon the users they serve, then that company will enshittify:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/30/go-nuts-meine-kerle/#ich-bin-ein-bratapfel

A company can be made to treat you well, even if it is run by a wicked person who sees you as a mark to be fleeced – that mustache twirler just has to be constrained – by competition, regulation, self-help and labor. He may still hate you and wish you harm, but he won't be able to act on it.

As MLK said:

It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, religion and education will have to do that, but it can restrain him from lynching me. And I think that's pretty important also. And so that while legislation may not change the hearts of men, it does change the habits of men. And we see this every day.

[coochiequeens]

This is why accurate information about sex and race is important. A study just gave a name to another way businesses pass over women for promotions and how women of color are impacted at greater rates.

Forget The Glass Ceiling, 'The Broken Rung' Is Why Women Are Denied Promotions

A new study finds Black women and Latinas in particular are the least likely to get that first promotion — and it’s not because they’re not asking for it.

by Monica Torres

Getting your first promotion into management is a huge achievement in your career. But a new study from consulting firm McKinsey & Co. and nonprofit Lean In shows it’s an opportunity that is not equally afforded to everyone. 

According to the study, which used pipeline data from 276 companies in the private, public and social sectors, women ― and women of color, in particular ― are the least likely demographic to get promoted from entry-level to first-time manager. 

For every 100 men promoted from entry-level contributor to manager in the survey, only 87 women got promoted. And this gap gets wider for women of color: This year, while 91 white women were promoted to manager for every 100 men, only 89 Asian women, 76 Latinas and 54 Black women would get that same opportunity. 

“As a result of this broken rung, women fall behind and can’t catch up,” the study states.

It’s not because those women were not asking for it ― the study found that the women were asking for promotions at the same rate as their male peers. And it’s not because these women did not stick around long enough to be considered for the job ― the study found that they were no more likely to leave their company than their male peers. 

The main culprit to this “broken rung” in the career ladder? It’s what known as a “performance bias.”

Why women deal with the “broken rung” phenomenon.

Under a performance bias, men get promoted more because of their future potential, while women get judged on their past accomplishments and have their leadership potential doubted.

“Because women early in their careers have shorter track records and similar work experiences relative to their men peers, performance bias can especially disadvantage them at the first promotion to manager,” according to the study. 

This research aligns with the “prove-it-again bias” studies have found women face throughout their career: where they do more work in order to be seen as equally competent to their male peers. 

As for why it’s hardest for women of color to make that first leap into management? Workplace consultant Minda Harts, author of “The Memo: What Women of Color Need to Know to Secure a Seat at the Table,” said it’s because systemic biases and stereotypes cause women of color to be less trusted for the job. 

“This lack of trust can manifest in several ways, such as doubts about competence, commitment or ‘fit’ within a leadership role,” Harts told HuffPost. “When senior leadership is predominantly male and white, an unconscious bias might lead them to trust individuals who mirror their own experiences or backgrounds ... As a result, women of color may be disproportionately overlooked for promotions.”

The McKinsey study found that women of color surveyed this year were even less likely to become first-time managers in 2023 than they were in 2022.

Feminist career coach Cynthia Pong told HuffPost it’s because in tough financial times, companies often operate under a scarcity mindset and might see women of color as a bigger “risk” to promote when they are underrepresented in leadership. 

“We just had to go through layoffs, and we only have three [manager roles]. You can easily see how in times like that, it would just end up replicating these systems where we only trust and only give the benefit of the doubt to certain folks,” Pong said. “And it’s not going to be women of color.” 

That sends a dispiriting message to people who watch their peers advance while they get told they are still not ready.

“It’s even more frustrating and infuriating ... when you see that there is a pathway for others, but not for you. Because the injustice of it makes your blood boil,” Pong said.  

This should not be on women and women of color to fix. Employers should proactively take steps to make a clear promotion path for all. 

There is a lot of talk about the “glass ceiling” and the barrier women face that prevents them from becoming executives at the top. But this study illustrates that there is a more fundamental problem happening to women early in their career: the systemic bias that prevents women from being seen as a leader who can manage other people. 

“Our success must be something other than a solo sport,” Harts said. “We can’t promote and advance ourselves.”

For companies to be part of the solution, employers should be more transparent about how managerial promotions happen.

