US labour watchdog halts Apple cases after group’s lawyer picked for top job(ft.com)
ft.com
US labour watchdog halts Apple cases after group’s lawyer picked for top job
https://www.ft.com/content/ad7fcc22-343e-47e3-a6f3-58bfd4294c9d
307 comments
https://archive.md/ia9vA
Well, this is hilarious timing. The EU certainly isn't going to retract their case, so now Apple products will be divided into "the ones with consumer regulations" and "the ones without".
I hope Americans still have the faith they used to regarding Apple. Looks like we'll be trusting their judgement quite a bit going forwards.
I hope Americans still have the faith they used to regarding Apple. Looks like we'll be trusting their judgement quite a bit going forwards.
> I hope Americans still have the faith they used to regarding Apple
Faith is a good word to use when discussing the true believers following the fruit factory. The company has been very successful in turning commercial transactions into quasi-religious ceremonies and managed to convince people that they can trust their judgement. Well, yes, you can certainly trust their judgement as long as you realise that their judgement revolves around profit maximisation. While this in itself does not need to be a problem is does become a problem when one half goes into the transaction based on faith with the other half being aware of this.
Don't be deluded, you can trust them just as much/little as you can trust other large vendors. If you like their products you can buy them but it does not make sense to 'trust their judgement' once supervision is lifted since it is not a question if they will abuse this trust but when and the answer is they already have, many times over. Every time they claim their products do not offer freedom of choice because of ${reasons} they abuse this trust because they fail to state that ${reasons} is a constant which is initialised as follows:
Faith is a good word to use when discussing the true believers following the fruit factory. The company has been very successful in turning commercial transactions into quasi-religious ceremonies and managed to convince people that they can trust their judgement. Well, yes, you can certainly trust their judgement as long as you realise that their judgement revolves around profit maximisation. While this in itself does not need to be a problem is does become a problem when one half goes into the transaction based on faith with the other half being aware of this.
Don't be deluded, you can trust them just as much/little as you can trust other large vendors. If you like their products you can buy them but it does not make sense to 'trust their judgement' once supervision is lifted since it is not a question if they will abuse this trust but when and the answer is they already have, many times over. Every time they claim their products do not offer freedom of choice because of ${reasons} they abuse this trust because they fail to state that ${reasons} is a constant which is initialised as follows:
const reasons=profit_maximisation> I hope Americans still have the faith they used to regarding Apple.
I hope the opposite. Faith is exploitable and leads to complacency and accepting excuses. I hope Americans do not have faith in Apple and that will either make them work harder to earn and keep that trust, or that it’ll lead to the mask coming down. Having trust in someone covertly deceiving you looks like the worst possible outcome.
I hope the opposite. Faith is exploitable and leads to complacency and accepting excuses. I hope Americans do not have faith in Apple and that will either make them work harder to earn and keep that trust, or that it’ll lead to the mask coming down. Having trust in someone covertly deceiving you looks like the worst possible outcome.
Faith what now? Yes, it's decent product but...
It's a $3T company. It got there by extracting the maximum possible from customers, app developers, and labor. They are well known for exploiting offshore workers [1] many times over. They force customers to upgrade off working hardware. They force customers to buy multiple devices when one could do the job. There are monopoly complaints world over. Customers who are happy with this have Stockholm Syndrome.
https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/china-ap...
It's a $3T company. It got there by extracting the maximum possible from customers, app developers, and labor. They are well known for exploiting offshore workers [1] many times over. They force customers to upgrade off working hardware. They force customers to buy multiple devices when one could do the job. There are monopoly complaints world over. Customers who are happy with this have Stockholm Syndrome.
https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/china-ap...
Suppress developer wages and abuse the H1B program too.
Don't forget the suicide nets at Foxconn instead of improving working conditions
Not saying they are good, but all tall buildings in Taiwan have suicide nets like the ones mentioned at Foxconn.
The west should copy this, nets are known to prevent a lot of suicide, in general people don't immediately go and try again.
The west should copy this, nets are known to prevent a lot of suicide, in general people don't immediately go and try again.
1) foxconn isn’t apple
2) the suicide rate at the foxconn factory was, even before the nets, lower per capita than the province in which it is situated. using your logic, the foxconn factory simply existing prevents deaths that would have otherwise happened if it did not.
i’m all for calling apple on their shit when warranted, but the suicide nets meme needs to die.
2) the suicide rate at the foxconn factory was, even before the nets, lower per capita than the province in which it is situated. using your logic, the foxconn factory simply existing prevents deaths that would have otherwise happened if it did not.
i’m all for calling apple on their shit when warranted, but the suicide nets meme needs to die.
>> the foxconn factory simply existing prevents deaths that would have otherwise happened if it did not.
That only holds if the foxconn employees were randomly selected from the general population.
That only holds if the foxconn employees were randomly selected from the general population.
If Foxconn workers had either average or worse-than-average mental health (in their country), this outcome appears to be positively impacted by their employer. This seems like a reasonable assumption, unless you have some countervailing information.
Calling out unspoken assumptions can be useful, but it's not a refutation unless the assumptions are unreasonable or demonstrably wrong.
Calling out unspoken assumptions can be useful, but it's not a refutation unless the assumptions are unreasonable or demonstrably wrong.
A reasonable assumption would be that Foxconn has some candidate screening that filters out applicants that may potentially be suicidal.
This argument can also be used in case a company uses child labor, but less of it than someone else. Or for people owning fewer than average slaves.
> Society is saved just as often as the circle of its rulers contracts, as a more exclusive interest is maintained against a wider one. Every demand of the simplest bourgeois financial reform, of the most ordinary liberalism, of the most formal republicanism, of the most shallow democracy, is simultaneously castigated as an “attempt on society” and stigmatized as “socialism.” And finally the high priests of “religion and order” themselves are driven with kicks from their Pythian tripods, hauled out of their beds in the darkness of night, put in prison vans, thrown into dungeons or sent into exile; their temple is razed to the ground, their mouths are sealed, their pens broken, their law torn to pieces in the name of religion, of property, of the family, of order. Bourgeois fanatics for order are shot down on their balconies by mobs of drunken soldiers, their domestic sanctuaries profaned, their houses bombarded for amusement – in the name of property, of the family, of religion, and of order.
^ The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte
Karl Marx
Naked political corruption! Welcome to America in 2025.
And Hacker News gestalt generally thinks politics is off topic - guess what happens to "disruptors" in a crony capitalistic system?
Hacker News and YCombinator, more than anyone, should be at the vanguard of stopping this. It will set innovation back by a decade by the end of the current administration's term.
And Hacker News gestalt generally thinks politics is off topic - guess what happens to "disruptors" in a crony capitalistic system?
Hacker News and YCombinator, more than anyone, should be at the vanguard of stopping this. It will set innovation back by a decade by the end of the current administration's term.
With tech and politics becoming more intermingled each day, it won't be long before we see articles like "[flagged]: The decline of Hacker News in the Era of Techno-Feudalism"
Apple CEO Tim Cook made a personal $1 million "donation" to the Trump inauguration in January 2025:
> Cook, a proud Alabama native, believes the inauguration is a great American tradition, and is donating to the inauguration in the spirit of unity, the sources said.
https://www.axios.com/2025/01/03/tim-cook-apple-donate-1-mil...
> Cook, a proud Alabama native, believes the inauguration is a great American tradition, and is donating to the inauguration in the spirit of unity, the sources said.
https://www.axios.com/2025/01/03/tim-cook-apple-donate-1-mil...
Did Cook, in the spirit of unity, make a similar donation in 2020?
Apple donated $43K in 2021: https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00765040/1513848/f13... I guess the price of a spirit of unity has been undergoing massive inflation.
That is Apple, the corp. This $1m tribute is coming straight from the CEO's pocket.
Presumably not, because that administration wasn't corrupt and wasn't demanding those kinds of things.
Did you also call Obama's inaugural funding as corruption, when he was donated $53 million in 2009 and ~$43 in 2013 ?
Did you also call Biden's inaugural funding as corruption when he was donated ~$62 million ?
Donations included several billionaires - including the Gates family.
Is raising Presidential inaugural funds considered as "corruption" only for one party ? Or only when it crosses ~$100 million like President Trump did ?
Did you also call Biden's inaugural funding as corruption when he was donated ~$62 million ?
Donations included several billionaires - including the Gates family.
Is raising Presidential inaugural funds considered as "corruption" only for one party ? Or only when it crosses ~$100 million like President Trump did ?
> Or only when it crosses ~$100 million like President Trump did ?
I believe you missed another option. The President-elect has been convicted for fraud, is a big believer in quid pro quo, and did similar actions in his first term.
