Are you concerned that your "VTSAX and Chill" strategy leaves you out of China?

[RusticBohemian]

The argument was that American companies did business in China, so investing in a good US stock market index fund meant that you would see the upside of whatever was going on in China.

But increasingly it doesn't look like that's how things will play out. Uber has been routed from the Chinese Market by local competitors. Vanguard itself wanted to do business in China but had to pull out. A number of tech/industrial companies have been forced to give up trade secrets to Chinese "partners," who now outproduce and/or oursell them.

I don't have solid stats from China on how US businesses fare there, but it seems like the news is filled with bad news for US companies operating in China.

It make me wish that I could invest in an index of reputable, well-run Chinese companies, but I'm not sure such a thing exists.

Do you guys think about this as a problem? Do you have any solutions? If you're not concerned, why not?

[erutio]

VTIAX, but it's not china specific.  One should have a IPS with an AA they are comfortable with.  For many, the stock portion of their AA includes some international stock index fund.

It make me wish that I could invest in an index of reputable, well-run Chinese companies, but I'm not sure such a thing exists.

Check your casual racism.  I know what you're trying to say, an index of such stocks is hard to fine, but the way you have your sentence worded, it sounds like you think reputable Chinese companies don't exist.

[Philociraptor]

That's why we've switched over to "VTWAX and Chill" in all our retirement accounts. Brokerage I still buy VTSAX and VTIAX for the slight tax savings.

[bwall]

There are lots of risks involved with investing in Chinese companies. Most people don't realize it, but most (all?) Chinese companies listed on the NYSE are Variable Interest Entities (VIE). As such, these vehicles have no claim to the assets of the Chinese company. Bottom line: it's quick and easy for the Chinese government to legally neuter all foreign ownership, or for management to strip assets with no legal recourse for investors. Thus, OP is right to express concerns about which companies in China are 'safe' to invest in.

The concern isn't just semantic; a large, early investor in Alibaba got taken advantage of when Alibaba spun off Alipay without consultation or compensation (also called 'theft'). They created a stand-alone company out of whole cloth, owned by Jack Ma. Read about it here:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-yahoo-alibaba/yahoo-gets-short-end-of-stick-in-alibaba-deal-idUSTRE76S2QN20110729

I didn't understand what the fuss was at the time. Now, I do.

Therefore, I believe that the easiest, safest, risk-less-est way to invest in China is via non-Chinese companies who do a lot of business there. Here is a list of some companies that have a large and expanding Chinese footprint:

GM (Buicks are insanely popular in China)
Starbucks
YUM Brands (KFC)
Apple
Tesla
LVMH (Luxury fashion)
Ferrari
Smithfield

I'm sure there are others, but these are the ones that easily come to mind.

[Paul der Krake]

I don't trust anything that comes out of the Chinese government, including their regulatory frameworks (or lack thereof).

So no.

Maybe that will change some day. Until then.

[Mr. Green]

Also, China is going to endure some economic pain over the next several decades because of their one child policy. Things will not be as rosy in the future as they have been for the last 20 years.

[WhiteTrashCash]

Trying to buy stock in Communist companies is going to cause you a lot of pain. It's best not to involve yourself with Chinese companies directly. You will get burned by their government.

[J Boogie]

VTIAX, but it's not china specific.  One should have a IPS with an AA they are comfortable with.  For many, the stock portion of their AA includes some international stock index fund.

It make me wish that I could invest in an index of reputable, well-run Chinese companies, but I'm not sure such a thing exists.

Check your casual racism.  I know what you're trying to say, an index of such stocks is hard to fine, but the way you have your sentence worded, it sounds like you think reputable Chinese companies don't exist.

Yeah, racist to be wary of companies existing inside a totalitarian, genocidal state where transparency is non existent when it's needed most.

Racist to be wary of a country where over 150 fraud-riddled reverse mergers took place in the past couple decades.

The call out, if any, should be for desiring exposure to an unambiguously immoral regime - not for some imagined racial insinuation.