“Trust is enhanced when employees understand what is expected of them and what they can expect from their leaders,” Harts said. “This transparency can help mitigate unconscious biases or misconceptions about capabilities or trustworthiness.”

To break down stereotypes and build trust between employees of color and leadership, Harts also recommended companies to implement programs where women of color are paired with sponsors in senior roles. 

What you can do about this as an employee.

If you keep being told vague “no’s” after every promotion request, start asking more questions about what your peers are doing that you are not.

“They’re not going to admit to having a systemic problem. They’re going to say, ‘We just don’t have it in the budget,’” said Elaine Lou Cartas, a business and career coach for women of color. 

“I’ve seen people that got promoted to this where they are also doing the same amount as I was, but I was doing A, B and C. Help me understand,” is the kind of assertive framing you can use to ask more questions, Cartas said.

And if you find the goalpost of promotion metrics keeps moving after your conversation with your manager, that might be the time to start job hunting. 

“Once you already have that conversation, and nothing’s being done, or at least there’s no steps or actions for it to be done in the future, that’s when [you] could start looking,” Cartas said.

Ultimately, one missed promotion may not seem like a huge setback, but it adds up over time with lost wages and earning potential, Pong said. 

“And then that also ripples out generationally to all the families and family units that each woman of color is supporting, and then those to come,” she said. “So it seems like it might be like no big deal to have this person promoted one or two years later. But ... these things really snowball.”

[covid-safer-hotties]

How The Koch Network Hijacked The War On COVID - Published Dec 22, 2021

Almost 3 years out from publication, and we can see the very real effects conservative dark money has played on public health in general, even for the liberal. (They never shift left for some strange reason.) Might be something to show your vote-blue-no-matter-who unmaskers in your life.

As Omicron surges, a shadowy institute filled with fringe doctors appears to be part of big business’ two-year strategy to legitimize attacks on pandemic interventions.

Earlier this month, as the Omicron variant began to spread, a small liberal arts school on a tree-lined campus in Michigan called Hillsdale College announced it was launching an Academy for Science and Freedom to “educate the American people about the free exchange of scientific ideas and the proper relationship between freedom and science in the pursuit of truth.”

The academy was inspired by the pandemic. “As we reflect on the worst public health fiasco in history, our pandemic response has unveiled serious issues with how science is administered,” noted the college president in a press release.

But the venture isn't exactly an effort to apply science to the COVID-19 crisis. The so-called “fiasco” was government pandemic measures like mask and vaccine mandates, contact tracing, and lockdowns.

Hillsdale is a conservative Christian institution with ties to the Trump administration. And the scholars behind the academy — Scott Atlas, Jay Bhattacharya, and Martin Kulldorff — are connected to right-wing dark money attacking public health measures.

The trio also has ties to the Great Barrington Declaration, a widely-rebuked yet influential missive that encouraged governments to adopt a “herd immunity” policy letting COVID-19 spread largely unchecked, even as the virus has killed more than 800,000 Americans.

The academy is the newest initiative designed to provide intellectual cover to a nearly two-year campaign by right-wing and big business interests to force a return to normalcy to boost corporate profits amid a pandemic that is now surging once again thanks to Omicron.

That campaign’s most recent success came earlier this month when Senate Republicans and a handful of Democrats joined together to pass a symbolic measure to repeal a Biden administration rule requiring large corporations to mandate vaccines or regular COVID tests for workers.

This is the story of how that corporate-bankrolled campaign originally started, and how it has continued to supplant public health experts and hijack the governmental response to the pandemic.

The War On Public Health When COVID began its spread across the United States in early March 2020, states responded by locking down to varying extents. All 24 Democratic governors and 19 of the 26 Republican governors issued weeks-long stay-at-home orders and restrictions on non-essential businesses.

Lockdown measures drove down cases in the U.S. and likely saved millions of lives globally. But the decline of in-person shopping and work, combined with factory shutdowns in places like China, disrupted the economy. A 2020 report from the corporate consulting firm McKinsey & Co. found the hardest-hit industries would take years to recover.

One sector in particular that took a big hit was the fossil fuel industry. Oil demand fell sharply in 2020, placing the global economy on uncertain footing.

Before long, business-aligned groups — particularly those connected to fossil fuels — began targeting the public health measures threatening their bottom lines. Chief among them were groups tied to billionaire Charles Koch, owner of Koch Industries, the largest privately held fossil fuel company in the world.

