Best not

All the shite about bankers being bastards is fair enough I guess, like yesterday I kicked an auld cripple in the face just for the hell of it. But, for the most part, the vast majority of those working in British banking today don’t get the big wages and big bonuses that make all the headlines. I reckon for the vast majority a chunk less than the national average topped up with performance related bonuses that aren’t pensionable constitutes their total, annual earnings.

Of course that’s a shite story for the papers so its probably best to keep schtum about it. Or at least it was until the RBS head of UK corporate banking went rogue. Like according to this mad, maverick man, the average tenure for RBS business managers i.e. the bods that go out and about trying to arrange loans and bank facilities for corner shops, is 12 months. This was a bad thing it seems because it got in the way of relationship banking, hence business managers will have to go out and work in a small business for a coupla days a year to make sure they empathise with and understand their clients.

Really? Like is that the answer? I thought the real issue here is why the utter fuck are business managers changing jobs every year? Are RBS not paying the going rate so people fuck off elsewhere (bearing in mind paying the going rate is the argument RBS use to justify paying multi-million investment banker packages)?

Alternatively, I’ve been fortunate enough never to have had fuck all to do with business banking, but I’ve blethered to a few who have and who've made clear its an sales target driven fucking nightmare. So are RBS, that admirable civil service institution, working people too hard by setting their sales targets too high? I think as taxpayers we should be told given the additional recruitment costs this would appear to be imposing and the poor quality service it would appear to be delivering as a result.

In the meantime it was a good laugh reading shite like this given the complete lack of self-awareness there appears to be about how the business is being run and the associated insight into what actually matters to exectives. It was also rather lovely of the Telegraph no to even ask why so many bods leave so quickly. There again business managers do tend to be rather common.

The (New) Left is dead

I mind a while back looking at what the left had to say about shit given the inevitable collapse of capitalism due to its innate contradictions and what not was integral to left thinking. I mind when I did it was totally depressing because I had to spend an age finding anything and I mean ANYTHING that actually mattered a fuck.

Scanning the last 9 months of articles published by the New Left Review was even more depressing than that because it has absolutely fuck all to say about well anything really. The best you can say is that at least they watch the telly and presumably fulminate about the latest headlines then workshop an appropriate theoretical response with the aid of feminist, eco-lesbians who have a passable grasp of critical theory (Adorno mind not that Walter Benjamin malarky). Apart from that, they lag the times, only ever commenting after the event and in the process come across as a bunch of high-bourgeoisie, privileged elderly shifters at a complete remove from reality thanks to the trust funds and tenures attached to the silver spoons rammed up their rectums at birth.

To give some practical examples – the New Left Review thinks discussing Mao right now actually matters and that shit like the following “The work of Thomas Hirschhorn as artistic primer for a precarious world. Appeals for explanation and engagement in makeshift monuments or plaintive placards, while overflowing installations lay bare the excesses of late capitalism” doesn't just mean whoever writes shite like that is a tool.

Nah, fuck that. If that’s all they can say at this critical juncture i.e. NOW given all the shite that's gone done and is going down, then that’s it, it’s official, the Left is dead, largely, it seems, via auto-anal-asphyxiation.


P.S. this is a positive thing when you think about it. The fact the old lefty figureheads have chosen to render themselves utterly irrelevant makes clear new people and new thinking is needed, give or take ignoring shitfers like this twat like the plague. So thank you Perry Anderson, thank you for rendering yourself an utter joke and reemphasising the fact your brother got all the brains in your family.

The Mafia, the law and positive discrimination

Was funny reading Nick Cohen's piece on how there's an Omerta i.e. code of silence, at work in financial services.

To summarise, the real reason yer average punter knows fuck all about how shit actually is in the financial services sector is that there are 1) legally binding, contractual obligations to keep schtum at every stage of the process, 2) its fucking obvious speaking out will permanently fuck your career i.e. no other employer would touch you with a barge pole if you speak out about your superiors and 3) you get more money keeping schtum than you ever would in an employment tribunal and with no risk/legal expense.

None of the above to me constitutes an "Omerta" give or take point 2), but then that applies all over the place, most obviously to Doctors. Rather, its economic self-interest that's the main thang at work here. Some practical results of this are that any inside account of how the financial service sector actually works tend to be the odd fictional account written by city boys that bailed out after they got their last big, bonus, plus the case details generated by the only time senior/high paid financial sector types go to law, which is when they think they can get a gender/sexual orientation discrimination case going what with the payout for those being uncapped (unlike what you get in a bog standard employment tribunal). Consequently, the public generally doesn't have a fucking clue give or these odd exceptions, which by definition are atypical and unrepresentative.

