> You're either being fooled by massaged stats or not looking at the larger picture.
That is exactly my point from your example.
It is a temporary sales dip, yes, but let's check in twelve months from now shall we?
Meanwhile, inBev gains improved access to literally $53+ in esg funds.
https://www.bloomberg.com/professional/blog/esg-assets-may-hit-53-trillion-by-2025-a-third-of-global-aum/
Which do you think their board cares more about?
That is exactly my point from your example.
It is a temporary sales dip, yes, but let's check in twelve months from now shall we?
Meanwhile, inBev gains improved access to literally $53+ in esg funds.
https://www.bloomberg.com/professional/blog/esg-assets-may-hit-53-trillion-by-2025-a-third-of-global-aum/
Which do you think their board cares more about?
I want to be wrong.
Give me an example of a company that went broke from "going woke"
Give me an example of a company that went broke from "going woke"
1. There is correlation between the two.
2. Conservatives need to wrap their heads around the fact that there is literally TRILLIONS available in ESG funds to prop up companies that "go woke" They are happy to exchange a temporary dip in sales to unlock access to that funding.
Anyway, looks like sales are doing well..
https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/coca-cola-beats-quarterly-revenue-estimates-steady-demand-2023-04-24/
> Revenue rose 4.3% to $10.96 billion, beating estimates of $10.80 billion
2. Conservatives need to wrap their heads around the fact that there is literally TRILLIONS available in ESG funds to prop up companies that "go woke" They are happy to exchange a temporary dip in sales to unlock access to that funding.
Anyway, looks like sales are doing well..
https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/coca-cola-beats-quarterly-revenue-estimates-steady-demand-2023-04-24/
> Revenue rose 4.3% to $10.96 billion, beating estimates of $10.80 billion
Also, is there an actual example of a company going woke then going broke?
Example: it seems asking Conservatives to stay away from a specific brand of sugar water was an unrealistic level of self control..
Example: it seems asking Conservatives to stay away from a specific brand of sugar water was an unrealistic level of self control..
It has a lot to do with the absence of trusted communities and globalization.
In a close knit community, there is incentive to be respectful in every interaction; you might know that person, and if you dont, your neighbors and extended family probably do.
In a globalized world, you simply don't have the same incentives. It's every man for himself. It's the tragedy of the commons.
In a close knit community, there is incentive to be respectful in every interaction; you might know that person, and if you dont, your neighbors and extended family probably do.
In a globalized world, you simply don't have the same incentives. It's every man for himself. It's the tragedy of the commons.
If the Republicans truely wanted a showdown with the teacher Unions they'd be pushing for school choice.
Anything else is just negotiations.
Anything else is just negotiations.
There are a number of problems with UBI, and important and dangerous problems.
One of the basic concepts of Ubi is that you provide enough money for people to live without doing anything else. A lot of people will choose to live exactly like that. That seem so bad at first, except there's some pretty major consequences. You take away people's need to work to live, for a lot of people you've taken away the little shred of meaning they had in their lives. We know what communities look like when you do that. Around the world there are plenty of communities where people get just enough to live, and not a whole lot else. You get high crime, you get people destroying their own neighborhoods just for something to do, you get high levels of suicide.
Then there's the distinct problem that you create a class system: there will be the people who continue to work, and the people who do not work. This could play out in a number of different ways, in some cases we would expect the large underclass to be slowly strangled because they don't contribute anything anyway. You're going to live without working, the people who do work get priority. In other cases, we could see the opposite: the people who aren't working look at the extra that the people who do work get, and go "that's mine too", so eventually the only way to keep people working is under some sort of threat since their carrot has been taken away, all that's left is stick.
Then there's the evergreen problem of people who want to come in and take everything that's already been built: nothing new will be built. With masses of people unemployed by choice, and the economy not really giving incentives to people to go out and produce anything, there will just be less stuff for everyone. You can't print goods and services into existence.
Overall, it's an idea that is well meaning but would cause hell for a substantial proportion of the people trapped in such a system. It's like a perpetual motion machine: everyone claims they've built one but the laws of physics aren't that polite to let you.