The war on public health measures began on March 20, 2020, when Americans For Prosperity (AFP), the right-wing nonprofit founded by Charles and David Koch, issued a press release calling on states to remain open.

“We can achieve public health without depriving the people most in need of the products and services provided by businesses across the country,” it read.

A month later, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a business lobbying group partially funded by Koch Industries, published a letter calling on President Donald Trump to enable states to reopen. That letter was signed by over 200 state legislators and “stakeholders,” including leaders from Koch-funded groups like the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the James Madison Institute.

To fight its war, the Koch network also relied on the astroturf roadmap behind the anti-government Tea Party movement, using its dark money apparatus to coordinate anti-lockdown protests.

Participants for a number of anti-lockdown rallies were recruited by FreedomWorks, a dark money group tied to Charles Koch instrumental in organizing Tea Party protests in 2009. Several of the 2020 rallies were also promoted by the Convention of States Action, a group founded by an organization with ties to the Koch network and hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer that wants to rewrite the U.S. Constitution. In Michigan, a major event was organized by the Michigan Freedom Fund, a nonprofit funded by the family of Trump’s secretary of education, Betsy DeVos.

Groups funded by the Kochs and their colleagues also turned to a more insidious form of combat adapted from Tea Party strategies: building an academic and intellectual network that would create and promote its own “science” to attack COVID mitigation policies.

“Build Up Immunity… Through Natural Infection” On October 4, 2020, the Great Barrington Declaration was released to the world. Authored by Stanford University professor Jay Bhattacharya, former Harvard Medical School professor Martin Kulldorff, and Oxford University professor Sunetra Gupta, the declaration recommended governments allow younger, healthier people to become infected with COVID-19 while reserving “focused protection” for the vulnerable, in order to reach herd immunity. Suggestions included having nursing homes limit staff rotations and businesses rely on workers with “acquired immunity.”

“The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection,” read the declaration.

The document boasted a veneer of academic legitimacy. Its credentialed authors wrote the letter at a conference hosted by the auspicious-sounding American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) in Great Barrington, Massachusetts. According to the declaration’s website, the letter has since been signed by more than 2,700 “Medical and Public Health Scientists,” and “none of the authors or co-signers received any money, honoraria, stipend, or salary from anyone.”

But the declaration arose out of the world of right-wing dark money and corporate interests, and many of its signatories aren’t verified.

AIER, which hosted and filmed the conference and registered the declaration’s website, is a Koch-tied libertarian think tank. From 2018 to 2020, the Charles Koch Foundation donated more than $100,000 to the institute. And before that, the Koch Foundation donated nearly $1.5 million to the Emergent Order Foundation, formerly Emergent Order LLC, a PR firm that engaged in hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of marketing consulting for AIER.

AIER has also received $54,000 from the Atlas Network, an anti-regulation group formerly known as the Atlas Economic Research Foundation that has received more than a half million dollars from the Charles Koch Foundation and the connected Charles Koch Institute. The Atlas Network also pocketed nearly $3.9 million from DonorsTrust, a dark money fund connected to wealthy right-wing donors such as Koch and Mercer, and its sister group, Donors Capital Fund.

In exchange, AIER has provided fellowships to academics in several Koch-funded programs. That includes economist Peter Boettke, the former president of the Mont Pelerin Society, of which Charles Koch has been a member, and Michael Munger, an adjunct scholar at the Koch-backed Cato Institute. AIER’s trustees include Benjamin Powell, director of the Free Market Institute at Texas Tech University, which has received millions from the Koch network. Powell is known for his defense of sweatshops.

Bhattacharya, co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, is a former research fellow at the Hoover Institution, which received $430,000 from Charles Koch’s foundation between 2017 and 2018, as well as $1.4 million from the dark money fund DonorsTrust from 2016 to 2020. Since then, Bhattacharya has appeared in multiple Hoover video programs.

Bhattacharya, Gupta, and representatives of AIER did not respond to requests for comment. Kulldorff insisted that he has never received money from the Koch network.

“Koch-affiliated foundations funded pro-lockdown COVID research by Dr. Neil Ferguson at Imperial College, but they have never funded me, either directly or indirectly,” said Kulldorff. “Lockdowns have generated huge profits for Koch and other big businesses while throwing children and the working class under the bus.”