Practically, following on from the above, fuck the mafia parallels cos they're just for dramatic effect. Rather, employment law needs a changing as does the treatment of whistleblowers. Fuck knows about the latter, but as for the former, well that's dead simple - employment tribunals should be allowed to award multiples of salary including annual bonuses. There. Sorted. More people will go to law and more of the shit that actually happens will get exposed. Except there's no fucking way the current ConDem shites will do that.

Al Capone, Fred the Shred and structural socio-economic inequalities

The thing about the Sir Fred of Shred super injunction that seems to be in the process of getting forgotten is the way the peer that raised it in the Lords neatly justified his actions by highlighting how the former RBS employee's employer had a conflict of interest policy for its employees.

Put simply, fuck all the super injunction freedom of the press some tart blackmailing a footballer shite, rather did one of the key archi-cunts of the credit crunch that is fucking the lives of hundreds of thousands of people across Britain breach his own company policies while an RBS employee and if so should he have been dismissed for misconduct rather than early retired on a multi-million package? This is the straightforward thing that needs investigated now.


The issue is NOT whether Sir Fred of Shred having a bit of illicit luvin' influenced his decision-making in ways that fucked the bank because that's (a) a facile idea and (b) impossible to prove. Rather, its did he breach a basic term of his employment and if so can we (a) revisit his package in an actually you can fuck off with no cash ya cunt type style and can we (b) have the heads of all those cunts who may have turned a blind eye on a stick as well please?

As an immediate P.S. its no exactly a new idea right enough given this or more famously Al Capone getting done for tax evasion. But, stickin' em with the technicalities delivers results and scares the willies out of all current company directors who know damn fine well they‘ve been a bit economical with the actualite in the past when it comes to their expenses claims. Oh shit, that last bit means it'll probably get buried/smothered by a different story. In the meantime eeeuuurrrgghh, imagine Sir Fred of Shred looming down on you sexy style with his cum face. Euuurrrgghhh.

A May 23rd PS - Is it Nelson in the Simpsons that points and says "ha ha, ha ha"? Regardless, the additional details now coming out about the Sir Fred of Shred's "romance" are brilliant. So according to this not only did he have an affair with a colleague he "oversaw" her getting her second promotion while elsewhere unnamed senior sources are letting it be known that neither of the chairman Sir Fred served under were aware of the conflict of interest; now you could fuck this up by trying to do some bigger picture shit like how this illustrates how he ran the bank as a personal fiefdom, but so fecking what, that's what all CEOs do.

Rather, the real issue is straightforward and remains getting Al Capone on his ass i.e. get 'em on the technicalities over TWO questions/potential breaches of company policy:

(a) Did Sir Fred follow his employers conflicts of interest policy as he was presumably contractually obliged to
(b) If not was he involved in any decisions where there was a clear conflict of interest he was contractually obliged to flag up (i.e. overseeing the promotion)

And lets be clear(a)applies to potential situations and is simply a point of principle that means the relationship should be flagged up regardless, whereas (b)could be an actual and therefore an additional issue and potentially a muthafuckin' smoking gun.

And lets also be fucking clear about the context here; terribly senior bods get terribly big pay packets both because they are clearly worth it, but also because they are regularly assessed on the extent to which they explicitly lead by example i.e. did Sir Fred deliberately withold information that might have adversely affected annual assessments of his performance (oopsy - if such behaviour wouldn't have affected it, then that would indicate there's one rule for the senior and another for everyone else, which is not a good thing to make public knowledge in HR terms)? Now this last part is the kind of wanky bullshit that gets explicitly included in annual performance reviews for very senior bods i.e. they get a bigger bonus the more of an example they set to us plebs. So what kind of example did Sir Fred set I wonder? Plus, the FSA is presumably mindful of the fact that the appointment of a senior bod at a systemically important financial institution was potentially tarnished by unmanaged and unstated conflicts of interest i.e. this shit actually matters big time in principle.

