Bad Management as Unethical: On Reckless Bus Drivers in Boston

The corruption of an individual manager or non-supervisory employee, or even a government official can be distinguished between the collusion of multiple levels, as I contend has been the case at least as of 2023 in Boston, Massachusetts in regard to the government and the Commonwealth’s most populous region’s mass transit system—in particular, its bus service. I contend that the government has been looking the other way as the management of the local bus transit has held off from firing reckless bus drivers, who thus sordidly feel entitled to ignore the training—assuming it is not deficient—by driving recklessly by riding the accelerator pedal before stomping down on the brake pedal at the last minute, literally, in stopping. With positions to fill, the company’s management treats such driving at best with a slap on the wrist, with the government looking on rather than divesting the management of its disincentive to fire even dangerous drivers. Such corruption is systemic in nature, and thus is much worse than the corruption of an individual. Ultimately, it is the public—which includes the electorate—which goes unprotected while bus riders have to put up with jolting rides.

With a pay rate of $30 per hour, a signing bonus of $7,500, paid commercial-driver’s license training, health benefits, and $10,000 for tuition reimbursement for college being the new labor contract for Boston’s bus drivers in 2023, better bus driving would theoretically follow as better candidates apply. In her State of the Commonwealth speech in early2024, Governor Healey announced that 2023 had been “the best year of hiring the T has ever had.” But the T includes subway and light-rail operators too, and as of the end of 2023, 415 bus-driver positions were still unfilled, and that is relative to the 1,452 bus drivers currently working—a net increase of only 2 since that August. 

The tan areas indicate the number of bus drivers working

 and the red areas indicate the number of unfilled positions.

The better compensation package seems not to have made a dent, and I suspect that the company's mechanics would probably admit in private that too many buses continued to make dents (as well as wear out brake pads, from braking hard, and even shocks, from driving too fast on roads in need of repavement). In general, aggressive driving means higher maintenance costs than need be the case. 

In other words, the “in theory” consequence of better driving failed to materialize. This in spite of Governor Healey having told bus drivers in a press conference announcing the labor contract, “We’ll be looking to improve working conditions as you improve the safe and effective operation of our public transportation system,”[1] the drivers were able to take the raise without improving the safe operation of the buses. Perhaps this was due to not only incompetent supervision by the management of the mass-transit of its bus drivers, but also enabling by the government. “Today you see a demonstration that we have your back,” the head of state of Massachusetts said during her press conference.[2] To be sure, the incentive that the management of the “T” has serially had not to increase the number of unfilled positions by firing even reckless drivers is likely the real driver here, with the government looking the other way rather than looking out for the public’s interests by providing a countervailing force to the bus company’s disincentive in getting rid of bad drivers, who in turn doubtlessly have felt both entitled to drive however they want with the air of impunity. This is literally dangerous.

On the evening of November 29, 2024, I was riding on a route 71 bus, having boarded the beginning of that route, at the bus/subway station underneath Harvard Square. In spite of the fact that I had submitted a complaint concerning the driver’s aggressive driving, which was uncomfortable to passengers and a risk to pedestrians and people driving near the bus, he still felt entitled to floor the bus’s accelerator, even in the tunnel out of the terminal at Harvard Square, where the speed limit was 6 mph, and to slam the brake pedal despite the harsh jolt felt by passengers. After speeding through the tunnel out from the underground station, he proceeded to ride the accelerator pedal on the street that winds through the crowded square so excessively that he had to stomp hard on the brake pedal to avoid back-ending the car that was stopped in front of the bus at the red light. Then the driver honked the bus’s horn at the car’s driver, who did not react to the now-green light fast enough for the harried bus driver working to extend his break at the end of the route. He proceeded to accelerate so excessively that had braked hard not to hit the three pedestrians who were in the middle of a designated cross-walk. Because they looked like they could have been three undergraduate Harvard students, I wondered whether the university administration might have some words for the mass-transit’s management. I immediately called the transit’s customer service line while the driver was once again riding the accelerator pedal only to brake hard at the first bus stop in spite of the fact that he could see several people well ahead waiting at the stop. At the very least, his judgment concerning how much to accelerate in a given distance and how to stop a bus (including some coasting seemed beyond him) was warped.

On the phone with a customer-service employee, I hurriedly exclaimed, “The driver almost hit three pedestrians who were in a crosswalk! And now he is quickly accelerating again! I have called in a complaint on that driver’s driving before, and yet he is still driving recklessly. I’m getting off and will wait for the next bus; he is too reckless.” So, I got off at the first bus-stop and will wait for the next bus.” In spite of the customer-service employee telling me that she would notify operations at “the garage” as well as her immediate supervisor, I had the sinking feeling that, like my prior complaints, that one would fall on conveniently deaf managerial ears.  

The bus driver continued fast as the bus approached a red light even though an ambulance was making its way through the intersection and thus caution was just common sense. 

Sure enough, the driver was driving the same route on the next night. He tailgated another bus part way through the tunnel out of the station, and then was able to easily surpass the speed limit by accelerating until just before he had to stop before turning onto a road. Then he accelerated on that road, and braked hard at the first bus stop. Somewhere in the middle of the route, he accelerated until a minute or so before braking behind a stationary car at a red light intersection even though an ambulance with lights flashing was trying to make its way through the intersection. Passing through the intersection, the bus driver applied a series of “fits and hard stops,” and this pattern continued when he approached two or three bus-stops ahead. 

The bus driver pushed his foot down on the brake pedal too hard just before stopping, without having coasted so the sudden braking would not have to stop so much motion. This can be seen by the standing passenger's loss of balance. Were he to have fallen and broken a bone, he could have sued the company.

