railfancwb Posted January 15, 2020 Share Posted January 15, 2020 https://www.inc.com/cameron-albert-deitch/blackrock-ceo-larry-fink-annual-letter-environmental-sustainability.html?utm_source=incthismorning is this change in perspective behind Dick’s and Walmart’s actions on guns and ammunition? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willie-pete Posted January 15, 2020 Share Posted January 15, 2020 1 hour ago, railfancwb said: https://www.inc.com/cameron-albert-deitch/blackrock-ceo-larry-fink-annual-letter-environmental-sustainability.html?utm_source=incthismorning is this change in perspective behind Dick’s and Walmart’s actions on guns and ammunition? Sorry, I don't get the connection between guns and environmental sustainability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenoF250 Posted January 15, 2020 Share Posted January 15, 2020 It was never uncool. It also has nothing to do with guns. It does have to do with the general overall "woke" sentiment. Reality is companies say what people want to hear and then for the most part do what they want. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
railfancwb Posted January 15, 2020 Author Share Posted January 15, 2020 3 minutes ago, willie-pete said: Sorry, I don't get the connection between guns and environmental sustainability. More the “we care” connection I suppose. I don’t get a connection either, but wonder if some members of top management in some companies see a connection. A variation of virtue signaling because “we care”. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willie-pete Posted January 15, 2020 Share Posted January 15, 2020 More like Dick's just being Dick's 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janice6 Posted January 15, 2020 Share Posted January 15, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, railfancwb said: https://www.inc.com/cameron-albert-deitch/blackrock-ceo-larry-fink-annual-letter-environmental-sustainability.html?utm_source=incthismorning is this change in perspective behind Dick’s and Walmart’s actions on guns and ammunition? There is nothing wrong with a company deciding to favor Environmental or Social issues over Capitolistic management. The terrible wrong occurs when government makes laws to regulate businesses to favor some goal other than an economic one. If the consumer favors a company's goals over economics, the company will survive and prosper. If the consumer wants an economic goal for the company instead, the company will fall. Let the consumers decide the company's fate and not the "elite", nor the government. This is another means of punishing financially, and furthering control over the public. Edited January 15, 2020 by janice6 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huaco Kid Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 Subaru loves you. Really. It does. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tous Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 (edited) 9 hours ago, janice6 said: There is nothing wrong with a company deciding to favor Environmental or Social issues over Capitolistic management. Yes, there is. A company's management is charged with operating the company such that the stockholders get the best return, within the law and accepted ethics. When Greta Thunberg and Al Sharpton buy the majority of the company, then they can turn it into a safe space for hippie socialists. Edited January 16, 2020 by tous 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janice6 Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, tous said: Yes, there is. A company's management is charged with operating the company such that the stockholders get the best return, within the law and accepted ethics. When Greta Thunberg and Al Sharpton buy the majorty of the company, then they can turn it into a safe space for hippie socialists. That's true. I said the survival of the company is whether they meet the consumers expectations, or not. If enough of their customers will support their "social basis for their business" they will survive. If not enough of the customers support the "social basis for their business", they will not survive. Economics will determine which companies survive. Over all, I believe survival will be determined by the best value for the money, not so much social values. Edited January 16, 2020 by janice6 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueiron Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 15 minutes ago, tous said: Yes, there is. A company's management is charged with operating the company such that the stockholders get the best return, within the law and accepted ethics. When Greta Thunberg and Al Sharpton buy the majorty of the company, then they can turn it into a safe space for hippie socialists. Your statement begs questions: Is the corporation privately or publicly held? If publicly held, what is the opinion of the stockholders? Do they desire maximum return or do they want a good return and favorable corporate goverance? What do customers, stakeholders, and investors want of the company. Not all corporations are run for maximal profit. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janice6 Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 2 hours ago, blueiron said: Your statement begs questions: Is the corporation privately or publicly held? If publicly held, what is the opinion of the stockholders? Do they desire maximum return or do they want a good return and favorable corporate goverance? What do customers, stakeholders, and investors want of the company. Not all corporations are run for maximal profit. And, are there enough customers to make less than maximal profit enough for the company to stay in business...…… Customers are fickle! 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HollowHead Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 11 hours ago, janice6 said: There is nothing wrong with a company deciding to favor Environmental or Social issues over Capitolistic management. The terrible wrong occurs when government makes laws to regulate businesses to favor some goal other than an economic one. If the consumer favors a company's goals over economics, the company will survive and prosper. If the consumer wants an economic goal for the company instead, the company will fall. Let the consumers decide the company's fate and not the "elite", nor the government. This is another means of punishing financially, and furthering control over the public. ...and we have a winner. A true capitalist cares not how a profit is made, and if companies such as these can turn a profit on unicorn farts and the tears of Mother Theresa, good for them. HH 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
railfancwb Posted January 16, 2020 Author Share Posted January 16, 2020 9 hours ago, janice6 said: And, are there enough customers to make less than maximal profit enough for the company to stay in business...…… Customers are fickle! Yeah. Ask Sears about that. On the other hand, how blind to customer desires were members of Sears’ top management for how long? Based on my limited experience, a LONG time. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janice6 Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 (edited) 6 hours ago, railfancwb said: Yeah. Ask Sears about that. On the other hand, how blind to customer desires were members of Sears’ top management for how long? Based on my limited experience, a LONG time. Many enterprises go to hell when the accountants decide that the quality and reputation of the business has cash value, and cheaper products have higher markup. I quit Sears when their reputation was sacrificed. Sears left their customers, not the other way around. I remember being in the Montgomery Wards offices for the Midwest. When everyone else was using computers to manage stock and mail orders, Wards had a whole floor of their offices devoted to massive CARD FILES IN BOXES, with a large staff running helter skelter to try to keep up with the business. No wonder they went under too. Edited January 16, 2020 by janice6 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holyjohnson Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 Dick`s never sold AR-15s. i`m sure they had a few in stock for some special orders or Manufacturers Demos but they never had any in stock nor did Sportsmart (the Dick`s smaller stores). i lived next to the Dick`s Flagship store for years and never saw an AR-15 or AK in a Dick`s and if they did it would be way more expensive then anyone would pay. which is why i think Dick`s actually stopped selling them is they market is flooded with ARs that are better and cheaper then Dick`s can Afford to carry. Dick`s was losing money on guns and ammo because the mark up they had was way higher then even Cabelas,Bass Pro,Fleet farm or any L.G.S. one of the most humorous things i ever saw was a non compliant "no concealed carry" signs in that same Dick`s. i`m guessing they take the write off for the destroyed $5 Million worth of "assault weapons" they couldn't sell... Dick`s and Walmart can give up the Market share all they want. hard to be a 'Green' 'Envirowoke' group when you sell fishing lures and plastic clothes.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now