In fact fingers crossed the public interest now being taken in this might prompt the FSA to try and claim a real scalp. They might even engage some HR consultants and start going after the other cunts that fucked the UK economy by investigating their adherence to company HR policies (nah, I doubt it).

kultuR studies

Cultural studies is bad enough, a micky mouse, middle-brow mash-up of sociology and misinterpretation tarted up with quotes from dead Frenchman, but cultural commentators are in a league of cockness all of their own. These rent-a-bollocks zeitgeist surfing dicksplashes* provide colour like toddlers paint; terribly important for all those directly involved, but meaningless drivel to everyone else. And so in an Evening Standard article about new Missing middle (class) consumption patterns the cultural commentator Stephen Bayley was quoted saying “You either have to go super-bargain or super-prestige. There is no room for mediocrity”. To substantiate this point the article quoted a different, unnamed commentator; “(i)n car terms, everyone wants luxury German or cheap Korean”, which is very lovely I guess except its bollocks.

Here are the top ten cars sold in Britain in 2010:

1. Ford Fiesta … 103,013
2. Vauxhall Astra … 80,646
3. Ford Focus … 77,804
4. Vauxhall Corsa … 77,398
5. Volkswagen Golf … 58,116
6. Volkswagen Polo … 45,517
7. Peugeot 207 … 42,185
8. BMW 3 Series … 42,020
9. MINI … 41,883
10. Nissan Qashqai … 39,048

Now maybe the point was it’s not what people buy, but what they aspire to. But, then that’s also to claim Ford Fiesta drivers actually want Kias, which they don’t. And sure plenty aspire to the latest tuned up BMW, but then they always have.

Then I found another quote elsewhere from Stephen Bayley and just thought WOW!

“In an age robbed of religious symbols, going to the shops replaces going to the church. We have a free choice, but at a price. We can win experience, but never achieve innocence. Marx knew that the epic activities of the modern world involve not lance and sword but dry goods. “

I mean seriously, WOW! The contents are such incoherent bollocks they simply don’t warrant scrutiny (other than to highlight the US example of mass religion and mass-consumerism shits on the opening assertion), but the language does illustrate how the (ab)use of portentous words and phrases is more important to this kinda of shite than dull things like accuracy. What, I wondered, was the point of shite like all of that?

That was where my head was at as I sat reading my “essential executive toolkit”, the British Airways business:life magazine. In it was an article on “The mindset revolution” by James Reed, chairman of the Reed global recruitment business his dad founded in 1960. Nepotism, schempetism I say, yer man Reed is also a member of the UK Government's National Employment Partnership, a fellow and regular speaker to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, a former associate of the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit and a member of the Institute for Public Policy Research Taskforce on Race Equality and Diversity in the Private Sector. So in labour market and employment terms he’s quite a big cheese and worth a peruse at the very least.

Now James paid some bods to ask thousands of top employers what they “really look for in employees”, then do some “groundbreaking” research and even run a few workshops. What these discovered was revolutionary, 96% of the employers surveyed would pick someone with the right mindset, but not the complete skillset over someone with the complete skillset, but not the right mindset. As I was reading this on a plane I started praying like a Sunday shopper that the employers surveyed didn’t include those of pilots.

Prayers cast I read on to discover this research “totally undermine(s) one of the central tenets of the job world that better skills equal better jobs”. Again I was shocked. I didn't realise that was the case or at least hadn’t since I read Richard Hoggart’s 1957 musings on how certificates were all very good, but things like personal character and class really mattered when it came to the distribution of economic rewards (in The Uses of Literacy).

Perhaps Reed was simply using rhetorical devices here, building a straw man to portentously knock down with further revelations? Nope, I think he actually believes this shite, so much so he’s written an entire fucking book on what he calls the 3Gs that constitute the “fundamental components” of a winning mindset. These are the Global, the Good and the Grit (rhymes with…....). I kinda lost it at this point when it came to understanding what these entailed, but they followed on from a bit about top employers stating en masse that they value honesty, trustworthiness, flexibility, commitment and so on above all else. Thankfully, top employers it seems attach no importance to the servility, obsequiousness, fear, aggression, sycophancy, hypocrisy, double-think, arrogance and so on, the "behaviours" I’ve seen pretty much every day of my working life alongside those other more admirable traits. Except,my personal reality would suggest yer man Reed is clearly talking bollocks, so much so I started thinking about the question the cultural commentators had prompted; what’s the point of such drivel and does it actually matter?

