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

FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019

about.van.fedex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 321 posts

Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019

#81

Post by lstroud »

gregwtmtno wrote: post #21

So this response says the story is factually incorrect, but doesn't dispute a single fact. If the story is inaccurate, FedEx should describe what was wrong, in detail, and ask for a correction. That they didn't do that makes me wonder.

Corrections don’t sell papers...err get clicks. They also don’t evolve the narrative.

Fedex isn’t just challenging the facts. They are challenging the underlying premise that corporations are a net negative on society.

I think it would be fascinating to see an actual debate by folks that aren’t politicians, but are willing to put their public reputation on the line.

Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019

#82

Post by larnmar »

whakim wrote: post #72
300bps wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They claim the story is factually incorrect, but provide no corrections. There were two claims in the NY Times story: 1) FedEx paid $0 in tax 2) FedEx "has not made good on its promised investment surge" In response, FedEx wrote in their statement: 1) our billions of dollars of tax payments whereby they dispute paying $0 in taxes 2) $6 billion of capital that FedEx invested in the U.S. economy This directly contradic…

1) They aren't disputing the "$0 paid in taxes in 2018," which is the main point of the NYTimes article (an article about how companies were responding to the Tax Cuts/Jobs Act). "Billions of dollars in tax payments" is factually correct, but doesn't address the core allegation. 2) $6 billion compared to what (prior to previous years)? No point of reference here. The response is great theater, but it is carefully wor…

On the other hand the allegations themselves are carefully selected in order to create a false narrative.

Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019

#84

Post by appleiigs »

sxyuan wrote: post #52

From the article this statement is responding to: > Companies that make up the S&P 500 index had an average effective tax rate of 18.1 percent in 2018, down from 25.9 percent in 2016, according to an analysis of securities filings. More than 200 of those companies saw their effective tax rates fall by 10 points or more. Nearly three dozen, including FedEx, saw their tax rates fall to zero or reported that tax authori…

Investors have stock. Dividends and stock buybacks move idle cash out of the corporation and back into the hands of investors. Investors now have cash instead of stock. Those investors are better at distributing cash to good investments than Fedex or Apple or Google is. The cash doesn't get redistributed from the non-1% to the 1%. The idle cash that corporations have aren't generating jobs.

Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019

#85

Post by Someone1234 »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #60
CPLX wrote: post #25

This is stupid. The NY Times, as a business, wasn't a subject of the article. It's not a competition between a media company and a shipping company. It's a piece of journalism. Either that journalism is accurate or it isn't. If it's wrong they should issue a correction, or review how it could be misleading or slanted and offer an alternate perspective. If it's correct they should stand by it. In no event does the wri…

The problem is it isn't journalism, it's activism. People say corporate media is biased, but I think that falls short. It's not simply biased, it has an agenda. "Company follows tax laws" is not news. Whatever any individual company pays in taxes is not news unless there's criminal fraud of some sort. So it's completely fair to call them out in this way.

> The problem is it isn't journalism, it's activism.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Journalists have an ethical responsibility to be honest, but outside of that there's nothing to say that a journalist cannot have a set of beliefs that shape their worldview.

In this case you aren't really accusing the NYT of being dishonest, you're saying that their honest opinion isn't ok because you have a different opinion (or that a journalist has to be void of any opinions at all). I'd just suggest you skip either that author's work or the NYT in general then, and find something more aligned to your own worldview.

As to the accusation it is "activism?" I mean, yeah, I guess. Arguing that something, anything, is wrong is activism depending on your definitions but since we haven't established that activism is a bad thing or wrong, that's not really problematic in and of itself.

Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019

#86

Post by jjoonathan »

burkaman wrote: post #43
appleiigs wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a great statement. They aren't disputing the facts. Fedex is disputing that cutting taxes is a bad thing and is saying lets talk about it. EDIT: and as you pointed out Fedex is just following fed tax policy that it doesn't control.

> They aren't disputing the facts. > The New York Times published a distorted and factually incorrect story [...] this outrageous distortion of the truth [...]

They don't actually list the facts they dispute, they just make that generic statement and then list some unrelated facts that paint them in a flattering light and hope that you assume those were the facts the NYT got wrong.

Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019

#87

Post by whatthesmack »

mmazing wrote: post #37
Shivetya wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NYT and a few other papers are pretty much running in campaign mode, floating trial balloons of policy ideas of candidates they favor if not outright pushing forward a narrative which aligns with the direction one campaign or another is following. So stories align to support the narrative. The 2020 narrative for the Democratic Party is again wealth envy and how all the woes can be solved if X just pays their fair sha…

How do you feel about the difference in income tax rates from the mid twentieth century to now for the upper wealth brackets?

The rates that nobody paid, because of tax "loopholes"? There's no reason to compare rates that nobody paid.

Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019

#88

Post by larnmar »

mmazing wrote: post #37
Shivetya wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NYT and a few other papers are pretty much running in campaign mode, floating trial balloons of policy ideas of candidates they favor if not outright pushing forward a narrative which aligns with the direction one campaign or another is following. So stories align to support the narrative. The 2020 narrative for the Democratic Party is again wealth envy and how all the woes can be solved if X just pays their fair sha…

How do you feel about the difference in income tax rates from the mid twentieth century to now for the upper wealth brackets?

I’d rather go back to the early 20th century when income taxes weren’t even a thing, and yet everything still worked somehow.

Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019

#89

Post by isoskeles »

adamrezich wrote: post #69
wang_li wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whataboutism is justifying one party's actions by pointing at another party and saying "they do it too." This isn't that. Fedex is saying that they do a lot more for the national economy that the NYT. They pay more in taxes, they invest more in assets, etc.

Why is this even up for debate? Why would anyone think that the NYT is more useful to the economy than FedEx? Why do people continue to put ""journalism"" on such a high pedestal? Like, what actual value did the NYT article produce? At worst it could have potentially negatively affected the FedEx stock price and overall popular perception, for no good reason other than to generate clicks/ad views.

If you look through the comments, it's because some people would like to transfer wealth from the top 10% of earners to the bottom 90%, or maybe even the top 50% to the bottom 50%, and the NYT is a useful tool in educating people about why that is a moral act, e.g. FedEx is bad and didn't pay their fair share, and also some people earn more than others, therefore...

Proof: your downvotes.

Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019

#90

Post by Frondo »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #60
CPLX wrote: post #25

This is stupid. The NY Times, as a business, wasn't a subject of the article. It's not a competition between a media company and a shipping company. It's a piece of journalism. Either that journalism is accurate or it isn't. If it's wrong they should issue a correction, or review how it could be misleading or slanted and offer an alternate perspective. If it's correct they should stand by it. In no event does the wri…

The problem is it isn't journalism, it's activism. People say corporate media is biased, but I think that falls short. It's not simply biased, it has an agenda. "Company follows tax laws" is not news. Whatever any individual company pays in taxes is not news unless there's criminal fraud of some sort. So it's completely fair to call them out in this way.

The thrust of the NY Times piece was made clear in the first paragraph: FedEx isn't just following tax law, it's influencing it with a great deal of lobbying cash. It isn't a neutral player, but trying to rewrite the rules in its favor.
Post reply on HN