Vaccine

[Desert Hound]

ESG is the hottest trend in the corporate world. You can argue that its just a marketing gimmick to improve bottom line but companies are taking it very seriously and investing heavily in their ESG platforms. Despite the fact that companies, at this point, are seeing very little if any return on that investment.

It is turning out NOT to be a good "investment".

People are turned off by what is being presented to them.

Sell your product. Stop pushing political agendas. It is going to turn off one half of the population whichever way they go politically. Focus on the product and service and work to improve that. People dont like agendas being shoved down their throat every time they see a commercial, watch a movie, etc.

 

[crush]

It is turning out NOT to be a good "investment".

People are turned off by what is being presented to them.

Sell your product. Stop pushing political agendas. It is going to turn off one half of the population whichever way they go politically. Focus on the product and service and work to improve that. People dont like agendas being shoved down their throat every time they see a commercial, watch a movie, etc.

That's what I keep telling Soccer

 

[crush]

WHO sponsored this show?

 

[crush]

These people are sick and worship something most of us have no idea about.

 

[whatithink]

It is turning out NOT to be a good "investment".

People are turned off by what is being presented to them.

Sell your product. Stop pushing political agendas. It is going to turn off one half of the population whichever way they go politically. Focus on the product and service and work to improve that. People dont like agendas being shoved down their throat every time they see a commercial, watch a movie, etc.

I agree. We should ban the whole lobbying industry and prohibit companies from making political donations.

Companies and their related trade orgs should just concentrate on selling their product, not manipulating the market via lobbying for and writing legislation (state & federal) and not by buying supporting politicians.

WRT your generalization, I'd suggest that it's really that "People don't like agendas they disagree with being shoved down their throat every time they see a commercial, watch a movie, etc."

The chances of any of that are less than zero of course, so a pox on all their houses, says me.

 

[watfly]

I agree. We should ban the whole lobbying industry and prohibit companies from making political donations.

Companies and their related trade orgs should just concentrate on selling their product, not manipulating the market via lobbying for and writing legislation (state & federal) and not by buying supporting politicians.

WRT your generalization, I'd suggest that it's really that "People don't like agendas they disagree with being shoved down their throat every time they see a commercial, watch a movie, etc."

The chances of any of that are less than zero of course, so a pox on all their houses, says me.

There is certainly some unsavory characters and practices in lobbying which get a disproportionate amount of publicity. However, that tends to be on the handout or corporate welfare side of lobbying. Reality is most lobbying is defensive, i.e. trying to stop legislation on the local level that would hurt a particular business sector and by default the customer (although I'm not claiming that they are doing it for altruistic reasons). It's a necessary check on government overreach. Most lobbying is done by grass roots trade organizations with relatively meager means, and don't have the resources to grease palms. I'm never in favor of throwing out the whole bushel for a few bad apples.

While I would personally prefer to see restrictions on companies making political contributions, you start to tread into 1st Amendment territory and I'm a free speech absolutist. Although, I'm not convinced that a contribution cap is a violation of free speech. I'd rather see the problem addressed with more transparency.

 

[crush]

 

[crush]

 

[whatithink]

There is certainly some unsavory characters and practices in lobbying which get a disproportionate amount of publicity. However, that tends to be on the handout or corporate welfare side of lobbying. Reality is most lobbying is defensive, i.e. trying to stop legislation on the local level that would hurt a particular business sector and by default the customer (although I'm not claiming that they are doing it for altruistic reasons). It's a necessary check on government overreach. Most lobbying is done by grass roots trade organizations with relatively meager means, and don't have the resources to grease palms. I'm never in favor of throwing out the whole bushel for a few bad apples.

While I would personally prefer to see restrictions on companies making political contributions, you start to tread into 1st Amendment territory and I'm a free speech absolutist. Although, I'm not convinced that a contribution cap is a violation of free speech. I'd rather see the problem addressed with more transparency.

"trying to stop legislation on the local level that would hurt a particular business sector" is most definitely NOT "and by default the consumer". It may positively impact the consumer, or it could just as likely harm or continue to harm the consumer, but it rarely if ever is done for the consumer. I've no problem with trade orgs or dominant companies being consulted on or asked for input into legislation. God knows, our pols aren't exactly beacons of light or even beacons of dim ...