Starting with what’s the point, for Reed and British Airways, there’s some obvious pragmatism at work given the article meant free advertising/free copy and the high heid yin of a company that probably uses the airline a bit getting his obvious ego massaged. So that’s tickety-boo then, except this shite is being presented as something to be taken seriously and isn’t that a bad thing given the co-author of the book the article was drawn from is a guest lecturer on the Harvard Business School Executive Education program i.e. he influences global multinational executive thinking? Like wouldn’t we rather the people that run things were schooled in reality as opposed to bollocks? I don’t know, I mean I’m one of those naïve feckers that thinks the only theories worth having are ones that abstract from the reality they try to explain and that the ones worth pissing on are biased shite imposed like dogma on a reality that is then butchered to fit.

The other thing is that this kind of shite, besides being shite,is profoundly conservative because at no point does it threaten the self-image or sense of self of the executives being sold 3G mindset courses as I write this. This is a pity; given top employers only recently did their best to drive the advanced Western economies over a cliff, perhaps a more introspective, critical assessment of top employer mindsets is in order? And instead of fixating on the individual given the recent dominance of group-think and herd behaviour perhaps a more sociological assessment would be more appropriate? And anyhow, I reckon anyone that takes shite like the above seriously is a fucking idiot and not to be trusted with anything more important than his or her own spoon and pusher.

Sadly none of this will turn out to be the case. Instead, a few years from now poor sods across the globe will sit down in neon lit rooms staring at flipcharts and workshopping their mindsets for 2 hours before being handed a voucher for staff canteen sandwiches. They’ll turn up for work the next day clutching a course folder and a new desk tidy spattered with truisms and get back to the real business of sucking up to their boss’s boss. As for cultural commentators, well at least no one is forced to workshop them, they don’t influence the culture of the organisations we endure 5 days a week and they don’t piss away shareholders’ cash either, so I guess they can be safely disregarded as a bunch of ignorant tossers.



* Or has some other word replaced zeitgeist rendering my use of it tragically jejune?

The no luck of the Irish

The thing with the Orish (not the North) situation is how utterly fucked up it all is in ways that provide an exaggerated insight into how shit was here to an extent that makes this report into what happened quality reading. So like Ireland also had a property bubble to be sure (to be sure) and greedy fuckwit former building societies that got out their league lending like morons to golden circles of businessmen/property developers, but then it also had bankers and politicians who did things just that bit more blatantly than here when it came to cheap credit, all expenses paid, no questions asked shenanigans.

However, the biggest, fundamental, will potentially have an impact that will last for at least 5 years difference is the legal system. I recently had Ireland described to me as a “debtors paradise” by someone who’d dealt with problem loans there a coupla years back. This was because of their legal system and the way it, compared to British law, favours debtors i.e. borrowers, over lenders. And so it should you might say especially when it comes to residential mortgages people have taken out to buy themselves a home. Except the guy I was talking to had been dealing with millions of pounds that’d been lent to businesses and as he put it the delays, then the need to take things before a judge who had a thing or two to say about nasty British banks let me tell you and was teeing off next Sunday with the guy who ran the business that’d borrowed the dosh in the first place, made it an utter fucking nightmare.

Now this, as the Japanese lost decade makes abundantly clear, is a bad thing. If shit can’t get sorted out, well then shit won’t get sorted out and will instead drag on and on and on. Need a loan for a new business? Sorry, the banks are all tied up at the moment with their existing bad debts. The other thing is the terms reached on Orish agreements tend, going by the chat I heard, to be as friendly to the debtor as possible, which given so much of what's already coming before the courts involves property developers who took a punt on a bubble strikes me as a tad iffy. The context here of course is that given the Orish taxpayers have nationalised some banks, recapitalised others and put themselves on the hook for the entire system's deposit base, then what’s good for the banks is very much good for the Orish people; it's no longer the case that it's nasty bankers trying to do down some County Kerry boy made good, rather its more likely to be a pish-ripping Dublin based multi-millionaire whose transferred all his assets to his surgically enhanced peroxide wife. So perhaps the Orish legal approach to bad debt needs looking at pronto? In the meantime this provides some nice examples of the kind of shite already being seen.