Sometimes it really is about corruption.
I believe you missed another option. The President-elect has been convicted for fraud, is a big believer in quid pro quo, and did similar actions in his first term.
Sometimes it really is about corruption.
Changing the goal posts away from the inaugural funding, I see - because its fine for your side of the aisle - you have no standing there. It is now suddenly back to that horrific judgement by a partisan and corrupt judge whose daughter (Loren Merchan) was a highly-paid (multi-million) political consultant campaigning for Kamala Harris and where a misdemeanor was raised to a felony, then the felony was applied outside the standard five-year statute of limitations for felonies, the prosecution never proved which exact "unlawful means" (campaign finance, tax fraud, etc) Trump intended and where the jury was from Manhattan - which voted ~90% democrat and would have voted guilty for a non-democratic fart.
Sometimes it really is about extreme corruption.
Sometimes it really is about extreme corruption.
Of course not, that would be "political".
Stuff like this doesn't have to be disclosed when given to PACs, so there's no way to really know
Amazon and Meta did too. Then Bezos changed the Washington Post editorial page policy that they could only write about personal liberties and free markets (subtext: not Trump). I wonder what Meta got in return. It seems like this relatively cheap $1M payoff was a subtle “kiss the ring” of the emperor. Good business. Shareholders would approve.
> I wonder what Meta got in return.
Trump dropped his lawsuit against Meta for suspending him after the insurrection.[1] They want to avoid an antitrust trial.[2] They want Trump to pressure the EU into allowing surveillance capitalism.[3] They want influence in negotiations over Section 230.[4]
[1] https://apnews.com/article/trump-meta-settlement-zuckerberg-...
[2] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/meta-ceo-zuckerberg-lobbies...
[3] https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-polit...
[4] https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/section_230_bipartisan_b...
Trump dropped his lawsuit against Meta for suspending him after the insurrection.[1] They want to avoid an antitrust trial.[2] They want Trump to pressure the EU into allowing surveillance capitalism.[3] They want influence in negotiations over Section 230.[4]
[1] https://apnews.com/article/trump-meta-settlement-zuckerberg-...
[2] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/meta-ceo-zuckerberg-lobbies...
[3] https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-polit...
[4] https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/section_230_bipartisan_b...
He was in a tough spot. I’m sure he doesn’t support the admin, but also he knows Apple needs tariff relief, and paying a “donation” to Trump is a good way to do that.
He basically paid $1M to try and save thousands of jobs at Apple (and of course increase Apple’s value)
He basically paid $1M to try and save thousands of jobs at Apple (and of course increase Apple’s value)
That poor, poor powerless company.
Apple is the 8-th largest company in the world by revenue [1]. If they wanted to oppose the admin, they would be uniquely positioned to do so. That they choose not to tells me that either they support the admin or that they choose not to. That they chose the option that shows active support for the admin has a negative impact on my ability to empathize with their CEO.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by...
Apple is the 8-th largest company in the world by revenue [1]. If they wanted to oppose the admin, they would be uniquely positioned to do so. That they choose not to tells me that either they support the admin or that they choose not to. That they chose the option that shows active support for the admin has a negative impact on my ability to empathize with their CEO.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by...
Unfortunately, it's not legal for them to take a political stance to the detriment of their shareholders.
USA, land of the free, where bribery is legally required now?
That is neither what I said nor is it what I'm suggesting. I am saying that their practical ability to "oppose the admin" is limited.
> now
Now ?
Now ?
Wait, is that true? What law is that?
It's most certainly not true. It's the ol' "fiduciary duty" canard. Because it's cheaper to make a product by shoving infants into a meat grinder, the company has no choice but to go buy a meat grinder and start stealing babies because they have a "fiduciary duty to shareholders".
Shareholders can sue, yes, but in the U. S. you can sue anyone for anything, and "suing" is not the same as "winning".
Shareholders can sue, yes, but in the U. S. you can sue anyone for anything, and "suing" is not the same as "winning".
I was careful in how I worded my statement. Clearly, "shoving infants into a meat grinder" is to the detriment of shareholders, because shareholders will lose money if the company does that.
It is also entirely true that you cannot just do whatever you personally want with shareholder money.
The truth here is in the middle.
Apple (well, Cook) certainly did not have to donate to him. But the fact of the matter is that they will have to work with this administration to run their business over the next 4 years, and I am sure that $1m is a small investment to make Cook's life easier.
It is also entirely true that you cannot just do whatever you personally want with shareholder money.
The truth here is in the middle.
Apple (well, Cook) certainly did not have to donate to him. But the fact of the matter is that they will have to work with this administration to run their business over the next 4 years, and I am sure that $1m is a small investment to make Cook's life easier.
> But the fact of the matter is that they will have to work with this administration to run their business over the next 4 years, and I am sure that $1m is a small investment to make Cook's life easier.
This is true. But it has nothing to do with fiduciary duty.
This is true. But it has nothing to do with fiduciary duty.
It's not directly or criminally illegal. It's civilly illegal in the sense that Apple has a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders in their business decision making. In practice, there are quite broad interpretations of what might be considered "good for your shareholders", but someone's personal interests generally wouldn't qualify as that.
If, hypothetically, Cook said "fuck this administration, we don't like their politics, we're not going to work with them", their shareholders could and probably would sue them. Those shareholders could make a case that Cook was asking of his own political interests, point to other organizations that did make exemption deals, and sue for losses in their share value. The reason for this is not entirely wacky: when you borrow someone's money to do something, you can't do your own pet projects with it.
Now that, of course, doesn't mean that Cook had to donate. But Cook is businessman himself, runs Apple to make money, and doing that is his modus operandi.
If, hypothetically, Cook said "fuck this administration, we don't like their politics, we're not going to work with them", their shareholders could and probably would sue them. Those shareholders could make a case that Cook was asking of his own political interests, point to other organizations that did make exemption deals, and sue for losses in their share value. The reason for this is not entirely wacky: when you borrow someone's money to do something, you can't do your own pet projects with it.
Now that, of course, doesn't mean that Cook had to donate. But Cook is businessman himself, runs Apple to make money, and doing that is his modus operandi.
How often is this actually enforced? Elon has been doing a lot of idiotic political stuff that has tanked Tesla's price in the last few weeks. Could someone sue him for that?
It is routine practice for shareholders to sue when their leadership makes questionable decisions. Usually if you search "shareholder lawsuit [stupid thing company leadership did]" you will find results more often than not.
In this case, it's already happening:
https://electrek.co/2025/04/02/nyc-sue-tesla-over-elon-musk-...
In this case, it's already happening:
https://electrek.co/2025/04/02/nyc-sue-tesla-over-elon-musk-...
Result of the Dodge v Ford Supreme Court decision: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
> Under some interpretations, the case also affirmed that the business judgment rule that directors may exercise is expansive, leaving Ford and other businesses a wide latitude about how to run the company, if management decisions can point to any rational link to benefiting the corporation as a whole.
Yes, and the Wiki article goes into detail with some more quotes about the difference between the judicial understanding and the common understanding being different. The ruling didn't invent the idea of shareholder value maximization, but it did reinforce that there are legal limits to acting against it. They acknowledged as a practical matter policing it is probably unlikely to expect except in egregious cases for the reason you cited among others.
But fundamentally, shareholder maximization is the goal stated by both common business sense and legal rulings. I personally believe that long-term optimization rather than short term is a more successful strategy. But in the short term the board could remove him for going against the feds. Shareholders could sue if it caused a drop in value or impacted global operations. Caused by I don't know, tariffs that could have been avoided with a corrupt monetary contribution.
I'd love to actually see a CEO refuse to grease the palm and them get sued for not doing something corrupt. Would be a case to follow.
The point is, as I understand it, that CEOs of publicly traded corps are not afforded the freedom required to make an ideological stand and keep their job.
But fundamentally, shareholder maximization is the goal stated by both common business sense and legal rulings. I personally believe that long-term optimization rather than short term is a more successful strategy. But in the short term the board could remove him for going against the feds. Shareholders could sue if it caused a drop in value or impacted global operations. Caused by I don't know, tariffs that could have been avoided with a corrupt monetary contribution.
I'd love to actually see a CEO refuse to grease the palm and them get sued for not doing something corrupt. Would be a case to follow.
The point is, as I understand it, that CEOs of publicly traded corps are not afforded the freedom required to make an ideological stand and keep their job.
It's incredible that paying fealty to the president is talked about so casually, and framed as just a normal and necessary thing to do.
This is something that should be expected in an absolute monarchy, not a democracy.
This is something that should be expected in an absolute monarchy, not a democracy.