The customer-service employee on the night before had said that the procedure when that department is closed and safety is at risk from a driver’s reckless, aggressive driving, is that I should call the company’s transit “police.” When I called that department just after I got off the bus, a stern woman stated, as if she could not be wrong, “No, you need to call customer service.” I told her that customer service was closed on Saturdays and that that department had informed me that transit police should handle cases of safety issues when customer service is closed.” “No!,” she exclaimed, “you have to call customer service when they are open.” I was stunned because I had told her that the driver had almost hit three pedestrians in a crosswalk the night before, and he slammed on the brake pedal just fifteen minutes ago behind a car at a light that had been red for some time. “We have to witness the incidents to do anything about them,” the corrupt woman said. Knowing this was incorrect (I had already stated that I was a witness) and thus that the "police" employee was corrupt. The pathetic excuses she used clearly indicated that she was willing to dismiss a report even of pedestrians almost being hit. Her crime was more than being inept and corrupt; she didn't care whether the aggressive driver might kill a pedestrian between that Saturday night and Monday, when customer service would reopen. So, I ended the call as she was obstantly denying that she was refusing to take and act on my reports. I called 911 emergency to speak with the local police department not only to report the driver, but the transit "police" employee too! Even though I told the employee of the local police department of the driver’s reckless driving both that night and the night before, and that he was still driving even though I had notified the transit company’s customer service department the night before that the driver had almost hit three pedestrians—likely Harvard students—he told me I had to contact the transit “police,” which prompted me to relay the last conversation with the control-freak who presumed that she could not be wrong and utterly dismissed my claims gained from the transit company. “The transit police would rather risk pedestrians being killed than follow the transit company’s policy that the transit “police” handles such reports when customer service is closed. It’s really just common sense not to wait two days before reporting (and the company therefore acting on) a report of reckless driving where safety is being compromised. He said he would call the transit police, but I did not believe him. I gave up. A report against a bus driver was being blown off yet again, and the driver doubtless was breaking traffic laws with a sense of impunity, which made him especially dangerous.

This is the bus driver who had almost killed three Harvard students in a cross-walk and, on the following night, braked hard behind a car at a red light. On both nights, he had enough time at the end of the route for a personal break, as shown here.  I contend that this is why he was speeding and waited to the last minute, literally, to apply the brake pedal before stopping so as to shorten the time of the route. 

Not a full week before that weekend, I had called in a complaint on a driver, also a Black male, who had been riding the accelerator and hitting the brake pedal hard when stopping, rather than coasting to a stop—as that would mean less break-time at the end of the route for him. “He almost hit a car standing in front of the bus; that car had its left-turn signal on, and that could be seen at a distance as it was dark outside. But the driver kept acccelerating until he got very close to the car. What if he had misjudged on where to come to a quick stop by slamming on the brakes? He is a reckless driver!” That driver might have been the same one. I had also called customer service to report a young black woman whose stomping on the brake pedal had rendered rides very uncomfortable. Yet she was able to continue driving without any concern for the comfort of the paid customers on the bus.  

I had never ridden on a transit bus in which the driver slamed on the brake pedal so hard (and even after I had asked him not to do so). Again, the pattern is the same: customers, and even company policies on driving don't matter. After I had called customer service to report him, I rode again on a bus he was driving, and his driving was just as hard and reckless. A bus is not a toy, and we are ALL subject to the law--even those people who disrespect rules and laws, yet while demanding respect from everyone else in spite of having a selfish and inconsiderate attitude.

It bears repeating that after I had called customer service a few weeks before and said, “One of your coworkers told me to call the transit ‘police’ to report reckless driving when your department is closed, but your company’s transit “police” have insisted to me that I call customer service. Apparently, they are just fine with letting a reckless bus driver continue to drive through a weekend and have riders wait until your department is open, which could be a day or two away.” Although the customer-service employee told me that I had followed procedures correctly, and thus that the transit “police” dispatcher had been wrong, and I asked the customer-service employee to have her supervisor contact the transit “police” supervisor, but, as I have already stated, there was no change in the script of the transit “police” when I called the transit police to report the driver who had almost hit three Harvard students the night before and could easily have misjudged when to stomp on the brake pedal behind a stopped car at a red light. 

In addition to the bus company having a disincentive to terminate even bus drivers whose driving could terminate people in cars and in cross-walks, the refusal of the company’s transit “police” to contact “the garage” to intercede on behalf of the public (and bus riders) to get a reckless bus driver off the streets until the driving could be investigated by an operations supervisor points to bad management not only in the transit “police” department, but also higher up, to the manager who is over both that department and customer service and was thus responsible for making sure that reports of dangerous driving do not fall between the two departments, as when customer service is closed and yet the transit “police” insist that customer service be contacted when it opens.

Whether because my paternal grandfather rose from being a trolley driver to being the president of the Milwaukee, Wisconsin (then Des Moines, Iowa) mass transit company, or because I have worked in public accounting and have a B.S. and M.B.A. in business (with an emphasis on organizational studies because systems theory intrigued me), I have called the customer service (and transit “police” departments) to report uncomfortable and even reckless bus driving even though most riders would not bother, or even suspect that the problem is systemic both among the bus drivers and even including their supervisors. So, in response to one customer-service employee, who had told me that the company looks for reports from many riders before taking action, I said, “It is a fallacy to assume that there is not a problem unless many people report it, because, frankly, most people figure, why bother, nothing will happen, and some people may even expect bad driving because it happens so much.” Yet how many companies stick to this fallacy! The macro-culture of democracy may be erroneously projected on business management in assuming that a majority is needed for a complaint to be valid. The assumption ignores the fact that few riders may actually be able to “connect the dots” and be willing to call in a complaint. The assumption of political equality of voters—one person, one vote—does not hold in complaints to a manager about an employee. Even in terms of political democracy, Donald Trump only received the votes of 34% of the eligible voters (and Harris received 32%) in 2024, so it is not really true that majority rules. I for one am more interested to know why eligible voters did not vote (or voted for other candidates, who could not be expected to win) than in why voters voted for Trump or Harris.

Individuals have insights, and, for any given subject-matter or domain, some people have more insight than do others. I might even venture to claim that some people are, whether genetically or by effort in formal education, more intelligent than are other people. Herds, however, walk only when a general shift is occurring. Waiting for a herd to complain for the substance of the complaint to have merit and thus value and credibility, can be reckoned as foolish management. Nietzsche contrasted herd-animals, who are weak, from the strong, who act out of self-confident strength if they are not beguiled by the weak to be ashamed of being strong, as if it were unethical. In actuality, weakness even in not standing up to corruption is unethical even in feckless non-action, and the corrupt are themselves obviously unethical in being so.

I contend that the transit “T” company and the Massachusetts government with respect to that company comprise layers of negligence, beginning with the dangerous drivers themselves and going through the customer service department and the transit “police” department to upper management, and finally to the Massachusetts government: none of which are looking out for the public and the bus riders (as even accelerating even just until the point of stop by braking hard is very uncomfortable).

