Live data from Hacker News

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

about.van.fedex.com

291–300 of 321 posts

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

#291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There was a mercifully brief period in this country’s history where most people unquestioningly accepted whatever Walter Cronkite told them. You know, it's before my time, but when Cronkite suggested in 1968 that the United States withdraw from Vietnam, I believe what he said was taken seriously. I do not believe it resulted in the country unifying behind the peace movement and immediately withdrawing from Vietnam,…

> You know, it's before my time, but when Cronkite suggested in 1968 that the United States withdraw from Vietnam, I believe what he said was taken seriously. I do not believe it resulted in the country unifying behind the peace movement and immediately withdrawing from Vietnam, which is the sort thing that would happen if "most people unquestioningly accepted whatever Walter Cronkite told them." It took a few years,…

> media corporations aren't actually corporations

That's actually not something I argued, although I understand there's a subthread or something about it.

> More essential though was the unquestioning acceptance of the mainstream media's power to selectively report the facts they considered most pertinent, to decide the issues of the day by choosing what to report and what not to report, and to establish governing narratives around their coverage. There is an enormous degree of power that the media can and does exercise in this fashion. Today that power is much less centralized than it once was. I consider this a net good, and am suspicious of any nostalgia for the days of greater centralization.

I'm not sure how much I actually agree or disagree because you're being so blatantly hyperbolic ("unquestioning acceptance," etc.) about things that frankly aren't key to what I believe is the interesting point.

Decentralization and news apart from the mainstream media seems like it should be be a great benefit. Like them or not, it was never a good situation that GE owned NBC, one family owned the Washington Post, or whatever. The trouble is, one thing that has not happened has been greater empowerment of small newspapers and local journalists who are best positioned to serve their communities. They're simply being driven out of business by large companies.

On the other hand, "mainstream media" is often just code for non-conservative media, whatever exists outside of Fox, Sinclair Broadcast Group, and assorted AM radio garbage. If that's how you look at things, the "mainstream media" is definitely losing some market share and mindshare.

> It took a few years, but the ultimate outcome of the Vietnam War was probably sealed at that moment, and everybody including President Johnson and Walter Cronkite himself knew it.

Johnson made a comment to the effect that he'd just lost the war, but when it came to war fighting, Johnson was honestly quite an idiot. The ultimate outcome of the war had many more years to be determined and a lot of other people had their say, including, you know, the enemy.

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

#292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the same between FedEx and me is the lack of scandal. There is no scandal/news in a corporation following the tax law, just as there is no scandal/news in me following the tax law. I want to be clear that my intention is not to debate tax law. I think that's irrelevant. If the NYT wants the law to change in some way, I think that's fantastic. I welcome them to register as a PAC, subject themselves to the rele…

Yes? But I did not classify it as scandal, but as news, or as as something of interest to the general populace. In the same vein, I did not discuss journalism as a whole. I only said that it is news. You seem to want to move discussion in a completely different direction.

I don't believe that NYT is trying to inform you about some obscure tax bill because it's interesting. It's no more interesting than my tax bill, or any other random corporation that happened to have a non-zero tax bill some year. The only reason it's interesting to you is because you have a particular political interest in this. That's perfectly legitimate for you to have that political interest. If they were just trying to inform you, they could inform you in a way that doesn't have any emotional framing. You could find it easily in their stock report or something. I believe NYT is trying to induce an emotional reaction in you for purely political reasons in order to influence the population towards a particular end goal. That is why they are acting like a PAC and not a newspaper.

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

#293
post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who are the consumers? We are. Who are the workers? We are. Who are the shareholders? We are. No matter which role you allocate the cost of the tax to, in the end it's us who are paying the bill. Even if you're one of those rare individuals without investments of your own, you still benefit from them. Punishing the shareholders who provide the capital to produce goods more efficiently isn't going to make the goods yo…

Who reaps the benefits of government investment into public infrastructure and the common good that these taxes make possible? We do. In fact, since there are many consumers of US products (and shareholders in US companies) who are not resident or citizens of the US then it seems we win more if we raise those corporate taxes. If the shareholder's don't like this deal I suggest they sell.

The "benefit" of having government decide how to invest that money, as opposed to those who earned it, is strictly negative. All other considerations aside, the moral cost of endorsing the use of force in this manner outweighs any possible material benefit.