“Access To The Very Highest Levers Of Government” The Great Barrington Declaration and its natural immunity strategy were widely derided by scientists around the world. The strategy was condemned by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and its HIV Medicine Association while World Health Organization (WHO) Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus called it “unethical.” Thousands of medical professionals called on governments to disregard strategies that rely on natural infection.

“Never in the history of public health has anyone suggested infecting the entire population with a pathogen with which we have no long term experience as a strategy for managing a pandemic,” said epidemiologist and physician Robert Morris, who has advised several federal agencies.

Nevertheless, the declaration and its authors were embraced by a number of political leaders, since their arguments provided their laissez-faire approaches to the pandemic with scholarly validity.

This list included President Trump. Two months before the release of the Great Barrington Declaration, Trump welcomed the document’s authors to a White House meeting, even though the administration’s COVID-19 advisor, Deborah Birx, warned colleagues that the doctors were “a fringe group without grounding in epidemics, public health, or on-the-ground common sense experience.”

Trump’s COVID-19 adviser, Scott Atlas, a neuroradiologist with no background in infectious diseases, appeared to be one of several staff who supported the declaration’s strategy. While Atlas has denied urging the natural immunity approach, he publicly claimed that masks do not help curb the virus and called the idea of mandating vaccines for young people a “denial of science,” a claim that has been thoroughly disproved.

The president became enamored with herd immunity and the quick fix it promised for his reelection campaign. In mid-September 2020, Trump began trotting out the concepts that would soon be codified in the Great Barrington Declaration. He declared at an ABC News town hall, “And you’ll develop…a herd mentality. It’s going to be — it’s going to be herd-developed, and that’s going to happen.”

Following Trump’s lead, a number of Republican-led states adopted hands-off pandemic strategies.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis ordered the resumption of most commerce in November 2020, including indoor dining, and barred localities from enforcing mask mandates and social distancing.

Declaration co-author Bhattacharya advised DeSantis on his approach and called the governor “extraordinary” for his handling of the pandemic. Last month, DeSantis signed legislation banning vaccine mandates statewide.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott lifted his state’s mask mandate and COVID business restrictions in March 2021. The next month, he declared Texas could be close to herd immunity. Recently, Abbott issued an executive order banning mask mandates, which a federal judge recently ruled unenforceable because it violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Great Barrington Declaration’s central arguments also found support overseas. In September 2020, co-author Gupta met in London with U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who had been slow to impose lockdowns and implement testing after the coronavirus was first identified in his country. A month after this meeting, Johnson sent a series of texts echoing talking points from the declaration, including that the virus wasn’t a real risk to people under 60.

The London meeting was also attended by Anders Tegnell, the state epidemiologist for Sweden, a country that became well known for its rejection of lockdowns. In April 2020, Sweden’s public health director asserted, “There is no clear correlation between the lockdown measures taken in countries and the effect on the pandemic.”

“You have to hand it to the [authors of the] Great Barrington declaration: They have had extraordinary access to the very highest levers of government,” said Gavin Yamey, M.D., M.P.H., a professor of global health and public policy at Duke University. “They have had a profound impact on policy-making. Time and time again, we’ve seen the [people behind the] Great Barrington Declaration get what they want.”

A Devastating Toll Despite the Great Barrington Declaration’s claim that it was delineating “the most compassionate approach” to COVID-19, states and countries that embraced its anti-interventionist strategy have all experienced a COVID massacre.

At the time of the declaration’s publication, roughly 200,000 Americans had died from the virus. Since then, that number has quadrupled, the highest known number of any country.

Florida has become a COVID-19 hotspot, accounting for nearly one in five U.S. cases last summer. Virus numbers also surged in Texas, with the two states accounting for one third of all U.S. COVID-19 deaths at the time.

Even with all those infections, herd immunity was never achieved. Last week, University of Texas researchers warned that the Omicron variant could lead to the largest surge to date in the state.

International efforts to reach natural herd immunity haven’t fared much better. A scathing report released in October by British lawmakers — many from Prime Minister Johnson’s own party — found that the country’s failure to respond to the virus quickly and aggressively was “one of the most important public health failures the United Kingdom has ever experienced” and led to “many thousands of deaths which could have been avoided.”

And in Sweden, where roughly 11 out every 100 people had been diagnosed with the virus, COVID-19 fatalities stand at 1,476 deaths per million, many times that of its closest neighbors.