Once I conducted a small experiment to find out if the bad bus drivers had been trained badly or have been knowingly driving badly. I asked one bus driver to stop slamming on the brakes, and he complied, which told me that at least some of the reckless drivers know that they are driving badly and yet are doing it anyway. I believe they do so in order to rack up minutes at the end of a route to take a personal break, or else because they are late due to traffic and the company pressures its drivers to reach the end of a route on time. But this does not explain why many drivers depart the beginning point of a route early. A longer break at the end or insuring an on-time arrival is likely the motive. Creating a longer break could be called gaming the system. I know that the driver supervisors know this is happening, yet they conveniently allow it.

Finally, notice that I have not had to resort to claiming that the drivers’ union is protecting even reckless drivers. I suspect that is also in play, but the sad point is that I have enough without even bringing up the pressure from the union on the management. I would not be surprised to learn that the upper management has told the union’s head, We’ve got your back. After all, it is what the governor told the drivers when she announced the sweet labor contract in 2023 that was, according to that governor, supposed to make the operation of the buses safer.

Collusion upon collusion upon collusion can make for collision, collision, and collision when aggressive bus-driving is involved, and this is obviously at the expense of customers and even the public, not to mention the innocent pedestrians and car-drivers who are injured or even killed as a result. The banality of narrow, bureaucratic managerialism and oblivious, duty-free politics is none other than corruption writ large. This means that that the system itself, which spans the domains of business and government, is corrupt and thus is in need of reform. Generally speaking, furtive though obvious unaccountability can become so banal as it becomes so common that it renders bad management itself as unethical. 

In the present case before us, the expectation of harm to innocents may be eclipsed by a narrow, self-centered fixation on enuerated departmental tasks (e.g. by the transit “police” department), and willful gross negligence (e.g., many of the bus drivers). The harm may be an implicit byproduct of the incentives and disincentives that are operative in the system, including the bus company and the government that is supposed to oversee the company. Aside from the refusal or sheer inability of elected government officials and regulators to adequately oversee the Boston metro area's mass-transit, known as the "T," the aggressive bus-driving and the transit company's management can be so bad that both can be said to be inherently unethical. 

Even the ongoing momentum of the inertia of such a dysfunctional system can be said to be unethical, such that inaction is culpable. In such a case, the status quo does not warrant pride of place; rather, warrants should be issued for the drivers who believe that the traffic laws do not apply to themselves. 

Indeed, an attitude can be determined to be unethical, as can the consequences when innocent people are injured or even killed and human customers are driven like cattle. Ironically, the toxic "herd animals" depicted by Nietzsche that are too weak to master their instinctual urge to dominate are at the wheel, as they are too weak to experience the richer pleasure that comes from power derived from mastering one's own most intractible urges. If this verdict seems overly harsh, you might imagine the jolt from a foot stomping down on a brake pedal immediately after having ridden the acelerator without allowing the bus to coast at all, all this without any concern for the paid passengers or for pedestrians and people driving nearby.

In the seventeenth century, a European Jansenist priest, Pierre Nicole, wrote that even though self-love (over loving God) can have unintended beneficial consequences and thus be reckoned as enlightened self-interest, self-love is still a sin. Although Augustine wrote that sin can have unintended beneficial consequences, it is important to remember that self-love is still a sin. In moral terms, which has been my vantage-point here, it can be said that selfishness negligent of any possible resulting harm to other people, is unethical. Selfishness can be extended to an organization's managers as well as to government officials who look the other way. Unfortunately, the human nose can become accustomed to a bad odor if it hangs around long enough to become the atmospheric norm. 

---

1. Christian MilNeil, “MBTA Adopts ‘Historic’ New Labor Deal with Carmen’s Union,” StreetsBlogMass, August 2, 2023.
2. Ibid.

Should Philosophers Sell Out to Business?

Should philosophers at universities, by which I mean scholars who hold a Ph.D. in philosophy, try to be relevant?  Nietzsche wrote that no philosopher is a person of one’s own day, but Adam Smith saw in philosophers the potential as observers rather than doers to observe occupations rather than Plato’s eternal moral verities or Aristotle’s prime mover way up high. Opinions on this question can reasonably differ, but under no circumstance should someone holding a MBA and DBA or Ph.D. in business claim to be a philosopher. This is especially true in North America, where doctoral students in business have not typically even taken ethics courses in philosophy. Indeed, I turned down a doctorate in business in part because my area would have been business ethics sans any coursework in philosophy, including ethics. I attempted to take the core graduate course in ethics, but the professor, Kurt Baier, announced at the end of the first class session that only philosophy students could enroll. Baier had the countenance of Schopenhauer, and both, ironically, focused on ethics academically. To be sure, doctoral students in business who already have a Ph.D. in philosophy may be counted as philosophers, and the dual degrees fit an orientation to observing and thinking about occupations rather than just on metaphysics or ontology.

The full essay is at "Should Philosophers Sell Out to Business?"

On the Ethics of Marketing AI

The documentary, Eternal You (2024), is one film that zeros in on the use of AI to contact loved ones who have died. As the marketing departments of the tech companies providing these products say, AI can deliver on what religion has only promised: to talk with people beyond the grave. Lest secular potential buyers be left out, AI can provide us with “a new form of transcendence.” Nevermind that the word, transcendence, like divinity and evil, is an inherently religious word. Nevermind, moreover, that the product is actually only a computer simulation of a person, rather than the actual person direct from heaven or hell. The marketing is thus misleading. In the film, a woman asks her dead husband if he is in heaven. “I’m in hell with the other addicts,” he answers. She is hysterical. Even though people who write computer algorithms cannot be expected to anticipate every possible question that AI could be asked and every response that it could give, government regulation keeping the marketing honest and accurate can significantly reduce the risk that is from AI’s use of inference (inductive) and probability that are beyond our control to predict and even understand.

The full essay is at "Eternal You."

October 12th: Happy Vikings Day!

