Below is my column in The Hill on how Disney appears to be honoring the 300th anniversary of Adam Smith by recognizing some basic economic principles like the need to sell goods to make profits.
Here is the column:
This year marks the 300th anniversary of Adam Smith, the iconic figure behind the theory of free markets, or of what we have since come to call “capitalism.”
Born in June 1723, Smith went on to explain how the “invisible hand” of the market worked as people exercised their choices between certain products. It can shape economies and challenge whole governments. One company in particular appears to be learning that lesson.
In recent filings, Disney appears concerned that the “invisible hand” of Adam Smith is effectively giving the “House of Mouse” the middle finger. In a new corporate disclosure, Disney acknowledges that its controversial political and social agenda is costing the company and shareholders.
In its annual SEC report, Disney acknowledges that “we face risks relating to misalignment with public and consumer tastes and preferences for entertainment, travel and consumer products.” In an implied nod to Smith, the company observes that “the success of our businesses depends on our ability to consistently create compelling content,” and that “Generally, our revenues and profitability are adversely impacted when our entertainment offerings and products, as well as our methods to make our offerings and products available to consumers, do not achieve sufficient consumer acceptance. Further, consumers’ perceptions of our position on matters of public interest, including our efforts to achieve certain of our environmental and social goals, often differ widely and present risks to our reputation and brands.”
Disney and other companies have previously ignored consumer backlash over corporate campaigns such as Disney’s opposition to Florida’s Parental Rights in Education law. Corporate officials once avoided political controversies and focused on selling their products and services rather than viewpoints.
Disney has reportedly lost a billion dollars just on four of its recent “woke” movie flops, productions denounced by critics as pushing political agendas or storylines. Yet until now, the company has continued to roll out underperforming movies as revenue has dropped. What’s more, Disney stars persist in bad-mouthing its fabled storylines and undermining its new productions. The company admits that it has suffered a continued slide in “impressions” (that is, viewership) by 14 percent.
For shareholders, it may seem counterintuitive that corporate executives would trade off profits for political or social agendas. However, it does serve as a rationale for individual corporate executives who are professionally advanced when they champion such causes. For example, when Alissa Heinerscheid, vice president of marketing for Bud Light, pledged to drop Bud Light’s “fratty reputation and embrace inclusivity,” she was heralded by colleagues, even though her move went on to tank that brand as a whole. Indeed, Bud Light has still not recovered from the loss of billions in profits, market share, and overall market value.
The same trend is playing out in the media. Public trust in journalists has fallen to a record low. Yet media executives continue to push advocacy journalism, abandoning objectivity. As former New York Times writer Nikole Hannah-Jones declared, “all journalism is activism.”
With falling subscriptions and public backlash (this includes the amusing “Let’s go, Brandon!” mantra), the journalists continue to saw at the thin branch upon which they are sitting.
Again, while advocacy journalism is no more popular than woke corporate agendas, it remains “wealth-maximizing” for individual journalists, who can receive accolades from contemporaries by taking steps detrimental to their profession as a whole. For each individual, the falling revenues of their media outlets are outweighed by the individual advancement that comes with embracing advocacy over objectivity.
The same is true with academia, where universities and colleges are roundly criticized for their intolerance of opposing views and for purging faculties of conservative or libertarian professors. Roughly half of this country holds conservative or libertarian views. Yet faculty members have little incentive to put themselves at risk by demanding more intellectual diversity or viewpoint tolerance.
Each of these tales of decline represents a variation on another economic model called the “tragedy of the commons” whereby everyone makes personal decisions to their own immediate advantage that ultimately kill off the very resource that sustains everyone.
All of these corporate, journalistic and academic figures are acting for their immediate personal advantage at the expense of their companies and institutions.
In fairness to Disney, there is an expressive element to its products. Movies are artistic creations that emphasize certain motivations and values. At one time, those values included some that are now viewed as offensive, including racist tropes.
The question is the balance and degree of the political and social agenda. Disney’s products are now viewed by many conservatives as empty virtue signaling and endless attempts to indoctrinate children. Moreover, when the company publicly declares its opposition to a popular parental rights bill in Florida, it is moving away from a commercial to a political focus.
That is the problem with the invisible hand. You can bring movies to the public, but you cannot make them sell. Once an unassailable and uniting brand, Disney brand is now negatively associated with activism by a significant number of consumers. The company is now even reporting a decline in licensing revenue from products associated with Star Wars, Frozen, Toy Story and Mickey and Friends — iconic and once-unassailable corporate images.
The question is how long Disney (or its shareholders) can tolerate falling revenues tied to its “misalignment with the public.” It is a massive corporation and it can lose billions before facing any truly dire decisions. Yet even Disney’s CEO, Bob Iger, now appears to be seeking to “quiet things down” after years of culture wars.
Iger has come to accept that a company does indeed have to sell products to survive. As Smith wrote, “It is not from the benevolence of the Butcher, the Brewer or the Baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”
So Happy 300th birthday, Adam. It is a bit belated, but so was Disney’s recognition of your economic principles.
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.
Warning to “Agents Provocateur”:
Violating federal statute Title 18 US Code 245 can land federal agents, front company folks and local cops in federal prison;). At minimum you will never hold government employment again!
Jonathan: In this “age of rage”, as you call it, violence is breaking out all over the place. Rage leads to violence. And it’s not caused by “leftist radicals” or Antifa who you have called “the most violent group in America”.
The latest violence occurred this weekend near the University of Vermont. A white man shot and severely wounded 3 college students–all of Palestinian descent. The DOJ is investigating the shooting as a “hate crime”. This follows an incident in Chicago last month where a landlord fatally stabbed a 6 yr old Muslim boy and seriously wounded his mother.
Authorities don’t know the motive of the shooter in Vermont, Jason J. Eaton, age 48, who has been charged with 3 counts of attempted murder. But it’s clear Americans are taking sides in the Hamas-Israel war. And some, who side with Israel, think violence is justified to avenge the killing of Israelis and taking hostages. Eaton may be one. Maybe he heard Netanyahu declare: “We will wipe out this thing called Hamas” that “will be wiped from the face of the earth…We saw the wild animals. We say the barbarians that we are facing…”. Perhaps Eaton viewed the Palestinian students as just “wild animals” that needed to be eliminated. Even Palestinian students studying here are now viewed as a threat to Israel.
