Those who can, do, those who can’t, teach

The Senior Lecturer eyes up an opportunity:

And there is another ‘but’. This relates to capture. How is it to be ensured that those new directors are not drawn from the same cadre of directors who currently run companies and who will as a result act in the same way as such directors always have, in the interests of a very limited range of interests and views? I see only one answer to this, and that is training. It is completely untrue that the skill to run a major company comes from a public school and legal and accounting training, or a conventional MBA. The skills in question are much more widely available, but that is not recognised, and it is also true that those with those wider skills are not provided with appropriate financial training, probably with the intention of providing a barrier to entry to the inner sanction of the board of directors.

For who will provide that appropriate financial training?

Surely there must be a paid job in the quangogracy for a man of such intellectual merits?

13 comments on “Those who can, do, those who can’t, teach

  1. …a barrier to entry to the inner sanction of the board of directors

    The inner sanctum should be unencumbered with illiterate dunderheads.

  2. Already done; the Institute of Directors run company director qualifications.

    But Murphy wouldn’t approve of those; they’re hardly likely to hire him.

  3. BUREAUCRATIC PECKING ORDER

    Those who can peck,
    peck.

    Those who can’t peck,
    teach pecking.

    Those who can’t teach pecking,
    administer the teaching of pecking.

    Those who can’t administer the teaching of pecking,
    regulate the administration of the teaching of pecking.

    Those who can’t regulate the administration of the teaching of pecking,
    advocate at the bar, for or against the regulation of the administration
    of the teaching of pecking.

    Those who can’t advocate at the bar, for or against the
    regulation of the administration of the teaching of pecking,
    legislate about advocating for or against the regulation of the
    administration of the teaching of pecking.

    And this whole house of cards, legislation about advocating for
    or against the regulation of the administration of the teaching of pecking,
    is all paid for only by those who can and do peck :

    Noting the fat of the cat at the tip of the top –
    (Or indeed the flats of the cats at the tops of the tips) –
    declining to support further, such unedifying edifices –

    their resources taxed beyond endurance –
    failing to keep their peckers up –
    drooping –
    wilting –
    they simply cease to
    peck.

  4. It is, I believe, a legal requirement to act in the interests of shareholders.
    Murphy seeks to over-rule English Law

  5. john77

    ‘It is, I believe, a legal requirement to act in the interests of shareholders.
    Murphy seeks to over-rule English Law’

    I think in his febrile imagination he seeks to over-rule rather more than that….. And what is law but a means by which the ‘1% control everything’???

  6. The skills in question are much more widely available, but that is not recognised, and it is also true that those with those wider skills are not provided with appropriate financial training, probably with the intention of providing a barrier to entry to the inner sanction of the board of directors.

    No doubt Murphy believes he possesses ‘the skills in question’ as well as the ‘appropriate financial training’. My question is this: Why aren’t companies beating down his door to ask him to serve as a director?

  7. Alas, private persons making decisions “in the interests of a very limited range of interests and views,” including self-interest, and not including the self-interest of self-important commentators. Ritchie says the answer is “training,” by which he means haranguing, this probably to be done by people who write “inner sanction” when they mean “inner sanctum,” to-wit, morons like himself. Wonder if the trainers will know economics either.

  8. providing a barrier to entry to the inner sanction of the board of directors.

    Is this that locked room where directors are whipped with a silken lash by Nanny?

  9. @ PF
    “Acting against the interest of creditors” has long been a crime. However I know of no legal requirement to consider the interests of Momentum LGBT+ Activists or Irish accountants.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.