Like Tree185Likes

NBA, Activision, Disney - Corporate America and the HK crisis

Closed Thread
Page 14 of 20 FirstFirst ... 6 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... LastLast
  1. #131

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wrong side of the door to hell
    Posts
    6,079
    Quote Originally Posted by ByeByeEngland:

    1 - big corporations don’t have the same motivations as private individuals. Listed companies have shareholders to please and share price and balance sheet is everything. Such companies already linked to China wont be pulling out. If anything they will Be looking to strengthen. For companies such as NBA don’t be surprised if certain people ‘leave’. Franchise and $ > ethics
    My question is why we allow corporations to be amoral, to insist that they 'have no choice, because of shareholders / profit / markets. While we, the cogs in the big capitalist wheel, continue to parrot the amoral profit mantra nothing will change.

    US-style ultimate capitalism has run its course, the wealth gap it has created will be its undoing. People need to start saying loudly that supporting the violation of basic human rights is not ok. Social democracy (note: not socialist democracy) needs to be supported and through that large corporations encouraged (or forced in the first instance) to be moral. No system is perfect, but the happiness ratings in the Scandinavian countries that operate closest to these models deserve to recognised as a goal all countries should seek to achieve.
    Mefisto likes this.

  2. #132

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Sai Kung
    Posts
    5,002
    Quote Originally Posted by kimwy66:
    My question is why we allow corporations to be amoral, to insist that they 'have no choice, because of shareholders / profit / markets. While we, the cogs in the big capitalist wheel, continue to parrot the amoral profit mantra nothing will change.

    US-style ultimate capitalism has run its course, the wealth gap it has created will be its undoing. People need to start saying loudly that supporting the violation of basic human rights is not ok. Social democracy (note: not socialist democracy) needs to be supported and through that large corporations encouraged (or forced in the first instance) to be moral. No system is perfect, but the happiness ratings in the Scandinavian countries that operate closest to these models deserve to recognised as a goal all countries should seek to achieve.
    The good news is that there are ethical companies around. Ethical can be political, green anti drugs etc. There are also many investment companies with interests in such stocks fuelled by the wishes of their investors.

    Sorry it is hard to get all the arguments into one statement so not all doom and gloom but the world as we know it today isn’t quite at the place where we would need it.
    a voice likes this.

  3. #133

    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    4,895
    Quote Originally Posted by ByeByeEngland:
    I’m sorry to have to say this but some people are going to have to take a reality check and I don’t like it any more than you.

    1 - big corporations don’t have the same motivations as private individuals. Listed companies have shareholders to please and share price and balance sheet is everything. Such companies already linked to China wont be pulling out. If anything they will Be looking to strengthen. For companies such as NBA don’t be surprised if certain people ‘leave’. Franchise and $ > ethics

    2 - consumer power is everything. We can boycott here in HK and May get limited support globally for a ban on Chinese linked goods or services. At the risk of over generalising pricing is a massive factor for consumers sometimes out of economic need

    3 - do people appreciate how much of their day to day lives is impacted by China? I’ll give you just one example of this. IKEA manufactures in China (as well as elsewhere in Asia)


    I fully support people’s right to choose as they will, especially on a principle basis is, as long as people understand that some of the people it is likely to hurt the most are HK employees of such companies if profits are hit and they look to rationalise.
    As somebody right of centre in my economics and left of centre in my values, I largely agree with your analysis, but would like to clarify where the scope and aims of the boycotts may be inadvertently confused.

    1. Corporates do have the duty to maximise profit, and their primary concern cannot and should not be exporting values per se. However, those corporates are not exporting the values reflected from the places they originate, but instead, if bowing to the CCP’s every preference while it is still only forming a significant minority of revenues, would be importing an intolerance for dissent from China. This runs counter to the ideological underpinnings supporting free trade and economic development of a closed state. Following the regulations of a country within that country is an acceptable cost of doing business. Altering global norms and values in the absence of state-level agreements? Not so much.

    2. You mention the economic benefits of purchasing Chinese products. At this point, nobody is discussing a boycott of Chinese products by virtue of their origin alone.

    3. The boycott of certain pro-CCP outlets in Hong Kong has generally (but admittedly not always) reflected issues particular to a company beyond mere difference in political convictions ~ for instance pressuring schools to expel students. Especially where food-based consumption is concerned, that can take place elsewhere, and I honestly don’t think those employees will on average be worse off in a different establishment, and again, it’s profits that are hit first. Any rationalisation still has to overcome the fixed costs in overhead, so the costs are disproportionately borne by those foolishly pooping in their own bed.
    Coolboy likes this.

  4. #134

    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    579
    Quote Originally Posted by ByeByeEngland:
    I’m sorry to have to say this but some people are going to have to take a reality check and I don’t like it any more than you.

