271–280 of 321 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you for providing evidence. That's certainly a much larger capital investment than the NYT has ever made. Why is this downvoted when the parent comment asked for proof?
They spent $850,000,000 on a new building in New York City in 2007.
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.
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…
Why should a response or dialogue have to be in print? And why should a company's defense be limited to asynchronous communication? Debate is an accepted and effective dispute resolution framework, especially in areas where truth or fairness may be nuanced and is far from black and white. (Tax policy is a perfect example that is both nebulous and politically charged.)
As arbiters and outers of wrongdoing, journalists play a critical role in speaking truth to power and holding parties to account. This does not absolve them from publicly defending their positions, or being challenged on them, however. FedEx is well within their rights in responding in whatever manner they see fit, same as NYT can agree or reject the challenge.
Debate certainly ups the ante for all involved and is an interesting escalation tactic in the current media landscape.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm curious if anyone in the pro-Fedex crowd can provide evidence to the contrary I'm not sure I'm "pro-Fedex", but: "stock buybacks, which boost a company’s stock price and market value" Stock buybacks do not increase the company's market value. Cash goes out, stock comes in. Balance sheet is the same. My second point would be: is 2 years long enough to determine the effects of the tax cut? Companies the size of F…
Market value of public companies is not determined by the balance sheet but by the stock price multiplied by the number of share. Buybacks reduce the number of shares and by increasing demand increase the price per share. In the first step, the market value is a constant, taking out the number of shares thus increases directly the share price. Which are than further increased by increased demand and increasing the ma…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I think it does. FedEx's lobbying efforts argued reduced taxes would allow them to increase capital spending more than they would have otherwise. Instead, they look to have stuck to their trendline - and 2019's estimated is flat. Draw those numbers on a chart and it doesn't look like the tax cut generated much of a boost: https://marketrealist.imgix.net/uploads/2018/09/Capex-2.png?... Article from which the char…
The NYT in the paragraph you quoted vaguely paints the picture that investment is being cut significantly in favor of massive dividend payments. However, if the reality is that it is merely plateauing as you and the parent comment show, then doesn't that show their wording was misleading? Yes, FedEx didn't follow up with the massive new boosts they promised (besides the pension fund). However, the NYT should have inc…
They've been building 800,000 square feet of new sort facility at IND for a year and change...
https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2018/01/26/fedex-credits...
https://bgabuilders.com/fedex-indianapolis-ob4-project/
It's huge and runs right along side Interstate 70, you can see it from the other side of the airport just off of U.S. 40.
I can walk to my car, drive about 10 yards out of my work parking lot and see it across the airport. It's very real and almost certainly didn't grow out of the ground on its own accord.
They're also expanding in Greenwood, Indiana.
They're also expanding at MEM.
...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The NYT is a public corporation. About 1/6 of it is owned by Carlos Slim, a billionaire member of the “business elite”. Does the NYT deliver higher quality reporting than Alex Jones? Yes, of course they do, but they are neither perfect nor omniscient nor unbiased nor purely virtuous in their motivations. Let’s turn this around, shall we? When the public implicitly trusts media corporations that are operated for profi…
> When the public implicitly trusts media corporations that are operated for profit and owned by billionaires That's something that has literally never been the case. Skepticism exists on a sliding scale, and children are taught in high school how to spot a biased headline, a poor use of a statistic, and so on. When it comes to the public's attitude toward the press, it's not credulousness versus skepticism that exis…
To wit, I don’t characterize as “healthy skepticism” the propagation of the outright lie, in this very thread, that the NYT is not a business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FedEx CapEx in $B '09-'18 $2.6,$3.4,$3.6,$3.6,$3.3,$3.8,$5.0,$5.0,$5.1,$5.6 Do you think the article fairly reflects the trends in the company's capital expenditures?
You're missing the giant acquisition they made between the $3B & that $5B... https://about.van.fedex.com/newsroom/fedex-acquires-tnt-expr... Take that out & how does it look?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They can publish whatever they want. It’s a free country. And I’m free to disbelieve them or distrust their motivations.
Not arguing with that. The thing with free speech so is to be aware of the consequences for society if the public discurs becomes based on opinions, distrust and partisanship instead of civility and facts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The NYT in the paragraph you quoted vaguely paints the picture that investment is being cut significantly in favor of massive dividend payments. However, if the reality is that it is merely plateauing as you and the parent comment show, then doesn't that show their wording was misleading? Yes, FedEx didn't follow up with the massive new boosts they promised (besides the pension fund). However, the NYT should have inc…
>Yes, FedEx didn't follow up with the massive new boosts they promised (besides the pension fund). They've been building 800,000 square feet of new sort facility at IND for a year and change... https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2018/01/26/fedex-credits... https://bgabuilders.com/fedex-indianapolis-ob4-project/ It's huge and runs right along side Interstate 70, you can see it from the other side of the airport just…
https://marketrealist.imgix.net/uploads/2018/09/Capex-2.png?... indicates their spending growth has largely just stayed what it was prior to the tax changes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay. FedEx is subject to a law. They also have an opinion and try to influence the law they are subject to. Is there a significant percentage of the population that would assume otherwise? I'm still failing to see where this is "news" as opposed to "agenda."
>I'm still failing to see where this is "news" FedEx made specific arguments in favor of the cut to shore up support. Those talking points turned out (surprise!) to be untrue. Taxpayers of the United States have subsequently lost out to the tune of several hundreds of millions of dollars. What part of that is not news-worthy?
If NYT believes FedEx should pay more in taxes, if the NYT wants the law changed for any reason, I think that's fantastic. I welcome them to register as a PAC, subject themselves to the relevant regulations, give up their press passes, and fight for better tax law.
