November 13, 2018

Tuesday Off-Topic (Moderated) Open Thread (111318)

Filed under: Lucid Links — Tom @ 6:00 am

This open thread is meant for commenters to post on items either briefly noted below (if any) or otherwise not covered at this blog. Rules are here.

Share

3 Comments

  1. An ironic take-away from Tuesday’s election results: “…Limousine Liberals…”

    “Maybe it’s time to rebrand the Democrats as the party of the rich.”

    This month saw the election of Jay Robert “J.B.” Pritzker as governor of Illinois. Mr. Pritzker, an heir to the Hyatt hotel fortune, is worth an estimated $3.2 billion…

    Another winner was Edward M. “Ned” Lamont Jr., in the Connecticut governor’s race. Mr. Lamont, an heir to the J.P. Morgan banking fortune …, estimated his assets in 2006 at between $90 million and $300 million…

    The winner of the election for governor of Colorado, Jared Polis, filed financial disclosure forms as a member of the House of Representatives indicating estimated wealth of more than $300 million….

    Messrs. Pritzker, Lamont, and Polis are all Democrats.

    The Democratic Party’s list of possible presidential contenders for 2020 includes…[more rich wealthy elites]…

    …When President Trump named an initial team …, the press was quick to label it a cabinet of plutocrats. “Trump’s wealthy cabinet choices hark back to gilded age,” was the headline the Financial Times put over it.

    Somehow, the wealth of Messrs. Pritzker, Lamont, and Polis has gotten less attention, perhaps because it doesn’t so easily fit the country-club Republican stereotype….

    It may be too much to hope that Democratic politicians with some money will, John Kennedy-style, favor policies that will enable and encourage the creation of new fortunes, or even that they would be sensitive to the desire of other wealthy people not to have their money either taxed away at confiscatory rates or eroded by inflation.

    I’d settle for …

    an end to what seems like the constant vilification of “millionaires and billionaires.” Or simply a recognition that, …

    after analyzing wealthy congressional districts, “the big story of the 2018 election is the swing of the rich toward the Democrats…

    Full story here:

    Democrats Are Emerging As Party of the Rich
    By IRA STOLL, Special to the Sun
    November 13, 2018
    at Weblink:
    https://www.nysun.com/national/democrats-emerging-as-party-of-rich/90461/

    Comment by Cornfed — November 13, 2018 @ 10:21 pm

  2. When wealth and politics and business collide.

    ==============================================

    Professor Jordan Peterson has recently called this kind of corporate virtue-signaling an “appalling sleight of hand” from executives making “300 times the average worker.” But it’s not only insincere, it’s also dangerous. …

    The dangers of this kind of corporate politicization became apparent in Australia last year after the government announced a plebiscite on the question of [one cultural topic of many choices].

    … many of the country’s biggest corporations …began to actively campaign [for one side]…

    [The counter opinion, executives should]… …campaign on their own dimes but he urged them not to “use an iconic brand and the might of a multi-billion dollar business …

    Sydney’s Catholic Archbishop, Anthony Fisher, was also concerned, warning that corporations getting political on social issues was threatening to democracy. “In our polity, corporations enjoy various privileges such as legal personality and perpetuity, limitation of liability, corporate tax rates, protections of intellectual property and bankruptcy law et cetera, on the understanding that they will use those advantages for their well-understood commercial purposes, and not so as to become a Fifth Estate governing our democracy,” Fisher said.

    =======> “Sammut points out that the corporate virtue-signaling almost exclusively tends to favor the political tastes of the “elites” over the “ordinary” people, and that’s what makes it so dangerous. ” <=========

    …“when groups feel threatened, they retreat into tribalism. They close ranks and become more insular, more defensive, more punitive, more us-versus-them.” It’s easy to feel threatened when even corporations are piling on with the politicians. …

    ================

    {This explains some of the enduring anger towards the Mainstream Media, when they tell-us their desired news-story and expected virtue-opinion instead of to show-us the news-facts and let us as viewers decide our narrative and opinion.}

    Thankfully, there is a way to keep corporations in check, which Sammut calls the Community Pluralism Principle. He suggests that company managers be forced by their shareholders to adopt a statement along the following lines:

    It is important for modern corporations to consider their impact on all genuine stakeholders in the best interests of shareholders. It is also important that engagement on social issues cannot be perceived to distract from company’s core business mission, duties, and accountabilities, nor negatively affect its brand and reputation in the market of opinion in a political sense. It is a matter for boards of directors and other corporate decision-makers to manage these risks by ensuring that companies respect and reflect the pluralism of Australian society and remain open to the views and values of all employees, customers, shareholders and stakeholders across the community.

    If that’s too wordy, corporate leaders might simply quote economist Milton Friedman instead. “The social responsibility of business,” he once said, “is to increase its profits.”

    Full story:

    Published on November 13, 2018

    How to Stop the Corporate Virtue-Signaling Before It’s Too Late
    written by Josh Dehaas

    at weblink
    https://quillette.com/2018/11/13/how-to-stop-the-corporate-virtue-signaling-before-its-too-late/

    Comment by Cornfed — November 13, 2018 @ 10:36 pm

  3. Yes to the money quote you cited: “Sammut points out that the corporate virtue-signaling almost exclusively tends to favor the political tastes of the “elites” over the “ordinary” people, and that’s what makes it so dangerous.”

    These company execs presume to speak for their employees and shareholders about matters unrelated to their business. They are ONLY speaking for themselves, and dishonestly using their prominence in pretending that they speak for others.

    Comment by Tom — November 14, 2018 @ 4:56 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.