I contend that the ideological war being waged in the United States by the 2010s over whether October 12^th should be “Indigenous People’s” Day or Columbus Day became real in 2021 when President Biden issued a proclamation commemorating “Indigenous People’s” Day not coincidentally to fall on the same day as Columbus Day. Similarly, though only unofficially, the United American Indians of New England have labeled Thanksgiving Day as “The National Day of Mourning” since 1970. The de facto hegemony of ideology in changing official U.S. holidays, including in the refusal of some people and even businesses to say “Christmas” even on Christmas Eve Day, has proceeded without the premise that ideology should play such a role being debated in public discourse. Instead, the onslaught has been enabled by the vehemence of the conquerors in insisting that their decisions be recognized and not contradicted. Once I went to a Unitarian “church” on a Thanksgiving expecting a spirit of gratefulness, as per President Lincoln’s proclamation establishing the date of the holiday after two years of brutal war between the CSA and USA. The sermon was instead on the need for sorrow instead. I walked out, shaking my head in utter disbelief. Perhaps some Americans might one day insist that a similar mood be preached in churches on Christmas Day. Both the need and insistence come with a tone of passive aggression, and are indeed power-grabs based in resentment, which Nietzsche argued is a major indication of weakness rather than strength, and thus self-confidence. Perhaps the manufactured dialectics, such as the one centered on October 12^th, can be transcended in a Hegelian rather than religious sense at a higher level.

According to Britannica, Helge and Anne Ingstad discovered “the remains of a Viking encampment that they were able to date to the year 1000,” almost 500 years before Columbus’ landing on islands in the Bahamas (rather than on the mainland of North America).[1] The Graenlendinga Saga (Saga of the Greenlanders) has Bjarni Herjólfsson as the first European to see mainland North America in 985. At around the year 1000 CE, Leif Eriksonn, son of Erik the Red, “is reported to have led an expedition in search of the land sighted by Herjólfsson,” according to Eiríks Saga Rauda.[2] This is consistent with the empirical evidence found in Newfoundland.  Leif Eriksonn “found an icy barren land he called Helluland (“Land of Flat Rocks”) before eventually travelling south and finding Vinland (“Land of Wine”).[3] Later, Leif’s brothers travelled to Vinland, where their expedition stayed for three years. This is certainly sufficient to refer to the holiday on October 12^th as “Vikings’ Day,” or “Eriksonn Day,” which would cover the brothers too. Columbus Day has been antiquated by the discovery of Viking artifacts on the mainland of North America, in Newfoundland, which is a lot closer to where the Puritans settled than is the Caribbean islands, which of course are not on the mainland of North America.

To be sure, the peoples who came to be known as American Indians by the Europeans had come to North America thousands of years earlier, and thus were not indigenous either, could be said to have been the first people to discover America, from the vantage point of Asia rather than Europe. But those people emigrated gradually from east Asia over a land-bridge that extended back then westward from Alaska, rather than coming over after an expedition of discovery. In any case, the word “Indigenous” can be struck from “Indigenous Peoples” Day for greater accuracy.

In short, Vikings Day can safely, from the perspective of the hyperactive ideologies, be used for the holiday, as there is no evidence that the Vikings in the eleventh century mistreated any of the earlier arrivals from Asia. The dialectic of Columbus Day and American Indians Day can thus be done away with at a higher level of historical accuracy.

The role of ideology in making and remaking holidays in the U.S. can be seen as it has played out at universities located in different member states. At Harvard, which is located in Massachusetts, classes and offices were closed on “Indigenous Peoples Day” on October 12, 2024, without any mention of “Columbus Day” in the academic calendar. The ideological preference is clear not only in which name the university used for the holiday (rather than using both names), but also in the fact that the university did not cancel classes for Veterans Day. Universities in the militaristic member-state of Arizona had classes on Columbus Day but not on Veterans Day.  Whereas Harvard kept its libraries open on “Indigenous Peoples Day,” public universities in Arizona did not even do that for Veterans Day, in spite of the fact that students would obviously be studying on a one-day break from classes. Harvard is typically compared with Yale. Not even Yale cancelled classes on October 12^th (or on Veterans Day); instead, Yale, unlike Harvard, had a fall break of one week in October, which did not include Columbus Day.

In short, the respective university administrations, reflecting the political ideology that was most powerful locally, were making ideological statements in deciding whether and when to not hold classes on particular holidays. Harvard’s administration used the excuse that Cambridge, Mass recognized “Indigenous Peoples Day” as the reason why the university was recognizing that holiday and not Columbus Day, even though it too was a national (and state) holiday. I would not be surprised if Americans of Italian ancestry felt a slap. Part of the problem with ideology-fueled resentment is that such collateral damage is ignored or even, in a twisted way, believed to be justified.  Allowing an ideology to turn holidays into a battlefield is in dire need of being debated in the public square in the United States, rather than being tacitly allowed due to the efforts to intimidate. “Thanksgiving IS a day of sorrow! You better not disagree!” Such has been the tone intended to thwart even debate on the matter.

---

1. Jeff Wallenfeldt, “Did the Vikings Discover America?” Britannica.com (accessed October 14, 2024).
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.

Starbucks Bucks Its Workers’ Labor Union

Even though more than 500 Starbucks shops had unionized by the end of 2024, it seems that the company’s management did not respect the new union very much. Unfortunately for the company, one implication that can be drawn is that the company’s management didn’t respect federal labor law very much too. For in not respecting its union enough to negotiate it on reducing employee work hours, the company violated federal law. The “smoking gun,” I submit, was that the management used dissimulation to respond to the government, rather than address the complaint directly.

On October 10, 2024, the “general council of the National Labor Relations Board filed a complaint . . . alleging that Starbucks made the scheduling changes in late 2022 and early 2023” without consulting and negotiating with the union.”[1] The complaint reads in part that Starbucks changed workers’ hours “without prior notice to the Union and without affording the Union an opportunity to bargain.”[2] As per federal labor law, Starbucks was required to give prior notice to the union and give it a chance to bargain, as well as to tell the union how the change in hours would impact the paychecks of the workers affected. In its written response, the company’s management ignored this requirement and instead defended a practice that was not against the law and the government was thus not in the government’s complaint.

Starbucks stated, “We continuously review operations decisions to optimally address business needs and customer expectations, consistent with the law.”[3] Indeed, doing so does not in itself violate federal law, but the statement does not address the complaint. Next, the company tried to obviate the complaint, again by not addressing anything that was illegal, by pointing out, “our decisions were made across our system, in unionized and non-unionized stores, and they were made without regard to organizing activity at Starbucks.”[4] Even if that were true, it does not address whether the management had informed the union and given it an opportunity to bargain in the cases of the unionized stores.

By not addressing the violations specified in the complaint, the company’s managers may either have been dissimulating by changing the terms of the dispute or trying to avoid lying by denying the specific charges. Either way, the mentality is sordid, and this in itself can be interpreted in line with the old adage, Where there is smoke, there is fire.  Where there is a devious mentality, there is likely to be a crime.

