The trade and economy mega-thread (2 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

Is there a trade deal with China? Is it really a deal or just a pull-back to status quo ante? Is Trump advancing US interests in this well-executed trade battle plan or was this poorly conceived from the start . . . and harmful?

I think the jury's still out, but I haven't seen that the Chinese are offering much in compromise - and it's not even clear if there's going to be an agreement. But it's clear they are working on something and I'm sure Trump will sell it as the greatest trade deal ever. The proof will be in the details.

 

[efil4]

In my 33 years of employment I worked for 4 fortune 100 companies (2 were fortune50). While profit is a clear motive, as it secures longevity, all 4 put primary emphasis on quality of product, value for price, consistency, value of the customer, corporate community responsibility, fairness, honesty and integrity. From that profit comes naturally.

Everything you listed is for driving profits.

If any one of those caused profits to fall, they would be axed. Including fairness, honesty and integrity. Especially in the financial sector.

Profit, and if publicly traded, shareholder wealth, is the priority. It's not 'a clear motive"...it's THE motive.

that has been the answer since this topic was brought up. One poster said that's not true.

Obviously it is.

 

[MT15]

I didn’t say it takes a back seat. In fact, I pointed out how those characteristics lead to an environment that naturally produces healthy profits and happy shareholders. Obviously you never had the opportunity to work at first rate principled corporations.

You said exactly that the talking points were the “primary emphasis” of these corporations. I will maintain that they are window dressing, most of them. They take a back seat to the bottom line. In every case. If they put any of them in front of profits, the boards would very likely get rid of leadership, and rightly so.

Obviously you have no idea who I have worked for in my life. Zero. I have worked for a Fortune 500 company and I have worked for both Catholic and non-denominational nor-for-profits (large ones). My most recent employer had over 20,000 employees.

There is very little difference between all of them. They want good public relations, they want a good product, but they MUST have profits. It’s that simple. Belief that huge corporations are somehow benevolent is foolish and dangerous, IMO. They can ACT benevolently if they think that will help their bottom line, but they will not do so if it will not.

 

[TampaJoe]

Yes, it is simply true. Everything businesses do is calculated to either immediately increase profit or alter perceptions to increase profit long term. Corporations have one purpose with adjudicated SCOTUS decisions that back it up and that purpose is profit' period.

That ain’t my opinion. It is the opinion of the SCOTUS.

Neither you or SCOTUS manages business and corporations. That is the truth. Plain and simple. You don’t set their goals. You don’t set their objectives. You don’t run their businesses. You don’t speak for them. Neither does SCOTUS.

 

[TampaJoe]

Either this is carrying water for corporations or extreme naïveté. I’m not sure. At the end of the day, what you have listed is a hodgepodge of marketing talking points. They are not the “primary” emphasis, I can assure you. They make sense in the fact that they create goodwill, and such, but at the end of the day the only primary responsibility of corporations is creating profit through growth for their shareholders.

To sit there and maintain that profit takes a back seat to anything you listed is just laughable.

Nobody is saying that profit is not a motivating factor. Obviously it is. But it is not the only factor. Nobody is saying that it takes a back seat. What we are saying is that making a profit and being a good corporate citizen aren’t mutually exclusive. Not a businesses and businessmen are the same.

 

[Lapaz]

Then perhaps you are living in the wrong country. What you describe is less than democracy.

Democracy means people elect their leadership. It is not inherently Capitalist. European is filled with socialist democracies that are doing great. I think it is important to use Capitalism to motivate and innovate, but we need Socialism to have a happier society. They are both compatible with Democracy as long as a strong government exists to rein in the Capitalists that will try to take over everything.

 

[TampaJoe]

You said exactly that the talking points were the “primary emphasis” of these corporations. I will maintain that they are window dressing, most of them. They take a back seat to the bottom line. In every case. If they put any of them in front of profits, the boards would very likely get rid of leadership, and rightly so.

Obviously you have no idea who I have worked for in my life. Zero. I have worked for a Fortune 500 company and I have worked for both Catholic and non-denominational nor-for-profits (large ones). My most recent employer had over 20,000 employees.

There is very little difference between all of them. They want good public relations, they want a good product, but they MUST have profits. It’s that simple. Belief that huge corporations are somehow benevolent is foolish and dangerous, IMO. They can ACT benevolently if they think that will help their bottom line, but they will not do so if it will not.

You said exactly that the talking points were the “primary emphasis” of these corporations. I will maintain that they are window dressing, most of them. They take a back seat to the bottom line. In every case. If they put any of them in front of profits, the boards would very likely get rid of leadership, and rightly so.

Obviously you have no idea who I have worked for in my life. Zero. I have worked for a Fortune 500 company and I have worked for both Catholic and non-denominational nor-for-profits (large ones). My most recent employer had over 20,000 employees.

There is very little difference between all of them. They want good public relations, they want a good product, but they MUST have profits. It’s that simple. Belief that huge corporations are somehow benevolent is foolish and dangerous, IMO. They can ACT benevolently if they think that will help their bottom line, but they will not do so if it will not.

Belief that government or any large bureaucracy is somehow benevolent is also foolish and dangerous. If you think they won’t act in their own self interest, it is you who are naive.

 

[t_rav_82]

In my 33 years of employment I worked for 4 fortune 100 companies (2 were fortune50). While profit is a clear motive, as it secures longevity, all 4 put primary emphasis on quality of product, value for price, consistency, value of the customer, corporate community responsibility, fairness, honesty and integrity. From that profit comes naturally.

How adorable. I’m actually a little jealous I don’t live in the same naïve world. It’s so blissful over there I bet.