But it is Biden administration’s policy to continue to support Netanyahu’s continued genocide in Gaza. Almost 15,000 innocent Gazan civilians have been killed-many women and children. Gaga now looks like a moonscape. The IDF is using its largest bombs to wipe Gaza “from the face of the earth”. Ethnic cleansing is Netanyahu’s goal. And some Americans think that is a good thing.
Does this surprise you ?
Left wing nuts are committing violence all over. You do not expect blowback ?
Violence against jews is up 400% in the past month.
It has ALWAYS been over 50% of all “hate crimes”.
Absolutely we should be upset when people are targeted -because the are muslim, gay, trans, ….
We should be upset when they are targeted because they are jews, or because they are whites, or because they are republicans.
We should be upset when people are the victims of violence even where they are merely targeted because they are easy targets, or in the wrong place at the wrong time.
After almost 40 years of declining violence – we have seen a sudden spike in violence.
That should raise gigantic red flags. Where did that increase in violence start ? What changed that might have caused it ?
The fergeson effect is well documented. Places were left wing activists stage protests against the police that turn violence see spikes in crime. That should not surprise us – when you foment hatred you get violence.
There are with certainty bad police, and we can certainly work to do better. And I will join you in fighting against many bad policing ideas.
But the FACT is that policing has in most everyway gotten far better over my lifetime – not worse.
We are way way past the era of Bull Conner. Whether those on the left like it or not – there is very little data that ACTUALLY demonstrates evidence of systemic problems in our criminal justice system. There is no systemic racism. There are a FEW bad cops – some of which are also racist – though frankly they are rare. There is some racial bias in sentencing – especially driven by policies that the Black Caucus in Congress fought for. But I would bet that you are not aware that the disparity in sentencing between Crack and Cocaine is because black politicians and black community leaders urged a stronger response to crack because it was destroying their communities.
Dereck Chauvin was nearly murdered in prison at the very moment in which much of the country is strating to grasp the truth that the left democrats and the media tried to hide for so long. Chauvin was essentially Lynched by a left wing nut vigalente mob inside and outside the government. Floyd died of a massive drug overdose – 3 times the fatal dosaged of BOTH Meth and Fentanyl – as well as high levels of many other drugs. Further he was a time bomb waiting to explode – he had 75% or greater blockage in two major arteries to his heart.
There was ZERO evidence of asphyxia. The video footage was deceptive – we now have bodycam footage from other angles and Chavi’s knew was NEVER on Floyd’s neck – it was on his shoulder. The technique Chauvin was using was contra perjury by the Mineapolis cheif of police still being taught to MPD including sketches that look EXACTLY like what we saw on video. MRT has been used HUNDREDS of times with ZERO fatalities. Ofc. Kueng – also in jail called EMT;s within 30SECONDS of Floyds arrest – long before Floyd was restrained, because it was obvious he was suffering from a drug overdose. The EMT’s were 8 blocks away and took almost 20 minutes to arrive. Chauvin repeatedly asked where the EMT’s were. Prosecutors and witnesses LIED about MPD procedures and Policies. They Lied about MRT. They LIED about the autopsy. They LIED about even the possibility of asphyxia. We had a Hanging Judge and Jury that prejudged the case, and we had activists and Democrat politicians outside the courthouse threatening to burn the city down if they did not get the verdict they wanted.
The odds of Chauvin or the other oficers that were sacrificed ever getting their lives back are zero. Immoral zealots like you have stolen their lives and their reputations.
But the really big deal is not the injustice to Chauvin – it is the FALSE NARATIVE of the left.
The purpose of Framing Floyd was to prove – whether actually true or not, This fake narative of systemic racism.
To prove that idiot left wing nuts are correct and the country is racist to its core.
Chauvin will not get justice – but YOUR ideology has ONCE AGAIN been proven a FRAUD.
More J6 video – CP officers bringing in a J6 protestor in handcuffs and then removing the cuffs and fist bumping him and releasing him.
Draw your own conclusions – mine is that this is likely a federal agent provateteur.
Regardless, Like the Collusion Delusion. Like the Hunter Laptop fraud, Like the Ritenhouse attempted frameup, like the Chauvin Frameup,
Like pretty much every other claim from the left – your J6 narative is going down in flames.
There are legitimate debates over whether the violence at J6 was tiny or merely small. There is no debate at all that there was no insurection.
There are debates about how MANY FBI and MPD officers were present. How many Antifa. How many federal assets.
There is absolutely no debate that there was lots of infiltration of the crowd.
There are debates about the extent to which these infiltrated incited violence. There is no debate that some did.
The only question outstanding is exactly how BADLY you have lied.
Regardless, you wonder why there is violence ?
I noted the fergussen effect above. The left has also replaced prosecutors in major cities with left wing nuts who refuse to prosecute crime.
And surprise surprise crime shot up.
You are upset that someone stabbed a muslim. Are you not upset that thousands have died as a result of the lefts deliberate destruction of efforts to reign in crime.
After the Floyd riots, After the Chauvin lynching – people are leaving law enforcement. MPD has lost almost 400 out of almost 900 oficers since Floyds death – and the Mineapolis crime rate is through the roof.
Who is suffering ? Who is dying ? The very blacks that YOU claimed you were championing.
Is it so hard for you to understand – that even if you were 100% correct – a systemically racist police force that has half the murders and violent crimes is superior to one in which hundreds more people die from violent crime ?
You are wrong about the racism – but even if you were right – your answers could STILL be wrong.
There are more ADDITIONAL murders in chicago alone that ALL people killed by police including all justified killings throughout the US in an entire year.
If police killings are a problem – they are a tiny problem compared to the additional deaths YOU have created.
And you are not even prepared to admit that your policies have failed. That people have been murdered as a result.
John: Your rants are using up too much oxygen on this blog. Dennis handles them admirably.
