Political Posts

[73 Reds]

1 minute ago, dwy000 said:

Not if you want to do business with the government or avoid government regulation. 

 

Paramount literally had to remove all references to DEI to get their merger approved last month. 

Either because those references violated the law or they could choose to keep them and not do business with the Government.  That's a corporate decision.  Anyone who does business with the Govt. has to play by Govt. rules.  Nothing new there.

[cubsfan]

Companies have figured out that discrimination is bad for business.

All you have to do is listen to @Castanza story and multiply that by millions of employees.

 

Trump just gave them the excuse to dump DEI.  

[dwy000]

22 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Because they were in place for the wrong reasons and were bad for business!

The business CHOSE to have them in place.  They removed them in order to get government approval for a merger. 

 

Thats government interfering in business hiring. 

[Sweet]

11 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

The business CHOSE to have them in place.  They removed them in order to get government approval for a merger. 

 

Thats government interfering in business hiring. 

They choose to remove it too dwy.

 

I mean, do you really think many of these companies didn’t enact such legislation because of political pressure, activist groups and NGOs?

 

Edited September 4, 2025 by Sweet

[73 Reds]

10 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

The business CHOSE to have them in place.  They removed them in order to get government approval for a merger. 

 

Thats government interfering in business hiring. 

They didn't have to merge.  That's a business decision.  

[dwy000]

1 minute ago, 73 Reds said:

They didn't have to merge.  That's a business decision.  

Its still government interference. Something we both agree should not be happening. 

[73 Reds]

Just now, dwy000 said:

Its still government interference. Something we both agree should not be happening. 

Wrong.  If you want govt. approval (for anything) you play by govt. rules.  Keep trying though.

[dwy000]

Just now, 73 Reds said:

Wrong.  If you want govt. approval (for anything) you play by govt. rules.  Keep trying though.

Which, if that is not what you choose to do anyways, is the very definition of govt interference.  

[LC]

33 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

You really don't get it do you?  They put diversity in place because of misguided thinking.  They removed it because it wasn't effective.  Don't you understand the difference between mandatory DEI and resultant DEI simply because that is what happens to work best?  

 

Why didn't they remove DEI programs in 2024? 

Why haven't all companies removed DEI programs, if they don't work? Costco for example has publicly declared they are retaining their DEI initiative. Is Costco just poorly run? 

 

Isn't a more realistic scenario that DEI programs are being removed because some companies want to appeal to the Trump administration?

[73 Reds]

35 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

Which, if that is not what you choose to do anyways, is the very definition of govt interference.  

If a company approaches the govt. seeking approval (for anything) how is that govt. interference?  

[73 Reds]

30 minutes ago, LC said:

 

Why didn't they remove DEI programs in 2024? 

Why haven't all companies removed DEI programs, if they don't work? Costco for example has publicly declared they are retaining their DEI initiative. Is Costco just poorly run? 

 

Isn't a more realistic scenario that DEI programs are being removed because some companies want to appeal to the Trump administration?

Who said they all don't work?  Each business is different.  Mandatory DEI is wrong.  These aren't mutually exclusive issues.  But a certain political party makes the issue divisive.  Who should care what a business does if it is not violating the law and it works for the business?  

[dwy000]

11 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

If a company approaches the govt. seeking approval (for anything) how is that govt. interference?  

Because if the govt says you need to change your hiring criteria in order to get approval that is explicitly the govt interfering in hiring. The very thing we both agree should not happen. 

[73 Reds]

2 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

Because if the govt says you need to change your hiring criteria in order to get approval that is explicitly the govt interfering in hiring. The very thing we both agree should not happen. 

So don't seek the approval.  The business can decide what it wants to do.  Its like any other decision; consider the costs and the benefits and make a decision.  

[dwy000]

9 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

So don't seek the approval.  The business can decide what it wants to do.  Its like any other decision; consider the costs and the benefits and make a decision.  

Exactly. But to deny its explicit govt interference in hiring (which we both think is wrong) is just not the case.

 

[73 Reds]

2 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

Exactly. But to deny its explicit govt interference in hiring (which we both think is wrong) is just not the case.

 

No.  On what planet is the govt. not entitled to impose conditions for approval of a merger request?  That is not, nor ever will be construed as govt. interference.

