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.

 

[J-DONK]

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.

I have, and it was profit's above all. In fact, all of these companies corporate officers had a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of shareholders. Why don't you name these carebear C-suites?

Am I crazy, didn't you admit you retired 20-30 years ago?

 

[J-DONK]

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.

This is a funny post because it got both government's objective, and corporations wrong.

 

[bird]

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.

Congratulations! You just listed 4 things used by corporations to push their sole purpose which is profit. It is pleasing to see that you understand profit is their sole purpose.

 

[Dragon]

Something interesting happens when a company doesn’t focus solely on profit.


The company I worked for before retiring had a strong social commitment—they hired people who faced challenges in holding a regular job due to disabilities. These employees were paid a normal wage, and in some cases, the state covered a set number of mentoring hours per week with a company employee.


About nine years ago, a young autistic man was hired as a database administrator through this program. A year later, he transitioned to a specialist role on regular terms, and today, the company would be in serious trouble if he left. He still receives accommodations for his condition—he has his own office and a "Do Not Disturb" sign he can activate when he needs to work undisturbed. But when it comes to databases, his expertise is undeniable.


Another example of my former employer’s ethical approach was how they handled the war in Ukraine. When the conflict broke out, they relocated all employees and their families from the Kyiv office. And when one of them chose to return to fight, the company continued paying his salary to support his family.


Why take such actions when they aren’t “profitable”? Because loyalty goes both ways. The company has many highly skilled IT specialists who frequently receive offers from competitors but choose to stay—largely due to the trust they have in the company and the ethical values it upholds, not just in words but in actions.

 

[TampaJoe]

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.

It doesn’t hurt to consider alternatives. My point is that just because something works well in another country doesn’t automatically mean it will work equally well or work at all over here. That is not a given.

As for the name calling. I have heard conservatives called all kinds of names. All the name calling adds nothing and in fact detracts from the discussion. We could all do with less vitriolic rhetoric. If this were a schoolyard, they all would be sent to their rooms.

 

[TampaJoe]

Congratulations! You just listed 4 things used by corporations to push their sole purpose which is profit. It is pleasing to see that you understand profit is their sole purpose.

Here is a link to a listing of the largest 100 philanthropic organizations.

World’s 100 largest philanthropic foundations list | ARCO

Check at a glance the first world 100 largest philanthropic foundations by assest updated at the latest financial statements available (2020).

www.arcolab.org

Worth a look. You might recognize some of the names. Many of them share the same name as successful businessmen and/or their companies.

 

[UriUT]

Anyone find it ironic that European sports devise a more capitalist system, while american sports devise a more socialist system? The nfl in itself is a collective with shared ownership and rules. The premiere league is more everyone out for themselves and if they don't deserve the merit, they get relegated?

And I find it really amusing when Americans who are deeply "capitalistic" and anti socialistic talk about salary caps.

 

[Lapaz]

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.

Survive yes, but not to grow at the agency level. I know I never felt pressure to grow the agency when I was a civilian. We only felt pressure to be valuable. Now that I work for a corporation, the pressure to grow is real. As far as reorganizing, as a civilian I experienced many. Also, I saw many projects cancelled for poor performance. The executives felt pressure to bend the truth to give the perception of success to get promoted, but the workforce didnt feel that pressure, because we knew we would start a new project. In industry, everyone feels the pressure to do whatever it takes to survive and grow. The incentives are simply different. Both are needed, but without a strong government to check it, Capitalists are cold and single-minded and will run roughshod over everything to profit for the lifetime of the executives.

 

[Sendai]

I have, and it was profit's above all. In fact, all of these companies corporate officers had a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of shareholders. Why don't you name these carebear C-suites?

Am I crazy, didn't you admit you retired 20-30 years ago?

And I still know how two of those companies operate. I know employees at those two companies. I’ve helped young college grads pursue careers there. They continue to maintain solid principles. They provide value. Pillars of the community.

 

[bird]

And I still know how two of those companies operate. I know employees at those two companies. I’ve helped young college grads pursue careers there. They continue to maintain solid principles. They provide value. Pillars of the community.