“John: Your rants are using up too much oxygen on this blog.”
That is because you require the comic book version for the answer. Try looking for a blog for ages 6-13.
Who’s looking for an “answer”? Your silly-a$$ assumptions are on you. I merely made a valid observation.
You weren’t making a valid observation. You were trying to demean another blog member who so happens to post valid material. You are a waste of time and should be sent to the recycle bin.
The actual truth is we have no idea what the actual death toll in Gaza is – it has long been established that reporters within the palestinian controlled areas can not report the truth.
That said absolutely palestinians are dying. That is what happens when you start a war.
Oct 7 was genocide. Genocide actually means something. It means murdering people because of their race.
It does not mean civilian causulties that occur during the justified response to acts of war and genocide committed against your people.
The Taliban merely provided aid and comfort to Al Queda. The US war in Afghanistan resulted in a MINIMUM of 70,000 afghan civilian casulaties. Was that a Genocide ? Where were you ? We you protesting the US invasion of afghanistan from the start ?
Lancet estimates there were over 600,000 civilians deaths as a result of the War in Iraq.
Where were you ? Was that Genocide ?
We can debate the whether the Israelis can do a better job of protecting palestinian civilins – while fighting a group that violates internation law that uses hospitals to store weapons and to garrison terrorists.
The claim the Israelis are committing genocide merely proves you are bat schiff crazy.
The IDF is on the record better at preventing civilian casualties than US forces are.
In the Yom Kippur war the IDF encircled and isolated the entire Egyptian 8th army – 30,000 soldiers in the Sinai – a desert, without food and water. It was within the power of Israel to wipe the egyptian army off the face of the earth – without firing a shot.
The result would have been the collapse of Egypt as a state.
Israel has historically valued the life of arabs more highly than they value their own lives.
As to the Palestinians – NO ON WANTS THEM. Jordan will not take them. Egypt will not take them. No Arab county – no muslim country – not even Iran will take them. Lebanon will not take them.
They are violent terrorists – that is NOT the judgement of Israel – that is the judgement of all countries in the mideast.
Increasingly many of those in Gaza and the west bank are not even palestinians. They are people who have come from elswhere – frequently to join jihad, or intefada, and discovered that after they had done so – no nation wanted them back.
Of the actual palestinians – the sane rational ones left long ago.
If Hamas layed down their weapons there would be peace.
If Israel laid down their weapons there would be genocide.
Today 20% of Israeli’s – not Gazan’s or West Bank are palestinians – 1.6M people. These have full rights of citizenship.
The can vote and there are Paletinians in the Israeli government.
To rational people that does not sound like genocide.
“And some, who side with Israel, think violence is justified to avenge the killing of Israelis and taking hostages”
Correct – that is LITTERLALLY international law.
When you commit an act of war against another country – That nation is justified in going to war against you.
War is violence.
International law – the law of war also permits the killing of actually innocent civilians. It does not permit deliberately targeting civilians.
It does allow KNOWINGLY killing civilians to acheive an important enough military objective.
Nations at war are expected to minimize civilian casualites. A nation at war is permitted to knowling kill civilians – even large numbers for an important enough military objection.
As an obvious example, The israelis would be justified in using incindiary bombs to destroy a hospital killing hundreds of civilians, if the enemy stored biological weapons or chemical weapons in that hospital and the only means to safely deal with them was incindiary bombs.
Dennis you do not live in the real world.
While Pres. Biden bears some responsibility for this war.
I can detail the ways in which he brought this about – including destroying our relations with Saudi arabia and other arab nations and fawning over terrorist countries like Iran – who would have though that would end badly.
But the most damning evidence is that Every president since Ford has inserted the US into foreign violence and war
EXCEPT Trump.
The statistical odds of that being random chance rather than actual differences in policy are very near zero.
Regardless, we are i the midst of a radical shift – globally and within the nation – driven by the US LEFT.
We have seen a radical change in violent crime – corresponding directly to changes in democratic policies in democrat controlled cities.
We have seen an escalation of global tensions and war – wars the US is part of, and ones it is not.
An escalation that is at odds with prior trends and again corresponds to policy changes by democrats.
Everything that democrats touch turns to chaos and violence.
That is not an accident.
Dennis, I think John Say makes good points in his comments regarding genocide and justified violence and hope you will please consider them (I was the one who liked them). Thanks.
I liked them too. Every point John Say made was right, everything Dennis says is left wing propaganda and Jew hatred. Only a Jewish state would be told to stand down after getting brutally attacked and fighting a declared war. Only Jews attract the attention of the so-called peace-movement. Only when Jews are killing Muslims does the world care.
Dennis, sorry pal, but you are an anti-Semite.
John Say, HullBobby,
Well said.
If ethnic cleansing is his goal, what is he doing in the West Bank to achieve this?
“Almost 15,000 innocent Gazan civilians have been killed-many women and children.”
And you know this how?? Is numbnutsdennis.com where we should get our news now?
Outstanding journalism, Dr. Turley! A four bagger outta the park. Thank you.
Outstanding article and so to the point.
Some of the most “R” rated material out there is found in the Old Testament of the Bible (ie: sodomy, incest, rape, masterbation and homosexuality).
If young Florida kids can be taught about the Bible, they won’t be harmed by learning about longterm stable marriages!
This was a warning and evidence of the social progress engendered through celebration of sodomy, incest, rape, friends with “benefits”, political congruence (“=”), elective abortion, etc.
Civil unions for all consenting adults. No more political congruence (“=”), diversity, some, select [black] lives matter, Pro-Choice ethical religion,, and other forward-looking bigotry.
It would seem constitutional for a Florida teacher to teach a “marriage class” and include in that class the court case “Obergefell v. Hodges” legalizing same-sex marriage.
Under the wording of the “Florida Parental Rights in Education” law – any parent could oppose this constitutional U.S. Supreme Court ruling from being taught to children under about 8 years old.
A Florida child with same-sex parents already knows this reality well before 8 years old. If another child at school asks about their same-sex parents, most young kids already know this.
How is a teacher suppose to not violate this unconstitutional Florida law?