Edited September 4, 2025 by 73 Reds
words

[dwy000]

24 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

No.  On what planet is the govt. not entitled to impose conditions for approval of a merger request?  That is not, nor ever will be construed as govt. interference.

They are, they do and they did. 

 

But our whole discussion is around govt interference in hiring.  You said that the Trump administration doesn't do that but agreed it is wrong.  Here is them doing exactly that. 

[thepupil]

https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-cabinet-mortgage-fraud
 

I'm sure the same rush to fire Lisa Cook will be applied to these Trump admin members.

[LC]

2 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

Who said they all don't work?  Each business is different.  Mandatory DEI is wrong.  These aren't mutually exclusive issues.  But a certain political party makes the issue divisive.  Who should care what a business does if it is not violating the law and it works for the business?  

 

Sure and a libertarian society works in theory. 

 

In the real world, DEI initiatives are low impact:

-To their mission that they provide value: Maybe? They certainly don't correct for nearly all of the structural issues facing poor minorities.

-To their criticism that they reduce talent: Maybe? I haven't heard a single company complain that sales, margins, etc. are suffering because of DEI talent (or lack thereof). 

 

I think of it like this - half the management and executive suite in corporate america is overpaid, underperforms, and could probably be replaced with Google's AI.

So I really don't care who gets those jobs. And so if 10% of them go to minority groups who empirically have more obstacles to overcome just to get their foot in the door, well I am OK with that.

 

Here's an example: Mark Mason is a black guy from Queens who is the CFO of Citi. Replace him with Charles Chesterworth Sr. from Westchester and what changes? Absolutely nothing at all. 

Replace them both with a well designed prompt from Google Gemini and we'd probably see more buybacks

Edited September 4, 2025 by LC

[LC]

And by the way,  I don't really think of it as a racial issue - although race is an easy proxy.

I'd also be just as happy for a PWT (poor white trash) initiative! 

 

My point is the path upwards for the middle and lower classes is getting worse and worse - I'd be OK to give them handout management jobs at the expense of a portion of the existing management/executive class. I mean, existing management is pretty much just welfare handouts for the friends/relatives of people in upper social classes, anyways. 

 

Case in point - I think I told this story before but an old friend was a professional dominatrix. Very wealthy clients. One eventually made her chief marketing officer of one of his companies. Experience? None. Education? None.

 

And by the way, she grew up broke and is now a millionaire.

Was this a handout? Well, I wouldn't dare guess where those hands have been!

[cubsfan]

35 minutes ago, LC said:

 

Sure and a libertarian society works in theory. 

 

In the real world, DEI initiatives are low impact:

-To their mission that they provide value: Maybe? They certainly don't correct for nearly all of the structural issues facing poor minorities.

-To their criticism that they reduce talent: Maybe? I haven't heard a single company complain that sales, margins, etc. are suffering because of DEI talent (or lack thereof). 

 

I think of it like this - half the management and executive suite in corporate america is overpaid, underperforms, and could probably be replaced with Google's AI.

So I really don't care who gets those jobs. And so if 10% of them go to minority groups who empirically have more obstacles to overcome just to get their foot in the door, well I am OK with that.

 

Here's an example: Mark Mason is a black guy from Queens who is the CFO of Citi. Replace him with Charles Chesterworth Sr. from Westchester and what changes? Absolutely nothing at all. 

Replace them both with a well designed prompt from Google Gemini and we'd probably see more buybacks

 

The DEI idiots in Los Angeles burned down Pacific Palisades. Mayor, Fire Chief and deputy chiefs -- all unqualified clowns.  Hydrants dry, emergency water reservoirs empty for months, fire trucks - unrepaired.  

 

Now that is some real suffering.

 

[whiskybravo]

1 hour ago, LC said:

Case in point - I think I told this story before but an old friend was a professional dominatrix. 

LC, you dirty dog

[Viking]

In the coming months we will get more and better information on the impacts of the new Trump/US trade policy. It will be interesting to see if John Deere is the canary in the coal mine… or not. 
 

John Deere, a U.S. Icon, Is Undermined by Tariffs and Struggling Farmers

• https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/04/business/john-deere-tractor-sales-down-farmers-struggle.html

 

The tractor maker said that sales were down and that higher metal tariffs would cost it $600 million, while American farmers face dwindling overseas demand for some crops.

