451–460 of 477 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, there's a common cause right? The protests in HK
Yeah but that’s been going on for months and it feels like there’s a sudden surge (though I don’t have the stats to rigorously prove a sudden change).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their actions also go against deontological ethics as well.
Indeed, but not doing anything in both cases is still worse in that system, which is the point. You have to do wild contortions to make doing one fewer good thing better .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This conflates "self-made" with "started with nothing". In some ways they align but they're not useful as synonyms. The major difference between inheriting money and attracting investors is that you need to be more convincing for the latter to get the money on offer. The investor to whom you are otherwise a stranger might want to put some contract together to make sure they see a slice of the pie if you're successful…
You literally just described effort - doing everything possible to attract investors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's literally what everyone does. It's called "investment".
Oh interesting, does literally everyone else also pay their investments a salary or hourly wage and benefits like health care? Do they manager the performance of their investments? Can their investments sue them for violating labor practices? Sounds different from what that person was talking about.
This rhetoric is not uncommon in business.
You have spent/are spending money so that eventually it comes back as more money. What else is "investment"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
NOTE: I think this has been handled incredibly poorly by the NBA and that Morey should have doubled down on his tweet, not caved. That said, the reason additional profits matter is that 51% of the revenue (not profits) go to the players, and the salary cap is tied directly to total revenue. This was collectively bargained and cannot be changed without a renegotiation. A lot of decisions have been made making assumpti…
Sorry, but "why does the NBA (a large corporation employing many people) need to make more money?" comes off as a far more reasonable question to me than "why do professional American basketball players need to make more money?"
1 - highlighting that total revenue generated directly impacts the amount of money available to players (as in there is a legal document outlining this)
2 - Ownership groups and the league as a whole have made many decisions based on an assumption of 49% of future revenues generated, so reductions in that future revenue stream are a lot riskier than "we just won't make as much profit." It's possible that for some teams, the reduction in revenue could actually force them to operate substantially in the red.
Once again, just want to be clear that I'm just pointing out the actual financial situation and that I still think the NBA should and could call China's bluff. It would likely sting in the short term, but China has invested so much in building up the NBA domestically that it will be really difficult to just delete it without any kind of backlash.
Long-term, I imagine the NBA is going to put more resources into the Indian market to reduce their reliance on a single overseas market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably? Why would that be different?
Because we already have a preexisting standard we conform to. Saying Jeremy Lin is a Chinese export is like saying the NBA mostly consists of African exports - we generally consider the black players with some African heritage as just Americans. Jeremy Lin is an American with Chinese heritage - This also helps to differentiate from players who actually have emigrated from other countries like Hakeem Olajuwon.
Note that this is different from just having heritage in a country. There's immigration only a couple generations back in my family, but it's already mixed to the point that I wouldn't call myself any specific country-American.
The NBA really needs to grow a spine on this one. They have nothing to lose but incremental profits and in the long run China will lose. It will just be one more reminder for the populace that their current government restricts them from luxuries the rest of the world gets to experience. And if that doesn't bother them, good riddance I guess, it's not like China is going to come up with their own basketball league th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, but not doing anything in both cases is still worse in that system, which is the point. You have to do wild contortions to make doing one fewer good thing better .
Ah, so they just subscribe to profit ethics. It all makes sense now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, but not doing anything in both cases is still worse in that system, which is the point. You have to do wild contortions to make doing one fewer good thing better .
It's more manipulative and does a better job of revealing their true motives. Doing a tiny good deed for manipulative reasons can be a net negative.
In this case, how?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's more manipulative and does a better job of revealing their true motives. Doing a tiny good deed for manipulative reasons can be a net negative.
> Doing a tiny good deed for manipulative reasons can be a net negative. In this case, how?
In other words, it's not a one-off. There is the same positive effect in the short term, but the long term differs.
All of that logic could easily apply to this scenario.
For a simpler scenario, if a company does a good deed to apologize for a bad deed, and the good deed is smaller but gets them off the hook, then that's a very clear net negative.