Under the wording of the “Florida Parental Rights in Education” law – any parent could oppose this constitutional U.S. Supreme Court ruling from being taught to children under about 8 years old.
Even without the law, any parent can oppose anything at any school board meeting or through letter writing. That doesn’t mean the school board will agree with them. Please quote the language in the law that you believe to be unconstitutional and say why you believe it is unconstitutional.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that same-sex married couples and parents, have the same rights as heterosexual couples.
How can a public school educate children by ignoring this?
Parents can demand anything they please, but Governors and school boards are required to follow U.S. Supreme Court rulings.
The wording of the above Florida law, has a link in Turley’s article above.
Florida teachers should just teach a marriage class and if penalized for it, they can simply overturn the Florida law as unconstitutional.
LGBT-Floridians also pay the salary of Governor DeSantis and every public school board member – their employers have a say also!
Couples, yes. Couplets, under the principle of congruence (“=”) including binary bigotry. That said, civil unions for all consenting adults. #NoJudgment #NoLabels
Perhaps others with social progress, right? Friends with “benefits”, etc.
The link is to a press release, not the statute itself. Statutes have many sections and thousands of words, so you have to quote (or paraphrase) the language you believe violates the constitution, and explain what portion of the constitution it violates, and why.
If you claim it’s unconstitutional in highly general terms (as you’ve done) but don’t explain why, then your claim is worthless. If you don’t want to actually read the legislation before stating it is unconstitutional, then the press release lists the three items below. Perhaps you could explain why they are unconstitutional.
So, for example, what aspect of the US or Florida constitution requires public school teachers to provide instruction about sexual orientation or gender identity to kindergarten through third graders? What portion of the constitution requires such instruction to not be age-appropriate after 3rd grade, etc?
—
HB 1557 takes three key steps to protect students and put power back in the hands of parents:
(1) This bill prohibits classroom instruction about sexual orientation or gender identity in K-3 classrooms, and after 3rd grade, these conversations need to be age-appropriate.
(2) The bill ensures that at the beginning of every school year, parents will be notified about healthcare services offered at the school, with the right to decline any service offered.
The bill ensures that whenever a questionnaire or health screening is given to K-3 students, parents receive it first and provide permission for the school to administer the questionnaire or health screening to their child.
The bill prohibits teaching students in a manner that encourages discussion of sexual orientation. This means that a FL Second Grade teacher violates HB 1557 by having students read and discuss any story, which includes a family unit, including a family with a father and a mother. A book with such characters would “encourage discussion about sexual orientation” in violation of the Act because the book invites this discussion. This language is in Section 3 of the Act.
Additionally, Florida State Science Standard SC.2.L.16 requires teachers to teach that the “offspring of plants and animals are similar to, but not exactly like, their parents or each other.” How can a teacher teach this standard without talking about what a student’s parents look like? This is another direct conflict because it would “encourage discussion about sexual orientation.” When a female student says, “But I have two dads and they don’t look like me,” what should the teacher do?
If you disagree, can you point to a single part of the law, which provides greater detail regarding the meaning of “encourage”? Nowhere in the Act does it explain what it means to encourage discussion about sexual orientation.
The law is is intentionally worded poorly and is intentionally vague, which leads to these ridiculous results. The reason for this is to invite parents to bring lawsuits. The worst part of the law is the private right of action. This is meant to scare FL teachers (and school districts) to comply with the demands of vocal parents with fringe beliefs.
So you think the law is bad policy. That’s a separate debate. Even if we assume for argument’s sake that you’re right, bad policy does not equate to unconstitutional. You haven’t explained what clause of the Florida or US Constitution it violates, and why.
Sorry, I should have clarified that I am not the original Anonymous.
And no, it isn’t just “bad” policy. It isn’t even articulated well enough to be a policy, and this is best case to make regarding unconstitutionality. In Florida, Brown v. State set the standard for unconstitutional vagueness (following the federal standard as cited below):
“The standard for testing vagueness under Florida law is whether the statute gives a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what constitutes forbidden conduct. Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 162, 92 S. Ct. 839, 31 L. Ed. 2d 110 (1972). “The language of the statute must `provide a definite warning of what conduct’ is required or prohibited, `measured by common understanding and practice.'” Warren v. State, 572 So. 2d 1376, 1377 (Fla. 1991) (quoting State v. Bussey, 463 So. 2d 1141, 1144 (Fla. 1985)). Because of its imprecision, a vague statute may invite arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. Southeastern Fisheries, 453 So. 2d at 1353. A statute is not void for vagueness if the language “`conveys sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices.'” Hitchcock v. State, 413 So. 2d 741, 747 (Fla.) (quoting United States v. Petrillo, 332 U.S. 1, 8, 67 S. Ct. 1538, 91 L. Ed. 1877 (1947)), cert. denied, *843 459 U.S. 960, 103 S. Ct. 274, 74 L. Ed. 2d 213 (1982). https://law.justia.com/cases/florida/supreme-court/1994/81189-0.html
Finally, one could argue that the law is so vague and poorly worded that it violates Art. 9, Sec. 1 of Florida’s state Constitution: “(a) The education of children is a fundamental value of the people of the State of Florida. It is, therefore, a paramount duty of the state to make adequate provision for the education of all children residing within its borders. Adequate provision shall be made by law for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools that allows students to obtain a high quality education and for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of institutions of higher learning and other public education programs that the needs of the people may require.” By providing vague, contradictory language that invites parents to sue school districts for simply trying to comply with state education standards, the State of Florida is not providing a “high quality of education”. And the result is a system that is neither “uniform” (see different book bans by different schools and districts), “efficient” (see the wasted state capital spent to handle dumb parent lawsuits), nor “safe” (see the alienation of students with same sex parents).
Well if it’s that clear-cut that the statute is void for vagueness, then there will be an inevitable lawsuit challenging it and it will be struck down. Let’s see if that happens.
And returning to the topic of this article, do you think it’s good corporate policy for private corporations to become combatants in political issues that aren’t related to their area of business?
