6
Western Companies Are Now Paying for Russia Sanctions
(foreignpolicy.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2024
6 points (57.5% liked)
World News
32314 readers
519 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Shouldn't have invested in Russia. It was a bad business decision and you have to live with the consequences. The article is written as if the West is to blame for the sanctions. The facts are very clear: Russia invaded.
The writing was on the wall for years. Ukraine warned the EU, the Baltics had been concerned for years, and these companies idiotically increased their investments in Russia. At the latest once the war started it should've been clear that exiting Russia was going to be necessary, if not forced.
Want to blame somebody? Blame Russia.
Why did Russia do that?
Just randomly. Ignore anything from 2014 to 2022. Putin woke up one day and decided invading Ukraine would be rad. Events always happen disconnected from each other, don't you know? While you're at it, also ignore anything from 1990 to 2014. Nothing to see here, move on.
aww somebody doesn't understand how capitalism works
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.
Should really ask for your money back for your degree buddy. You got scammed.
It very much does, and that's precisely why we see constant crashes within the capitalist system.
You are so clearly projecting here, it's not even funny.
What money back? I told you i live in a social democratic welfare state. Education is free for all citizens. But I'm sure you have a degree in economics and know better. Right?
We see different crashes in different sectors, in different countries for reasons so much more complex than i can explain to you here. You're talking full on course material. Not that you would care to listen anyway.
So which one are you referring to exactly? Which country to start with. There is not one singular capitalistic system that encompasses them all. Reality is more nuanced than that.
This is proof of how you are being dishonest when you keep referring to "the west" and "the capitalist system". You've been on lemmy preaching this stuff for how long exactly?
And that is another fantastic "nuh uh. You are!" What a response.
I know plenty of people with degrees in my industry who can't tell their head from their ass. Having a degree doesn't mean you actually understand what you're talking about, and the fact that you can't make a coherent point here is proof of that.
The specific reasons for each crash are different, however we're discussing underlying mechanics that lead to these crashes happening on regular basis. If you actually learned anything when you earned your degree, then you'd understand that. You might want to think about why China hasn't been experiencing such crashes over the past decades.
The proof is that you haven't actually managed to make a coherent argument here. I gave you detailed examples of the mechanics that create short term thinking within capitalism. You just ignored that and keep repeating nonsense smugly.
🤡
Yeah you have not interest in anything that has to do with reason.
Underlying mechanics. Such as what exactly? What underlying mechanic are you referring to that is the same everywhere? You want so badly to dumb it down to a level you can understand but it's just not that simple.
You're trying to derive a problem without considering that you might just have more than 1 root.
And I've explained to you the mechanic of "short term investing to maximize profits" are just buzzwords you use. Like a child saying words they hear on TV without understanding their meaning.
Can you for once actually be specific? What industry? What country?
I see you have problems with reading comprehension, which explains a lot about the way you attempt to argue with people. Here's an article that you won't bother reading with lots of specific examples, focusing on the US, but applicable to all countries under financial capitalist regimes.
https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2021/08/the-value-of-nothing-capital-versus-growth/
It's hilarious how you keep screeching for detailed and specific examples while you've already ignored detailed explanations you were provided. You haven't made any actual argument here, no counterpoints, and just keep bleating how you "live in a social democratic welfare state", which is what using buzzwords in place of an argument actually looks like.
You're utterly clueless, and you're not fooling anybody here.
So you are focusing on the US in particular. And no. All information here is not applicable to all countries in "the west"*
The US has a long history of non regulatory practices. Yes. They have plenty of short sighted companies that thrive on short term high risk strategies to gain fast expansion to which they can then fall to for more controlled growth (at least that's supposed to be the plan). Partly due to how bankruptcy laws and business loans are stipulated.
The consequence of failing dramatically isn't that severe. You can just try again.
But this falls back to what you seemingly cannot comprehend. "The west" is not the US. The US is not "The west".