As a result of the violation, some employees lost the benefit of health insurance because they no longer worked enough hours per week. Therefore, the union’s lawyer said that damages could be more than merely the wages for the lost hours. A conservative estimate could be “north of $30 million.”[5] Lest this seem like enough of a disincentive for the management to begin to respect the union (and federal labor law), I submit that it is extremely difficult to change a company’s organizational culture.

Today, I went to buy a product at a Target store. The shelf was empty so I went to customer service, which the linguistically opportunistic management calls “guest” services. The employee was incorrect that I could not order the product online and have it delivered to the store; she was even wrong that the product was not in the back of the store. I went to a manager, who assured me that she would “coach” the employee.  In a tone of “you’re not getting it,” what I actually said was, “It was not just her mistakes; her mentality—her attitude—was terrible, and that can’t be coached away.” The manager didn’t say anything, but her facial expression was one of dismissiveness. Starbucks’ management at the corporate level needed more than coaching from the government.

1. Dave Jamieson, “Starbucks Could Owe Millions to Baristas Who Unionized,” The Huffington Post, October 11, 2024.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.

AI Facial-Recognition Software in China: Ethical Implications beyond Political Economy

By the 2020s, the Chinese government had made significant advances in applying computer technology to garden-variety surveillance. To do so, that government relied to a significant extent on Chinese companies, and this in turn encouraged innovation at those companies even for non-governmental applications. I contend that treating this as a case study in business and government, without bringing in the ethical and political implications is a mistake. The ostensive “objectivity” of empirical social science may seem like an objective for scholars, but I submit that bringing in political and ethical theory renders the analysis superior to that which political economy alone can provide.

David Yang, who teaches economics at Harvard, spoke on a panel on China on October 11, 2024 on why some Chinese companies were developing AI technology even though generally technological development tends to go on in democracies rather than dictatorships. The reason for the exception, he said, is that the Chinese government had been buying facial-recognition software from companies in order to improve surveillance of the Chinese. Ignoring the unsavory ethical implications of a more totalitarian surveillance, Yang characterized the relationship between the businesses and the government as a win-win. The purchases by the government gives the companies the financial incentive and wherewithal to innovate AI for other, purely commercial purposes, and the government can more easily “restore order locally from social unrest.” Characterizing political protests as unrest can be said to be taken from an autocrat’s handbook, which unfairly casts a negative glow on what in a democracy is seen as healthy. Omitting the ethical implications from relations between business and government generally is thus partial both with respect to wholeness or completeness and in the sense of being biased. Even though Yang tried to present the relationship between the Chinese companies working on facial-recognition and the Chinese government buying the finished products objectively, his omission of the ethical dimension resulted in an incomplete explanation and a pro-autocratic bias. Even though such a bias could be said to be in sync with Harvard’s police-state, the hegemony of social order as the top value in political theory is problematic.

To be sure, social value could come with a government’s use of facial-recognition AI technology. Dave Davies, an American journalist who ventured inside China’s “surveillance state,” has argued that the Chinese Communist Party was “trying to internalize control. . . . Once you believe its true, it’s like you don’t even need the policeman at the corner anymore, because you’re becoming your own policeman.”[1] Once we shift from political protests to criminal activity, it is easier for even a democrat to see the value in prompting people to police themselves so a visible police-state apparatus in public would not be as likely. This is the antithesis of the “invisible man” question: What would you do that is illegal were you invisible so no one would see you and you wouldn’t get caught?  Instead, we can ask: What wouldn’t you do that you otherwise would do if you thought odds were high that you would get caught by police using facial-recognition AI technology?

But even with this internalization of control within an individual, which admittedly does not reach the individual not wanting to steal or injure someone in some way, the loss of privacy in public can be reckoned as an ethical (i.e., undeserved) harm that outweighs the ethical benefit of internalized control. Ben Franklin, one of the founding fathers of the United States, famously said that people who would trade privacy for more security deserve neither liberty nor safety. Of course, liberty is severely repressed in a dictatorship, and such a government can freely reduce people’s privacy with impunity in getting carried away with adding security measures. Ironically, such action by a pseudo-government can be observed at major universities in the States, including at Yale and Harvard, whose police departments do not have democratic legitimacy because the U.S. Constitution gives the police power to the state and federal governments rather than to even very wealthy private (“non-profit”) organizations.  

Whether in the United States or China, a republic (of republics) or an autocracy (or dictatorship), the human instinctual urge for still more control can manifest so easily in a sliding slope towards an excessively visible (and invisible), and thus impinging, police-state. The mind’s judgment concerning whether it has gone too far in this regard is susceptible to distorting itself or even suspending itself due to the allure of the pleasure of increasing control in a geographical area (or organization). In short, control is not easily internalized in people in whose discretion security measures lie. It is ironic that the internalization of control is easier when applied to individuals being controlled. An external check on the minds of the controllers is thus strongly advisable, lest we do not all wake up one day in a world in which we are surrounded by manifestations of passive-aggression and even unaccountable police brutality by people drunk with power from having the legal right to use lethal weapons. Cameras in public places are certainly superior to an overwhelming visible police presence in public places (and universities whose atmospheres are at least in principle academic in nature), but even with the ethical and practical value of internalized control, the unethical costs in terms of invasion of privacy should not be minimized or ignored outright. Achieving a policy that is balanced may not be easy, but I suspect it is best.

---

1. Dave Davies, “Facial Recognition and Beyond: Journalist Ventures Inside China’s ‘Surveillance State’,” NPR.org, January 5, 2021.

Beyond Climate Change: Starbucks Awash in Cash

While it may be tempting to go after companies for hypocrisy on corporate social responsibility, even deeper criticism may be closer to the bottom line, financially. Even though social media castigated Starbucks for its impact on carbon emissions in agreeing to fly its Southern Californian CEO Brian Niccol to Seattle on a company plane each week, I submit that the amount of spending entailed raises questions about cost-containment and even cast some doubt on whether the company’s price increases in 2024 were wholly justified, and thus even on whether the industry was competitive or an oligarchy.

Before Niccol was to assume his role as CEO on September 9, 2024, Starbucks announced that he would “not be required to relocate to the company’s headquarters” during his employment with the company.[1] Because he would be expected to work at the Seattle office at least three days a week to comply with the company’s policy on hybrid working, he would be flying a distance greater than that which is between Berlin and Rome on a company plane weekly. Why could he not fly commercial (business class) and thereby save the company a lot of money? Is a CEO really above such flying?

