Political Posts

[73 Reds]

11 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

Actually libertarianism works just fine as long as there is an element of social conscience.  The social conscience part could even be driven purely by greed, so as to allow libertarians to thrive.  What is the point of being King of a crumbling hill?    

[John Hjorth]

Bad US job report again! Who will POTUS fire this time? lol!

 

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115012532470689820

 

[LC]

5 hours ago, Sweet said:

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

 

Sure but it's OK for you to ignore centuries of systemic and institutional racism and the generational impacts that has created. 

[cubsfan]

11 minutes ago, LC said:

 

Sure but it's OK for you to ignore centuries of systemic and institutional racism and the generational impacts that has created. 

 

Why do you punish the current generation when in the US there is no systemic racism?

 

You're operating in the 1960s.

[vinod1]

20 hours ago, dwy000 said:

Those are all jobs with high and very deep skill sets but relatively low need for breadth of decisioning.  The pilot is great at flying (and you should pick the best.pilots) but the airline management would be making a very different set of decisions. Its why being a great pilot or great surgeon or great soldier doesnt necessarily make you a great manager. 

 

You can extend to any field and any breadth of decision-making skill, you still end up with poorer outcomes if you have a DEI criterion.

 

I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but what you are implying is: DEI is great whenever we cannot measure the outcomes. It is just bad wherever we can actually measure the outcomes.

 

To me, it is better to put policies in place that reduce discrimination, but dont do diversity for diversity sake. It is like Berkshire board saying, look we need a couple of blacks, couple of hispanics, couple of asians and through in good mix of females. You cannot get anything that requires "breadth of decisioning" than Berkshire board I would guess. To me, that is going to lead to poorer outcomes. 

 

Vinod
 

[vinod1]

18 hours 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?

 

There is enormous pressure from social activists due to George Floyd riots. The liberals (I was a liberal, before liberals went off the loony extreme end) used that event to put pressure via social media by shaming these CEO's. It was sheer lunacy! If you had been involved in any sort of acadamic setting (children schools, colleges, etc), the amount of DEI nonsense that one encountered is immense.

 

It is 100% DEI, 100% of the time. Anyone who asked a question about these is deemed a racist. CEO's and boards bent over backwards to appease them. 

 

This is one reason Trump was elected. People were just fed up with this nonsense.

 

Vinod

[vinod1]

51 minutes ago, LC said:

 

Sure but it's OK for you to ignore centuries of systemic and institutional racism and the generational impacts that has created. 

 

Explain this to me:

 

We have poor Mexican immigrants who cannot speak the language, cannot legally work in the US, cannot avail of any of the facilities in the US, are not eligible to work at 80-90% of the mainstream jobs in US, and dont qualifiy for any aid. 

 

Yet, these poor people are still able to find work, save money and even send it back to their families. They are able to sustain their families and their kids when they come over are getting educated and become employed and living nicely.

 

You are saying that because someone's great great great great grandfather was discriminated against decades ago, is the reason they cannot earn a decent living in the USA? That is the reason they cannot study? That is reason they cannot get a job? 

 

Vinod

 

[changegonnacome]

12 hours ago, Viking said:

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. 
 

 

Yeah so many puts and takes to unravel..........100% expensing should be a boom to Deere, Caterpillar if the economy improves....but 100% expensing doesn't really matter if you've lost confidence that next year will be better than last year....you just defer your purchase and don't expense anything or alternatively on a micro basis Deere gain some marginal extra sales but their margin is killed by higher input costs and so EPS goes down even though volumes are up.

 

Alot of the Trump economic plan rests on 2026 being an avalanche of tax refunds buoying consumer spending in the first half of the year and this manufacturing renaissance + de-regulation boom getting going driving things beyond that.

 

Its the trillion dollar question.....will his cockamime scheme work?......as we know sending people cheques work this feels like an administration trying every trick in the book to pretend that things are going great till the sugar rush of those refund cheques start hitting the populace .....the 2nd part of his plan (on-shoring manufacturing led boom) looks IMO increasingly shaky....cause (a) maybe it was always destined to fail or (b) the courts are going to dismantle so much of it that its much ado about nothing as the clock will have run out on the whole thing....I mean...factories take time to deliver.....and fairly soon 2026 midterms and 2028 presidential hits.

Edited September 5, 2025 by changegonnacome

[Sweet]

1 hour ago, LC said:

 

Sure but it's OK for you to ignore centuries of systemic and institutional racism and the generational impacts that has created. 

 

There is no justification for discrimination against white or asian kids because of something that happened a century or more before they were born.  That’s what you are arguing for.

 

I’m very sympathetic and willing to helping people who don’t have a much and who didn’t have an easy start in life.  But if it’s a choice between DEI or no help - then no help.  
 