[windytrail]

65% VTSAX/35% VXUS is my allocation for taxable investments. I personally believe there is an upside in the next 20-30 years to investing internationally, but others will disagree. Also, home country bias is a real phenomenon, and not just in the US. But far as I can tell, no one can predict the future.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Also, China is going to endure some economic pain over the next several decades because of their one child policy. Things will not be as rosy in the future as they have been for the last 20 years.

Do you mean the policy itself, or the demographics in China?

As of 2 weeks ago, China has a "3 child policy".  But this article notes the 2 child policy change in 2016 hasn't worked.  So there might still be a problem, even as the policy itself has been updated.

"China has announced that it will allow couples to have up to three children, after census data showed a steep decline in birth rates.
China scrapped its decades-old one-child policy in 2016, replacing it with a two-child limit which has failed to lead to a sustained upsurge in births."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-57303592

[PDXTabs]

RusticBohemian,

I wouldn't be worried about missing out on China, but I would be worried about missing out on a bunch of the rest of the global market. If you wanted to buy the vast majority of the market but skip places like China you could do VTSAX+VTMGX+FRDM. You'll end up overweight some countries, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

I, personally, am 99% VT and VT equivalents.

VTIAX, but it's not china specific.  One should have a IPS with an AA they are comfortable with.  For many, the stock portion of their AA includes some international stock index fund.

It make me wish that I could invest in an index of reputable, well-run Chinese companies, but I'm not sure such a thing exists.

Check your casual racism.  I know what you're trying to say, an index of such stocks is hard to fine, but the way you have your sentence worded, it sounds like you think reputable Chinese companies don't exist.

It's not racist if your belief is that the mainland Chinese government won't let the market function rationally/fairly/freely and therefore choose to not invest in businesses there. Eg, Perth Tolle who is Chinese and started an emerging market ETF that excludes mainland China: FRDM.

[Mr. Green]

Also, China is going to endure some economic pain over the next several decades because of their one child policy. Things will not be as rosy in the future as they have been for the last 20 years.

Do you mean the policy itself, or the demographics in China?

As of 2 weeks ago, China has a "3 child policy".  But this article notes the 2 child policy change in 2016 hasn't worked.  So there might still be a problem, even as the policy itself has been updated.

"China has announced that it will allow couples to have up to three children, after census data showed a steep decline in birth rates.
China scrapped its decades-old one-child policy in 2016, replacing it with a two-child limit which has failed to lead to a sustained upsurge in births."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-57303592

Demographic projection for China over the next several decades show there will be a significant age imbalance as the younger generations are nowhere near replacement size because of China's one child policy. There will be significant economic fallout that accompanies that.

[Radagast]

Best bet: CXSE. Still a lot of political / international affairs risk though. Have considered it, but not enough cash floating around to get to it. My spouse is Chinese so it would hedge a little home country spending potentially.

[Abe]

I wouldn’t invest in any company primarily based in China because the relationship between companies and government is inverse of the US. Here, the government is subservient to companies and its primary purpose is to ensure companies’ owners’ interests are protected. In China, companies are extensions of the communist party, and their purpose is to ensure the Party’s interests are protected. Investors have the power in the US system, the Party has the power in the Chinese system.
In the US system there is a limited opportunity to have a stable relationship with the capitalist segment of society via stock ownership, since that is the currency the oligarchs use. If that currency is not sufficiently liquid and transparent to encourage stock transactions, they suffer. Hence our system encourages purchasing stocks to further enrich the capitalists. We don’t (yet) have laws mandating citizens invest in certain companies, thus regulations must be stable enough to encourage stock purchases.

 In China, favor with the Party leadership is the currency, and stocks have no intrinsic value without that favor. If the Party decides that company X is now out of favor and must close, then the stocks are not worth anything and there is no appeal. Any intellectual and real property is transferred to whichever parallel company is in favor. Conversely, if a company’s success is determined to be a Party goal, then they will be propped up even if the company has little real (economic) value. The reasoning behind these decisions is not something we investors would have knowledge of. Hence these companies’ stocks are more volatile due to lack od transparency and incompatible goals of the economy and potential investors. Chinese companies are thus inherently more risky to invest in without clear advantages compared to other countries’ companies.

