What part of his comment makes you think he doesn’t understand what he’s talking about?
He’s very clearly stating to the companies. Don’t blame the West for sanctioning Russia, blame Russia for engadging in activities that warrants sanctioning, and blame yourself for increasing your investments when the writing was on the wall since at least 2014
Literally the first sentence. Thinking that companies would avoid investing in the Russian market shows profound lack of understanding of how capitalism works. The whole system prioritizes short term gains over long term planning.
That’s an opinion you have. Not a factual ideology of what makes capitalism, capitalism.
You can certainly think that’s how some businesses operate, and I’m sure plenty do take short term risks. But to call that a cornerstone of capitalism is at best uninformed.
He didn’t say he was thinking they would or wouldn’t. He said he doesn’t think they should. Those are two different words that mean two different things.
When I say, Russia shouldn’t push their polotical opposition out of windows. I’m not saying I don’t think they would. I’m saying I don’t think they should.
This is the reality we observe, and entire books have been written explaining how selection pressures of the capitalist system end up prioritizing short term thinking. Again, both of your arguments stem from fundamental lack of understanding of how the system you live under operates.
I live under a fully functional social democratic welfare state. But it’s adorable that you think you can assume whatever suits your agenda.
Books have been written about how the earth is actually flat instead of a spherical. That doesn’t mean the content is correct.
Truth is, writing headlines about companies that every 5 years put together a solid and safe 20 year plan in accordance to previous estimates and slowly pulling out investments and assets from places where the risk of geopolitical conflict is higher than the norm, just simply doesn’t generate a lot of clicks.
I live under a fully functional social democratic welfare state. But it’s adorable that you think you can assume whatever suits your agenda.
It’s adorable you think capitalist states are democratic.
Books have been written about how the earth is actually flat instead of a spherical. That doesn’t mean the content is correct.
The mechanics here aren’t very difficult to understand. The flat earth analogy is very apt to your denialism of the basic principles of financial capitalism though.
Truth is, writing headlines about companies that every 5 years put together a solid and safe 20 year plan in accordance to previous estimates and slowly pulling out investments and assets from places where the risk of geopolitical conflict is higher than the norm, just simply doesn’t generate a lot of clicks.
Truth is that the global capitalist system has crashes roughly once a decade like clockwork. Absolutely hilarious that you think that constitutes a solid and safe plan. 😂
I have addressed what you said repeatedly in fact, and even gave you concrete examples. The most hilarious part about this is that you make it clear that you’re utterly clueless on a subject you’re attempting to argue confidently about. Here are just a few obvious factors that lead to an emphasis on short-term planning and decision-making.
The primary objective of corporations is to maximize shareholder value. This translates into a focus on short-term financial gains, such as quarterly earnings, to keep investors happy and maintain or boost stock prices. In fact, executive compensation packages are often tied to short-term financial performance, incentivizing managers to focus on immediate results rather than long-term sustainability.
The practice of issuing quarterly earnings reports, while providing transparency, can also reinforce the focus on short-term results. Companies go to great lengths to meet or exceed analysts’ expectations, often at the expense of long-term strategic goals. Likewise, investors, especially those with short-term investment horizons, often expect quick returns and may react negatively to any signs of underperformance, putting pressure on companies to deliver immediate results.
Furthermore, the competition in capitalist markets pushes companies to prioritize short-term strategies to gain a competitive edge, secure market share, or respond to rivals’ actions. The ability to execute short term strategies comes at the expense of long-term planning. What happens five years down the road isn’t going to matter if the company can’t survive the current year.
Overall, the pressure to demonstrate quarterly profits and compete effectively is a fundamental aspect of capitalist enterprise, that leads to a short-term focus that’s directly at odds with long-term interests of companies or society as a whole. Hence why nobody with a clue on the subject was surprised by the way companies behaved with regards to Russian market.
He didn’t say he was surprised some companies did. He simply states that they should have known better. Which a lot of companies did. For every company that invested in Russia, you have 10 that didn’t.
But you are so hyperfocused on this “the west” branding.
There are so many different rules and regulations for different countries in how businesses are allowed to operate and invest.
And it’s so much more nuanced than just profits and stock value. You plan for decrease as well. Because it will happen. I don’t know what you do for a loving. But I’m in economics. And your description of reality does not fit the large majority of serious enterprises. But yes. You also have those that takes risks. You often hear about them as they fail or post huge losses. The ones that grow by 3-5% in a steady pace over 40 years isn’t as noteworthy to write about.
But you are so clearly being dishonest and disingenuous on purpose to paint a picture of the global market that doesn’t reflect reality.
If someone trips over themselves and breaks a leg I’m sure you’d find a way to blame “the west” and “capitalism” for it, followed by a study in how walking accidents increase as availability to sidewalks increase because the capitalistic sidewalk companies are forcing “the west” to build more sidewalks.
blame Russia for engadging in activities that warrants sanctioning
But why though? Russia had just observed 20 years of invasion of Afghanistan by the USA, with absolutely no divestment and no sanction as a result. So the logical conclusion should be that invasion doesn’t warrant sanctioning. Why would Russia be a special case? If everyone can invade everyone, it would make sense that Russia understands that it also applies to them.