“We Are Intent On Not Letting Omicron Disrupt Work & School” Despite the costs, right-wing messaging against public health measures continues.

At first glance, lockdowns may appear beneficial to some big businesses, especially those that were deemed essential businesses and boasted robust online marketplaces. But social epidemiologist Justin Feldman, of Harvard’s FXB Center for Health and Human Rights, noted that “some regulations directly cost businesses money.”

Feldman explained that “paid quarantine and isolation means workers will be paid to stay home instead of working,” vaccine mandates could “make hiring difficult during a labor shortage,” and mask mandates “signal to the public that there is danger and they will then not patronize businesses.”

That’s likely why in March 2021, the dark money fund DonorsTrust spent nearly $800,000 to spread the narrative that the pandemic’s toll was actually due to government interventions. In May, DonorsTrust issued a press release claiming lockdowns hurt workers.

In June, Mercatus Center, a libertarian think tank at George Mason University heavily funded by the Koch family, began funding a database run by Emily Oster, an economist who has argued that the drawbacks of school closures outweigh the risks of COVID-19 exposure. Oster’s work was cited by Gov. DeSantis when he signed an order last August allowing parents to defy school mask mandates.

And earlier this month, the Foundation for Economic Education, another Koch-funded nonprofit, claimed that “naive government interventions” were responsible for a rise in global malaria cases and a spike in worldwide poverty.

Such anti-public health intervention narratives have had a lasting impact.

President Joe Biden hasn’t embraced herd immunity through infection the way Trump did, and he instituted a vaccine mandate for large companies that has faced court challenges and pushback from Republican and conservative Democratic lawmakers.

But Biden, whose COVID-19 response team is headed by former investment firm CEO and so-called “businessman’s businessman” Jeffrey Zients, has continued his predecessor’s push to keep the country open, even prematurely declaring “independence” from COVID-19 on Fourth of July last summer.

Earlier this month, Biden assured reporters that lockdowns would not be returning, despite the emergence of the Omicron variant and continued spread of Delta. According to a recent scientific simulation, an eight-week stay-at-home order in response to the new surge could save 300,000 lives.

Last Friday, the White House’s coronavirus response team put out a statement reaffirming its limited approach, a stance Biden reiterated in his remarks on Omicron on Tuesday: “We are intent on not letting Omicron disrupt work & school for the vaccinated.”

The defeat of lockdowns is only part of big business’ takeover of the country’s COVID-19 response.

The country’s eviction moratorium was allowed to lapse after it faced multiple legal challenges funded in part by the Charles Koch Foundation — at the same time as Charles Koch began making new investments in real estate. A subsequent moratorium put in place by the Biden administration was also struck down by the Supreme Court.

And while one of Biden’s first presidential promises was to clarify COVID-19 workplace safety standards, the resulting guidelines ended up limited to a small subsection of workers, following months of lobbying by business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The Chamber and other corporate interests have also pushed for a corporate liability shield to protect employers from COVID-19-related lawsuits and have also been fighting against ongoing efforts to release the vaccine intellectual property at the World Trade Organization to speed up global vaccination.

The right-wing push against public health measures shows signs of success. Support for pandemic lockdown measures dropped significantly over nine months from the start of the pandemic. A Gallup poll from November 2020 found that a plurality of 49 percent of Americans said they would shelter in place in response to a serious outbreak, down from 67 percent in March. The decline was mostly due to a “sharp drop” among Republicans.

“A Shining City On A Hill” The Great Barrington Declaration’s authors continue to push herd immunity through COVID-19 infections. Gupta co-founded a U.K. nonprofit called Collateral Global dedicated to exposing alleged negative impacts of COVID mitigation measures, which has Bhattacharya on staff.

Bhattacharya, meanwhile, published an op-ed last January claiming that vaccinating people in his native India was “unethical” because most had “natural immunity” and the risk of adverse reactions outweighed the benefits of inoculation. A month later, the country experienced its worst-ever surge.

All three co-authors are also now affiliated with the Brownstone Institute for Social and Economic Research, an Austin, Texas-based nonprofit founded by former AIER editorial director Jeffrey Tucker in May 2021 to prevent “the recurrence of lockdowns.” Bhattacharya serves as the organization's senior scholar, Kulldorff is a senior scientific director, and Gupta is an author.