I have no problem with it. Provided corporation’s are not acting in an ultra vires manner, I see it no differently than when a company donates money to Princeton (see the classic ultra vires case AP Smith Mfg Co v. Barlow from the ’50s) : https://casetext.com/case/ap-smith-mfg-co-v-barlow)
If you don’t like it, then don’t buy Disney products. Anyone, who actually believes in capitalism should not want to muzzle corporations for exercising their freedom of speech. For this reason, I also supported Hobby Lobby’s rights to provide health care that denied certain contraceptive coverage for employees. Did you support Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., and if so, how can you support it while being opposed to Disney’s rights?
To discuss the topic it’s important to distinguish the corporation’s rights from the question of good or wise policy. I was only asking about policy, not rights. The executives are gaining popularity points and promotions while losing money for the shareholders they are working for.
Hobby Lobby is different because it is privately held, not publicly traded. The owners can serve their own interests with their own money; if it costs them money, it is their own money they are losing. It is not OPM (other people’s money).
Your distinction regarding private and public companies does not reflect American corporate law. Private companies are beholden to their shareholders, too. There is no way the Green Family owns 100% of the stock of Hobby Lobby. Public companies are subject to additional regulatory oversight, which includes greater transparency. That does not mean that private companies cannot be sued by minority shareholders for violating their fiduciary duties.
I am not an executive of large consumer-facing company and would not comment on the merits of the policy. However, one should note that Disney tried to stay out of the debate entirely at first and was crucified by the other side of the aisle for abstaining from corporate social responsibility. Thus, for consumer-facing companies, there really is no policy of neutrality.
We know Disney lost hundreds of millions or even billions from its woke programming, but is there any basis to believe Hobby Lobby lost money from its health insurance policy?
OMFK
“There is no way the Green Family owns 100% of the stock of Hobby Lobby.”
“there is no way”…realy? You can’t make an argument based on that, sorry.
How can a public school educate children by ignoring this?
There is no need to educated an 8 year old about marriage.
I would educate them, anthropologically, Unions became the rule to assure the offspring had food and shelter.
Gays have no need to be married, because they cant reproduce.
Lesson finished.
Marriage is not sexual orientation. Are you aware of the difference? If you don’t think elementary students are aware of the concept of “love,” then step inside any K-3 classroom in America. You must not have received any V-Day candy from a “sweetheart.”
Marriage is not sexual orientation.
Did you see my part about anthropologically? The means the animal part of us. Hell, even some animal mate for life and share child care chores. (not the gay animals because gays cant reproduce)
Marriage is a social construct, created long before governments were created. It is built around the truth that the human race needs a male and female to successfully raise the human race.
The entire start of gay marriage was not kicked off by love. It was kicked off by a lesbian couple the found out let in life, the govt was going to take a huge chunk of their wealth. What pissed them off was taxes. And, that regular married couples get a big reprieve from the theft. So it was money, not love that got all this started. And its all because homosexuals can’t create babies.
Neither can infertile heterosexuals….
Bonobos love gay sex
Irrelevant to the max.
Not even a parting gift for you
You of course missed the huge problem in you teaching 5 year olds about gay sex.
It is NOT what is taught.
But. WHO has the power to decide WHAT is taught.
So trot off on your troll legs until you can answer simple questions
The school districts. That’s an easy one.
If you don’t like what the school districts are doing, elect different school board members.
This idea that every Tom, Joe, and Sally know how what’s best for their child is ridiculous. Case in point – you, not knowing that 5 year olds know what love is.
There are second grade classrooms in America (for example the one in the next district over from where I taught), where 7-8 yr olds are engaging in sexual acts. You as the parent have no idea what happens in the classroom.
So along that argument do you consider that Muslim Americans have the legal right to object to their tax dollars funding Israel in perpetuity?
I am not disputing, just sincerely asking what the wording in the act is that would prohibit such discussion. So many generalizations have been made about our law. A more relevant question, however, is why a teacher would find it beneficial to teach such to a child under 8 years old.
Same-sex parents and either a rent-a-woman… womb or sperm donor. Betsy has a mother and father, if only as a commodity.
Would it be “woke” to teach kids about the “Loving v. Virginia” U.S. Supreme Court case in 1967? Would there be parental rights to shield children from learning about this ruling? Some religious conservatives used Christian Bible verses to oppose interracial marriage, legalized by this court case.
Today some top Republicans couldn’t currently be married if not for “Loving v. Virginia” legalizing interracial marriage.
If Disney in 1967 supported this court ruling and opposed a constitutionally-subversive governor – would that be “woke”?
Would it be “woke” to teach kids about the “Loving v. Virginia” U.S. Supreme Court case in 1967?
No.
(Not same Anonymous), but you you didn’t answer the second question.
Under the Florida “parental rights” law, there absolutely could be a case made by any parent who did not deem Loving v. Virginia to be developmentally appropriate for X grade. Growing up in Florida, I remember first learning about Loving in 5th Grade Social Studies class, when we first discussed the Civil War / Slavery in some depth.
A Fifth Grade teacher is no longer likely to bring up important topics related to the Civil Rights Movement because of this terrible law.
Loving v. Virginia didn’t have to do with sexual orientation or gender identity. And by your own account you were beyond the third grade at the time you learned of it. Why wouldn’t a fifth grade teacher be likely to bring up important topics related to the Civil Rights Movement? Age-appropriate lessons are permitted. Do you want age-inappropriate lessons?
“Loving v. Virginia didn’t have to do with sexual orientation or gender identity.”
Spoken like a man who has never read Loving v. Virginia. Do you know the law that Lovings were charged with? The Lovings pleaded guilty to “cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth.” This law deals directly with heterosexual sexual relations. Do you disagree?
Why wouldn’t a fifth grade teacher be likely to bring up important topics related to the Civil Rights Movement?
Spoken like a man who has never taught an elementary school class (or at least a class, where students were able to respond and ask questions). When engaged, students will ask questions about the subject material. That is how they are able to connect with the content. The law applies to more than just the material the teacher intends to present (i.e., lesson plans). It applies to any material that ENCOURAGES discussion about the topics the state believes are taboo. In a fifth grade class, in which the teacher introduces Loving v. Virginia, students will absolutely ask why interracial marriage was prohibited. And they will absolutely ask why the Court limited the right to heterosexual, interracial couples. The fear of this topic developing into a discussion of taboo topics is enough to dissuade any teacher from teaching it for fear of being sued under the law.