 

[Lapaz]

Nobody is saying that profit is not a motivating factor. Obviously it is. But it is not the only factor. Nobody is saying that it takes a back seat. What we are saying is that making a profit and being a good corporate citizen aren’t mutually exclusive. Not a businesses and businessmen are the same.

In most cases, corporations that are good citizens are good because it benefits them. The public relations has to benefit the corporation or they won’t do it.

 

[efil4]

Nobody is saying that profit is not a motivating factor. Obviously it is. But it is not the only factor. Nobody is saying that it takes a back seat. What we are saying is that making a profit and being a good corporate citizen aren’t mutually exclusive. Not a businesses and businessmen are the same.

Again.

It's THE MOTIVATING factor

You keep saying "a motivating factor" as if it's somewhere down among altruistic tendencies corporations have. They don't.

Ask policy holders of State Farm how altruistic they are. Or Allstate. Or United Healthcare. Or AIG. Or Goldman Sachs.

They can have other factors, on the surface they want to project out into the consumer space to regulate thier reputation. But when a specific unit, loses money, that unit is nixed. You know it, I know it.

And pretending that it doesn't exist (profit over everything) doesn't make it not exist.

You know better.

Monday morning, email your VP of Marketing to donate $100,000 to NC food bank. Let us know how that goes.

 

[TampaJoe]

Democracy means people elect their leadership. It is not inherently Capitalist. European is filled with socialist democracies that are doing great. I think it is important to use Capitalism to motivate and innovate, but we need Socialism to have a happier society. They are both compatible with Democracy as long as a strong government exists to rein in the Capitalists that will try to take over everything.

Point well taken. Our founder setup the Federal Government with powers limited by the Constitution. Powers not granted to the Feds are left to the States. That lends itself rather nicely to Capitalism IMV.

As I said, I think most people in this country prefer capitalism (well regulated) to the social democracies in Europe. One could argue that it’s worked pretty well for us thus far. The US isn’t Europe. There are numerous differences in our system of government, our geography, our people etc etc etc. Just because something works in Sweden or Germany doesn’t mean that it will work in this country, in our culture, under our laws and system of government.

One size doesn’t fit all.

 

[Lapaz]

The difference is government’s objective is not to increase its profit. Corporation’s objective is to increase profit and those that don’t profit fail. Government that doesn’t achieve its objective gets reorganized or eliminated.

 

[Lapaz]

Point well taken. Our founder setup the Federal Government with powers limited by the Constitution. Powers not granted to the Feds are left to the States. That lends itself rather nicely to Capitalism IMV.

As I said, I think most people in this country prefer capitalism (well regulated) to the social democracies in Europe. One could argue that it’s worked pretty well for us thus far. The US isn’t Europe. There are numerous differences in our system of government, our geography, our people etc etc etc. Just because something works in Sweden or Germany doesn’t mean that it will work in this country, in our culture, under our laws and system of government.

One size doesn’t fit all.

I think people have been brainwashed into thinking anything socialist is evil, and that we are too different. Australia is a lot like the US, but they got their gun culture under control. Europe’s health care has led to better outcomes. Capitalism is alive and well in both, but it requires a strong Federal government to control its vices.

 

[TampaJoe]

Again.

It's THE MOTIVATING factor

You keep saying "a motivating factor" as if it's somewhere down among altruistic tendencies corporations have. They don't.

Ask policy holders of State Farm how altruistic they are. Or Allstate. Or United Healthcare. Or AIG. Or Goldman Sachs.

They can have other factors, on the surface they want to project out into the consumer space to regulate thier reputation. But when a specific unit, loses money, that unit is nixed. You know it, I know it.

And pretending that it doesn't exist (profit over everything) doesn't make it not exist.

You know better.

Monday morning, email your VP of Marketing to donate $100,000 to NC food bank. Let us know how that goes.

I do know better. I stand by my post.

 

[TampaJoe]

I think people have been brainwashed into thinking anything socialist is evil, and that we are too different. Australia is a lot like the US, but they got their gun culture under control. Europe’s health care has led to better outcomes. Capitalism is alive and well in both, but it requires a strong Federal government to control its vices.

I have no problem with European Social Democracy. If it works well for them, that’s great. I don’t consider it evil. But that doesn’t mean it will work equally well over here. It is not something you can just cut and paste.

 

[efil4]

I do know better. I stand by my post.

Cool. Let us know when the Fortune100 company you work for sends that $100k to NC food bank.

 

[TampaJoe]

The difference is government’s objective is not to increase its profit. Corporation’s objective is to increase profit and those that don’t profit fail. Government that doesn’t achieve its objective gets reorganized or eliminated.

Please. Governments objective is to grow. To survive. Business isn’t any different. Government’s objective is more government. More control. And it has to fund all that growth. All you need do is look at our growing national debt.

Then thought that governments that don’t work well get reorganized or eliminated is also laughable. Large bureaucracies in either the private sector or the public sector are notoriously hard to reorganize.

 

[TampaJoe]

Cool. Let us know when the Fortune100 company you work for sends that $100k to NC food bank.

Such communication would be unnecessary. Obviously you are so plugged into the dark side, if someone does anything good you would note a disturbance in the force.

 

[Lapaz]

I have no problem with European Social Democracy. If it works well for them, that’s great. I don’t consider it evil. But that doesn’t mean it will work equally well over here. It is not something you can just cut and paste.

You may not think it is evil, but I frequently hear Republicans accuse Democrats of being Socialists pejoratively for advocating policies that are less Socialist than most European policies. No policy should ever be cut and paste, but we shouldn’t hesitate to emulate Europeans when their policies are successful. Nothing is perfect, so it shouldn’t be cut and paste, but we always build from past successes.