Using corporate taxes to shift the burden onto foreigners, as you've suggested, is at best a short-term tactic. The other countries would just enact reciprocal policies and we'd be back where we started, except with less international trade and poorer diplomatic relations. Isolationism is not a recipe for domestic economic bliss.

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

#294

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."

It is important that people are informed about major US corporations.

Right, and you can find out what FedEx pays in taxes in their stock report. The difference between the stock report and what NYT is doing here is framing with a particular end goal in mind. They want to not just induce a reaction from the reader, but action towards a particular political end goal. There's nothing wrong with someone writing in that style, we just don't call it journalism. If the NYT wants to actively promote a particular political agenda, that's wonderful. They should register as a PAC, subject themselves to the relevant regulations, give up their press passes, and push for that agenda. I think they have a lot to offer us in that arena.

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

#295
post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's intensely incorrect and that journalism is an asset to society that definitely is deserving of public subsidies - but given the environment NYT is operating in they're either going to need to seek a profit or a patron. I think it's pretty obvious the sort of PR fallout the Washington Post has (somewhat deservedly) gotten after being taken over by Bezos.

There’s no silver bullet in any of this. If the government subsidies journalism the government can control journalism. At least with corporate control you can have competing corporations telling alternate sides of the story. But ultimately it’s on the public to be skeptical and critical consumers of media.

I agree that both are corruptible, but I'd rather see some heavily subsidized government friendly news sources that then receive competition from private corporations (similar to the british or canadian model with the bbc and cbc respectively) rather than rely wholly on corporate backed news sources... NPR and PBS are alright I guess, but their budgets have been slashed several times over and while there is good journalism (like the Newshour) there isn't the budget to cover stories in as in depth a manner.

I'd also like to highlight that as much as people fear government control of subsidized news sources - both PBS and NPR have been quite decently independent, with PBS in particular not having qualms about investigating the government when warranted.

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

#296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes? But I did not classify it as scandal, but as news, or as as something of interest to the general populace. In the same vein, I did not discuss journalism as a whole. I only said that it is news. You seem to want to move discussion in a completely different direction.

I don't believe that NYT is trying to inform you about some obscure tax bill because it's interesting. It's no more interesting than my tax bill, or any other random corporation that happened to have a non-zero tax bill some year. The only reason it's interesting to you is because you have a particular political interest in this. That's perfectly legitimate for you to have that political interest. If they were just t…

That is an odd argument to make. By your definition, news is not news unless it is not of interest to me?

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

#297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe that NYT is trying to inform you about some obscure tax bill because it's interesting. It's no more interesting than my tax bill, or any other random corporation that happened to have a non-zero tax bill some year. The only reason it's interesting to you is because you have a particular political interest in this. That's perfectly legitimate for you to have that political interest. If they were just t…

That is an odd argument to make. By your definition, news is not news unless it is not of interest to me?

News is not news if its purpose is a specific political outcome. The FedEx stock report, which also includes its tax bill, is news. I hope you can see the difference in purpose between the stock report and the article you just saw.

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

#298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You know, it's before my time, but when Cronkite suggested in 1968 that the United States withdraw from Vietnam, I believe what he said was taken seriously. I do not believe it resulted in the country unifying behind the peace movement and immediately withdrawing from Vietnam, which is the sort thing that would happen if "most people unquestioningly accepted whatever Walter Cronkite told them." It took a few years,…

> media corporations aren't actually corporations That's actually not something I argued, although I understand there's a subthread or something about it. > More essential though was the unquestioning acceptance of the mainstream media's power to selectively report the facts they considered most pertinent, to decide the issues of the day by choosing what to report and what not to report, and to establish governing na…

> That's actually not something I argued, although I understand there's a subthread or something about it.

Yep--in fact, it's the very same subthread you replied to.

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

#299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Demand for stock is not determined by the number of outstanding shares.

Nope. But buying back large amount of shares is driving prices by reducing the number of shares and increasing demand.

Buybacks are routinely priced above the list prise to ensure sales. Once the buyback occurs, the only change in corporate value should reflect the improved financial fundamentals of the company.

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

#300
post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wondering why they singled out some companies though? > ese large corporations pay huge amounts to lobbyists to bend tax policy in their favor. Do we have a way to know if fedex did this?

>Do we have a way to know if fedex did this? This is answered in the first paragraph of the nytimes article: "In the 2017 fiscal year, FedEx owed more than $1.5 billion in taxes. The next year, it owed nothing. What changed was the Trump administration’s tax cut — for which the company had lobbied hard."

thank you
Post reply on HN