“Age-appropriate lessons are permitted. Do you want age-inappropriate lessons?”
Spoken like a man who has never read the Florida law. What is an “age-appropriate lesson?” The statute does not say. This intentionally vague language gives any parent the opportunity to sue because they think discussion about X is not appropriate. What you think is inappropriate will not be the same as the next parent, and THIS is the problem. So, the question you are really asking is, “Do you want the school district to spend millions of tax dollars to litigate parental lawsuits over intentionally vague statutory language?” My answer to that question is, “No, I do not want the school district to waste money.”‘
When I was in my 20s, I taught fifth grade for several years. We studied mathematics, language and the basics of American history, science basics and short lessons in geography. That was a lot to cram into a short time.
The biggest challenge was behavior and I ran a tight ship. This was a very tough school. Children learned there were consequences for poor behavior and rewards for good.
I can also say that children that age are brutally honest. They also have a sense of justice. They balked a little at the rules but when the bully was also punished, they loved it. No kid wants to be terrorized by a bully who ignores the rules and gets away with it.
The whole notion of social engineering and indoctrination is bizarre. It is foolish as well. Unless the student is gaining mathematical and language skills, they are being cheated out of their full potential.
“Hey!! Teacher!! Leave them kids alone!!!”
Interracial marriage was never illegal, except in some, select jurisdictions. Republicans were chartered to confront the progress of both slavery, and diversity (i.e. color judgments) in democratic/dictatorial enclaves.
38% of states had anti-miscegenation laws in 1967 (when Loving v. Virginia was decided).
What does “select jurisdictions” mean to you?
What does “select jurisdictions” mean to you?
Jurisdictions run by Democrats.
…. This is why we need better education in this country.
English class would hopefully give you a better idea of the meaning of “select.” The irony is that by using the term “select,” the identified group is considered favored or valuable by the writer (which in this case for you would be the racist Democrats).
History would hopefully covered the Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” and the party realignment of the 1960s. The party platforms changed as a result. Whether there is “R” or a “D” next to a governor’s name is irrelevant to whether an anti-miscegenation law was in effect.
Loving v. Virginia was a landmark case that immediately affected over a third of all US states.
Missiles fired.
…you tell me over and over again. my friend, ahh you don’t believe, we’re on the eve of destruction…
I read 90% of your posts . The other 10% are “free speech” pieces of which there are just too many for me.
THIS POST WAS MAGNIFICENT !!
Mickey Mouse got a sex change. Mickey is hanging out in the Disney bathrooms.
As you probably know Mickey is coming for ya. Mickey is coming to getcha.
After workers unionize, four decade-old gay nightclub Berlin closes
https://chicagocitywire.com/stories/652617662-after-workers-unionize-four-decade-old-gay-nightclub-berlin-closes
Not the first time I have read about a local bar, cafe, restaurant unionize and then the establishment closes.
Go woke, get forced to close.
Dang shame, no sarc implied.
Disney’s latest, Wish, got hammered by critics and at the box office.
But, hey! Godzilla, Minus One comes out on Dec 1st!
The movement of Corporate Leadership towards what today is called “Woke” has similar roots to what was called “Fabianism”. Progressive taxation, correcting supposed social inequalities, institutions controlled by trained intellectuals to the utopian nirvana of social democracy / ‘MARKETS BE DAMNED’.
The course of the woke may have the same results as Robert Owen had in New Harmony, Indiana, at least let’s hope so!!!
Jonathan: Adam Smith was not an economist. He was a moral philosopher–see his “The Theory of Moral Sentiments”. He never used the word “capitalism”. That term didn’t come about until the late 19th century when Karl Marx found the secret to capitalism–the theory of “surplus value”.
And I think Smith would be appalled by modern capitalism–the extreme concentration of wealth in a few transnational corporations. That is not how Smith thought of the “invisible hand” of the market. In his “The Wealth of Nations” he said: “They who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people should have a share of the produce of their own labor as to themselves tolerably fed, clothed, and lodged”. In other words, if you work hard, you should make a decent living. Adam Smith is greatly misunderstood and his views distorted by the supporters of modern capitalism.
Disney is not the only large corporation to take a stand on social issues–like abortion, LGBTQ and Black voting rights. In Georgia companies like Delta Airlines and Coca Cola opposed the state GOP’s 2021 election laws–saying they were based on the lie about widespread voter fraud and accusing the GOP of trying to restrict Black voting rights. DJT attacked the positions of Delta and Coca Cola calling for boycotts of their brands. GOP politicians said the companies were pursuing “radical left priorities”–such as paying for travel expenses for employee abortions and supporting the Black Lives Matter movement.
But surprisingly, many large corporations have not suffered by their stances on social issues. Last month Delta announced record profits–revenue growth of 20% over 2022. Same for Nike. In 2023 the shoe maker reported over $22 million in profits–up over 2022. Nike’s support for Colin Kaepernick and its funding of Black community programs have not affected its bottom line. That’s because recent polls show 70% of consumers want brands to take a stand on social issues. 75% to 80% of young people feel the same.
So, despite Disney’s problems in Florida, I doubt Adam Smith would be giving Mickey Mouse the “middle finger”.
Benjamin Franklin was not a scientist he was a printer.
Are you for real Dennis ?
Adam Smith is to economics what Sigmund Freud is to psychology – with one difference.
Freud got alot wrong. I am hard pressed to think of anything in Wealth of Nation that is incorrect.
You are correct that Smith never used Capitolism – I rarely do. Capitolism is a term adopted by Marx, intended to be derogatory.
Capital is an important component in free market economics which have produced rapid rises in standard of living that no other system has EVER come close to.
But capital is not the entire system.
You can think whatever you wish – but you would be incorrect.
Smith made perfectly clear that beyond a relatively low level the uber wealthy are working entirely for others.