    1 - big corporations don’t have the same motivations as private individuals. Listed companies have shareholders to please and share price and balance sheet is everything. Such companies already linked to China wont be pulling out. If anything they will Be looking to strengthen. For companies such as NBA don’t be surprised if certain people ‘leave’. Franchise and $ > ethics

    2 - consumer power is everything. We can boycott here in HK and May get limited support globally for a ban on Chinese linked goods or services. At the risk of over generalising pricing is a massive factor for consumers sometimes out of economic need

    3 - do people appreciate how much of their day to day lives is impacted by China? I’ll give you just one example of this. IKEA manufactures in China (as well as elsewhere in Asia)


    I fully support people’s right to choose as they will, especially on a principle basis is, as long as people understand that some of the people it is likely to hurt the most are HK employees of such companies if profits are hit and they look to rationalise.
    Instead of boycotting, might be the best way is using their products in maximising our own goals.

  5. #135

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Sin bin
    Posts
    1,896
    Quote Originally Posted by AsianXpat0:
    1. Corporates do have the duty to maximise profit, [...]
    I keep seeing this old excuse/myth still repeated. Can you point out any jurisdictions where this duty exists?

  6. #136

    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    4,895
    Quote Originally Posted by Mefisto:
    I keep seeing this old excuse/myth still repeated. Can you point out any jurisdictions where this duty exists?
    As I did take pains to point out, my viewpoint is from right of centre in terms of economics. As a shareholder, I don’t believe it’s a corporate entity’s right to do charity or achieve social goals at my expense (or for my benefit at the expense of that of others). On the other hand, the company should observe all applicable laws and would be well-advised to take note of the social considerations in the jurisdictions which they operate. I’m not opposed to social justice per se, but the resolution of the principal-agent problem requires that the corporate employees be primarily accountable to their shareholders. That does not rule out in practice considering the social costs and impact to long-term profits that certain choices or activities might have, but does provide clarity in terms of responsibility.

    For the fiduciary duty to shareholders (and implied responsibility to maximise profit), the standard reference is Dodge v. Ford [1919] in the United States.

    My apologies if this viewpoint is offensive to you.

  7. #137

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Sin bin
    Posts
    1,896

    No, I totally get some people's single-minded objective to maximize profits (at any cost to others). Whether I personally find that objectionable obviously depends on the case, but holding such a viewpoint isn't "offensive" per se.

    I just haven't seen any factual evidence pointing out that maximizing profit is an actual legal requirement.


    edit: here's one amusing fiduciary requirement from a "presidential adviser" no less.

    https://twitter.com/RightWingWatch/s...76197504790528

    Last edited by Mefisto; 19-10-2019 at 04:04 PM.

  8. #138

    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    4,895
    Quote Originally Posted by Mefisto:
    No, I totally get some people's single-minded objective to maximize profits (at any cost to others). Whether I personally find that objectionable obviously depends on the case, but holding such a viewpoint isn't "offensive" per se.

    I just haven't seen any factual evidence pointing out that maximizing profit is an actual legal requirement.


    edit: here's one amusing fiduciary requirement from a "presidential adviser" no less.

    https://twitter.com/RightWingWatch/s...76197504790528
    That’s reasonable. It seems in terms of maximising profit the duty is more implied than explicit, but the fiduciary duty to shareholders at least is in Dodge v. Ford.

    Bleah. The tweet you quoted is precisely why I think at a conceptual level, corporates and the state should stay out of promoting particular values or outcomes as a starting point. Having said that, I recognise the market can be imperfect, so there may be a role for incorporating externalities and certain adjustments and protections for the benefit of society at a lower cost than that by private institutions.

    Anyway, this is probably starting to go off-topic so hopefully we can round it off by concluding the HK protests are not a matter of right or left, but right and wrong. Freedom of speech and the ability to live in dignity and freedom from fear of state violence/police brutality should be something everyone can subscribe to.
    Mefisto likes this.

  9. #139

  10. #140

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Old London Town
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by UK/HKboy:
    Cathay and TVB would have been destroyed if they hadn't submitted. Cathay is one of the largest employers in HK so would have had huge consequences if they weren't allowed to operate as normal. And there probably would have been further restrictions basically forcing them to collapse.
    For Cathay, it goes so much further. CX majority stakeholder is Swire. Swire is one the largest Coca-cola bottlers in mainland China, has an extensive property portfolio in China and has a bakery business in a number of large provinces. All those businesses would have also been destroyed if CX hadn't submitted and the entire Swire business of 150 years would have gone straight down the drain.

Closed Thread
Page 14 of 20 FirstFirst ... 6 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... LastLast