My sympathies are exhausted when people like you argue my kids (and other kids) should be discriminated against because of the colour of their skin.

[cubsfan]

37 minutes ago, vinod1 said:

You are saying that because someone's great great great great grandfather was discriminated against decades ago, is the reason they cannot earn a decent living in the USA? That is the reason they cannot study? That is reason they cannot get a job? 

 

Vinod

 

With the DEI grift and the race baiters - those that have NOT been harmed simply punish those that have harmed NO one. 

 

All that matters is the victim hierarchy.

[LC]

Yeah I really don't see the major DEI impact you guys are alluding to. I work with a bunch of Asians and Indians. Not because of DEI but because of outsourcing ($$) and because they're smart as hell. That's the market, folks. 

 

And I haven't met a single smart white or asian kid whose education was hampered by DEI. In fact most of the people I knew who got into tier 1 ivy leagues were rich white kids admitted via legacy, not merit. 

 

My point is if you want to label DEI as racism, you need to at least acknowledge the centuries of racism that led to it. When did redlining stop? 1968 - talk about families sticking together...difficult when banks wouldn't lend to parents to buy a home. 

[Sweet]

44 minutes ago, vinod1 said:

You are saying that because someone's great great great great grandfather was discriminated against decades ago, is the reason they cannot earn a decent living in the USA? That is the reason they cannot study? That is reason they cannot get a job? 

Yep.  
 

Nearly all of the disadvantage today stems from behavioural issues not some socially inherited disadvantage.  The prevalence of single parent families who have 10-15 times less wealth than two parent families is a major driver of this and it has nothing to do with what past racism.

LC’s argument is we should have institutional racism today because there was institutional racism 3+ generations ago.

[LC]

1 minute ago, Sweet said:

LC’s argument is we should have institutional racism today because there was institutional racism 3+ generations ago.

 

Yeah I mean I am totally in support of remove the race element and replacing it with an income/wealth element. 
 

Last week Mcdonalds CEO gave an interview with how they see the consumer economy - essentially the well-off are continuing to thrive, while those earning <100K are struggling, even skipping meals like breakfast.

 

To me that is the problem to solve, I don't care what label you want to put on the solution-  as long as it works.

[dwy000]

1 hour ago, vinod1 said:

 

You can extend to any field and any breadth of decision-making skill, you still end up with poorer outcomes if you have a DEI criterion.

 

I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but what you are implying is: DEI is great whenever we cannot measure the outcomes. It is just bad wherever we can actually measure the outcomes.

 

To me, it is better to put policies in place that reduce discrimination, but dont do diversity for diversity sake. It is like Berkshire board saying, look we need a couple of blacks, couple of hispanics, couple of asians and through in good mix of females. You cannot get anything that requires "breadth of decisioning" than Berkshire board I would guess. To me, that is going to lead to poorer outcomes. 

 

Vinod
 

Both Tim Cook and Satya Nadella disagree with that concept (that adding diversity doesnt improve outcomes).

 

I was not suggesting that DEi is better when you cant measure outcomes (and worse when you can).  I was trying to say that decision making in the face of uncertainty and unknown outcomes is improved when you have a diverse set of inputs and ideas from diverse backgrounds. 

 

If youre a surgeon, youre making decisions based on experience and scientific knowledge (yours and others). If youre the hospital CEO dealing with government, insurers, employees, unions, budgets, and local communities, you cannot be an expert on everything and having a diversity of inputs improves decision making.

 

I'm not saying have diversity solely for the sake of diversity - that's effectively what quotas do.  I'm saying you need to consider what exactly is "most qualified" when hiring and that not only includes the person youre hiring but also what they bring to the existing team.  We've all seen teams of individual superstars that on paper should dominate, but they lose out to teams that work together more effectively even though individually they dont stack up to the superstars. 

 

[73 Reds]

25 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

Both Tim Cook and Satya Nadella disagree with that concept (that adding diversity doesnt improve outcomes).

 

I was not suggesting that DEi is better when you cant measure outcomes (and worse when you can).  I was trying to say that decision making in the face of uncertainty and unknown outcomes is improved when you have a diverse set of inputs and ideas from diverse backgrounds. 

 

If youre a surgeon, youre making decisions based on experience and scientific knowledge (yours and others). If youre the hospital CEO dealing with government, insurers, employees, unions, budgets, and local communities, you cannot be an expert on everything and having a diversity of inputs improves decision making.

 

I'm not saying have diversity solely for the sake of diversity - that's effectively what quotas do.  I'm saying you need to consider what exactly is "most qualified" when hiring and that not only includes the person youre hiring but also what they bring to the existing team.  We've all seen teams of individual superstars that on paper should dominate, but they lose out to teams that work together more effectively even though individually they dont stack up to the superstars. 

