Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

LA Times barred from Disney movies after report on corporate welfare

boingboing.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 222 posts

Re: LA Times barred from Disney movies after report on corporate welfare

#131

Post by heartbreak »

Alex3917 wrote: post #107
sgift wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I risk to devolve this into a flame war, but I think it would be a good idea to wait what Muellers investigation finds with regard to influences on the presidential election, so money spend by third parties to help get someone elected can be attributed to the corresponding campaign.

> I think it would be a good idea to wait what Muellers investigation finds with regard to influences on the presidential election Right now Russian companies are only alleged to have spent a few million dollars, so it's not clear that the investigation will show any material impact on the spending ratios.

Actually Rosneft is alleged to have given 19.5% of its shares in exchange for reducing sanctions against Russia. And by alleged I mean that's what the Steele dossier alleges [0], and 19.5% of Rosneft was sold to a yet to be named buyer in November of last year [1]. That's billions of dollars that a Russian company allegedly spent on the election.

[0] http://www.businessinsider.com/carter-page-trump-russia-igor... [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-rosneft-privatisat...

Re: LA Times barred from Disney movies after report on corporate welfare

#132

Post by inestyne »

tclancy wrote: post #121
inestyne wrote: post #31

I think municipalities should be free to make the best deal they can with large employers like this. Chips fall where they may. They are all elected officials so therefore directly accountable. Seems like the system is working just fine here. Doesn't seem like this is anyone else's business.

>Seems like the system is working just fine here. They gifted a parking garage/ 1 billion dollars of tax-payer funds to a multinational corporation who was hardly going to pull up stakes and move one of their flagship parks. How is this working fine?

If you live in that town and work for Disney you probably think it's working just fine.

Re: LA Times barred from Disney movies after report on corporate welfare

#133

Post by inestyne »

xenihn wrote: post #87
inestyne wrote: post #31

I think municipalities should be free to make the best deal they can with large employers like this. Chips fall where they may. They are all elected officials so therefore directly accountable. Seems like the system is working just fine here. Doesn't seem like this is anyone else's business.

>They are all elected officials so therefore directly accountable. Seems like the system is working just fine here. Did you actually read the LA Times article? Be honest. This post really makes it sound like you did not.

Yes I did, bad assumption

Re: LA Times barred from Disney movies after report on corporate welfare

#134

Post by csours »

s73ver_ wrote: post #37
rs999gti wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most money offered gets to be president. But even that doesn't work. In 2016 for the US presidency, Hillary Clinton's campaign had $790M USD versus Donald Trump's $408M USD. She had double the money 'to buy the presidency' and she still lost. https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16

Does that count the amount of free press Trump received during the campaign?

I agree this is a legitimate question. How much would this add up to in 'in-kind' contributions? Have any media companies claimed in-kind contributions to the Trump Campaign or Trump Organization?

Re: LA Times barred from Disney movies after report on corporate welfare

#135

Post by inestyne »

inestyne wrote: post #31

I think municipalities should be free to make the best deal they can with large employers like this. Chips fall where they may. They are all elected officials so therefore directly accountable. Seems like the system is working just fine here. Doesn't seem like this is anyone else's business.

You guys pre-suppose the poor people in this town can't make up their own minds and are somehow oblivious to whats really happening. I guarantee each one of you that your opinion would be different if you lived in this town and worked for Disney. Who are we to tell these people how to vote?

What is your alternative? Pass laws to 'force' them to 'do the right thing' according to people who don't live there?

Re: LA Times barred from Disney movies after report on corporate welfare

#136

Post by ConceptJunkie »

notyourday wrote: post #114
bsder wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apparently people in Hollywood don't see any problem with this! I suspect the bigger problem is that there are so few honest people involved in the business that you would have to shut down if you broke off association with everybody doing shady things in Hollywood. While I'm pleased to see Weinstein going down, I keep scratching my head about "We know that there are people in Hollywood doing far worse things. Why…

Hollywood still defends Polanski. Hollywood still attacks RMG. Hollywood still defends Ben Afflec. Hollywood still has not kicked Tarantino/Clooney/Matt Daemon out for covering it up. Netflix/Amazon/HBO still has not dropped everything that Harvey the Stain makes money off from its catalogs. House of Cards has been canceled but not pulled. It is simply posturing.

This is true. For whatever reason, Weinstein was thrown under the bus, but he's not even the tip of the iceberg.

There have been a few cases of women being emboldened enough to call out a few others, but I suspect all this will blow over in a few months and the vast majority of the real abuse, harassment and other horrible behavior will go back to being swept under the rug.

Also, reading back over this I'm not sure there's enough room to shoehorn another cliche into that couple of paragraphs. :-/

Re: LA Times barred from Disney movies after report on corporate welfare

#137

Post by ConceptJunkie »

cabaalis wrote: post #12

So let's assume the people who run Anaheim are not idiots. My question would be did they run the cost analysis of these tax breaks for Disney versus the expected boon to the city from other incomes? If the income from externalities is greater than the actual income would have been from Disney, it seems like it would have been a decent decision. This is of course ignoring political principles of fair taxation.

You also can't ignore the possibility of kickbacks.

Re: LA Times barred from Disney movies after report on corporate welfare

#138

Post by inestyne »

xenihn wrote: post #128
SmellyGeekBoy wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree with the parent either, but this growing trend of accusing everyone you disagree with on the internet of being a paid shill is just getting absurd.

It's not so absurd when you are good friends with people who run astroturfing companies.

It's an attempt to nullify the speaker rather than responding to the statement. It's become quite the thing these days.

No I am not a paid shill, try again,

Re: LA Times barred from Disney movies after report on corporate welfare

#139

Post by celticninja »

rs999gti wrote: post #35
eduren wrote: post #5

> Disney CEO Bob Iger is said to have ordered the retaliatory measure against the LA Times, and is also thought to be considering a 2020 presidential bid, which augurs poorly for his approach to the free press. Wow, I hadn't heard this was a possibility until now. I sure am looking forward to seeing which of the many {m/b}illionaires ends up winning the presidency in 2020! How about we just cut out the middlemen and…

> Most money offered gets to be president. But even that doesn't work. In 2016 for the US presidency, Hillary Clinton's campaign had $790M USD versus Donald Trump's $408M USD. She had double the money 'to buy the presidency' and she still lost. https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16

Versus Donald Trump's reported $408m. How much came from Putin et al?

Re: LA Times barred from Disney movies after report on corporate welfare

#140

Post by Alex3917 »

heartbreak wrote: post #131
Alex3917 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think it would be a good idea to wait what Muellers investigation finds with regard to influences on the presidential election Right now Russian companies are only alleged to have spent a few million dollars, so it's not clear that the investigation will show any material impact on the spending ratios.

Actually Rosneft is alleged to have given 19.5% of its shares in exchange for reducing sanctions against Russia. And by alleged I mean that's what the Steele dossier alleges [0], and 19.5% of Rosneft was sold to a yet to be named buyer in November of last year [1]. That's billions of dollars that a Russian company allegedly spent on the election. [0] http://www.businessinsider.com/carter-page-trump-russia-igor... [1]…

Unless they sold that equity and used the money to buy ads, that's not really relevant. The allegations about Trump's digital team being mainly a money laundering operation would potentially be more impactful, but if proven true it would ironically cast doubt on whether they were designed to GOTV.
Post reply on HN