One of the basic concepts of Ubi is that you provide enough money for people to live without doing anything else. A lot of people will choose to live exactly like that. That seem so bad at first, except there's some pretty major consequences. You take away people's need to work to live, for a lot of people you've taken away the little shred of meaning they had in their lives. We know what communities look like when you do that. Around the world there are plenty of communities where people get just enough to live, and not a whole lot else. You get high crime, you get people destroying their own neighborhoods just for something to do, you get high levels of suicide.
Then there's the distinct problem that you create a class system: there will be the people who continue to work, and the people who do not work. This could play out in a number of different ways, in some cases we would expect the large underclass to be slowly strangled because they don't contribute anything anyway. You're going to live without working, the people who do work get priority. In other cases, we could see the opposite: the people who aren't working look at the extra that the people who do work get, and go "that's mine too", so eventually the only way to keep people working is under some sort of threat since their carrot has been taken away, all that's left is stick.
Then there's the evergreen problem of people who want to come in and take everything that's already been built: nothing new will be built. With masses of people unemployed by choice, and the economy not really giving incentives to people to go out and produce anything, there will just be less stuff for everyone. You can't print goods and services into existence.
Overall, it's an idea that is well meaning but would cause hell for a substantial proportion of the people trapped in such a system. It's like a perpetual motion machine: everyone claims they've built one but the laws of physics aren't that polite to let you.
And whether a malevolent concept to control opposition or a genuine belief, it is made worse by giving people a false sense of action and agency.
Conservatives almost cheer the next cultural incursion so that they can chuckle the phrase to themselves, confident that they are winning while losing.
Conservatives almost cheer the next cultural incursion so that they can chuckle the phrase to themselves, confident that they are winning while losing.
> Their plan to sit back and do nothing has done what so far ?
Also, yes.
They are very comfortable in their role as Party #2 within the Uniparty.
Also, yes.
They are very comfortable in their role as Party #2 within the Uniparty.
> who cares what they think?
Well apparently Ron might not even run because he can't find enough support in the party?
Well apparently Ron might not even run because he can't find enough support in the party?
This will own the libs!
Meanwhile, the GOP is getting skittish about Desantis actually doing something meaningful beyond this endless theater..
Republican attacks on “woke” American corporations are exposing deep divides within the GOP, with some Republicans worried the party is straying from its roots by going after the internal politics of big businesses
Their audience is incapable of turning away.
Also they are likely signaling to the establishment that they are on the uniparty team which will ensure financing is available.
Finally, they have cable deals, so most people can't cancel them if they want to.
Also they are likely signaling to the establishment that they are on the uniparty team which will ensure financing is available.
Finally, they have cable deals, so most people can't cancel them if they want to.
While you're out there boycotting the latest insanity, the GOP is is not with you.
https://thehill.com/business/3966765-desantis-vs-disney-feud-tests-gop-appetite-for-attacks-on-woke-companies/
> Republican attacks on “woke” American corporations are exposing deep divides within the GOP, with some Republicans worried the party is straying from its roots by going after the internal politics of big businesses.
By "roots" I think they mean "kickbacks" and "campaign funding"
https://thehill.com/business/3966765-desantis-vs-disney-feud-tests-gop-appetite-for-attacks-on-woke-companies/
> Republican attacks on “woke” American corporations are exposing deep divides within the GOP, with some Republicans worried the party is straying from its roots by going after the internal politics of big businesses.
By "roots" I think they mean "kickbacks" and "campaign funding"
Worked for what?
Making the company suffer financially in a meaningful way? I have no idea.
Giving conservatives a false sense of accomplishment while doing nothing of value to fight back?
Every time.
Making the company suffer financially in a meaningful way? I have no idea.
Giving conservatives a false sense of accomplishment while doing nothing of value to fight back?
Every time.
Oh I fully agree. Conservatives have not wrapped their heads around the literally trillions of dollars (some of it their own 401k) in ESG funding.