Which is irrelevant to the purpose of corporations.

 

[bird]

Here is a link to a listing of the largest 100 philanthropic organizations.

World’s 100 largest philanthropic foundations list | ARCO

Check at a glance the first world 100 largest philanthropic foundations by assest updated at the latest financial statements available (2020).

www.arcolab.org

Worth a look. You might recognize some of the names. Many of them share the same name as successful businessmen and/or their companies.

No, it isn’t worth a look.

Philanthropy’s purpose is, generally speaking, to throw some crumbs to fill the massive gaps that capitalism does not and cannot fill.

Beyond that, if the tax benefits were removed we could speculate about the impact.

It also does serve the purpose of making management feel virtuously self-righteous.

As for the purpose of corporations? Philanthropy is irrelevant.

Oh, I nearly forgot. I suggest that you read the book The Bill Gates Problem: Reckoning with the Myth of the Good Billionaire.

 

[CoolBrees]

I have been in the big chair. I have also been a member of the S-Suite for a publicly traded company. I have had to sell dozens of Board Rooms and CEO's on projects and concepts.

Every decision carries an ROI. Most companies carry a 30 month payback or the project/ program/ venture won't be realized. Too expensive and too much risk.

Profits are all that matter. They are all that a corporation cares about. Period.

Even philanthropic decisions are made on the basis of public image to drive brand awareness and even more reason - taxes. Charity is a massive tax shelter.

But as I said before, there is only two ways to drive profits - and lowering your tax burden is a cost cutting measure. Thus increasing profits.

Again, I don't blame corporations for being corporations. Their sole purpose is to drive profit and value for the shareholders. It isn't inherently evil. They need the government to slash regulations for it to be insidious.

And by the way - I know two billionaire heads of conglomerates. Both wish for more regulation personally. It takes the decision away from them. When environmental laws are in place they are followed as it is bad for profits not to. But with no regulation, no need to stop polluting or pay extra to dispose properly. The CEO might personally be a member of the Sierra Club. But their fiduciary responsibility at work says they must act in the best interest of the company and its charter. Which self imposed environmental restrictions would be in direct violation of. And the person would be removed from their role. And the new CEO would roll back the restrictions and the stock price would level back out.

But I do want to thank whoever said there are principled companies. I needed the laugh.

 

[TampaJoe]

I have been in the big chair. I have also been a member of the S-Suite for a publicly traded company. I have had to sell dozens of Board Rooms and CEO's on projects and concepts.

Every decision carries an ROI. Most companies carry a 30 month payback or the project/ program/ venture won't be realized. Too expensive and too much risk.

Profits are all that matter. They are all that a corporation cares about. Period.

Even philanthropic decisions are made on the basis of public image to drive brand awareness and even more reason - taxes. Charity is a massive tax shelter.

But as I said before, there is only two ways to drive profits - and lowering your tax burden is a cost cutting measure. Thus increasing profits.

Again, I don't blame corporations for being corporations. Their sole purpose is to drive profit and value for the shareholders. It isn't inherently evil. They need the government to slash regulations for it to be insidious.

And by the way - I know two billionaire heads of conglomerates. Both wish for more regulation personally. It takes the decision away from them. When environmental laws are in place they are followed as it is bad for profits not to. But with no regulation, no need to stop polluting or pay extra to dispose properly. The CEO might personally be a member of the Sierra Club. But their fiduciary responsibility at work says they must act in the best interest of the company and its charter. Which self imposed environmental restrictions would be in direct violation of. And the person would be removed from their role. And the new CEO would roll back the restrictions and the stock price would level back out.

But I do want to thank whoever said there are principled companies. I needed the laugh.

Hey. I don’t think government is inherently evil. It’s run by human beings just like business. Where I differ with you is their “sole” purpose. Ultimately you are correct that businesses have to show a profit to survive and grow. But it’s possible to have multiple goals and objectives. Hopefully they all will contribute to profit and growth.

I will also agree with you that government has a role to play from a regulatory perspective. There is a balance that needs to be struck.

 

[MT15]

It’s alarming that people can be so delusional about the way the economic system we inhabit works, isn’t it? How can we ever make any progress with this level of fantastical belief in “good” corporations?

