Re: Merck published fake journal

[<bill@multi-science.co.uk>]

Joe of course my point was hardly serious, and its no surprise 
that you can find examples of owners as crooks - the 'self-made 
man' is one of fiction's stock scoundrels. How Robert Maxwell 
ever escaped from a book into the real world is to this very day 
a mystery. However ownership does tend to conservatism whereas 
management tends to - what - rashness; growth; progress? The 
choice of word would reflect a point of view. The fact is, 
despite all the blathering about risk-taking entrepreneurs one 
hears, mostly entrepreneurs are decidedly risk-averse and not 
disposed to bet the ranch, because they're well aware of the 
consequences for them of that bet going wrong; and, because 
perhaps of a non-professional background, they're very well aware 
that just because the business plan says having done abc, 
outcomes will be xyz, the kind of logic beloved of the bank 
manager and the business school, it ain't necessarily so. Owners 
know all about the randomness of everything! Managers however 
have - usually - a lot less to lose, only their jobs and, in all 
but the most extreme cases, can, in the event of disaster, claim 
"wasn't me" and get another pretty good job elsewhere; and the 
gains in terms of successful risk-taking are, for them, 
fantastic. Many an executive who's risk-taken and won a few times 
probably personally pulls down an annual salary more than my 
whole business turns over in a year. Risk taking thus presents an 
owner with the possibility of absolute loss, but some gain, a 
manager with limited loss but the possibility of colossal gain; 
so its not surprising that the risk taking lies with the 
managerial class. My own view is that conservatism in all things 
tends to the public good. Is that hats off to privately owned, 
cautious, unimaginative, stultifying enterprises, going nowhere, 
achieveing nothing, having no impact beyond their owners 
sitting-rooms? 30 years or so ago swathes of Germanys SMEs were 
derided in those terms. Fashions have changed. Now these dullards 
are the backbone of the nation, to be contrasted against the 
'professionals' who have gambled and gambled and gambled and ... 
er.... lost! (other peoples ranches) But one of the plusses of 
dull little businesses owned and run by bumpkins like me is that 
they tend not to cheat libraries - probably because we're too 
stupid and unprofessional to have realised such a thing was 
possible; in small and unlikely ways is the public good built up. 
Bill

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Esposito" <espositoj@gmail.com>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 7:27 AM
Subject: RE: Merck published fake journal


> Oh boy, Bill, this comment can not go unanswered.  How about the
> entrepreneur I know who, already worth $100 million, decided that
> his next venture should run for a year or two and then be flipped
> to some stupid investor?  Or the founders (not a few of them) who
> are not even curious about complying with labor law?  We don't
> have to get into those owners who view their success as a matter
> of entitlement.  Nor should we overlook those who are very
> talented, uniquely talented at starting an enterprise, but simply
> cannot achieve the proper level of detachment when an
> organization increases in size.
>
> If you are saying you know many terrible managers, I would say
> you are not alone, but I also know bad entrepreneurs, bad
> teachers, bad lawyers (lots of these), and absolutely crummy
> administrators in the not-for-profit sector. Let's not pick on
> managers as a class.
>
> Joe Esposito
>
>