According to Yamey at Duke University, the institute has been actively promoting vaccine disinformation.

“Time and time again, they have peddled dreadful misinformation and disinformation about vaccines,” he said. “They are, for example, vehemently opposed to vaccinating children, even though we know that unvaccinated children are 10 times more likely to be hospitalized. They very sadly went on television to say that health workers don't need to be vaccinated because they falsely claimed vaccination has no effect on transmission.”

Now declaration co-authors Bhattacharya and Kulldorff, as well as former Trump advisor Scott Atlas have surfaced yet again, as the first three “fellows” at the new Academy for Science and Freedom at Hillsdale College.

Hillsdale, a private non-sectarian Christian school, has long been a factory for conservative thought. In 2016, during a Hillsdale commencement speech, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas called it a “shining city on a hill.” Statues of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher adorn a section of its campus known as “Liberty Walk.” Hillsdale President Larry Arnn chaired Donald Trump’s reactionary 1776 Commission, which sought to craft American history curriculums around America’s strengths.

Hillsdale refuses to accept public funds so it can be free from government mandates. Instead, it accepts large sums from the foundations and donor conduits of right-wing corporate executives and their families. The Charles Koch Foundation has donated over $300,000 to Hillsdale since 2015, and DonorsTrust gave over $3.6 million since 2014, including $2.5 million in 2020. The school has also found generous benefactors in the DeVos family, known for their Amway fortune, and Betsy DeVos’ parents, the Princes.

According to the academy’s recently launched website, the new academy will work “to educate policymakers and the general public about important discoveries and ideas that might otherwise be ignored by scientific journals and corporate media.” To do so, the academy plans to host scientific workshops and conferences, publish academic papers, and engage in “media and government outreach.”

But Feldman isn’t buying it.

“They have no interest in science,” he said. “They have been wrong about the pandemic time and time again. They use their stature as 'experts' to push for policies that are indifferent to ongoing mass death.”

[argumate]

Most companies have largely moved on from the metaverse. The word was uttered just twice on earnings calls at S&P 500 businesses last quarter, compared with 63 times in 2022’s first quarter, according to Bloomberg transcript data. That year, eight out of ten CEOs said they were either hiring dedicated talent with expertise in the space or expanding the responsibilities of their leadership teams to cover it, according to Russell Reynolds. All were chasing a piece of a global business opportunity that McKinsey & Co. consultants at the time optimistically estimated could be worth $5 trillion by 2030.

[notbeingnoticed]

McKinsey & Co.'s Mobility Consumer Pulse for 2024, released this month, found that 46% of EV owners in the U.S. said they were "very" likely to switch back to owning a gas-powered vehicle in their next purchase.

[falcemartello]

•••

L’obiettivo di produrre solo auto elettriche dal 2035 è un salto nel vuoto. Quello di avere emissioni zero a partire dal 2050 è un’utopia. Ma dove stiamo andando?

Vediamo.

Abbiamo dimostrato che sostituire gli impianti a fonti fossili (petrolio, carbone, gas) con tecnologie rinnovabili come pannelli solari e turbine eoliche non è letteralmente possibile per carenza di risorse minerarie.

https://twitter.com/fortnardelli/status/1632376572089978881

Allora sarà giocoforza continuare ad usare impianti  fossili per gestire le intermittenze del solare e dell’eolico. Ma che succede con lo sviluppo delle vendite di auto elettriche?

Si prevede che nel 2035 tutte le auto prodotte siano elettriche e, nel 2050, tutto il parco auto sia elettrico. Se proiettiamo su scala mondiale questo obiettivo (parco attuale di 1.400.000.0000 auto) abbiamo quanto segue.

Secondo la previsioni Mckinsey nel 2030 si venderanno 40 milioni di auto cioè il 28,5% delle vendite totali.

https://t.co/Vw6bXb3BXO

Partiamo da questo numero per proiettare i dati di produzione fino al 2050, partendo dall’assunto che dal 2035 tutte le auto vendute  saranno elettriche.

In questa ipotesi paragoniamo le riserve con la quantità cumulata di minerale necessaria. In rosso i valori che eccedono le riserve. Per esempio a partire dal 2042 il Cobalto richiesto (8,53+06 Ton) supera le riserve (7,6+06 Ton). Dal 2046 mancheranno LI e Ni.