I agree completely, and I think it's disgusting and despicable. But honestly this sort of thing has been happening for many, many decades, maybe even centuries, it's just been done a lot more discreetly in the past. The big difference now is that it's so blatant.
While that might sound like an improvement (and kind of is as at least we're getting more honest), I also view it as a big regression. At least when there's perceived shame in being corrupt, people aspire to be better. When it just becomes routine, I fear it's the beginning of the end.
While that might sound like an improvement (and kind of is as at least we're getting more honest), I also view it as a big regression. At least when there's perceived shame in being corrupt, people aspire to be better. When it just becomes routine, I fear it's the beginning of the end.
That, or these CEOs have no real opinions or principles of their own and simply do what they think will be advantageous for them and their company, and literally no other thought goes into this.
I don't think he "supports" or is "against" this administration, I think it's much simpler: he does not care. I know this is cynical, but if the last three years in the software world has taught us anything, it seems like these tech CEOs regard their employees as expendable, and they're willing to change their political allegiances when they feel like it.
Maybe all of us would do that if put into this position, I don't know, no one wants to give me billions of dollars to run this experiment. Regardless, I'm pretty sure I'm right about this.
I don't think he "supports" or is "against" this administration, I think it's much simpler: he does not care. I know this is cynical, but if the last three years in the software world has taught us anything, it seems like these tech CEOs regard their employees as expendable, and they're willing to change their political allegiances when they feel like it.
Maybe all of us would do that if put into this position, I don't know, no one wants to give me billions of dollars to run this experiment. Regardless, I'm pretty sure I'm right about this.
“Yeah, sucks, but what are you supposed to do? Have to pay the president so he doesn’t use the government to harm my business out of retribution”
No. Reject this.
No. Reject this.
> Apple needs tariff relief
Tim Cook is going to find out very soon what happens to anyone who makes a deal with Donald Trump: he gets what he wants, and they don't get paid.
> I’m sure he doesn’t support the admin
Why, are you a personal friend of his?
The billionaries are the only people who can actually apply a meaningful level of practical opposition to autocratic rulers. Instead they chose to bend the knee, because they think it better fits their self-interest. Which is what their Russian counterparts did with Putin 20 years ago, and where are they now? Either confined inside a pariah state, or dead.
Tim Cook is going to find out very soon what happens to anyone who makes a deal with Donald Trump: he gets what he wants, and they don't get paid.
> I’m sure he doesn’t support the admin
Why, are you a personal friend of his?
The billionaries are the only people who can actually apply a meaningful level of practical opposition to autocratic rulers. Instead they chose to bend the knee, because they think it better fits their self-interest. Which is what their Russian counterparts did with Putin 20 years ago, and where are they now? Either confined inside a pariah state, or dead.
Calling morals vs money a tough spot is pretty weak, especially considering it didn't work.
He literally did support the admin; to claim he doesn’t really is disingenuous. He gave the current admin a million dollars.
If Tim Cook gave you a million dollars, would it be fair to say he doesn’t support you?
It’s silly the kind of gymnastics we engage in to preserve our mental models. The facts are the facts.
If Tim Cook gave you a million dollars, would it be fair to say he doesn’t support you?
It’s silly the kind of gymnastics we engage in to preserve our mental models. The facts are the facts.
Now extend that logic to everyone else, make everyone else a hero.
It's called a bribe
Should we etch swastikas in all iPhones? Not sure how close we are to corporations working under government direction here (part of literal fascism iirc)
Was super disappointing to see him up there at the inauguration. E-mailed [email protected] and told him as much.
Would cancel my Apple family plan but like my family, instead, bought a refurbished second hand iPhone instead of buying a new one recently.
Will be speaking with my wallet in a variety of ways, along with calling, marching, etc. We start here... let's see where we end up. The moment is _now_.
Would cancel my Apple family plan but like my family, instead, bought a refurbished second hand iPhone instead of buying a new one recently.
Will be speaking with my wallet in a variety of ways, along with calling, marching, etc. We start here... let's see where we end up. The moment is _now_.
May as well have emailed [email protected]
He certainly doesn't read your emails, but they do get rolled up in a sentiment analysis most places
[deleted]
Hypothetically, if the Trump regime comes to an end, this could be pretty bad for Apple, couldn't it?
Drain the swamp for sure.
At which point does the ordinary MAGA hat realize Trump isn't working for them?
At which point does the ordinary MAGA hat realize Trump isn't working for them?
My aunt shares AI-generated memes about hispanic and palestinian people crying as they are rounded up by ICE. Her key motivation above all others is making particular groups of people she hates suffer. Everything else is acceptable as long as she gets that.
It's a concerning vision for the country.
It's a concerning vision for the country.
> Her key motivation above all others is making particular groups of people she hates suffer. Everything else is acceptable as long as she gets that.
May I ask, how do you know this? Does she say that about her own motivation? If not, why would she say she does it?
May I ask, how do you know this? Does she say that about her own motivation? If not, why would she say she does it?
Because she gets drunk and sends me endless texts at 2am, often including slurs.
I've spent decades having to deal with this person. I assure you that I am not misrepresenting her.
I've spent decades having to deal with this person. I assure you that I am not misrepresenting her.
Yeah it's unpopular to point this out right now but racism is a key political motivator for a lot of people, with varying degrees of awareness of that. He is working for them.
The people who threw rocks at the Little Rock Nine, the first black kids let into an alabama "White's only" school are barely retired. They still vote.
They never changed their mind.
They never changed their mind.
Damn, I never did the math on this. I have always been of the opinion that racism drives a lot of political behavior but this really drives home how close my US is to an even darker racist past.
The chief justice prior to our current chief justice (Rehnquist) wrote a memo as a clerk arguing against the holding in Brown v Board and bought a house in a neighborhood where it was illegal to sell homes to Jews while he was on the supreme court.
A huge amount of our current law was built by segregationists.
A huge amount of our current law was built by segregationists.
The last confirmed klan-connected lynchings in the US happened in the early 1980s, so possibly within your lifetime depending on age. If not then almost certainly your parents'. We mostly stopped using the term around then, but they didn't stop happening then either.
The south had plenty of politicians in open defiance of desegregation and integration, explicitly saying they would resist the tyranny of the federal government.
The tyranny of being forced to treat black people equally.
Countless communities across the US chose to destroy their infrastructure and amenities (specifically community pools) rather than allow their families to mingle with black people. There's an entire, well documented era of "white flight".
It's a common refrain by conservative voters that "The democrats abandoned the blue collar worker", but note they've been saying this for decades, so the ones that claim "identity politics" are the reason are wrong. Meanwhile they adored Reagan's fiscal policy, which was adopted wholesale by democrats after Reagan's landslide election proved any other fiscal policy was unacceptable to Americans. So nope, that also can't be what people mean by "abandon blue collar workers".
If you follow those claims back, they are from the civil rights era.
When people say "Democrats abandoned the blue collar worker", whether they realize it or not, they are saying "Democrats abandoned the WHITE blue collar worker by supporting black equality and integration".
This is evident if you look at the Democrat politicians who moved to the Republican party between the civil rights era and Reagan, and why they did so. They specify the civil rights act. Strom Thurmond openly switched to the republican party claiming that the Democrat's support and passing of the civil rights act and voting rights act meant they "no longer represented people like him"
This is also clear if you understand the history of black people in the south. It was a core part of southern "heritage" and history that white people were inherently superior to black people. It was a common topic of Sunday sermons during the civil war era for pastors to remind their congregation that it was God's Will that the black man be enslaved by the white, since they were barbarians and the White man was supposed to guide them. This is not an exaggeration.
"History not hate" is a contradiction, because the history WAS hate. Casual, institutional, systemic hate.
Republicans and conservative states have endeavored to not teach this, for decades. People in the south are genuinely taught that the North started the Civil War (outright false), that slavery wasn't the issue (False, several states explicitly submitted documents saying their reasoning for secession was to protect the institution of slavery), and that it was a "state's rights" issue (False, the slave states did not care about states rights, as they attempted to enforce Slave Catching laws in Free states by using federal authority, ie the exact thing they were critiquing the north for, and more importantly, the Confederate government openly talked about dropping the Facade of "states rights" now that they had their own government and could just install an authoritarian system that guaranteed slavery as an institution).
You can read all these Confederate government documents yourself. They were not shy about their intentions because it was a genuinely held belief that the white man was better than the black man.
The tyranny of being forced to treat black people equally.
Countless communities across the US chose to destroy their infrastructure and amenities (specifically community pools) rather than allow their families to mingle with black people. There's an entire, well documented era of "white flight".