This is true in any authoritarian society, but China, unlike many others, has some interest in pretending to have a capitalist market.

[Michael in ABQ]

I used to be a commercial real estate appraiser and followed the blog of an appraiser who did a lot of international work. He saw first hand how some properties were listed as being mostly occupied and generating cash flow in financial statements for REITs, only to find them half empty when he inspected in person.

Put me in the camp of not trusting any corporate filings for Chinese companies, same with government statistics.

I'm perfectly happy with my exposure from VTSAX.

[erutio]

I stand by what I said earlier regarding the original post. 

I think it is fair game to criticize totalitarian regimes and their bad policies.  In all subsequent posts after the OP, any expressed hesitancies to invest in Chinese companies explicitly cite the government and their policies as the reason.  I agree with @PDXTabs that "it's not racist if your belief is that the mainland Chinese government won't let the market function rationally/fairly/freely."  I agree with @Paul der Krake that "I don't trust anything that comes out of the Chinese government."

But the original post didn't mention the government.  I don't think @RusticBohemian meant anything with the post, so that's why I first answered the OP's question in earnest.  I even explained that it is mainly due to awkward sentence structure.  I think it's important not to conflate the current regime with the people, that's why I specifically called out the microaggression.

[PDXTabs]

I think it is fair game to criticize totalitarian regimes and their bad policies.  In all subsequent posts after the OP, any expressed hesitancies to invest in Chinese companies explicitly cite the government and their policies as the reason.  I agree with @PDXTabs that "it's not racist if your belief is that the mainland Chinese government won't let the market function rationally/fairly/freely."  I agree with @Paul der Krake that "I don't trust anything that comes out of the Chinese government."

But the original post didn't mention the government.  I don't think @RusticBohemian meant anything with the post, so that's why I first answered the OP's question in earnest.  I even explained that it is mainly due to awkward sentence structure.  I think it's important not to conflate the current regime with the people, that's why I specifically called out the microaggression.

I mostly agree but would add that "Chinese companies" is actually ambiguous, although perhaps not in this context. Because "Chinese" can be in reference to a political unit or a race/ethnicity (or perhaps even some other stuff).

[theolympians]

I stand by what I said earlier regarding the original post. 

I think it is fair game to criticize totalitarian regimes and their bad policies.  In all subsequent posts after the OP, any expressed hesitancies to invest in Chinese companies explicitly cite the government and their policies as the reason.  I agree with @PDXTabs that "it's not racist if your belief is that the mainland Chinese government won't let the market function rationally/fairly/freely."  I agree with @Paul der Krake that "I don't trust anything that comes out of the Chinese government."

But the original post didn't mention the government.  I don't think @RusticBohemian meant anything with the post, so that's why I first answered the OP's question in earnest.  I even explained that it is mainly due to awkward sentence structure.  I think it's important not to conflate the current regime with the people, that's why I specifically called out the microaggression.

As you imply there was no racist intent in the original post. No one was talking about the Chinese people, only the Chinese gov't, companies based in China, and the relationship between the two. You apparently did not appreciate that the OP did not specifically call attention to race in order to say race wasn't a factor. It was you who drew racist implications. Perhaps check yourself before implying someone is racist either through "microagressions" or more overtly.

[celerystalks]

It is important to diversify outside of the U.S. especially in Asia.

The biggest risk to the U.S. economy, IMO, is wokesters. Companies that falls under their spell — and it is becoming more rapid every day— end up doing poorly since they are redirected towards social justice which makes them less competitive and turns off a huge portion of their customer base. 

China has other problems. But it doesn’t seem to have this particular one. So it is a good hedge against this risk.

[celerystalks]

I stand by what I said earlier regarding the original post. 