The left (and Adam Smith) often correctly notes that the uber rich can not possibly enjoy all the wealth they possess
There is only so many 5 start meals, multimillion dollar homes, Gulf V jests and mega Yatchs that any individual can enjoy.
The wealth of the top 10% is nearly entirely INVESTED.
It creates jobs, and goods and services for the rest of us.
And it is absolutely critical to the rise of standard of living.
The human condition is improved when we produce more of what we want and need with less human effort.
So how is it we are able to do that ? Capital.
The massive wealth that Musk and other like him are NOT consuming is used to enable fewer humans to produce more value.
Here is an excellent explanation. The success of the west as compared to the rest of the world is entirely do to the fact that the west has
made is possible for everyone – not just the uber wealthy to use the capital that they have to improve their lives.
The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else
https://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Capital-Capitalism-Triumphs-Everywhere/dp/0465016154
John Say, freedom of the press and speech, and all other constitutional rights and freedoms, are absolute.
The child abuse and other actions required to generate child pornography are illegal.
Publication and purchase of child pornography are criminal aiding and facilitation of child abuse et al.
Publishers will go directly to jail.
Child pornography cannot exist because all acts to produce it are criminal acts.
Smith is greatly misunderstood – by the left.
Regardless, Smith either beleived as I claim, or he was wrong in his beleifs.
Because the views YOU claim we attribute to Smith are not merely correct,
But overwhelmingly proven correct.
It took the first 300,000 years of human existance to double life expectance. To double standard of living.
Since Smith the west doubles standard of living 2-5 times in a lifetime.
The impetus to that, the driving force behind the change is the accumulation and use of Capital in free markets.
Everything that YOU think is good in the world today – including the things you think have Driven improvements in the human condition are actually driven by free market capitalism.
The rapid advance of science and technology that improves our lives is the consequence of free market capitalism.
Even the amazing modern success of Chine – and to a lessor extent india and a few other under developed countries in the past 70 years is ENTIRELY the consequence of free market capitalism.
How China Became Capitalist
is an excellent and easy to read book by Ronald Coase – one of the top 4 economics of the past century.
https://www.amazon.com/How-China-Became-Capitalist-Coase/dp/1137351438
One of the things Coase notes is that free markets and self government while mutually beneficial, are not inseparable.
China went from a failed socialist command economy to an economy that was about 50% free market capitalist.
And it did so without adopting democracy or self government. The result of this post Mao partial adoption of free market capitalism
was that standard of living in China – which had not risen in over a century went from about $90/person/year to around 11,000 per person per year today.
The ideas of the left to the extent they are implimented cause suffering and reduce the rate of improvement in the human condition – sometimes sufficient to drive it to actual decline.
Free markets – to the extent they are implimented ALWAYS improve the human condition.
Left Wing nuts have spent almost two centuries trying to “get socialism right” failing every single time – from the french revolution right through to modern woke nonsense.
Nothing in human history has caused more misery and bloodshed that the statist ideas of left wing nuts.
Nothing in human history has caused more improvement in the human condition that free people engaged in free exchange.
Absolutely Smith was a moral philosopher – Free people engaged in free exchange is the only moral system.
I would despute your claims regarding the success of actually woke businesses, as always you are unfamiliar with the facts and the way the real world works.
But ultimately deputing your claims is irrelevant.
If businesses succeed supporting woke causes – that is precisely how the free market is supposed to work.
The success or failure of ALL businesses in an actual free market rests entirely on their delivering to their customers what those customers value.
As Turley noted – Disney has had flop after flop. That LITERALLY means – they have NOT delivered what their customers wanted.
You and I can debate details – though to most those are obvious.
What is NOT debateable is that Disney did NOT deliver what its customers wanted – and the customers punished disney for that.
That is how free markets work.
You say 70% of people support Woke businesses. For a mass market business that is NOT ENOUGH.
Regardless, the extent to which Disney has failed to make its customers happy is Evident in its tanking sales.
The same is True of Anheiser Bush. In fact there are myriads of modern examples of “go woke, go broke”.
But again – MY individual view regarding a businesses choice to publicly advocate for specific values is relevant only to MY free choices.
And YOUR individual view is relevant to YOUR free choices. The future success of Disney or Delta, or AHB or … depends on the sum of all of our choices.
“They who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people should have a share of the produce of their own labor as to themselves tolerably fed, clothed, and lodged”.
Elsewhere in WON Smith answered exactly how that works.
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chuses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens”
I would separately note that though Smith in a FEW places in WON dabbled in a “labor theory of value” – Marxism. Ultimately he rejected it.
“All money is a matter of belief.”
Adam Smith
Value is what a willing buyer and what a willing sellor agree to.
Smith was ultimately smart enough to reject all the bogus ideas – such as the labor theory of value.
With respect to YOUR Smith quote who is it who feeds, clothes and lodges the whole body of people ?
Even in Smith’s time the relatively low importance of labor was already self evident.
I REPEATEDLY cite the means by which we improve the human condition
Standard of living rises when more of what humans value is produced by less human effort.
There is no other way to increase standard of living. The limits to standard of living are the production of infinite human values, with zero human effort.
Labor is an OPTIONAL component of the production of food, shelter, ….
I would further note – another stupid ignorant economic fallacy of the left.
NO ONE is actually paid for the amount of labor they perform. We are all directly or indirectly paid for the VALUE WE PRODUCE.
Most of us do not see that. Regardless, you will be fired if you do not produce more value than you are paid.
You will be fired if someone else is available to produce what you produce at lower cost.
You will be replaced by a machine – if that machine can produce more than you at lower cost.
This is both absolutely true, and it is the driver of rising standard of living.
In the long run you can only raise your own standard of living by producing more than you are paid.
Your Labor is the LEAST significant way for you to produce, and the one we work the hardest to reduce.
Labor is not an accomplishment to be celebrated it is a cost to be reduced.
We can not improve standard of living without reducing the labor needed to produce value.
Adam Smith is not giving Disney the “middle finger” – the “invisible hand” is.