On the free speech thing, if companies asked their shareholders, i.e. the actual holders of their shares, not the board or investment houses / pension vehicles etc., then I'd buy into the 1st amendment angle, but that doesn't happen to my knowledge. So, whose speech is it, because it doesn't appear to me to represent the speech of the owners of the company. To me free speech is for people. I don't buy into the companies are people nonsense.

 

[watfly]

or it could just as likely harm or continue to harm the consumer, but it rarely if ever is done for the consumer.

Particularly when its done by the Teachers Unions or the Public Utilities who both have the resources to grease palms.

 

[whatithink]

Particularly when its done by the Teachers Unions or the Public Utilities who both have the resources to grease palms.

"Particularly" is an odd word to use, 'for example' might be more appropriate. They are relatively low level.

Who are the Biggest Organization Donors? • OpenSecrets - 2020

Who are the Biggest Organization Donors? • OpenSecrets- 2022

 

[watfly]

"Particularly" is an odd word to use, 'for example' might be more appropriate. They are relatively low level.

Who are the Biggest Organization Donors? • OpenSecrets - 2020

Who are the Biggest Organization Donors? • OpenSecrets- 2022

That's only federal giving. Nevertheless, it still has unions and some PAC 's (unrelated to corporate capitalism) prominently on your list. Look at the state and local level and check out the major funding and sponsorship for the last round of California propositions. A lot of teachers unions and other unions. I don't know the exact numbers but they were certainly major players.

With public utilities we just saw the passing of NEM 3.0 which severely hurts the consumer. Ironic that our uber-green Governor would support something that discouraged green energy. It couldn't possibly be that Public Utilities have more political capital than individual solar companies? Nah...that would make it purely political and not in the best interests of the citizens.

I'd say "particularly" is the appropriate word when it come to California.

You can't lay the lobbying issue solely at the doorstep of capitalist corporations. Based on your responses, it appears you consider "capitalism" in the pejorative, whereas I consider government in the pejorative, at least when it comes to the economy. So while we may agree on a problem, we don't agree on who to blame based on our biases and experience. I just can't make the logic leap to blame lobbying abuses solely on capitalism. The lobbying problem is a political one.

 

[whatithink]

That's only federal giving. Nevertheless, it still has unions and some PAC 's (unrelated to corporate capitalism) prominently on your list. Look at the state and local level and check out the major funding and sponsorship for the last round of California propositions. A lot of teachers unions and other unions. I don't know the exact numbers but they were certainly major players.

With public utilities we just saw the passing of NEM 3.0 which severely hurts the consumer. Ironic that our uber-green Governor would support something that discouraged green energy. It couldn't possibly be that Public Utilities have more political capital than individual solar companies? Nah...that would make it purely political and not in the best interests of the citizens.

I'd say "particularly" is the appropriate word when it come to California.

You can't lay the lobbying issue solely at the doorstep of capitalist corporations. Based on your responses, it appears you consider "capitalism" in the pejorative, whereas I consider government in the pejorative, at least when it comes to the economy. So while we may agree on a problem, we don't agree on who to blame based on our biases and experience. I just can't make the logic leap to blame lobbying abuses solely on capitalism. The lobbying problem is a political one.

I consider politicians in the pejorative. I do agree that at a state level, unions & utilities have more power relatively speaking.

 

[watfly]

It is turning out NOT to be a good "investment".

People are turned off by what is being presented to them.

Sell your product. Stop pushing political agendas. It is going to turn off one half of the population whichever way they go politically. Focus on the product and service and work to improve that. People dont like agendas being shoved down their throat every time they see a commercial, watch a movie, etc.

Conservative groups BACK Manchin plan to block 'woke' investment rule

A procedure under the Congressional Review Act could allow Republicans to get a win out of the Democratic Senate and pull back a new Labor Department rule on 'woke' investing.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[watfly]

Speaking of capitalism. Cha-ching.

Cashing in on Covid: Anthony Fauci is charging up to $100K per speech

The former White House Covid doctor commands between $50,000 and $100,000 for up to an hour's work, according to a listing by the agency Leading Motivational Speakers.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Desert Hound]

Speaking of capitalism. Cha-ching.

Cashing in on Covid: Anthony Fauci is charging up to $100K per speech

The former White House Covid doctor commands between $50,000 and $100,000 for up to an hour's work, according to a listing by the agency Leading Motivational Speakers.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Speaking of capitalism.