And US have plenty of companies that are very boring and engadge in long term plans where short term losses are accepted as part of long term growth. But like I've said. You won't find them in your feed because it's incredibly boring and normal. Just like you don't read in the news about Jonathan that had 2 sandwiches for breakfast. It's not newsworthy.
You've offered very little explanation of anything. More akin to. "It's this way because I say so, oh and its the underlying mechanic of all global trade everywhere", I'm not sure why you're trying to claim i don't put in any arguments. There is plenty of them. But you elect to not adress any and default to some kind of insult because you have nothing to respond with.
I'm not screeching for details. I'm asking you to provide any at all. You speak in these globally broad terms because hey, at least they will apply somewhere. But things are just not that simple.
My reading comprehension is just fine. But if you have nothing but insults to strike back with. That says more about you than me.
*I assume you consider all countries in "the west" and by "the west" I also assume you mean every country located west of Russia and North of South America. Feel free to correct me if that assumption is wrong.
I explicitly said I'm not focusing on the US. I just used it as the most egregious example. Here's an example from Sweden for you instead https://jacobin.com/2019/08/sweden-1970s-democratic-socialism-olof-palme-lo
Ah yes, millions of people having their lives ruined is oopsie daisy. The sheer lack of basic human empathy on display here is stunning.
What you seemingly can't comprehend, having no actual understanding of the subject, is that the system never recovers to the same level. Each crash results in a wealth transfer to the top because regular people and small businesses aren't able to cope with the increase in their expenses. This allows large capitalists to buy up their assets, putting the rest of the population further on the margins. As the system evolves over time, the working majority ends up in increasingly more destitute situation. Hence why US, Europe, and occupied Korea, are all starting to have mass civil unrest and a social crisis.
No, I offered specific mechanics that select for short term thinking, such as quarterly targets, and CEO compensation being directly tired to showing profits in the near term. You continued to ignore these explanations, never addressing them. Instead, you proceeded to bleat about living in a social democratic welfare state. I'm pretty sure you have no clue what any of those words even mean.
I did, and if you work on your reading comprehension you might even figure out what they are.
Anybody who is paying attention to what's happening in the west politically can see that things are indeed that simple. Different countries happen to be in different stages of capitalist development, some still retain a social safety net, while others like the US, have torn it down completely. However, the overall direction of travel is the same, because systemic pressures are the same. People like you just can't see the big picture and large scale trends due to having poor education.
Very clearly it's not, since you continue to claim I didn't provide details when I did.
I'm primarily focusing on countries that are vassals of the US empire here, but what I'm saying applies to any countries under financial capitalist regimes.
I'll be honest. I was going to stop after you seemed to think millions of people get severely affected by startup companies failing.
But I powered through until I reached "occupied korea" to which I assume you're talking about South Korea.
There's nothing to gain here. "Quarterly targets" is your idea of underlying mechanics? Holy shit. This reminds me of the guy arguing about food with someone that drank their own piss.
"Vassals of the US empire"
You've departed reality a long time ago.
Except that's not what I said at all. What I actually said was that millions of people are affected by constant crashes within the capitalist financial system. Startups failing is just a symptom of a much larger problem you're struggling to comprehend here.
I absolutely love how you keep outing yourself as an utter clown.
cope harder
You said that in response to me talking about how "startup culture" has developed in the US. Can you stay in topic for a single comment?
I just explained to you why many startups in the US fail. It's in the comment you just responded to.
The only clown here is you, so used to the makeup you can't even remember it's there.
"Occupied korea", still laughing at that one. Thank you for outing yourself like the koala you are.
At least we can both agree that we wish you could live in the USSR during Stalins era.
Once again showing your lack of reading comprehension here. I was very clear from the start that I was talking about overall systemic pressures within the capitalist system. I guess that's a problem with trying to have discussion with trolls, they just repeat a script and are unable to engage with the actual points being made.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
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.
-10,000 yogthos credit points