I suspect that in the E.U. the answer would be more down-to-earth, or realistic, than in the U.S., where CEO’s are more likely to be reckon as akin to divine emperors. Whereas in Europe, an aristocracy exists that can put the moneyed caste in its proper place, American CEOs reside at the top of the societal pyramid. Being consumed with thoughts of money is valued rather than presumed low. This is not to say that inherited wealth is value-free and thus exempt from a different criticism. Rather, my point is that CEO’s of American companies can get away with being treated like royalty on account of the relatively pro-business (or business-leaning) societal culture.

Rather than criticizing Starbucks for spending too much money on its CEO’s transportation, users of social media expressed anger over the company’s preachments on sustainability while the CEO is to be flown on a private plane weekly, burning thousands of liters of fuel in the atmosphere. On its website, the company claimed that it had “a bold aspiration to be a resource positive company.”[2] The CEO of Conservation International stated that the company was backing up its “commitments with immediate actions to reduce [its] footprint and invest in nature.”[3] The hypocrisy could have been easily obviated by having the CEO fly business in a commercial airline.

It is not as if Niccol would not be able to afford the flights, as his annual salary was announced as $1.6 million, not including a possible performance-related bonus of up to $7.2 million and up to $23 million a year in company stock.[4] Of course, the company would no doubt cover the cost of its CEO’s commute, whether commercial or on a company plane, and such money, together with his compensation-level, suggests that Starbucks had money to burn in 2024 even as it was increasing the prices of its drink products.

In 2023, the CEO-to-worker pay ratio in the United States had increased to 251:1, which was up 26% from 2022. Back in 1965, CEOs were paid on average just 21 times more than the medium worker. In 2021, Chipotle, where Niccol had worked prior to becoming CEO of Starbucks, was at 2,998:1, which was the fifth highest in the United States. I suspect that he had rather high expectations in negotiating with Starbucks. That the company relented even as it felt the need to increase drink prices (presumably to keep afloat financially) is a point that the carbon-emission critics missed.

Considering the rise in prices at restaurants and grocery stores since the pandemic of 2020, it is worthy of note societally that a company raising prices would have enough cash on hand to fly one person weekly on a company plane instead of having him fly commercial (and on his own dime!). That is to say, one might wonder how legitimate the rising prices of food (and drink) were even after the pandemic. In competitive markets, new entrants can offer more competitive prices and thus bring down prices generally in an industry, such that the companies cannot afford to be extravagant in spending. Starbucks may simply have been raising prices because it could get away with it, and could thus afford to fly its CEO on a company plane weekly not only to the company’s headquarters, but on visits to company stores and brewing facilities on a regular basis.

---

1. “Anger Boils Up over Starbucks CEO 1600km ‘Super Commute’ on Private Jet,” Euronews, August 23, 2024.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.

On the Ethics of AI

In June, 2024 at the international political meeting of the G7, a group of seven industrial nations, the head of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Francis, spoke on the ethical dimension of artificial intelligence, or machine-learning. Regarding what the Pope called the “techno-human condition,” machines capable of AI are yet another manifestation of human propensity, which our species has had since its inception, to use tools to mediate with the environment. Although tools can be thought of as an extension of our arms ad legs, it is important to distinguish the human from the machine, even as we posit human characteristics onto some advanced machines, such as computers. In the film, 2001, the computer Hal sounds human, and may even seem to have human motivations, but any such attributions come to an abrupt end when Hal is shut down. To say that Hal dies is to commit a basic category mistake. It would be absurd, for example, to claim that Hal has an after-life. So too, I submit, is there a category mistake in taking the Pope’s talk on the ethics of AI as being religious in nature. Just as it is easy to imprint the human mind on a machine-learning computer, it can be tempting to superimpose the religious domain onto another. The Pope overreached in arbitrarily bringing in religious garb on what is actually an ethical matter in the “techno-human” world.

The full essay is at "The Pope on AI."

When Hollywood Gets Political: Partisan Profits

Entertainment celebrities and businesses alike risk losing customers and thus revenue by taking positions publicly on political issues. Fearing a surge from political parties on the far-right, some large businesses in the E.U. took the unusual step of coming out against those parties, labeling them as “extremist,” prior to the E.U. election in June, 2024. Typically, businesses there limit their political stances to particular issues that bear on core functions. This is a prudent policy, for human beings, being of bounded rationality, can easily translate ideological disagreement into switching brands. Even universities can get bruised by becoming embroiled in a domestic or international matter that is controversial. Hence after the contentious spring semester of pro-Palestine protests at Harvard (and other many other universities), the university’s administration enacted a policy not to take positions on issues in which the core functions of the university are only indirectly touched or are not affected at all. In creating a “marketplace” for academic freedom, universities themselves are best positioned by staying neutral. Although it is tempting for anyone (for oneself or one’s institution) who has access to media to sway public opinion on a political issue, I contend that the immediate self-gratification is usually outweighed by lost revenue and the reputation of being partisan. Applying strict scrutiny to one’s foray into controversial issues is harder to do if some vocal customers are demanding that a position be publicly taken. The silence of other customers, who would “vote with their purse or wallet” were an opposing position to be taken, should not be overlooked.  The singer Taylor Swift and the actor Robert De Niro provide us with two illustrations. Stepping out of their respective domains comes at a cost in those domains, and thus should, I submit, be done prudently and seldom.

As Israel was bombing Rafah in Gaza in 2024, contravening two rulings of the International Court of Justice (i.e., the UN’s court), a significant number of “Swifties,” that is, fans of the singer Taylor Swift, pleaded on social media for the international celebrity to take a position against Israel’s aggression. One fan wrote, “Taylor, please say something. Your silence is hurting us. We need you to stand with Palestine and condemn the Israeli occupation and aggression.”[1] I submit that the alleged hurt was exaggerated by the teenager. I sincerely doubt that Taylor’s silence kept many Swifties from buying Swift’s recently released album. Had the singer taken a stand, on the other hand, her fans on the other side might do more than block Swift on social media. That is to say, Swift’s financial bottom-line would be more impacted, and negatively so. It seems very improbably that increased purchases by Swifties in favor of Palestine would surpass the loss of revenue from Swifties on the other side of the issue “voting with their purses and wallets.” The lack of symmetry here is behind my advice to celebrities not to take a position on a controversial political issue, or to do so knowing that a financial cost will come with the exercise of political influence.