It's a common refrain by conservative voters that "The democrats abandoned the blue collar worker", but note they've been saying this for decades, so the ones that claim "identity politics" are the reason are wrong. Meanwhile they adored Reagan's fiscal policy, which was adopted wholesale by democrats after Reagan's landslide election proved any other fiscal policy was unacceptable to Americans. So nope, that also can't be what people mean by "abandon blue collar workers".
If you follow those claims back, they are from the civil rights era.
When people say "Democrats abandoned the blue collar worker", whether they realize it or not, they are saying "Democrats abandoned the WHITE blue collar worker by supporting black equality and integration".
This is evident if you look at the Democrat politicians who moved to the Republican party between the civil rights era and Reagan, and why they did so. They specify the civil rights act. Strom Thurmond openly switched to the republican party claiming that the Democrat's support and passing of the civil rights act and voting rights act meant they "no longer represented people like him"
This is also clear if you understand the history of black people in the south. It was a core part of southern "heritage" and history that white people were inherently superior to black people. It was a common topic of Sunday sermons during the civil war era for pastors to remind their congregation that it was God's Will that the black man be enslaved by the white, since they were barbarians and the White man was supposed to guide them. This is not an exaggeration.
"History not hate" is a contradiction, because the history WAS hate. Casual, institutional, systemic hate.
Republicans and conservative states have endeavored to not teach this, for decades. People in the south are genuinely taught that the North started the Civil War (outright false), that slavery wasn't the issue (False, several states explicitly submitted documents saying their reasoning for secession was to protect the institution of slavery), and that it was a "state's rights" issue (False, the slave states did not care about states rights, as they attempted to enforce Slave Catching laws in Free states by using federal authority, ie the exact thing they were critiquing the north for, and more importantly, the Confederate government openly talked about dropping the Facade of "states rights" now that they had their own government and could just install an authoritarian system that guaranteed slavery as an institution).
You can read all these Confederate government documents yourself. They were not shy about their intentions because it was a genuinely held belief that the white man was better than the black man.
I literally had a 90 year old woman approach me at the dentist yesterday, complementing my Model 3 and telling me "I just love Elon. I had a dream about him last night!" For these types, it's a cult of personality, not logic or policy.
I was also at the gun range last week and overheard a conversation between two Trump supporters. They were outraged by his behavior since taking office, and said outright "if we had to vote again right now, half of us wouldn't vote for him".
I was also at the gun range last week and overheard a conversation between two Trump supporters. They were outraged by his behavior since taking office, and said outright "if we had to vote again right now, half of us wouldn't vote for him".
I've heard similar sentiments expressed as well, even from a person who was a vocal advocate for Trump in this last election. He is still hoping that this is 5D chess and just very temporary pain, but after the blanket tariffs from a couple days ago he's starting to openly admit that he isn't pleased. I guess time will really tell
It’s really embarrassing to admit when you get worked over.
So, never.
So, never.
He is working for them. He hates the same people they hate and he is saving Isreal so that Jesus has some place to come back to…
I would guess never.
Everything bad is blamed on the "others", and the solution is more Trump.
We can only hope enough of the rest of people who supported him will figure it out eventually.
Everything bad is blamed on the "others", and the solution is more Trump.
We can only hope enough of the rest of people who supported him will figure it out eventually.
When the RDF loses its power, of course.
It's gotta be tough! When you've made that your entire personality, it's hard to drop it. You've made friends, and perhaps lost others, by being this person. To just admit "I was wrong" potentially means alienating all of their friends and family. I'd imagine it's why so many people are still so vehemently flat earthers.
It’s especially hard when those beliefs have lead you to justify treating other people horribly. If you’ve gone around accusing people of grooming children for abuse because they thought gay or trans people deserved basic human rights, if you’ve said supporting immigration means supporting rapists and murderers, etc. it’s much harder to come back from that than if it was more traditional policy differences like whether we should have a particular tax rate. I think that’s intentional in some cases, just as with cults where pushing extreme claims and breaking outside ties makes it harder to leave.
Yes it is quite literally a cult. It has all the key characteristics including but not limited to the ones you mention.
And admitting it would mean bursting the bubble of "I'm an intelligent person." (and even "a good person"). It's easier to construct a virtual reality where you're still the one with the clue and everyone else are just utter morons.
Also, with everything being written down nowadays (on your social media), changing your opinion means inviting mockery of past comments being dug up to be flung at you. Then again, the idiots in power seem to have developed a thick skin for this.
A little over a month ago: https://www.npr.org/2025/02/26/g-s1-50605/conspiracy-theorie... / https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43194910
Also, with everything being written down nowadays (on your social media), changing your opinion means inviting mockery of past comments being dug up to be flung at you. Then again, the idiots in power seem to have developed a thick skin for this.
A little over a month ago: https://www.npr.org/2025/02/26/g-s1-50605/conspiracy-theorie... / https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43194910
>"changing your opinion means inviting mockery of past comments being dug up to be flung at you."
This has to be one of the most damaging things about social media, in my opinion. I never really understood why changing your mind about something as you get new information is looked down on and mocked, but it is.
This has to be one of the most damaging things about social media, in my opinion. I never really understood why changing your mind about something as you get new information is looked down on and mocked, but it is.
Seriously. I look at people who made big transitions in opinions with more respect than I do people who have never changed. What are the odds that you'll be correct with every opinion you form the first time? It's time people starting learning Socratic Wisdom again
The social issue go much beyond this. The country to a large degree has sorted itself along party lines. Changing your political opinion in either direction will likely lead to arguments with people you are close to and might get you ostracized from your friend group or even family. For most people this is much worse than being ridiculed online!
> And admitting it would mean bursting the bubble of "I'm an intelligent person." (and even "a good person").
Or, "I do my own research".
Or, "I do my own research".
This is why you keep those friends, and instead of replacing your identity, you keep it and kick out the false profits. We need a Martin Luther moment in MAGA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther
Can you say more about what a Martin Luther moment in MAGA would be? You mean like a MAGA person willing to rise up and (figuratively) nail theses to the door, aka call out the bad parts of the movement? Some people have tried and they get bounced out pretty quickly. Trump is the master at ending people for criticizing him, even lightly
When life gets tougher and the excuses no longer line up; nobody likes to be told they're wrong, even if its objectively obvious
The excuses haven't lined up at any point really that's why they so heavily prioritized creating their own entire separate media ecosystem over the last few decades.
"I was wrong" is really hard to say at the best of times. I sometimes struggle with it when I make a little mistake at work.
Trying to say "I was wrong" after years of making your whole life, social circle, etc. about whatever thing you were wrong about is incredibly hard. It takes a very strong mental to do that. And, I wager for some/most people who fall deep into any cult-like movement (whatever it may be: conspiracies, etc.), they didn't start with a super strong mental fortitude in the first place, making it even more difficult.
Trying to say "I was wrong" after years of making your whole life, social circle, etc. about whatever thing you were wrong about is incredibly hard. It takes a very strong mental to do that. And, I wager for some/most people who fall deep into any cult-like movement (whatever it may be: conspiracies, etc.), they didn't start with a super strong mental fortitude in the first place, making it even more difficult.
I agree completely but the thing I also find puzzling sometimes is how the public discourse seems to have forgotten about the rampant misinformation that's been going on for the last several years. Basically huge numbers of people have been lied to for a long time.
It's almost as if the scope of the corruption and incompetence is so extensive that there isn't enough time to reflect on the misinformation process that everyone was so focused on for so long.
Obviously not everyone succumbed to it but even today the coverage in major outlets is completely distorted. Media just accept what the administration is saying as if it still has some kind of verdicality by virtue of power, a historically unprecedented example of the fallacy of appeal to authority. People constantly arguing that the Trump administration won't actually do this or that, that it's all a bluff, and so forth, are similarly misleading.
The discussions about mandates is bizarre to me for this reason, not just because of the tiny magnitude and minority nature of the electoral win, but because Trump and his administration vehemently denied doing exactly what they are currently doing. They dismissed it as insane paranoid ramblings of a deficient left. It's not just that they are failing to keep an electoral promise, they are doing the exact things they denied that they would do, and criticized their opponents for claiming they would do.
I guess I bring this up because it seems to me a lot of people have basically been lied to. Being a victim has its own shame and reluctance but it seems like a more tractable — and accurate in many cases — way to engage with some people than them being wrong.
It's almost as if the scope of the corruption and incompetence is so extensive that there isn't enough time to reflect on the misinformation process that everyone was so focused on for so long.
