The headline (Is Italy Too Italian?) is silly, but the article is a good read. It uses bespoke textile maker Luciano Barbera as an example of Italian business strengths and weaknesses.
(The sub-head, “From Taxis to Textiles, Italy Chooses Tradition Over Growth” is much more representative of the content.)
News from the superficial world of online dating:
It turns out, women really care about men's height. I'm 5'9”, if I wanted to be as attractive as somebody who's 5'10”, right, another inch? I would have to make about $35-40,000 more a year.
This and other, deeper and more interesting, observations about human motivations and the psychological discount rate, in the Big Think Interview With Dan Ariely.
Pay czar chose not to go after $1.6B in bank pay – Yahoo! News
The Obama administration's pay czar said Friday that he did not try to recoup $1.6 billion in lavish compensation to top executives at bailed-out banks because he thought shaming the banks was punishment enough.
Yes, such humiliation. How will they ever be able to look themselves in the mirrors of their Ferraris?
Here's a somewhat effective piece of agitprop from Rep. Grayson: War Is Making You Poor Act – NEWS RELEASE.
Congressman Alan Grayson (FL-08) introduced a landmark bill last night, called the “War Is Making You Poor Act”. The bipartisan bill does three things
1) It limits the amount of funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
2) It eliminates the federal income tax on the first $35,000 of every American’s income ($70,000 for married couples), and
3) It cuts the Federal deficit by $15.9 billion.
Congressman Grayson said, “All three of those things need to be done. This bill brings them all together.”
The bill attracted an eclectic group of supporters.
The terrible thing about it is that the math is true. But of course there's no way we're about to cut a third of the non-war-related defense budget. Not until long after we have to.
It's odd in a way that more members of Congress don't try stunts like this, though. If enough did there might in the end be some movement on the issue.
I went to the bank today to deposit, among other things, a $5 rebate check for a piece of computer gear purchased before my illness. The check said on its front that it was “Not Valid Unless Cashed Before April 28, 2010”. Today is April 27, 2010. The teller refused to accept the check. “It says April 28. I can't accept it before that date. Come back tomorrow.” Of course, had I done so, the check would have been invalid. I protested that the words “not valid unless cashed before” had some relevance here. The teller was adamant: the check couldn't be cashed until tomorrow. I was adamant too: the check would be worthless tomorrow.
I was invited to go sign in at the front desk and cool my heels in some other queue for an indefinite period of time until the manager (“he's busy with someone right now”) might deign to speak with me to resolve the issue. I refused and suggested I would stay put in front of the teller until the manager arrived. The teller went to see her non-manager supervisor. Amazingly, the supervisor agreed the check couldn't be cashed without the branch manager's OK. I stood there. Eventually, the teller found the manager, who never appeared to speak to me, and announced that since it was only $5 they would do me the great favor of taking the check.
Short Citibank now? Or is it a good business model for them to alienate customers who bother them by depositing pesky $5 checks?
Recent Bluessky Posts
Jotwell Blenderlaw