Personally, I doubt any significant changhes will be made. The other thing we’ve seen in Ireland an exaggerated form is the willingness of politicians to sacrifice taxpayers for the good of the banks and their chief executives to an extent that I think (only think mind), even yer average British punter would take umbrage at. My personal favourite example of this was the way the initial haircuts on NAMA were set and only subsequently reduced after some newspapers got wind of how this government agency was planning to pay way over the odds for bank debt to help them out whereas here the Bank of England took a far more aggressive approach at the outset (compare say this with this). So nah, what I think is Orish politicians a bit sore that they never got some of the good time gravy will keep coming out with oh so tough bullshit rhetoric to wallpaper over the same ol' system wherein politicians, top bankers and big customers keep making or at least keep millions and billions and the Orish taxpayer keeps taking all the risks. And yeah, yeah, that’s the same as here except when you read about say Bertie Ahern and his boom time, Boomtown, grubby, fiver grasping antics you realise no it thankfully isn't quite.

The businessification of the world

To find out what’s happening in the economy on the BBC website you click on a link called “business” and there mixed up with articles about profit warnings and new CEOs you find out things like the latest inflation figures and house price stats. For me conflating “business” with “the economy” like this places a distorting lens in front of a determining aspect of all our lives.

Institutionally, I’d argue “business” can never provide such a totality, but is instead only ever part of a broader economy that includes such significant institutions as national/local government, non-profit organisations and co-operatives run by aggressively predatory lesbians. Plus, key economic indicators, institutions and the cost and supply of key factors of production are influenced by things that are fuck all to do with “business”, oil prices and political and military events being the most obvious example. Or is this conflation meant to impose an interpretative slant on how we should approach these other events? Like does the war some madcunt despot is waging against his own (Libyan) civilians only register due to the impact it’s having on oil prices and what that means in terms of say BP’s profit margins?

I’ve also consistently put the word “business” in inverted commas because what actually registers as “business”, be it in the Financial Times, the BBC, the Economist etc. is itself only ever a distorted subset of well business. For me the best example of this involves Christmas trees, Irish Christmas trees to be precise. A mate told me how he knew someone who, having inherited a patch of land, decided one December to sell Christmas trees. Everything went hunky dory until the bloke who usually sold trees in the village turned up with a few mates and explained to the new boy that he’d better stop it pronto if he knew what was good for him.

There are loads of similar stories. There’s the scaffolding firms that regard specific parts of a city as “their patch” and who, besides intimidation, take down and/or steal the scaffolding rivals put up in “their patch” (much the same can apply to skip hire as I understand). Or there are the taxi firms that, via the power of a few backhanders, get cushy local authority contracts at inflated rates to take special needs kids to school.

Taxi firms in turn introduce the world of cash businesses and all that means in terms of pubs, restaurants, puggy parlours and latterly tanning salons, in terms of money laundering fronts (or even just, like so many small hotels and takeaways, keeping cash to one side to dodge the taxman). I’d add nightclubs, but really that’s always been a balance that waxes and wanes between who runs the doors and the nightclub owners when it comes to managing the drugs trade inside. And all of these of course pay professionals; the accountants, lawyers, financial advisors and what not, who frequently know damn fucking well what’s going on, but turn a blind eye give or take setting their fees accordingly. Then on a more industrial scale you get plant hire and the horrendous percentage of machinery dotted all over Britain’s motorways that A stole from B to sell to C with no questions asked who in turn hired it out to D.

Sticking with the construction industry you encounter the lovely motto of screw the subbies wherein main contractors fuck over sub-contractors on major, landscape changing developments because they’d rather delay paying a subbie for work (or just not pay everything that was originally agreed) than pay the interest on their working capital facilities in a situation where the subbie knows damn fine well that if he doesn’t keep schtum he’ll never get work off the main contractor again (to be fair there are the specialist construction courts, except all that proves is how rife to the point of being institutionalised this kind of behaviour is). When you start adding all this together – the Christmas trees to the taxis to the skips to the screwed subbies and what not – the more apparent the vast, never-reported world of business becomes despite “business” equalling “the economy”. Instead, “business” equals just big PLCs and a biased smear of self-publicising SMEs, the best Scottish example being of course Ultimo.

Alongside this obvious selectivity, listening to or watching any BBC shite on “business” you also realise the “business” that does get reported is a distorted, self-serving bag of shite. Now am sure any glaringly obvious examples of theft or intimidation will appear on the BBC in the crime section, except by definition, reporting that kind of shit in such a way presents it as an exception as opposed to a frequent rule; that the aforementioned backhanders feature in the awarding of local authority taxi contracts is just the way thing are.