Qui sotto è paragonata la produzione annua necessaria con le richieste annue. A partire dal 2022 le quantità di Litio superano la produzione del 2019. Dal 2034 Ni, Li, Co, e Grafite supereranno di non poco la produzione annua di riferimento del 2019.

In conclusione, anche senza le batterie di stoccaggio, i minerali necessari per le batterie delle auto elettriche sono in grave carenza. E’ facile prevedere una corsa all’accaparramento di questi materiali preziosi, con conseguente aumento dei prezzi.

Non avremo risolto granché dal punto di vista delle emissioni perché le auto elettriche provocheranno un aumento del 40% dell’energia elettrica per le ricariche, e le fonti fossili non potranno essere eliminate per le ragioni già spiegate sull’intermittenza.

Gli obbiettivi fissati per il 2035 e il 2050 si rivelano tutti irrealizzabili, e mostrano di essere un trampolino di lancio verso qualcosa di diverso dalla soluzione dichiarata. Sarà meglio approfondire per capire dove veramente verremo catapultati.

(Fortunato Nardelli)

[lboogie1906]

Tidjane Thiam (July 29, 1962) who was co-CEO of Credit Suisse, was born one of seven children into a politically prominent family in Abidjan, Ivory Coast. His father, Amadou Anna Thiam, was a journalist and former cabinet member in the government of President Félix Houphouët-Boigny, and his mother, Marietou Sow, was the president’s niece. He was the first in his nation to pass the examination to enter the prestigious Polytechnic University, graduating as valedictorian at the National School of Mines Paris. Earning an MBA at the European Institute of Business Administration.

He moved to DC to gain work experience in the Young Professionals Program sponsored by the World Bank and then rejoined McKinsey & Co. in Paris. He served in the cabinet of two Ivorian presidents as an economic and infrastructure adviser where he successfully pushed for privatization of public utilities and airports. He became a partner at McKinsey & Co. He worked at the British insurance company Aviva, where he rose to CEO. He became CEO of another multinational British insurer, Prudential plc, thus becoming the first African to have the distinction of heading a FTSE 100 company.

He resigned from Prudential plc to take the helm of Credit Suisse. He instituted a “radical three-year plan” to reorganize the firm which led to his being named Banker of the Year in by Euromoney magazine. A corporate spy scandal in which he was implicated led him to tender his resignation from Credit Suisse.

He launched New York-based Freedom Acquisition I, a special-purpose acquisition company after raising $250 million in an IPO. He became executive chairman and former Credit Suisse colleague Adam Gishen became CEO. They raised an additional $50 million for the IPO of their SPAC.

He was chairman of the High-Level Infrastructure Investment Panel. He has advocated for sustainable development as a member of the African Progress Panel and was elected to the International Olympic Committee. Fluent in three languages and a chevalier of the French Legion of Honor, he is a dual citizen of the Ivory Coast and France. He was married to Annette Anthony Thiam and they had two sons. #africanhistory365 #africanexcellence

[tenth-sentence]

A projection by McKinsey had expressed a concern that shrinking the Americas division, moving nearly $US10 billion in assets, could cost 10 per cent of the face value in discount, or as much as $US1 billion; in fact, it cost $US60 million between 1993 and 1996.

"Westpac: The Bank That Broke the Bank" - Edna Carew

[follow-up-news]

The Federal Trade Commission has ordered information from eight companies that the agency says offer products and services that use personal data to set prices based on a shopper’s individual characteristics. In a Tuesday announcement, the FTC said it was seeking to better understand the “opaque market” of “surveillance pricing” practices using consumer data — including credit information, location and browsing history — to charge different customers different prices for the same goods. To do this, the agency noted, third-party intermediaries claim to use advanced algorithms, artificial intelligence and other technology. “Firms that harvest Americans’ personal data can put people’s privacy at risk. Now firms could be exploiting this vast trove of personal information to charge people higher prices,” FTC Chair Lina M. Khan said in a prepared statement. Khan added that the FTC’s inquiry “will shed light on this shadowy ecosystem of pricing middlemen.” The FTC said it sent orders to Mastercard, Revionics, Bloomreach, JPMorgan Chase, Task Software, PROS, Accenture and McKinsey & Co.