I think it is fair game to criticize totalitarian regimes and their bad policies.  In all subsequent posts after the OP, any expressed hesitancies to invest in Chinese companies explicitly cite the government and their policies as the reason.  I agree with @PDXTabs that "it's not racist if your belief is that the mainland Chinese government won't let the market function rationally/fairly/freely."  I agree with @Paul der Krake that "I don't trust anything that comes out of the Chinese government."

But the original post didn't mention the government.  I don't think @RusticBohemian meant anything with the post, so that's why I first answered the OP's question in earnest.  I even explained that it is mainly due to awkward sentence structure.  I think it's important not to conflate the current regime with the people, that's why I specifically called out the microaggression.

There are no such things as a microaggressions. This is a made up term from postmodern philosophy to describe an alleged situation where a member of an identity group with power asserts it against a member of an allegedly oppressed identity group in a way that hurts their feelings.

Guess what. That’s just life. Grow a thicker skin. Stop being offended.

[dougules]

There are lots of risks involved with investing in Chinese companies. Most people don't realize it, but most (all?) Chinese companies listed on the NYSE are Variable Interest Entities (VIE). As such, these vehicles have no claim to the assets of the Chinese company. Bottom line: it's quick and easy for the Chinese government to legally neuter all foreign ownership, or for management to strip assets with no legal recourse for investors. Thus, OP is right to express concerns about which companies in China are 'safe' to invest in.

I don't trust anything that comes out of the Chinese government, including their regulatory frameworks (or lack thereof).

Also, China is going to endure some economic pain over the next several decades because of their one child policy. Things will not be as rosy in the future as they have been for the last 20 years.

Yes, yes, and yes, but this is why Chinese companies are only 4% of VTWAX despite China being the world's second largest economy.  They're all well-known risks, so they are already baked into the price of Chinese stocks. 

[dougules]

I stand by what I said earlier regarding the original post. 

I think it is fair game to criticize totalitarian regimes and their bad policies.  In all subsequent posts after the OP, any expressed hesitancies to invest in Chinese companies explicitly cite the government and their policies as the reason.  I agree with @PDXTabs that "it's not racist if your belief is that the mainland Chinese government won't let the market function rationally/fairly/freely."  I agree with @Paul der Krake that "I don't trust anything that comes out of the Chinese government."

But the original post didn't mention the government.  I don't think @RusticBohemian meant anything with the post, so that's why I first answered the OP's question in earnest.  I even explained that it is mainly due to awkward sentence structure.  I think it's important not to conflate the current regime with the people, that's why I specifically called out the microaggression.

There are no such things as a microaggressions. This is a made up term from postmodern philosophy to describe an alleged situation where a member of an identity group with power asserts it against a member of an allegedly oppressed identity group in a way that hurts their feelings.

Guess what. That’s just life. Grow a thicker skin. Stop being offended.

I don't know about you personally, but people that generally say things like this don't realize that they get offended by a lot of things also.  Usually something like two men holding hands, transwomen in the women's bathroom, insults to Christianity, etc.  If those people had a thicker skin, these would be non-issues. 

[celerystalks]

I stand by what I said earlier regarding the original post. 

I think it is fair game to criticize totalitarian regimes and their bad policies.  In all subsequent posts after the OP, any expressed hesitancies to invest in Chinese companies explicitly cite the government and their policies as the reason.  I agree with @PDXTabs that "it's not racist if your belief is that the mainland Chinese government won't let the market function rationally/fairly/freely."  I agree with @Paul der Krake that "I don't trust anything that comes out of the Chinese government."

But the original post didn't mention the government.  I don't think @RusticBohemian meant anything with the post, so that's why I first answered the OP's question in earnest.  I even explained that it is mainly due to awkward sentence structure.  I think it's important not to conflate the current regime with the people, that's why I specifically called out the microaggression.

There are no such things as a microaggressions. This is a made up term from postmodern philosophy to describe an alleged situation where a member of an identity group with power asserts it against a member of an allegedly oppressed identity group in a way that hurts their feelings.

Guess what. That’s just life. Grow a thicker skin. Stop being offended.

I don't know about you personally, but people that generally say things like this don't realize that they get offended by a lot of things also.  Usually something like two men holding hands, transwomen in the women's bathroom, insults to Christianity, etc.  If those people had a thicker skin, these would be non-issues.