The thing is though this can also apply to the big businesses that do get reported on, the best recent example being the £280m fine imposed on Unilever and Procter & Gamble for operating a cartel that fixed prices on household name products in eight European countries between 2002 and 2005. Now, I reckon that’s worth a wee pause and a moment’s reflection; for years price fixing was presumably integral to the marketing strategy of 2 global multinationals. And there are plenty other examples of dubious practices built into the way “business” is conducted, like have a nosey at the Competition Commission website or a think about the EU and Microsoft. Nor is this especially new given say that for c. hundred years the insurance industry was essentially a series of rigged cartels until Direct Line cut through it all by using phone lines instead of intermediaries to sell product.

All these examples make abundantly fucking clear we are rarely talking about one-off mistakes by rogue employees who no longer work for the company and whose unsanctioned, secret antics have been fully investigated to the point where they’ve generated a suite of lessons that have been learned from, applied and documented in a code of conduct. Rather, this kinda shite is as much a part of “business” as the shite that actually does get reported on. In fact compared to what does get reported on it’s arguably more real, more valid and a damn sight more accurate.

To give a practical example, I reckon at least some of the following factors influenced Halfords move into selling services alongside things:

It’s close to saturation point in its existing markets with limited scope for diversification into additional product areas that are anyway also subject to the downturn in discretionary spending: The services chosen provide a logical extension of an existing (utterly fucking shite) brand; competition in these markets is highly fragmented indicating there is clear scope for an aggressive, major player intent on consolidation and leveraging its existing scale economies and actual service prices have frequently risen well above inflation indicating good margin is available.

Except when I click here the Halfrauds CEO, David Wild, instead talks about Tesco in a way that leaches off the latter’s credibility, then spins some homily shite about how he “always think about the customer” when making business decisions. Now this is kinda lovely except it implies he bases multi-million pound investment decisions on him putting himself in the shoes (and cars) of yer average punter as opposed to say ordering detailed cost-benefit analyses, gathering deep market research, buying in strategic consultancy advice on formulating and implementing strategy and what not i.e. the kinda shit that actually happens. As a result he sounds like an unprofessional twat.

Alternatively, he’s simply doing what most PLC CEOs do, which is bullshitting in a Harry G. Frankfurt type style on behalf of his company because to a large extent he and they are largely figure heads used to reassure and warm-up fund managers, key suppliers, big customers and other stakeholders. The thing is though if that’s what CEOs do, why the fuck don’t we get to hear from bods who actually know how shit is in “business”? Obviously, Halfrauds would never let your local store manager appear on the box to talk about the reality of how Halfrauds sells shit shitely, well at least not until he or she had been on a media management course. But, if the alternative is David Wild’s bullshit, then why the fuck bother and why present the programme David Wild spewed over as being a “business conversation show with people at the top giving insight into what matters”, given they patently don’t provide insights and don’t talk about shit that matters?

One argument I guess is that the programme’s editors consider themselves lucky to get such senior bods to talk (in exchange for handing over a free advertising platform and smearing a patina of credibility all over them). This is lovely, I guess, except, business in Britain luxuriates in a distinct lack of scrutiny; when David Wild started bullshitting should he not have been challenged on his bullshit, like should his strategy not have been considered in terms of its success to date and impact on other businesses (and employers)? Rather, we live in a media-defined world where instead of analysis, “business” gets routinely equated with the economy and, the fetish of executive personalities aside, reporting means spewing out the same predictable, exclusionary cultural tropes wherein BP equals a potential environmental disaster, car manufacturing the next campaign to keep production of an SUV designed elsewhere in some horrible English town and utilities the next pensioner crippling price rise and so on and so on.

It could be worse I guess, like US telly has all these kerazee cunts in braces over-enthusiastically jibber-jabbering about the next hot stock pick. Except we know they’re clowns who neither matter nor give much insight into anything whereas our equivalent is more fucked up because it's taken more seriously. So besides business speak oozing into common discourse like a wet one leaking out a pair of boxers, the biased, selective, version of “business” we get spoon fed keeps getting presented to us as a cultural paragon we all should aspire to and learn from because of its great efficiency, customer focus, leanness and so on. Indeed, here “business” is an imperative stick routinely used to beat us over the head; the public sector NEEDS to get more “business” like, we NEED “business” leaders to tell us how universities should be funded and all that kinda bollocks. Except, business can also mean threatening to kick a rival Christmas tree seller’s head in, multinational price fixing arrangements, tax dodging, cutting costs until lives are lost and Halfrauds complete disregard for the personal safety of their customers i.e. there’s a selective, political rhetoric of “business” used every day to justify all sorts of shite in a hegemonic type style. Cunts.