[mightyflamethrower]

Dissatisfied EV Owners Spell Doom for Electric Car Manufacturing

The world rejected the electric car once before – in the 1990s, when consumers wouldn’t bite on a product with range challenges, high costs, and dubious technology. These same hurdles remain despite improvements in range and technology. The McKinsey and Co. consumer survey affirms that the failures of the past are in redux: Globally, 35% of respondents expressing a desire to revert to a gas-powered vehicle claimed the reason was a lack of charging infrastructure in public places (an even greater problem in the US); 34% said total ownership costs were prohibitive; 32% found that EVs compromised long-distance trips (again, compounded in the US); 24% complained they could not charge their car at home; and 21% reported that “needing to worry about charging is too stressful.”

[argumate]

McKinsey & Co. sought to rally its partners with upbeat declarations and blasts of rock and rap music in Copenhagen earlier this month, attempting to boost morale during a tumultuous period for the giant consulting firm.

The musical soundtrack included a selection of hits from pop artists including American rapper Eminem and singer Bob Marley. “Tubthumping” by former British rock bank Chumbawamba was also played, with its signature lyrics: “I get knocked down, but I get up again. You are never gonna keep me down.”

anarchists grunting and taking damage

[raffaellopalandri]

Book of the Day - Strategy in Action

Today’s Book of the Day is Strategy in Action, written by Angel Gavieiro Besteiro in 2022 and published by Springer. Angel Gavieiro Besteiro is an international expert in banking and strategy. He has held senior executive roles as SVP/divisional head of strategy and business development for Barclays, Lloyds Bank, and Wells Fargo. He was a management consultant at McKinsey & Co. In addition, he…

[jordanianroyals]

18 September 2023: Queen Rania took part in the first meeting of the World Economic Forum’s Giving to Amplify Earth Action (GAEA) initiative, which aims to forge public, private, and philanthropic partnerships (PPPPs) to combat climate change and nature loss.

She will serve as a Global Co-Chair of GAEA, where she will contribute to steering its strategic priorities alongside Forum Founder and Executive Chairman, Professor Klaus Schwab, who stated that Her Majesty’s leadership role in the initiative “will be instrumental in driving impactful climate action with partners.’’

Speaking at the meeting, Her Majesty noted that, since the Forum announced its intention to launch GAEA during its annual meeting in January, the world has seen a number of climate disasters, with July being named the hottest month in Earth’s recorded history.

“My region is warming at twice the global average, and experts predict that extreme heat will make large areas literally unlivable before the century is through.” (Source: Petra)

The Queen noted that less than 2% of global philanthropy funding goes to climate and nature, adding, “If the end goal of philanthropy is to create impact, then there is no better place to start than with our planet.”

 “That’s why I am proud to be joining GAEA as a Global Co-Chair,” Her Majesty said. “Because we have a collective responsibility – and the collective ability – to meet our climate ambitions.”

During the meeting, Professor Schwab explained that, ‘’multiple global crises continue to threaten efforts to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, and the climate crisis is front and center.”

“The World Economic Forum, with its commitment to improving the state of the world through multistakeholder collaboration, is convening leaders from philanthropy, governments, and the private sector to mobilize and accelerate action for the highest-impact interventions for climate and nature through the GAEA initiative,” he said.

A first-of-its-kind global initiative, GAEA aims to grow new and existing public, private, and philanthropic partnerships to help unlock the financing needed to reach net-zero emissions, reverse nature loss, and restore biodiversity by 2050.

The meeting, held during the Forum’s Sustainable Development Impact Meetings on the sidelines of the 78th United Nations General Assembly, brought together more than 30 leaders from government, business, and civil society to discuss ways to leverage philanthropy to drive climate-related partnerships.

Utilizing a new framework developed in collaboration with McKinsey Sustainability, GAEA has identified a number of key industries where philanthropic capital would have the greatest impact. Through this framework, it aims to allow governments and corporates to deliver climate action faster and more effectively.

 A number of environmental projects, each with the potential to be scaled, were presented during the session. These included efforts to promote the transition to green energy in developing nations, accelerate the market adoption of plant-rich diets, scale clean power, and conserve coastal forests.

Over the coming months, GAEA will work with key partners to incubate a new generation of public-private-philanthropic partnerships, with the Forum helping to identify key corporates and governments willing to match philanthropic commitments and action for climate mitigation and nature preservation.