Obviously not everyone succumbed to it but even today the coverage in major outlets is completely distorted. Media just accept what the administration is saying as if it still has some kind of verdicality by virtue of power, a historically unprecedented example of the fallacy of appeal to authority. People constantly arguing that the Trump administration won't actually do this or that, that it's all a bluff, and so forth, are similarly misleading.
The discussions about mandates is bizarre to me for this reason, not just because of the tiny magnitude and minority nature of the electoral win, but because Trump and his administration vehemently denied doing exactly what they are currently doing. They dismissed it as insane paranoid ramblings of a deficient left. It's not just that they are failing to keep an electoral promise, they are doing the exact things they denied that they would do, and criticized their opponents for claiming they would do.
I guess I bring this up because it seems to me a lot of people have basically been lied to. Being a victim has its own shame and reluctance but it seems like a more tractable — and accurate in many cases — way to engage with some people than them being wrong.
Consider how many people never realized that Jim Jones didn't have their best interests at heart and now consider that we've fully automated the process that brought those people to that point.
They don’t care. I sent someone a link about NIH cutting funding for the place that created the cancer killing treatment that saved his Wife last year.
“They know what they’re doing.” Is all I get from this baloney.
“They know what they’re doing.” Is all I get from this baloney.
Consider that we're living in a post-truth world, so you may not like the answer.
With enough propaganda, it's easy to blame whatever self-inflicted problem on others.
With enough propaganda, it's easy to blame whatever self-inflicted problem on others.
The US has been corrupt for a long time with its revolving door but it's getting so blatant that frankly it's shocking. As a ruling class, you want to at least pretend to have some illusion of fairness. It's starting to looking some backwater Balkan nation or something.
Not trying to be hostile but while everywhere has corruption, and the US definitely has a history of things to be shameful of, it's been nowhere near the scope of what we're seeing now, at least in recent history.
I see arguments about "this is the way it always has been" as essentially normalizing rampant authoritarian corruption. To me, it's taking projection and accepting it as fact without evidence.
Also, regardless, it seems two wrongs don't make a right, and the appropriate response is to reject it when it it exists.
I see arguments about "this is the way it always has been" as essentially normalizing rampant authoritarian corruption. To me, it's taking projection and accepting it as fact without evidence.
Also, regardless, it seems two wrongs don't make a right, and the appropriate response is to reject it when it it exists.
Not this kind of corruption. There are places where prosecutors have real independence.
I've come to the conclusion though that I prefer that it is now out in the open. There's a better likelihood heads will eventually roll (as a figure of speech).
Pessimistically I think it's more out in the open because they think it won't catch up to them.
I'd say you're half right. Heads do roll in authoritarian regimes.
Why pretend any more? You go full mask off and half the country still cheers you. Trump could get on stage, say "there will be no more elections and I am now king" and half the country will be okay with it while the other half puts their hands in their pocket and feigns helplessness.
His approval rating was 30% before the markets crashed. The only people supporting Trump are his cultists and the congressional Democrats.
If Trump was really so unpopular, Republicans would throw their weight behind getting rid of him or blocking him in Congress. They still believe that is political suicide with their base which means either he is still popular with their base or they believe he is popular with their base which results in the same inaction.
It doesn't matter what his approval rating is as long as republicans that "don't approve of him" still show up at the polls. Which they do.
Because they will insist that "I don't like the guy" right before they participate in a "Trump vs generic democrat" poll where they vote for Trump.
Because they will insist that "I don't like the guy" right before they participate in a "Trump vs generic democrat" poll where they vote for Trump.
Tbf generic democrat has even lower poll numbers
> Morgan Lewis, which specialises in representing management in labour disputes, has also acted for Elon Musk’s SpaceX and Amazon in their challenges against the agency.
Of course
Of course
the headline is perhaps unclear, so from the article:
> The US labour watchdog froze two cases against Apple days after Donald Trump nominated an attorney who represents the tech group to be the agency’s top legal official.
> Trump last week nominated Crystal Carey, a partner at Morgan Lewis & Bockius, to be the NLRB’s general counsel. She is listed in the agency’s records as an attorney acting in Apple’s defence in both cases against the Silicon Valley tech group.
the level of just complete capture of the regulatory state by random rich companies is amazing, even beyond trump's first time bullshit like "Appoint the CEO of Exxon to be Secretary of State"
> The US labour watchdog froze two cases against Apple days after Donald Trump nominated an attorney who represents the tech group to be the agency’s top legal official.
> Trump last week nominated Crystal Carey, a partner at Morgan Lewis & Bockius, to be the NLRB’s general counsel. She is listed in the agency’s records as an attorney acting in Apple’s defence in both cases against the Silicon Valley tech group.
the level of just complete capture of the regulatory state by random rich companies is amazing, even beyond trump's first time bullshit like "Appoint the CEO of Exxon to be Secretary of State"
Thank you for the clarification.
Ugh, knowing you have a clearly malicious actor as top dog of the country -_- it can’t get more frustrating. Except for the fact that a big part of the country supports it as well.
I do wonder if they even believe in him wholeheartedly or just put on an act cause they’re in too deep and don’t want to give the people who said they were making the wrong choice the “satisfaction” of admitting they were right.
Ugh, knowing you have a clearly malicious actor as top dog of the country -_- it can’t get more frustrating. Except for the fact that a big part of the country supports it as well.
I do wonder if they even believe in him wholeheartedly or just put on an act cause they’re in too deep and don’t want to give the people who said they were making the wrong choice the “satisfaction” of admitting they were right.
It is no it an act it is "clean the swamp" that it is get rid of all the controls that the bureaucrats in Washington do.
The reason a lot of them exist is to protect the public is probably lost on the public but fully understood by the ones doing it.
Putting a bunch of foxes to guard the henhouse isn't cleaning the swamp. It's replacing the old swamp, which was nakedly self-interested, with a new swamp, which is also nakedly self-interested.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Cases of Apples
Increasingly it looks like there is a strata of the private-jet set that take care of one another, keep the rest of us under their thumb. I can't think this is going to end well for any of the parties.
At this point I'm practically begging for corrupt-but-competent assholes over the total clowns that are actually running the show this administration.
Steve Mnuchin (especially) and Rex Tillerson were two of the best appointments last time around. These guys have no redeeming value. And they're far more brazen about the corruption, too.
Steve Mnuchin (especially) and Rex Tillerson were two of the best appointments last time around. These guys have no redeeming value. And they're far more brazen about the corruption, too.
I did not expect this because of all the big tech companies, Apple has been the most antagonistic to Trump. I actually thought the FTC was going to come down hard on Apple this administration has a measure of revenge. Is Trump doing Apple a solid here hoping they return the favor?
You don’t remember the dog and pony show Cook did with Trump about manufacturing Mac Pros in America - all ten of them that they sell in a year?
I'm confused how you came to this conclusion. Tim Cook donated millions of dollars to Trump personally, and Republican policies are extremely pro-big-tech so it makes sense that they would support each other. Anti-worker policies like this are exactly what I would have expected from this admin.
I wouldn't call Republican policies pro-big-tech considering they are behind the Tiktok ban. The policies are more anti-regulation, which big-tech wants right now.
>wouldn't call Republican policies pro-big-tech considering they are behind the Tiktok ban
The USG forcing a sale of the 3rd largest social media platform to FAANG from China is extremely pro-big-tech.
Also, the most recent administration is seeped with VCs. The Vice President JD Vance is a Peter Thiel protege.
The USG forcing a sale of the 3rd largest social media platform to FAANG from China is extremely pro-big-tech.
Also, the most recent administration is seeped with VCs. The Vice President JD Vance is a Peter Thiel protege.
If Republicans were aligned with Big Tech, then why did Big Tech have to make donations to DT’s Inauguration? The money is the money is the alignment.
> I wouldn't call Republican policies pro-big-tech considering they are behind the Tiktok ban.
The government stepping in and eliminating one of (American) big tech's biggest competitors is an extremely pro-(American)-big-tech move.
> The policies are more anti-regulation, which big-tech wants right now.
Well, yeah. Exactly. They're all on the same team. They want fewer barriers in the way of their quest for more personal power.
The government stepping in and eliminating one of (American) big tech's biggest competitors is an extremely pro-(American)-big-tech move.
> The policies are more anti-regulation, which big-tech wants right now.
Well, yeah. Exactly. They're all on the same team. They want fewer barriers in the way of their quest for more personal power.
My point is that Republicans have anti-big-tech policies as well, not that interests don’t align.
I can't really think of any? Like sure, there's not going to be 100% agreement on every possible thing, but by and large Republican policies mean more power for big companies, and less oversight and consumer and employee protections. This is probably the most big-tech-friendly political environment the country has ever seen.
