What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

dxmnkd316 said:
Sickening...
Click to expand...

Nice choice of words. Mergers of huge companies are often bad for the consumer. And probably just so here.

On the other hand, I think many really dislike pharmas due to them 'pushing' some drugs. I don't go nearly that far. I see a drug company with drugs like Prozac as being similar to a defense attorney. Sometimes Prozac is the correct prescription and sometimes not. If it can be the right drug, it needs an advocate otherwise it will never be prescribed. The key player here is the doctor. The doctor needs to make the right decision as to whether to prescribe. So for better or worse, the doctor is responsible for diagnosis and the large responsibility that goes with that. Beyond that, detractors seem to miss the fact that pharma products save countless lives every year. Many of these drugs really are modern miracles for which pharmas get little credit from detractors.
 
Last edited:
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

Kepler said:
The joys of capitalism. Also, Nestle makes seafood?
Click to expand...

Nestle is the European version of Kraft, only bigger. Walking through the streets of Europe in 2000, every grocery store had a product featured that's branded "Nes[fill in the blank]".
 
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

Kepler said:
The joys of capitalism. Also, Nestle makes seafood?
Click to expand...

Brokers illegally charge them fees to get jobs, trapping them into working on fishing vessels and at ports, mills and seafood farms in Thailand to pay back more money than they can ever earn.
Click to expand...

They're duped into paying these guys? That's an even more impressive scam than when the British press-gangs would drug guys at the bar to fill out the Royal Navy ranks.

Also, it noted Purina as a Nestle brand. So read into that what you will about the quality of the seafood they're harvesting - it's probably bonitos and bullheads to make Cat Chow.
 
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

Anyone go out shopping on Black Friday?
 
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

joecct said:
Anyone go out shopping on Black Friday?
Click to expand...

I haven't been to a mall since about 2009. There are few brick and mortar places in the local town I like, but Amazon allows me to keep away from the barnyard animals.
 
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

Yup. Many shops are half off. I'll buy stuff for myself if I find something I like.
 
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

joecct said:
Anyone go out shopping on Black Friday?
Click to expand...

Sort of. On Thanksgiving Day my cell provider sent my bill, opened it and saw an issue. So I made a stop at the cell phone store, ended up replacing my phone, lowering my monthly cell bill, and getting a deal on a Harman Kardon Bluetooth speaker.
 
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

Here is a really interesting build on what I wrote in post 37!

Mark Zuckerberg’s announcement that he and his wife, Priscilla Chan, are pledging $45 billion over their lifetimes to an “initiative” to help solve the world’s problems has been widely hailed as an extraordinary act of philanthropy. But generous as this commitment is, it actually marks the culmination of a frequent critique of philanthropy in its current form....[aside: a critique I echoed in that post...]

Most reports of the couple’s pledge, made after their daughter’s birth last week, have characterized it as a “gift” to charity....in fact it is an investment in a limited-liability corporation to be called the “Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.”

Although perhaps contradictory, the purposes of the company are clearly philanthropic, to advance “human potential” and promote “equality,” rather than earn money for its owners. However, it will not just make grants to nonprofits, as foundations typically do. The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative will also own stakes in for-profit businesses in fields like education and health care, which its owners believe will help achieve their philanthropic goals. [emphasis added, as I suggested something very similar...]
....
What Mr. Zuckerberg and others are proposing instead is to harness the profit motive on behalf of their philanthropic goals. This is often referred to as a “double bottom-line” approach: The companies in which the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative invests will have to show both a financial return in order to be sustainable and a social one—for example, increased numbers of lives saved or children finishing school—in order to obtain additional funding. [emphasis added].

The approach Mr. Zuckerberg is taking has several advantages. One is that if he had created a foundation, American tax laws would have required him to sell most of the Facebook stock he gave it. But by using the stock to fund a limited-liability company, he can keep control over as much of it as he wants (though he may sell some to make grants or investments).

In addition, other wealthy people can contribute to the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative or to the companies it bankrolls, leveraging the $45 billion Mr. Zuckerberg and his wife intend to put in. Not least importantly, the initiative, being an LLC, is entitled to a share of any profits from its investments, which it plans to use to renew its funds.
Click to expand...


Though I suppose by now I should have realized that the truth of a statement has nothing whatsoever to do with its content these days, a statement is judged either true or false merely by one's feelings about who said it... :(
 
Last edited:
FreshFish said:
Here is a really interesting build on what I wrote in post 37!




Though I suppose by now I should have realized that the truth of a statement has nothing whatsoever to do with its content these days, a statement is judged either true or false merely by one's feelings about who said it... :(
Click to expand...
One little hitch...

The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative is not even an actual charitable organization, but rather structured as an LLC. Unlike a charitable trust, which is compelled to spend its money on charity, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, LLC will be able to spend its money on whatever it wants, including private, profit-generating investment.
Click to expand...

It's a "charitable" organization that basically says software will solve anything or:
“Micro-schools”? Putting Facebook software in public schools? Software, software, more software. If you have a headache, take a software. Jimmy can’t read? Give him software. The conceit that code can solve all social ills and free the species from the chains of aging, illness, and flatulence is the height of Silicon Valley bs, and Zuckerberg’s massive giveaway will clearly be predicated on that conceit.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

LynahFan said:
Except that, unlike what you wrote in post 37, not a single law or regulation needed to change for this to happen.
Click to expand...

So Zuckerberg has better lawyers than I do! The concept is exactly the same. I did not know that this loophole was already available. Very clever on his part. I hope we see more of it! :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top