Nothing in all of free market economics is intrinsically linked to any system of ideolgoical values EXCEPT that greater individual freedom will result in greater improvement in the human condition.
All other values are independent of free markets.
With very few exceptions – all error, WON does not tell people what they SHOULD beleive. It tells us how standard of living is improved.
That is litterally the subject of the book “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations”
HOW DOES THE ECONOMY WORK.
The principles of economics DO NOT tell us what we should value.
What they tell us is that producers benefit most by focusing on what consumers value, and consumers benefit most by focusing on what producers value.
That is the litteral meaning of Turley’s quote – one of the most important observations in WON
“It is not from the benevolence of the Butcher, the Brewer or the Baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”
You claim in your post that Businesses that have adopted Woke values have succeeded.
And that businesses that reflect woke values is what people want.
If you are correct – the market has spoken. The invisible hand has worked.
As I pointed out in a prior post. The free market has ZERO intrinsic values EXCEPT maximizing individual freedom.
The less free people are the less well markets work.
While Markets DO NOT have any other intrinsic values, they absolutely REFLECT our values.
Woke businesses will succeed if that is actually what customers want from their businesses.
They will FAIL is that is not what they want.
It would specifically note that CUSTOMER is not the same as people – it is a subset.
I will take your word for it that Nike and Delta are doing fine – though I am not sure why I would as you are not trustworthy.
Regardless, Disney and AHB have been SLAMMED by the “invisible hand”, and myriads of others like Victoria Secret have changed their marketing in response to customer feedback aka sales.
By definition that means Disney and AHB have FAILED to give their customers what they want.
That they do NOT reflect the values of their customers.
I do not have a problems with freedom – with businesses free to decide what they beleive their consumers want – and consumers making the choice by buying or not.
Where you and I part company – is that you do NOT want that freedom.
You want Delta, and Disney and Nike and … to reflect YOUR values – regardless of whether those values are the values of those companies consumers. Not only do you want that – but you want to accomplish that by FORCE.
I want the people who drink beer to decide by their purchases what values they want Beer companies to reflect.
I want parents to decide what values producers of kids movies should reflect.
I want the people who travel by air to decide what values airlines should reflect.
I want people who buy sneakers to decide what values sneaker companies should reflect.
I want people who buy lingerie to decide what values lingerie companies should reflect.
What I do not want is YOU or government deciding for us by FORCE – which is what happens when the SEC requires companies to meet ESG goals.
John Say,
“Adam Smith is not giving Disney the “middle finger” – the “invisible hand” is.”
That right there.
I am not going to see a Disney movie, as I have no interest for their product. Disney is pandering to a very small subset of society interests.
Just like I would not expect some of those in that subset be willing to pay to see some action movie.
The MCU/Disney movie Thor: Love and Thunder came out and I was totally unware of the fact only when actress Natalie Portman made a remark about it being the gayest MCU movie to date, or something like that. Okay. What does that have to do with the plot/storyline? Aside from being woke for woke-sake it does not add anything. Why would I go spend money to get wokeism shoved in my face? Not interested.
One thing people tend to forget is in a Capitalist society, we have free will. I can have $5k in cash in my wallet, walk into a mall, spend two and a half hours and not buy a thing. I see no value in their products or wares, I do not have to buy.
“That term didn’t come about until the late 19th century . . .”
That’s false. The term “capitalism” originated the the mid-19th century in France.
“Karl Marx found the secret to capitalism–the theory of “surplus value”. [sic]”
And that’s a Marxist myth, used to rationalize government redistribution of wealth and property. The essence of capitalism is production and voluntary exchange (free trade).
Mickey The Rat chugs Bud Light before having gay sex!
The very Conservative U.S. Supreme Court ruled that equal marriage rights and equal adoption rates apply to all Americans – including LGBT Americans. Every public school in the USA is required to follow those rulings.
Real Conservatives used to respect high court rulings. These are constitutional rulings are built upon previous legal and constitutional cases like equal marriage rights for mixed-race married couples in the 1960’s.
Is it “woke” for any company to follow the rulings from an ultra-conservative U.S. Supreme Court? George W. Bush’s Solicitor General (Conservative Christian) won this case in court supporting equal rights for LGBT-Americans.
If a company goes well beyond the court’s ruling, sometimes that’s fair game for criticism, but this is back & forth is normal. When women were granted equal rights and equal voting rights, it took a few decades to find the right balance.
Is it “woke” for any company to follow the rulings from an ultra-conservative U.S. Supreme Court?
What does a SCOTUS ruling have to do with marketing beer? Or making a movie?
Why attempt to insert some irrelevant piece of info into this discussion.
You may squirm, but business must make a profit, or they perish.
If you are marketing entertainment to children, it is not only “woke”, but reprehensible.
The ‘woke’ fad is on the path to ignominy. Is Bob Iger so old school that he will facilitate his name and Disney shareholders to be used as examples by the Adam Smith disciples?
“Disney acknowledges that “we face risks relating to misalignment with public and consumer tastes and preferences for entertainment, travel and consumer products.” In an implied nod to Smith, the company observes that “the success of our businesses depends on our ability to consistently create compelling content,” and that “Generally, our revenues and profitability are adversely impacted when our entertainment offerings and products, as well as our methods to make our offerings and products available to consumers, do not achieve sufficient consumer acceptance. Further, consumers’ perceptions of our position on matters of public interest, including our efforts to achieve certain of our environmental and social goals, often differ widely and present risks to our reputation and brands.”
*******************************
It’s not nice to fool Mother Capitalism. Oh and the problem isn’t wokeness; its believing that wokeness is a viable business, education or government model. Disney, Target, Bud Light have learned. Now that lesson will be meted out to colleges and those electorally empowered Dims. Eventually, we do get away from mass stupid – unless you’re a radicalized Dim, that is. The wake of woke destruction will be long time mending.
Since the Florida Parental Rights nonsense I have cancelled my Disney + subscription, cancelled plans to take grandkids to Disney World, and stopped seeing any Disney films in the theater. I WAS a loyal Disney customer but have completely lost faith in the company. Can’t imagine how disappointed Walt would be to see what has become of his creation.