 

…One of the country’s largest manufacturers is worse off now than it was six months ago. Last month, John Deere said net income in its most recent quarter was down 29 percent from a year earlier. Higher tariffs, primarily on steel but also on aluminum, have cost the company $300 million so far, with nearly another $300 million expected by the end of the year. This summer the company laid off 238 employees across factories in Illinois and Iowa.

 

…After Mr. Trump announced steep tariffs on Chinese goods this year, China placed retaliatory tariffs on U.S. soybeans in March. Soy exports to China are down 51 percent this year, and the country hasn’t made any advance purchases of soybeans for the upcoming harvest. U.S. growers are expected to receive $3.4 billion less for their soybean crop than they did last year, according to the Agriculture Department. For many growers, the prices are so low that they will lose money on each acre planted.

 

“How can companies and farmers plan for the long term when you don’t know what the cost of your inputs will be or what your market will look like in the weeks to come?” asked Tad DeHaven, a policy scholar at the Cato Institute, a think tank that favors free markets. “These businesses, whether John Deere or a craft brewery or anything in between, are trying to navigate this. They are trying to do the best they can to cut costs and to hang in there.”

Everybody in the agriculture business is used to hard-to-control risks, as heat, rain, pests and diseases play a huge role in profitability, Ms. Owen said. What is proving even harder to control is what she termed “pen-stroke risk,” the risk that with a strike of a politician’s pen, everything will change again.

Edited September 5, 2025 by Viking

[LC]

2 hours ago, whiskybravo said:

LC, you dirty dog

hah I am not that interesting, trust me!

[Charlie]

Like the father, so the suns:

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/trump-american-bitcoin-crypto-venture-raises-conflict-interest-alarms-rcna228837

 

Sounds like the best business model I have ever heard of. 

 

The business is at least unethical and probably crime on a big scale.

 

The other shareholders will find out in the next downturn that the business is probably worth exactly zero.

 

Some years ago I read a Trump quote in Forbes.

 

"Politics is the greatest business of all. There is no downside." 

Edited September 5, 2025 by Charlie

[Sweet]

9 hours ago, LC said:

 

Sure and a libertarian society works in theory. 

 

In the real world, DEI initiatives are low impact:

-To their mission that they provide value: Maybe? They certainly don't correct for nearly all of the structural issues facing poor minorities.

-To their criticism that they reduce talent: Maybe? I haven't heard a single company complain that sales, margins, etc. are suffering because of DEI talent (or lack thereof). 

 

I think of it like this - half the management and executive suite in corporate america is overpaid, underperforms, and could probably be replaced with Google's AI.

So I really don't care who gets those jobs. And so if 10% of them go to minority groups who empirically have more obstacles to overcome just to get their foot in the door, well I am OK with that.

 

Here's an example: Mark Mason is a black guy from Queens who is the CFO of Citi. Replace him with Charles Chesterworth Sr. from Westchester and what changes? Absolutely nothing at all. 

Replace them both with a well designed prompt from Google Gemini and we'd probably see more buybacks

 

8 hours ago, LC said:

And by the way,  I don't really think of it as a racial issue - although race is an easy proxy.

I'd also be just as happy for a PWT (poor white trash) initiative! 

 

My point is the path upwards for the middle and lower classes is getting worse and worse - I'd be OK to give them handout management jobs at the expense of a portion of the existing management/executive class. I mean, existing management is pretty much just welfare handouts for the friends/relatives of people in upper social classes, anyways. 

 

Case in point - I think I told this story before but an old friend was a professional dominatrix. Very wealthy clients. One eventually made her chief marketing officer of one of his companies. Experience? None. Education? None.

 

And by the way, she grew up broke and is now a millionaire.

Was this a handout? Well, I wouldn't dare guess where those hands have been!

That’s just another way of saying I’m ok with discrimination because sure the impacts are low - except for those discriminated against.

 

You say you are OK for a programme for poor white people.  Why not just have a programme for poor people and ignore race altogether.  There is no need to build in institutional racism.

 

There is only so much a government can correct for structural issues people face.  Like a deliberately absent father, how on earth can the government fill that void, and why should other people with kids of their own agree to discrimination against their own kids?

 

The whole DEI thing is nuts.  Have a programme for disadvantaged, keep race or ethnicity out of it completely.