There is a large segment that wants a universal type health care and over the decades have pointed to the UK and Canada as models to emulate. A funny thing happened on the way to gov utopia.

MSN

This link shows up funny...but it is talking about Canada.

Trudeau Eyes Billions to Patch Canada’s Creaking Health System

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is preparing to commit billions of dollars to help shore up a strained health-care system, opening the spending taps for a service that many Canadians say isn’t working well.

www.bloomberg.com

 

[crush]

Speaking of capitalism. Cha-ching.

Cashing in on Covid: Anthony Fauci is charging up to $100K per speech

The former White House Covid doctor commands between $50,000 and $100,000 for up to an hour's work, according to a listing by the agency Leading Motivational Speakers.

www.dailymail.co.uk

"Pay to play and get paid"

 

[whatithink]

Speaking of capitalism.

There is a large segment that wants a universal type health care and over the decades have pointed to the UK and Canada as models to emulate. A funny thing happened on the way to gov utopia.

MSN

This link shows up funny...but it is talking about Canada.

Trudeau Eyes Billions to Patch Canada’s Creaking Health System

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is preparing to commit billions of dollars to help shore up a strained health-care system, opening the spending taps for a service that many Canadians say isn’t working well.

www.bloomberg.com

Germany is the example to use, or France.

The Conservatives in the UK, in power for the last 12+ years have decimated the NHS and its hitting home. There are 100K+ vacancies. Pay in real terms for nurses has fallen by 20%+ over that time period. Brexit has seen an exodus of medical staff back to the EU. Medical staff train and get experience in the NHS and then move to private as it pays more. It's on life support and that's directly linked to the party in power since 2010 or so.

Private health care in the UK is also cheap as you don't use it for everyday medical care, that's what you use the NHS for. So, it's just an insurance policy. I worked in the UK for a while and received private medical insurance (as did every manager in the company) as part of my package. The taxable benefit was about $600 a year (so it cost me $200 or so). That was less than a month in the US at the time. In the years I was there, I knew of one person that used private, once. Plenty of people used the NHS, myself included.

 

[whatithink]

Germany is the example to use, or France.

The Conservatives in the UK, in power for the last 12+ years have decimated the NHS and its hitting home. There are 100K+ vacancies. Pay in real terms for nurses has fallen by 20%+ over that time period. Brexit has seen an exodus of medical staff back to the EU. Medical staff train and get experience in the NHS and then move to private as it pays more. It's on life support and that's directly linked to the party in power since 2010 or so.

Private health care in the UK is also cheap as you don't use it for everyday medical care, that's what you use the NHS for. So, it's just an insurance policy. I worked in the UK for a while and received private medical insurance (as did every manager in the company) as part of my package. The taxable benefit was about $600 a year (so it cost me $200 or so). That was less than a month in the US at the time. In the years I was there, I knew of one person that used private, once. Plenty of people used the NHS, myself included.

I'll add to this. You can't compare private health care in the UK to the US. In the UK its supplemental, i.e. it does not cover visits to your GP, the ER, your meds, the ambulance, your dentist, the operation on your broken leg etc. and so on. If you want an elective procedure, then sure, depending on your plan, then you can get that, but the rest - nope. The premise that the UK will go the private route is fantasy land. If they went the same way as the US, then those premiums that people pay would go through the roof, increasing by many multiples. There is zero chance most people would pay that, or even that many existing people could afford that.

I suppose my point is that it would be very useful if the people who write these articles provide actual context and do a direct comparison with actual facts, and not some generalizations that say one thing on the face of it, but in reality they are just misleading at best, or purposely misleading at worse.

 

[watfly]

Speaking of capitalism.

There is a large segment that wants a universal type health care and over the decades have pointed to the UK and Canada as models to emulate. A funny thing happened on the way to gov utopia.

MSN

This link shows up funny...but it is talking about Canada.

Trudeau Eyes Billions to Patch Canada’s Creaking Health System

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is preparing to commit billions of dollars to help shore up a strained health-care system, opening the spending taps for a service that many Canadians say isn’t working well.

www.bloomberg.com

I don't know what the answer is, but my concern would be that our universal health care would be a even worse version of the VA. Maybe healthcare is a problem we can address after we get the resort fees down.