I'm confused, are you saying the TikTok ban is detrimental to US-based big tech? Seems like a forced sale is beneficial to them.
I was also under the impression we're also entering a regulatory climate where amount of regulation isn't so much decreasing (TikTok ban for example is heavy handed), but that big tech has much more involvement in forming that regulation, which is useful for moat-building.
I'm not too knowledgeable on these, it's just the general gist I've been picking up so far this year, looking for correction if I got the wrong idea.
I was also under the impression we're also entering a regulatory climate where amount of regulation isn't so much decreasing (TikTok ban for example is heavy handed), but that big tech has much more involvement in forming that regulation, which is useful for moat-building.
I'm not too knowledgeable on these, it's just the general gist I've been picking up so far this year, looking for correction if I got the wrong idea.
>>>saying the TikTok ban is detrimental to US-based big tech?
Not op, but yes.
>>>Seems like a forced sale is beneficial to them.
Short term. Long term you are establishing a precedent that you can intervene and take away the power of any large tech player. If it can happen to tiktok it can happen to others.
Im not against tikton ban, but im against it in its current form , since its not for the right reason. (China plays unfair with us corps, we should reciprocate our treatment of their own in our borders. The law instead claims some US patriot act natsec prerogative bs)
Not op, but yes.
>>>Seems like a forced sale is beneficial to them.
Short term. Long term you are establishing a precedent that you can intervene and take away the power of any large tech player. If it can happen to tiktok it can happen to others.
Im not against tikton ban, but im against it in its current form , since its not for the right reason. (China plays unfair with us corps, we should reciprocate our treatment of their own in our borders. The law instead claims some US patriot act natsec prerogative bs)
What happened to TikTok legally cannot happen to any US-based tech company. The legislation uniquely targets foreign entities.
I thought it was clear they meant other legislation targeting other companies could be passed.
The republicans have not been following the laws since they put Trump into the White House 8 years ago. Why do you think something like legality will stop them?
I'm making the argument in the context of a concern about the TikTok ban. If laws don't matter then the entire conversation is irrelevant.
Not meaning to be a dick or anything, but you and folks like you are too focused on the surface level culture war crap. Apple is not activist, it's a business. It's progressive by corporate standards I guess, in that it isn't outwardly rejecting its minority employees (yet) but they'll still circle the wagons for the actual holders of power.
Capital has always sided with populists and always will, because populists reinforce the status quo capital benefits from. You'll see the same thing with ostensibly liberal establishment media organizations. Like their presenters may hate Trump and his administration on the outside, but their owners love the fact that they have millions of viewers re-glued to their televisions for the latest stupid bullshit the White House is pulling, and no matter what they may ideologically disagree on, Ellen DeGeneres and Donald Trump have INFINITELY more in common with one another than either do with any working class person.
To put it short: It's the MONEY son, the MONEY. Oh they'll bicker and spat at one another in public, sure, but most of these folks are perfectly fine with one another when the cameras aren't rolling. They don't give a shit. Rightly or wrongly, wealthy minority folk think they don't need to worry about the reactionary Right, and honestly, they're probably correct given how fixated said reactionaries are on Drag Queens supposedly being a threat to children when it feels like we have daily news stories of cops, clergy, and teachers diddling kids.
Capital has always sided with populists and always will, because populists reinforce the status quo capital benefits from. You'll see the same thing with ostensibly liberal establishment media organizations. Like their presenters may hate Trump and his administration on the outside, but their owners love the fact that they have millions of viewers re-glued to their televisions for the latest stupid bullshit the White House is pulling, and no matter what they may ideologically disagree on, Ellen DeGeneres and Donald Trump have INFINITELY more in common with one another than either do with any working class person.
To put it short: It's the MONEY son, the MONEY. Oh they'll bicker and spat at one another in public, sure, but most of these folks are perfectly fine with one another when the cameras aren't rolling. They don't give a shit. Rightly or wrongly, wealthy minority folk think they don't need to worry about the reactionary Right, and honestly, they're probably correct given how fixated said reactionaries are on Drag Queens supposedly being a threat to children when it feels like we have daily news stories of cops, clergy, and teachers diddling kids.
An example of this is the charity roast in NYC in 2024. Trump and Schumer sharing a table laughing cordially....
https://youtu.be/XI0MUoW28VE?feature=shared
As for apple, their serfdom labor practice during Covid was shockingly public
https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2025/04/04/trump-a...?
(I call it serfdom labor because people were not allowed freedom of movement without threat of imprisonment.)
https://youtu.be/XI0MUoW28VE?feature=shared
As for apple, their serfdom labor practice during Covid was shockingly public
https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2025/04/04/trump-a...?
(I call it serfdom labor because people were not allowed freedom of movement without threat of imprisonment.)
[deleted]
> Apple has been the most antagonistic to Trump.
The most reluctant or the least vocal to comply, maybe, but far from antagonistic.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/20/apple-ceo-tim-cook-and-preid...
https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-ceo-tim-cook-meet-w...
https://variety.com/2025/digital/news/apple-ceo-tim-cook-don...
The most reluctant or the least vocal to comply, maybe, but far from antagonistic.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/20/apple-ceo-tim-cook-and-preid...
https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-ceo-tim-cook-meet-w...
https://variety.com/2025/digital/news/apple-ceo-tim-cook-don...
A bit off-topic, but I find it weird that they use "group" to refer to Apple, instead of, say, "Company". Is this an FT thing? I kept thinking that they were talking about some larger group of Silicon Valley companies (i.e. "the Silicon Valley group"), but no, they just meant Apple.
Yeah, it's a Briticism. The FT is basically the Wall Street Journal of London, for those not familiar. I've been reading this paper for decades and they often use "group" for "company," "sack" instead of "fire," and many other delightfully English locutions.
In British English there are specific meanings. “Firing” is a general term for getting rid of staff. “Sacking” is getting rid of staff because they have done something wrong.
“Group” can be used when talking about a large organisation as a whole, rather than a smaller component or subsidiary.
So the FT is explicitly drawing attention to the argument that the people were fired because of something they did (attempting to unionise) and that that decision was made or sanctioned by Apple at the top level (not some regional CEO or middle manager).
“Group” can be used when talking about a large organisation as a whole, rather than a smaller component or subsidiary.
So the FT is explicitly drawing attention to the argument that the people were fired because of something they did (attempting to unionise) and that that decision was made or sanctioned by Apple at the top level (not some regional CEO or middle manager).
One might think that they're using "group" because Apple is a multinational with subsidiaries in various other countries. But the article is in fact about a dispute between the US company and some of its US employees.
It's a British thing -- another example is that Brits would use e.g. "Apple have decided to.." instead of "Apple has decided to.." (for every group of people including "the government", not just businesses).
I like this language quirk a lot. It almost feels subversive, pointing out through grammar that group entities are just people, responsible for their choices like everyone else.
I like this language quirk a lot. It almost feels subversive, pointing out through grammar that group entities are just people, responsible for their choices like everyone else.
Apple group of companies, rather than a specific legal entity. A common distinction in financial journalism.
Pretty sure the labor disputes in question are with a specific legal entity, the US corporation, and not any of its subsidiaries.
[deleted]
It feels like every pick of this administration is just someone who has a motivation for corruption.
This is how kleptocratic regimes work: in order to steal more effectively, you need to stuff the state full of personnel who ensure theft won't come under scrutiny (or under disapproving scrutiny -- bonus if the the people you hire actually enable it). Even better, hire people who would themselves face prosecution in a normal country, because they'll be beholden to you and too scared to have principles.
Edit: once your regime has achieved a certain level of internal cohesiveness and stability, you can begin the next step, which is to turn lower-level state actors against the population. You can do this partly by ordering them to perpetrate violence and outrage. This has a numerous benefits: first, it makes the state actors themselves afraid of the population, partly because they fear accountability, which makes them more inclined to violence and more protective of the regime; second, it stokes anger against them, which validates all the fears I listed under the first point; third, it distracts from the less shocking crimes of the regime (mere theft as opposed to bodily harm or murder -- but eventually that too!); fourth, as the regime gradually ratchets up the violence, the population becomes increasingly fearful and willing to collaborate and thus decreasingly capable of organizing and resisting.
Edit 2: I've noticed in my two or three decades of intellectual and political awareness that the right frequently seems to benefit from this kind of compounding effect and stacked benefit. No matter what happens, good or bad, it seems to redound to their benefit. I can't think of any cases where I've felt that the left enjoyed similar structural or inherent political advantages.
