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

241–250 of 321 posts

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

#241

Post by scott_s »

jjoonathan wrote: post #86
burkaman wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

To be clear, I believe burkaman agrees with you. The post they responded to said that FedEx "is not disputing the facts." burkaman pointed out the part of FedEx's statement where they do just that - except, as you correctly point out, FedEx never says which facts.

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

#242

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #196
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno. A person like me might think it since we live in a society, we should share the burden of keeping it going. So 'following tax law' effectively designed to be abused with built-in exemptions is news. It may not be criminal, but I can't say it is right. edit to clarify: and if it is not right then it is of general interest to society and thus it is news

I took advantage of the homestead exemption the last time I filed income tax. Is that news?

Did you spend time brib..lobbying local councilmen to give you that exemption?

Edit: more to the point, what makes you identify as Fedex?

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

#243

Post by buboard »

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…

It's not like they took them to court or threaten them.

They called them on a public debate.

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

#244

Post by markstos »

Reedx wrote: post #167
networkimprov wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the NYT is a business primarily focused on seeking profit, no different from FedEx That is incorrect, albeit precisely what FedEx (and many other subjects of investigative journalism) would like us to believe. When "all news is fake news" becomes widespread public perception, that public is doomed to authoritarian rule, most likely by leaders backed by the business elite.

Run this experiment: 1) Subscribe to NYT 2) Notice they are still serving you ads 3) Try to cancel your subscription

Newspapers have had paid subscriptions with ads for a hundred years.

Notice that so many newspapers are going out of business but the NYT is not.

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

#245

Post by larnmar »

munk-a wrote: post #232
larnmar wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think it's unproductive to try and read all news in bad faith, there are very few things that anyone can truly 100% comprehend and in a democracy we need everyone to be at least somewhat aware of things happening in society.

It’s not necessarily assuming bad faith to realise the existence of the context which leads to the selection and writing of the articles at the New York Times, or Fox News, or Buzzfeed, or Xinhua, or any other outlet.

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

#246

Post by eigenvalue »

SanchoPanda wrote: post #184

From their annual filings, these are broad numbers, and adjustments should be made, but it helps with context. | Period Ending: | 5/31/2019 | 5/31/2018 | 5/31/2017 | 5/31/2016 | 5/31/2015 | 5/31/2014 | 5/31/2013 | 5/31/2012 | 5/31/2011 | 5/31/2010 | 5/31/2009 | 5/31/2008 | 5/31/2007 | 5/31/2006 | 5/31/2005 | 5/31/2004 | 5/31/2003 | 5/31/2002 | 5/31/2001 | 5/31/2000 | 5/31/1999 | 5/31/1998 | | Income Tax | 115,000 | (…

That's their GAAP taxes. If you instead look at cash taxes paid it's significantly lower on average:

  Period       Cash Taxes Paid ($mm)
  May-31-2010 43
  May-31-2011 387
  May-31-2012 257
  May-31-2013 468
  May-31-2014 766
  May-31-2015 1113
  May-31-2016 991
  May-31-2017 377
  May-31-2018 189
  May-31-2019 371
  Aug-31-2019 324

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

#247

Post by omegaworks »

appleiigs wrote: post #191
mthoms wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>No matter where they operate, it hasn't been good. That's what the rich hand powerful want you to think. But the facts don't support it. Look at any of the other top western democracies. You know, the ones with longer lifespans, more upward mobility, happier populations, better infrastructure, better education, and so on. I'm not suggesting that those countries are perfect or that there aren't gross inefficiencies,…

Western societies have been more democratic... and more capitalist. If you take high taxes to the extreme (eg. eliminate all billionaires like Bernie Sanders recommends), you get closer to communism which hasn't done as well.

>If you take high taxes to the extreme (eg. eliminate all billionaires like Bernie Sanders recommends), you get closer to communism which hasn't done as well.

At the height of the American war effort, the top tax bracket exceeded 90% of individual income[1] this dramatically decreased inequality and established the modern middle class. It was also arguably the most stable and prosperous time for families, with most able to sustain with a single-income earner.

Bernie Sanders suggests that we respond to the ongoing climate crisis with a similar level of world-war scale effort with the hopes of averting even worse, more destabilizing effects.

1. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/how-federal-incom...

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

#248

Post by throw_m239339 »

gwright wrote: post #151
nostrademons wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an interesting example of the recent shift in public discourse from being focused on truth to being focused on power . All speech has both subjective emotive content ("power") and objective factual content ("truth"), and the interplay between them is part of what makes speech effective. In times of hegemony, though, the "power" content of speech is downplayed. Power relations within society are taken for granted…

> It's an interesting example of the recent shift in public discourse from being focused on truth to being focused on power. I'd go farther and say that it is disheartening. It also seems to be completely aligned with the post-modernist way of evaluating/describing the world.

> I'd go farther and say that it is disheartening. It also seems to be completely aligned with the post-modernist way of evaluating/describing the world.

Nothing to do with post modernism, it's a version of Marxism that is compatible with capitalism. Post modernists can't be ideologues by definition. Intersectionality is very much an ideology. People who believe that don't ask question, they do finger pointing and public shaming to try to change and control public discourse. It's very reminiscent of the soviet union era, except it doesn't come from the state but a group of people that hold a certain power of influence, ironically.

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

#249

Post by dwild »

scott_s wrote: post #20

This statement is a farce. They claim the story is factually incorrect, but provide no corrections. They point out the NYT does the same thing, but that does not contradict anything in the NYT article, and has no bearing on what they did. Finally, they yell "debate me!" but rather than proposing a debate on the facts in dispute, instead want to debate federal tax policy which neither controls.

> They point out the NYT does the same thing, but that does not contradict anything in the NYT article, and has no bearing on what they did. Finally, they yell "debate me!" but rather than proposing a debate on the facts in dispute, instead want to debate federal tax policy which neither controls.

Doesn't the whole NYT article is based on the fact that Fedex influenced the federal tax policy to avoid to pay theses taxes?

Doesn't the goal of NYT by publishing this article is to show how Fedex gained from the new federal tax policies and thus trying to make that change toward something less generous toward Fedex?

Thus NYT believe that Fedex and themselves can influence the federal tax policies which makes a debate the right kind of platform.

Post reply on HN