What part of his comment makes you think he doesn’t understand what he’s talking about?
He’s very clearly stating to the companies. Don’t blame the West for sanctioning Russia, blame Russia for engadging in activities that warrants sanctioning, and blame yourself for increasing your investments when the writing was on the wall since at least 2014
Literally the first sentence. Thinking that companies would avoid investing in the Russian market shows profound lack of understanding of how capitalism works. The whole system prioritizes short term gains over long term planning.
That’s an opinion you have. Not a factual ideology of what makes capitalism, capitalism.
You can certainly think that’s how some businesses operate, and I’m sure plenty do take short term risks. But to call that a cornerstone of capitalism is at best uninformed.
He didn’t say he was thinking they would or wouldn’t. He said he doesn’t think they should. Those are two different words that mean two different things.
When I say, Russia shouldn’t push their polotical opposition out of windows. I’m not saying I don’t think they would. I’m saying I don’t think they should.
This is the reality we observe, and entire books have been written explaining how selection pressures of the capitalist system end up prioritizing short term thinking. Again, both of your arguments stem from fundamental lack of understanding of how the system you live under operates.
I live under a fully functional social democratic welfare state. But it’s adorable that you think you can assume whatever suits your agenda.
Books have been written about how the earth is actually flat instead of a spherical. That doesn’t mean the content is correct.
Truth is, writing headlines about companies that every 5 years put together a solid and safe 20 year plan in accordance to previous estimates and slowly pulling out investments and assets from places where the risk of geopolitical conflict is higher than the norm, just simply doesn’t generate a lot of clicks.
It’s adorable you think capitalist states are democratic.
The mechanics here aren’t very difficult to understand. The flat earth analogy is very apt to your denialism of the basic principles of financial capitalism though.
Truth is that the global capitalist system has crashes roughly once a decade like clockwork. Absolutely hilarious that you think that constitutes a solid and safe plan. 😂
You have a fantastic ability to not actually answer anything while at the same time just keep throwing pasta at the wall and see what sticks.
It doesn’t matter what anyone responds with because you will simply say “nuh uh” and move on to the next.
If you want to actually adress anything. Feel free to do so and we can continue to have a conversation.
I have addressed what you said repeatedly in fact, and even gave you concrete examples. The most hilarious part about this is that you make it clear that you’re utterly clueless on a subject you’re attempting to argue confidently about. Here are just a few obvious factors that lead to an emphasis on short-term planning and decision-making.
The primary objective of corporations is to maximize shareholder value. This translates into a focus on short-term financial gains, such as quarterly earnings, to keep investors happy and maintain or boost stock prices. In fact, executive compensation packages are often tied to short-term financial performance, incentivizing managers to focus on immediate results rather than long-term sustainability.
The practice of issuing quarterly earnings reports, while providing transparency, can also reinforce the focus on short-term results. Companies go to great lengths to meet or exceed analysts’ expectations, often at the expense of long-term strategic goals. Likewise, investors, especially those with short-term investment horizons, often expect quick returns and may react negatively to any signs of underperformance, putting pressure on companies to deliver immediate results.
Furthermore, the competition in capitalist markets pushes companies to prioritize short-term strategies to gain a competitive edge, secure market share, or respond to rivals’ actions. The ability to execute short term strategies comes at the expense of long-term planning. What happens five years down the road isn’t going to matter if the company can’t survive the current year.
Overall, the pressure to demonstrate quarterly profits and compete effectively is a fundamental aspect of capitalist enterprise, that leads to a short-term focus that’s directly at odds with long-term interests of companies or society as a whole. Hence why nobody with a clue on the subject was surprised by the way companies behaved with regards to Russian market.
Don’t have to take my word for it though. Here’s an article from the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance exploring the tension between short-term pressures and long-term value creation in corporate decision-making. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2019/06/20/the-modern-dilemma-balancing-short-and-long-term-business-pressures/
My man. You are not quite right.
He didn’t say he was surprised some companies did. He simply states that they should have known better. Which a lot of companies did. For every company that invested in Russia, you have 10 that didn’t.
But you are so hyperfocused on this “the west” branding.
There are so many different rules and regulations for different countries in how businesses are allowed to operate and invest.
And it’s so much more nuanced than just profits and stock value. You plan for decrease as well. Because it will happen. I don’t know what you do for a loving. But I’m in economics. And your description of reality does not fit the large majority of serious enterprises. But yes. You also have those that takes risks. You often hear about them as they fail or post huge losses. The ones that grow by 3-5% in a steady pace over 40 years isn’t as noteworthy to write about.
But you are so clearly being dishonest and disingenuous on purpose to paint a picture of the global market that doesn’t reflect reality.
If someone trips over themselves and breaks a leg I’m sure you’d find a way to blame “the west” and “capitalism” for it, followed by a study in how walking accidents increase as availability to sidewalks increase because the capitalistic sidewalk companies are forcing “the west” to build more sidewalks.
But why though? Russia had just observed 20 years of invasion of Afghanistan by the USA, with absolutely no divestment and no sanction as a result. So the logical conclusion should be that invasion doesn’t warrant sanctioning. Why would Russia be a special case? If everyone can invade everyone, it would make sense that Russia understands that it also applies to them.