Edit: once your regime has achieved a certain level of internal cohesiveness and stability, you can begin the next step, which is to turn lower-level state actors against the population. You can do this partly by ordering them to perpetrate violence and outrage. This has a numerous benefits: first, it makes the state actors themselves afraid of the population, partly because they fear accountability, which makes them more inclined to violence and more protective of the regime; second, it stokes anger against them, which validates all the fears I listed under the first point; third, it distracts from the less shocking crimes of the regime (mere theft as opposed to bodily harm or murder -- but eventually that too!); fourth, as the regime gradually ratchets up the violence, the population becomes increasingly fearful and willing to collaborate and thus decreasingly capable of organizing and resisting.
Edit 2: I've noticed in my two or three decades of intellectual and political awareness that the right frequently seems to benefit from this kind of compounding effect and stacked benefit. No matter what happens, good or bad, it seems to redound to their benefit. I can't think of any cases where I've felt that the left enjoyed similar structural or inherent political advantages.
All indications are that the US is on track to become a Russian style government and political system. Unless the US people halt the decline.
Technically even Russia has a federal minimum wage, pension system and universal healthcare. They even have laws against child labour.
No America goes even lower...
No America goes even lower...
Russia has a lot of laws on the books that are meaningless. That's why they are Russia and not Switzerland or France. Minimum wage is worthless due to inflation from the ukraine invasion and sanction. Pension system that leaves people in perpetual poverty. Universal healthcare that covers very little and life expectancy is terrible.
The US has historically held the rule of law as an important idea. Social security has largely eliminated deep elderly poverty.
The US has historically held the rule of law as an important idea. Social security has largely eliminated deep elderly poverty.
We're number one.
There is a major difference. In Russia no Oligarch would be able to direct Putin. In what the current US is transforming itself into, asking the President to do what is good for as a Billionaire, is a pure financial transaction.
That's just because Putin has been in power for long enough that he no longer needs the support of oligarchs. He came to power with their help and his relationship with them was initially transactional. Now he and his cronies no longer depend on them, so they either fall into line or fall out of favor and thus out of windows.
What you're describing is the first step, where the wealthy attempt to install a ruler friendly to their interests, someone they think they can control and reason with. Joke's on them -- and on everybody else, too, unfortunately.
Edit: this led me to realize that the advanced age of Fake Tan President is a saving grace. He simply won't live long enough to implement the kind of system Putin has been able to solidify over the past twenty or thirty years. And I'm not aware of anybody in the GOP who can replace him in the cult of personality that a stable dictatorship generally requires.
What you're describing is the first step, where the wealthy attempt to install a ruler friendly to their interests, someone they think they can control and reason with. Joke's on them -- and on everybody else, too, unfortunately.
Edit: this led me to realize that the advanced age of Fake Tan President is a saving grace. He simply won't live long enough to implement the kind of system Putin has been able to solidify over the past twenty or thirty years. And I'm not aware of anybody in the GOP who can replace him in the cult of personality that a stable dictatorship generally requires.
It's really shocking to me how quickly and transparently we've hit banana republic levels of corruption, and anyone with any smidgen of power to do anything about it has just rolled over - Profiles in Cowardice describes all of the remaining Republicans in Congress to me (all the courageous ones were either primaried or retired).
The examples are all just so disgustingly blatant now, like Eric Adams in NYC, or the founder of Nikola paying millions in bribes (err, sorry, "campaign donations") to get a pardon.
Our republic may survive the current administration (not sure, probably give it less than a 50% chance these days), but the facade of our righteousness is gone forever. Trump won the election fair and square, and both the electoral college and the popular vote. People knew exactly what they were getting, and they wanted this.
The examples are all just so disgustingly blatant now, like Eric Adams in NYC, or the founder of Nikola paying millions in bribes (err, sorry, "campaign donations") to get a pardon.
Our republic may survive the current administration (not sure, probably give it less than a 50% chance these days), but the facade of our righteousness is gone forever. Trump won the election fair and square, and both the electoral college and the popular vote. People knew exactly what they were getting, and they wanted this.
You will see next, the removal of the Fed chairman. It is illegal but the Administration will say fight it off in the courts.
The Fed chairman is going to make a speech in 10 min, and the US President is currently live on his social platform accusing him of playing Politics. You will then achieve the same level of governance as Türkiye.
The Fed chairman is going to make a speech in 10 min, and the US President is currently live on his social platform accusing him of playing Politics. You will then achieve the same level of governance as Türkiye.
I see you as having been downvoted. I have no idea why - it is on topic, and correct. Further, it is not hard to deduce why he will remove Powell, or the impact on America vis a vis the US Dollar. The "Mar a Lago" accord spells this out, with all its faulty logic.
They have an agenda that is based on errors, ignorance, and being manipulated by parties that are adversaries to America and democracy. Soon this will be irrecoverable within this generation, at least.
People have the mistaken belief that things are bad right now. They can get drastically worse.
They have an agenda that is based on errors, ignorance, and being manipulated by parties that are adversaries to America and democracy. Soon this will be irrecoverable within this generation, at least.
People have the mistaken belief that things are bad right now. They can get drastically worse.
The Fed charmain just said inflation will pick up. When the economy starts to tank Trump will need somebody to blame, and will blame the high interest rates. The Fed might even have the need to raise rates.
[1] "...The relevant legislation holds that a member of the Federal Reserve board may be “removed for cause by the president”. But in this context, courts have interpreted “for cause” to refer to misconduct or impropriety. The president cannot remove the members of the board purely for policy or political reasons.
However, Trump could attempt to demote Powell from chair to an ordinary member of the Federal Reserve, and put another candidate in charge. Here, there is less of a legal precedent. Previous presidents have always assumed they did not have the power to do this..."
[1] https://theconversation.com/trump-has-threatened-to-fire-the...
[1] "...The relevant legislation holds that a member of the Federal Reserve board may be “removed for cause by the president”. But in this context, courts have interpreted “for cause” to refer to misconduct or impropriety. The president cannot remove the members of the board purely for policy or political reasons.
However, Trump could attempt to demote Powell from chair to an ordinary member of the Federal Reserve, and put another candidate in charge. Here, there is less of a legal precedent. Previous presidents have always assumed they did not have the power to do this..."
[1] https://theconversation.com/trump-has-threatened-to-fire-the...
The inflation is a desired and intended side effect of the tariffs, the statement by Powell is part of a chess match and his removal will be part of an intended outcome.
Trump will try to replace Powell extra-constitutionally and at this point, I suspect he may succeed. It will be close to the lights going out at that point.
Trump will try to replace Powell extra-constitutionally and at this point, I suspect he may succeed. It will be close to the lights going out at that point.
I agree with you- other than that they wanted Trump. In 2024, both candidates were historically unpopular, and polling continues to show that both parties approval ratings are at an all time low.
My read is the election was a rejection of globalist neoliberal capitalism and Trump was the closest choice to that. If the democrats had run someone who was even willing to lie about making changes for regular people they would have won easily.
My read is the election was a rejection of globalist neoliberal capitalism and Trump was the closest choice to that. If the democrats had run someone who was even willing to lie about making changes for regular people they would have won easily.
What's interesting with Eric Adams is that his charges were dismissed with prejudice by the judge handling the case specifically because the Trump admin made clear statements that they would use the prosecution as a stick to try and get him to do what they want.
Thanks for pointing this out. I dimly registered that there was a strangeness about the dismissal of charges, but I had no idea this was the reasoning:
> "Everything here smacks of a bargain: dismissal of the Indictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions," he said.
> His decision to drop the case permanently, Judge Ho said, ensured that the administration could not use the indictment as "leverage" over Adams or the city of New York.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c74nl3120k4o
> "Everything here smacks of a bargain: dismissal of the Indictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions," he said.
> His decision to drop the case permanently, Judge Ho said, ensured that the administration could not use the indictment as "leverage" over Adams or the city of New York.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c74nl3120k4o
I really hope that NYC is smart enough to properly oust this corrupt asshole.
I live in NYC, and I have triple-checked to make sure that I will be able to vote in the primary to try and avoid him getting the democrat nomination, and this is the first time in my life that I've genuinely considered voting Republican if he does manage to get the nomination.
I live in NYC, and I have triple-checked to make sure that I will be able to vote in the primary to try and avoid him getting the democrat nomination, and this is the first time in my life that I've genuinely considered voting Republican if he does manage to get the nomination.
Good news! He's probably going to be running as an independent. Wait, I'm checking my notes again, it doesn't appear to be good news at all. Damn, sorry man.