To be sure, exercising political influence on a societal and even world stage is tempting. As one Swiftie wrote on social media of Swift’s latent power, “if she can rally all of us to vote, she had the power to speak up about injustice.”[2] More bluntly stated, Taylor Swift had the power to significantly influence elections. The ideological benefit to her in doing so is not trivial; my point is that in accruing such a benefit, she should know that it comes with a financial cost in terms of her core function. By 2024, she had made so much money that not earning as much as she otherwise could by taking a position on Israel and Palestine could have made rational sense to her. Yet possible hits to her reputational capital could go beyond merely losing some customers of her music.

As Israel was bombing Gaza, former U.S. president Don Trump was on trial for criminal fraud in order to commit a political crime. Robert De Niro, a movie star, went to the courthouse and castigated Trump, calling him a monster.[3] As a result, the National Association of Broadcasters rescinded its Service to America Award, which the actor was to accept in just days. A spokesperson for the organization explained that it “is proudly bipartisan, uniting those from across the political spectrum to celebrate the impactful work of local broadcasters and our partners.”[4] De Niro would be a “distraction.”[5] Hence he was disinvited from even attending the event. De Niro took the high road and wished the organization well. For him, the loss of the award and even any loss at the box office if Trump supporters would then “vote with their purses and wallets” was worth it. Like Swift, De Niro had plenty of money, no doubt, and great star-power; he could take some of it out for a spin—like taking a new car out for a fast drive—without fear that he would end up in the poor house. Even so, the question of whether the hit to his personal “brand” was worth the financial and reputational cost is worth asking. Perhaps the answer is yes only if his public condemnation of Trump would end up making a difference in the election that was still half a year away. To De Niro, the answer could have been yes even if not because of the psychological reward that he felt from standing up for something important to him. Even so, rationally it would still be wise to keep an eye on the brand.

In short, it is human, all too human, to want to have political influence on a societal or even a global scale, and to enjoy the psychological pleasure that goes with the expenditure even though it could mean fewer sales than would otherwise be the case and a hit to one’s reputational capital, or brand. Generally speaking, though, such immediate gratification may not usually be worth the long-term costs, both tangible and intangible. Balancing the immediate with the long-term is not something that we humans are particularly good at, and natural selection in the process of evolution is to blame. The time-value of money, an economic concept, stems from the human preference for instant gratification. It is for this reason that I contend that celebrities should as a rule stick to their core functions—stick to the knitting in the words of the business book, In Search of Excellence—and only branch out to “cash in” to influence a political matter only rarely if at all. Taylor’s silence wasn’t actually hurting anyone; she was being an astute businesswoman and thus acting in her best interest.

---

1. David Mouriquand, “#SwiftiesForPalestine: Taylor Swift Urged to Speak Up on Gaza Conflict,” Euronews.com, May 29, 2024 (accessed June 3, 2024).
2. Ibid.
3. Dylan Donnelly, “Robert De Niro Has Award Withdrawn after Calling Donald Trump ‘Monster’ Outside Trial,” Sky News, June 2, 2024 (accessed June 3, 2024).
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.

American Airlines: Caring for People

What is the purpose of a business? According to Aristotle, there are different kinds of purposes. The final cause of a tree seed, for example, is a tree; the material cause is whatever biochemistry went into the seed. The final cause of a human sperm entering a human egg is an adult human being—hence the question of the ethics of abortion. A human embryo is potentially an adult human being. The material cause of an embryo lies in the biochemistry of the seed and the egg. But I digress. As regards a company, we can distinguish different kinds of purposes. Somewhat crudely, the real purpose can be distinguished from the ostensible purpose. The former has to do with what can be thought of as the bottom-line purpose: maximizing revenue or profit. Any ostensible purpose, such as feeding people or transporting them, is functional in nature, and can be viewed as a means of achieving the real purpose. A third kind of purpose can be labeled as a marketing purpose, the promotion of which is merely to serve the real purpose. In terms of Shankara’s Hindu metaphysical framework, the real purpose is in the real, the ostensible purpose is in the realm of appearance, and a marketing purpose is in that of illusion. I contend that business managers, especially in marketing, are accustomed to conflating these three types of purposes in being oriented to the real purpose. Not being transparent about the differences between these three purposes is, I submit, unethical in nature. I have an incident involving American Airlines in mind.

Eight Black men were ordered to leave a flight in early 2024 because a flight attendant complained about the men’s body odor. They were not seated together, and did not know each other, at least altogether, and yet presumably they all smelled the same. As far as business ethics cases go, this one is a whopper. When one of the men exclaimed, “So this is discrimination,” a woman wearing a badge (and thus was presumably an airline employee) replied, “I agree, I agree.”[1] With no other flights to the destination that day, the company reboarded the eight passengers on the same plane. To be sure, I don’t know whether any other reasons for the airline’s action in deplaning the eight men existed and, if so, whether any of them were valid but were not known to the press. Were all of the men covering their faces with masks or talking loudly or using fowl language, for instance, the airline may have had sufficient cause to remove the men. It seems odd that a company manager would take the decision to remove the men based only on an employee’s claim of a bad odor, especially given that none of the men reported having been told of the odor before being asked to leave the plane. In other words, I suspect that there is more to this story.

In any case, the airline’s statements can themselves be analyzed in terms of the real, ostensible, and marketing purposes of the company. One such statement is the following: “We take all claims of discrimination very seriously and want our customers to have a positive experience when they choose to fly with us.”[2] This is a very good statement, as it disavows the legitimacy of racial discrimination and is straight forward in situating a positive experience as something that, while relevant to the company in terms of providing a product/service, is not the company’s purpose.

I contend that the real purpose of American Airlines, and virtually any private company, is to make money. The company’s ostensible purpose is to transport people (and cargo). Next to these two purposes, it can be readily seen that providing a positive experience to customers does not in itself rise to the stature of being a purpose. Rather, providing a positive experience is a means. So far, the response of the company is fine.