 

The Left effectively want quotas.   That's the problem.

[dwy000]

12 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

The Left effectively want quotas.   That's the problem.

Well, let organizations determine their own hiring criteria and they have to live with the results.  Keep government out of it entirely. 

[73 Reds]

Just now, dwy000 said:

Well, let organizations determine their own hiring criteria and they have to live with the results.  Keep government out of it entirely. 

Exactly.  Keep it out of politics as well.  Same with "ESG" which they have been teaching in business schools.  Let businesses decide for themselves what works best.  As long as companies comply with the law, mandatory ESG has no more place in business than mandatory DEI.

[dwy000]

13 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Exactly.  Keep it out of politics as well.  Same with "ESG" which they have been teaching in business schools.  Let businesses decide for themselves what works best.  As long as companies comply with the law, mandatory ESG has no more place in business than mandatory DEI.

So you agree it was wrong of the administration to impose DEI restrictions on Paramount to secure approval for the merger?

[73 Reds]

2 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

So you agree it was wrong of the administration to impose DEI restrictions on Paramount to secure approval for the merger?

As stated before that's an entirely different issue.  Governments impose conditions on merger requests all the time.  The parties have 3 choices:  Accept the conditions, withdraw the merger request, or fight the conditions by taking the issue to Court.  Management will make the appropriate decision on the part of the companies; not anyone else.

[Gregmal]

Is it not super clear at this point that corporations really just go with the status quo and dont really care either way? They got bullied into a lot of the ESG crap during cancel culture and the Floydathon and now see the tides have turned under Trump and are reversing course. I dont think theres some commitment to either side, in most cases. There just doing what theyve always done which is just enough to straddle the line. 

[dwy000]

4 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

As stated before that's an entirely different issue.  Governments impose conditions on merger requests all the time.  The parties have 3 choices:  Accept the conditions, withdraw the merger request, or fight the conditions by taking the issue to Court.  Management will make the appropriate decision on the part of the companies; not anyone else.

But its not a different issue.  The government is interfering in hiring at Paramount to get the merger approved. Thats exactly what we both just agreed is wrong.

 

This is why I end up saying "cult".  You explicitly stated that government should not be involved in company hiring policy but now cant admit this decision doing exactly that is wrong because that would be going against Trump.  

[73 Reds]

5 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

But its not a different issue.  The government is interfering in hiring at Paramount to get the merger approved. Thats exactly what we both just agreed is wrong.

 

This is why I end up saying "cult".  You explicitly stated that government should not be involved in company hiring policy but now cant admit this decision doing exactly that is wrong because that would be going against Trump.  

That's absurd.  That would also mean any conditions imposed on any merger request  constitute government interference with business.  The government is not interfering with any business currently being done by either company.  Evidently in your World every merger request automatically gets approved - in fact why even bother with the request?  

[dwy000]

7 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

That's absurd.  That would also mean any conditions imposed on any merger request  constitute government interference with business.  The government is not interfering with any business currently being done by either company.  Evidently in your World every merger request automatically gets approved - in fact why even bother with the request?  

Well yes, every condition imposed on a merger request IS government interference!!  How could it be seen as anything else?

 

Some are more understandable than others even if I disagree with them (eg selling off a division to avoid over concentration in a product or region).

 

Why is it so impossible to just admit you disagree with  something Trump supports even when you explicitly took the other side a couple of posts prior?  I haven't met a politician or person in my life that I didnt disagree with on multiple issues (just ask my wife).  Subverting your opinions to toe the line is cult behavior. 

[73 Reds]

Just now, dwy000 said:

Well yes, every condition imposed on a merger request IS government interference!!  How could it be seen as anything else?

 

Some are more understandable than others even if I disagree with them (eg selling off a division to avoid over concentration in a product or region).

 

Why is it so impossible to just admit you disagree with  something Trump supports even when you explicitly took the other side a couple of posts prior?  I haven't met a politician or person in my life that I didnt disagree with on multiple issues (just ask my wife).  Subverting your opinions to toe the line is cult behavior. 

Wrong (again).  Until companies merge they are separate entities free to conduct business as always.  Is this such a difficult concept for you to grasp?  The fact that you or anyone else don't like the merger conditions is irrelevant.  The problem is you don't like the law governing mergers.  The remedy for that is legislative, not complaining on a message board.

[dwy000]

Just now, 73 Reds said:

Wrong (again).  Until companies merge they are separate entities free to conduct business as always.  Is this such a difficult concept for you to grasp?  The fact that you or anyone else don't like the merger conditions is irrelevant.  The problem is you don't like the law governing mergers.  The remedy for that is legislative, not complaining on a message board.

Astounding.