> People knew exactly what they were getting, and they wanted this.
once the world was willing to forgive, but twice is a pattern that can't be ignored
the 97% of the rest of the world now needs to de-risk itself from the US and its businesses
longer term, the self-inflicted loss of economic, military and cultural domination will hopefully result in the US electorate realising that "US exceptionalism" was only ever a set of lucky circumstances, which are unlikely to be repeated
at which point the forced humility should result in a return to long-term stability
the worse outcome is the US attempts to hang onto its dying empire with warfare, and it appears we're seeing the groundwork being laid for this already (canada, greenland, panama, ...)
once the world was willing to forgive, but twice is a pattern that can't be ignored
the 97% of the rest of the world now needs to de-risk itself from the US and its businesses
longer term, the self-inflicted loss of economic, military and cultural domination will hopefully result in the US electorate realising that "US exceptionalism" was only ever a set of lucky circumstances, which are unlikely to be repeated
at which point the forced humility should result in a return to long-term stability
the worse outcome is the US attempts to hang onto its dying empire with warfare, and it appears we're seeing the groundwork being laid for this already (canada, greenland, panama, ...)
This is not easily done. The withdrawal will be extreme and take a great deal of time.
I think most will not have the will once they steel the cost. I know this forum loves to prognosticate but the right thing is what one must do to survive.
I think most will not have the will once they steel the cost. I know this forum loves to prognosticate but the right thing is what one must do to survive.
> I think most will not have the will once they steel the cost.
if you're a government it's quite easy to "encourage" it to occur
example: "US cloud provider revenue levy", starting at 0%, increasing 1% each month until 40%
the aim being to add a large risk premium to all purchases of US cloud services, encouraging companies to switch to domestic suppliers
the EU is already publicly talking about retaliating in this manner
if you're a government it's quite easy to "encourage" it to occur
example: "US cloud provider revenue levy", starting at 0%, increasing 1% each month until 40%
the aim being to add a large risk premium to all purchases of US cloud services, encouraging companies to switch to domestic suppliers
the EU is already publicly talking about retaliating in this manner
I agree with your first paragraph, not so much the second.
I think the rest of the world is just dealing with the reality that the US is now an unreliable partner and cannot be trusted. In the face of that, yes, I agree that most of them won't dump the US immediately with big fanfare, but they will start to decouple in the background where it matters - making trade deals that exclude the US, building real incentives for the intelligentsia to stay away from the US (though the US is already doing a fairly decent job of that themselves), taking more responsibility for their own defense, etc.
I mean, look what happened to Vietnam and Israel. They capitulated in the face of the tariff threat and removed their tariffs on US imports, and they still got hit with some of the highest (or, it Vietnam's case, the highest) tariff rates. Europe has already realized (and this is a good thing and a long time coming IMO) that they need to rebuild their defense capacity because they can't depend on the US.
So no, I don't believe it will happen immediately, but I also believe that over the longer term (5-10-15 years) that decoupling from the US is inevitable solely because not doing that will be more difficult for other countries.
I think the rest of the world is just dealing with the reality that the US is now an unreliable partner and cannot be trusted. In the face of that, yes, I agree that most of them won't dump the US immediately with big fanfare, but they will start to decouple in the background where it matters - making trade deals that exclude the US, building real incentives for the intelligentsia to stay away from the US (though the US is already doing a fairly decent job of that themselves), taking more responsibility for their own defense, etc.
I mean, look what happened to Vietnam and Israel. They capitulated in the face of the tariff threat and removed their tariffs on US imports, and they still got hit with some of the highest (or, it Vietnam's case, the highest) tariff rates. Europe has already realized (and this is a good thing and a long time coming IMO) that they need to rebuild their defense capacity because they can't depend on the US.
So no, I don't believe it will happen immediately, but I also believe that over the longer term (5-10-15 years) that decoupling from the US is inevitable solely because not doing that will be more difficult for other countries.
This is why a tariff trade war is extremely dangerous right now. It explicitly incentivizes this further as an intentional goal.
You clearly have enver spent time in Honduras
Because it is. Trump is hoping to surround himself with so much corruption that he insulates himself from it. He wants it normalized so people just become numb to it, as with every other messed up thing he does.
In other words, he wants everyone else in power to have just much to lose as him if the regime fails, so that they don't turn on him. It works like this in NK and Russia.
...or the mob, or street gangs whose initiation rituals usually involves committing a crime to bind you to the group, so you all have something to lose.
Hoping to? He has been digging trenches for decades.
This is a long time in the making. Florida is Ground Zero, and if you care to look back in time to the late 1990s, there is much to find.
Epstein was cooking. Offshore Playboys were living large and public lives and making plans for the future.
St. Petersburg, FL in particular holds so many secrets.
This is a long time in the making. Florida is Ground Zero, and if you care to look back in time to the late 1990s, there is much to find.
Epstein was cooking. Offshore Playboys were living large and public lives and making plans for the future.
St. Petersburg, FL in particular holds so many secrets.
> wants it nnormalized
A psychological device of "blutkit" (blood cement). For example; young Nazi SS officers were recruited via a ritual attrocity like participation in a massacre. After that "we're all in this together" sealed loyalty through a mix of guilt and fear.
The race is on for the Trump administration to elicit the most unforgivable and insane actions in order to sinter those participants into a "death pact".
EDIT: spotted recently posted [0] (Also of course C.R Browning's Ordinary Men [1]) both underline the point that you don't need to recruit intrinsically corrupted people - you can make them,
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43583425
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_R._Browning
A psychological device of "blutkit" (blood cement). For example; young Nazi SS officers were recruited via a ritual attrocity like participation in a massacre. After that "we're all in this together" sealed loyalty through a mix of guilt and fear.
The race is on for the Trump administration to elicit the most unforgivable and insane actions in order to sinter those participants into a "death pact".
EDIT: spotted recently posted [0] (Also of course C.R Browning's Ordinary Men [1]) both underline the point that you don't need to recruit intrinsically corrupted people - you can make them,
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43583425
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_R._Browning
nine_zeros(6)
belter(1)
arunabha(1)
"Right is only a question among equals, for the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer as they must."
We shouldnt expect companies to be Moral. We shouldn't expect the government to be Just. The sooner we realize how politics actually work, the smarter we can make personal decisions that comply with realities.
There is no reason to waste time and effort. The only people who can topple Apple are going to be major players, not the multitude.
We shouldnt expect companies to be Moral. We shouldn't expect the government to be Just. The sooner we realize how politics actually work, the smarter we can make personal decisions that comply with realities.
There is no reason to waste time and effort. The only people who can topple Apple are going to be major players, not the multitude.
> The only people who can topple Apple
I've got some tough news for you: Apple isn't anywhere near the main problem here.
I've got some tough news for you: Apple isn't anywhere near the main problem here.
Couldn't disagree more. Our expectations tend to become self-fulfilling prophecies. Expect amoral companies and you get amoral companies. Expect an unjust government and you get an unjust government.
Exactly. It's like saying culture and trust cannot exist and have never existed. And that anyone who believes otherwise is just a sucker. If you want to really see a low trust society, behold Russia.
> Our expectations tend to become self-fulfilling prophecies.
Separating an expected outcome from the factual evidence and artifacts of a situation is arguably why the justice system exists at all.
Politics isn't Byrne's The Secret, you can't materialize good leadership by ignoring every issue and praying to a higher power.
Separating an expected outcome from the factual evidence and artifacts of a situation is arguably why the justice system exists at all.
Politics isn't Byrne's The Secret, you can't materialize good leadership by ignoring every issue and praying to a higher power.
> you can't materialize good leadership by ignoring every issue and praying to a higher power.
Indeed. We must be vigilant to acquire and maintain our freedoms and good governance. People suffered and some died to build the parts worth saving now. Apathy isn't going to fix anything.
Indeed. We must be vigilant to acquire and maintain our freedoms and good governance. People suffered and some died to build the parts worth saving now. Apathy isn't going to fix anything.
He’s right though - indifference to corruption or malfeasance begets corruption and malfeasance. Holding your government and companies to a higher standard of behavior is both possible and necessary for a functional, durable nation. Sure, you can enforce corporate morality via regulation or governmental morality via the courts or ethics committees, but that completely ignores the concept of soft power. Laws can be broken faster than they can be enforced.
Completely agree. The past 15 years or so have really opened my eyes to how power really works.
The powerful are incentivized to use that power for their own benefit. Those without power do not even get to have a light shone on their poor treatment.
The powerful are incentivized to use that power for their own benefit. Those without power do not even get to have a light shone on their poor treatment.
I wish more people took away the lesson of limiting their reliance on those with much more power because it leads to one sided relationships. However it seems like we are moving towards consolidation of power instead of towards inter-reliance of equals.
I don't agree. Government is not just and that is reality but we should hold them to a high standard.