Under the US system, publicly traded corps have to behave in the way described by almost everyone here. Yes, there are better corps and bad corps, but no publicly traded corporation does “good works” for any reason other than good publicity or tax breaks.

Take away the tax breaks, and take away the public sentiment that rewards good works, and see what they do.

 

[UriUT]

It’s alarming that people can be so delusional about the way the economic system we inhabit works, isn’t it? How can we ever make any progress with this level of fantastical belief in “good” corporations?

Under the US system, publicly traded corps have to behave in the way described by almost everyone here. Yes, there are better corps and bad corps, but no publicly traded corporation does “good works” for any reason other than good publicity or tax breaks.

Take away the tax breaks, and take away the public sentiment that rewards good works, and see what they do.

Weird isn't it? It's like they want to redefine terms when those terms don't fit their narrative. Economic theories don't assume any moral basis for firms other than their fundamental driver is maximizing profits. Sure, firms can focus on winning market share; some can assume moral stances. For example, Amazon. For years, they reinvested in infrastructure like central hubs and data processing centers. Networks, etc at negative profits. But eventually, profit dictates their action and they are suppressing labor collectives to drive said profits. Tesla's environmental stance....very moral coming from a narcissist.

Christ, Adam smith's invisible hand assumes individuals will pursue their self interest.

So wtf are these people trying to do when they attempt to rewrite truths? To justify stupid actions....and they are aware enough that these actions are stupid. "Hey we believe in capitalism, but believe that at heart, it's socialist in nature".

My god. Hey "social democracies don't fit the us". News flash.....we've had the welfare state since Americans revolted against the gilded age. Social securities, Medicaid, Medicare. Labor laws. Environmental laws. These ideas are so hideous that China had to enforce variance of them because pure capitalism were destroying the very land and resources that they had. Labor conditions are atrocious.

Silly still, these same types, who obviously aren't part of the 1%, just based on their line of logic, buy into all these actions that will hurt them. Reagan has been more than a plague on these types. Not only did he convince them that government is evil or that taxes that support their relatively comfortable lives hurt them, he convinces them that the ultra wealthy and corporations have socialist intentions towards them.

 

[Optimus Prime]

In fairness, Trump can't control this increase in egg prices due to the bird flu, but if Biden or Harris were in office, the right wouldn't be nuanced. They would be trashing Harris. With that said, anyone who voted for Trump due to egg prices is a dumbass, and they won't understand nuance anyway.

Egg prices coming down because of less bird flu and lower demand

Will that be the story or will it be because of Donald Trump’s leadership and genius?
=======================

Egg prices dropped once again this month as bird flu outbreaks eased and demand fell, with consumers unwilling to shell out for the inflated prices, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Wholesale prices for a dozen eggs now average $4.15, down $2.70 from the week before, the USDA’s Egg Markets Overview from Friday found. In the last week of February, a dozen eggs averaged as high as $8.05.

The reason for the reduced price is two-fold: decreased demand and fewer bird flu outbreaks.

As egg prices shot up, demand for them “sharply” declined over the past week, the department found.

There were also “no significant outbreaks” of the virus in March.……

Egg prices drop as demand ‘sharply’ falls among customers unwilling to shell out

The average price for a dozen eggs has dipped down to $4.15

www.independent.co.uk

 

[J-DONK]

And I still know how two of those companies operate. I know employees at those two companies. I’ve helped young college grads pursue careers there. They continue to maintain solid principles. They provide value. Pillars of the community.

You try to make an argument from a point of experience. You worked in a corporate world of filing cabinets, and literal paper trails. The world has changed Sendai.

Again, name the companies. You won't because this is fiction.

 

[J-DONK]

@Sendai @TampaJoe

Both of you need to take a class on a concept called CSR "Corporate social responsibility". There are books, and for you, youtube videos that go into WHY corporations engage in this behavior.

To put it simply for both of you: Al Capone ran soup kitchens. Was he a good guy?

You are personalizing corporations. They are profit making organizations. The fact you are both arguing for "good" corporations means you fundmentally don't understand the world you live in.