The problem lies in the further statement, “Our teams are currently investigating the matter, as the claims do not reflect our core values or our purpose of caring for people.”[3] The choice of the word, “teams,” is immediately suspect, as companies have employees rather than bad sport analogies. The whiff of a marketer can thus be detected. Although the lack of honesty on this point is tedious, it points to a mindset that plays with words for effect. Gilding the lily is one way of expressing the mentality. The real problem lies in the second part of the statement, wherein caring for people is said to be the company’s purpose. Upon reading this part of the statement, my initial reflex was to think, an airline is not a nursing home. The latter does have as its main purpose the caring of people. The function of an airline is otherwise, being in transporting people from one place to another. So we don’t even have to go to the real purpose—that of maximizing profit—to catch a lower good being portrayed as a higher one. Aristotle refers to this as misordered concupiscence, and it is not ethical in nature. Placing the good of one’s car above the good that is in God is an example of placing a lower good above a higher one.

In actuality, stating “caring for people” as the airline’s purpose serves marketing. As if trying to turn lemons into lemonade, the manager who came up with that statement was using the incident to promote the airline, which in turn is in line with revenue and profits. I contend that using an error for self-promotion is morally squalid in nature, for the self-aggrandizement does not take seriously enough the need to accept the error publicly. Especially if no other reasons exist for having ordered the men off the plane, the seriousness of the harm to the Black men warrants significant attention be taken publicly by the airline. Beyond an easy apology that wouldn’t cost the company anything, an explanation was called for, and thus due publicly to the men at the very least. The airline was on much firmer ground in affirming that the company’s employees do try to give customers a positive experience. That employees are only human, and thus can make even bad mistakes, is more easily digested if a company does not invent feel-good purposes that are actually embellishments or even outright lies. Ecclesiastes has it that for everything there is a season. The season for atonement does not include self-aggrandizement.

---

1. Marnie Hunter, “Black Passengers Sue American Airlines . . .,” CNN.com, May 29, 2024 (accessed June 2, 2024).
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid, italics added for emphasis.

On the Birth of Corporate Social Responsibilty in 1869

Referring to the speculation in gold that was engineered by Jay Gould and others in 1869 to enrich themselves and the Erie Railroad, Henry Adams (1838-1918), a grandson of John Quincy Adams and great grandson of John Adams, wrote at the time:

“For the first time since the creation of these enormous corporate bodies, one of them has shown its power for mischief, and has proved itself able to override and trample on law, custom, decency, and every restraint known to society, without scruple, and as yet without check. The belief is common in America that the day is at hand when corporations far greater than the Erie [Railroad] — swaying power such as has never in the world’s history been trusted in the hands of mere private citizens  . . . — will ultimately succeed in directing government itself. Under the American form of society, there is now no authority capable of effective resistance.” (1)

Gould had wanted the price of gold to rise not only because he had bought some to sell at a higher price, but also because as a stockholder of the Erie, he would benefit from the railroad transporting more wheat from the Midwest to the east coast for export. A higher price in gold meant a lower dollar. Wheat being based in dollars, a lower dollar meant more exports. The strategy was essentially to devalue the dollar, which Gould assured President Grant would be in the national interest economically. As the price of gold rose to $165 in 1869, Grant, fearing a bubble, pulled the plug by having the Treasury sell $4million in gold.  The collapse in the gold market triggered a drop in the stock-market. Even if it might have been in the short term interest of the speculators and railroads, the manufactured bubble was not in the national interest after all. Gould’s bribes of administration officials had been in vain.

Henry Adams saw the imprint of corporate power eviscerating both societal norms and democracy in the scandal.  In other words, the new-found corporate power eventuated in the birth of the need for corporate social responsibility amid capitalism eclipsing democracy. In academic terms, corporate social responsibility and (corporate) business & government, although discrete fields, were both first publicly recognized in 1869.

The corporate power occasioning Adam’s recognition was a novelty at the time, according to Brands, because the large corporation had only come into being as the railroads incorporated in the 1850s. Looking back after the Civil War, Henry Adams observed, "The last ten years had given to the great mechanical energies — coal, iron, steam — a distinct superiority in power over the old industrial elements -- agriculture, handwork, and learning." (2)  The power of steam in particular translated into large, publicly-held, corporations first in the railroad industry.

On account of their size and scope, and the associated equity capital requirements given the risk faced by lenders, the railroads were the first large American corporations to be publicly traded. The diffusion of ownership — a consequence of the large capital demands — led to a separation of ownership from control and to a new ownership interest: that of the short-term-oriented speculator. A short-seller, for example, seeks lower corporate earnings in the future, while a long-term investor hopes for higher dividends, and thus profits. Managers can exploit this difference in order to pursue their interests in the name of the corporation at the expense of societal norms and democratic governance.

Undergirding the managerial basis in skill, the railroads were the first companies to develop the methods of corporate administration. For example, there were supervisors over supervisors—in other words, multilayered organizational charts. Furthermore, dovetailing with the need for safety and efficiency (given the competition), the railroads developed precise management of their operations, including the development of standards for measuring performance. In short, the railroads were the first to develop a cadre of managers specialized in administration in the particular industry. (3)

Regarding the private power based on technique (i.e., managerial power), Henry Adams announced in 1869 that there was no authority, whether in society or government, capable of resisting it. The normative call for corporate social responsibility and the political call for a resurgence of democracy amid the encroaching capitalism were born. In other words, with great power came a recognition of a need for great responsibility. The corporate social responsibility movement began as precisely this recognition even as the modern large corporation was in its second decade.

Punctum Saliens, the large corporate type of commercial organization itself is inherently powerful relative to societal norms and even potential governmental or regulatory restraints. That is to say, the invention of the large corporation may have been inherently problematic, essentially involving systemic risk to the republic itself on account of the private power of the managements. To paraphrase Nietzsche, power cannot be but powerful. To unleash an inherently powerful feeding machine and expect it not to eat the grass is naive, if not patently irresponsible. To expect the managements of extremely wealthy corporations to be willingly socially responsible when their economizing and power-aggrandizing nature is to run through such non-constraints is simply ideological, if not fanciful. Fundamentally, the problem with corporate management is its inherent proclivity to bristle at any external constraint. It is the underlying maximizing egoism that is innately antithetical to the limiting natures of government regulation and corporate social responsibility.

Endnotes:

1. Henry Adams, “The New York Gold Conspiracy,” in Charles F. Adams, Jr. and Henry Adams, Chapters of Erie (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1956), pp. 135-36.

2. Henry Adams, The Education of Henry Adams (1907; Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1961), p. 238.

3. H. W. Brands, American Colossus: The Triumph of Capitalism 1865-1900 (New York: Doubleday, 2010), pp. 22-23.