Right. You don't know me personally.  But clearly that doesn't stop you from generalizing and trying to ascribe thoughts and opinions to me.  Or excuse me... to "people that generally say things like this".   Maybe if people stopped thinking they could read minds and assuming they know what other people are thinking we would have less issues. 

That being said..

There's no such thing as a "transwoman".  There are men and there are women.  This is determined by a person's genetics.

 If someone dude wants to make a fashion statement by cross-dressing and wearing a wig in public, fine whatever... They should be treated with respect.  And who knows, maybe some of these fellas are deluded enough to believe the are women.  That is a mental condition though, not a physical one. Society doesn't need to be forced to buy into their delusions.

[dougules]

I stand by what I said earlier regarding the original post. 

I think it is fair game to criticize totalitarian regimes and their bad policies.  In all subsequent posts after the OP, any expressed hesitancies to invest in Chinese companies explicitly cite the government and their policies as the reason.  I agree with @PDXTabs that "it's not racist if your belief is that the mainland Chinese government won't let the market function rationally/fairly/freely."  I agree with @Paul der Krake that "I don't trust anything that comes out of the Chinese government."

But the original post didn't mention the government.  I don't think @RusticBohemian meant anything with the post, so that's why I first answered the OP's question in earnest.  I even explained that it is mainly due to awkward sentence structure.  I think it's important not to conflate the current regime with the people, that's why I specifically called out the microaggression.

There are no such things as a microaggressions. This is a made up term from postmodern philosophy to describe an alleged situation where a member of an identity group with power asserts it against a member of an allegedly oppressed identity group in a way that hurts their feelings.

Guess what. That’s just life. Grow a thicker skin. Stop being offended.

I don't know about you personally, but people that generally say things like this don't realize that they get offended by a lot of things also.  Usually something like two men holding hands, transwomen in the women's bathroom, insults to Christianity, etc.  If those people had a thicker skin, these would be non-issues.

Right. You don't know me personally.  But clearly that doesn't stop you from generalizing and trying to ascribe thoughts and opinions to me.  Or excuse me... to "people that generally say things like this".   Maybe if people stopped thinking they could read minds and assuming they know what other people are thinking we would have less issues. 

That being said..

There's no such thing as a "transwoman".  There are men and there are women.  This is determined by a person's genetics.

 If someone dude wants to make a fashion statement by cross-dressing and wearing a wig in public, fine whatever... They should be treated with respect.  And who knows, maybe some of these fellas are deluded enough to believe the are women.  That is a mental condition though, not a physical one. Society doesn't need to be forced to buy into their delusions.

Yes.  I said I didn't know you personally and everything I said was generalized to other people I know who have said similar things.  Nothing directed at you. 

But you did show your cards by ranting about trans people.  I'm for trans rights, but that's not my point.  My point is that it did get you riled, and your skin is not as thick as you let on. 

[celerystalks]

Yes.  I said I didn't know you personally and everything I said was generalized to other people I know who have said similar things.  Nothing directed at you. 

But you did show your cards by ranting about trans people.  I'm for trans rights, but that's not my point.  My point is that it did get you riled, and your skin is not as thick as you let on.

It's was not a rant. It's a series of factual statements about transvestites. 

[bwall]

I stand by what I said earlier regarding the original post. 

I think it is fair game to criticize totalitarian regimes and their bad policies.  In all subsequent posts after the OP, any expressed hesitancies to invest in Chinese companies explicitly cite the government and their policies as the reason.  I agree with @PDXTabs that "it's not racist if your belief is that the mainland Chinese government won't let the market function rationally/fairly/freely."  I agree with @Paul der Krake that "I don't trust anything that comes out of the Chinese government."

But the original post didn't mention the government.  I don't think @RusticBohemian meant anything with the post, so that's why I first answered the OP's question in earnest.  I even explained that it is mainly due to awkward sentence structure.  I think it's important not to conflate the current regime with the people, that's why I specifically called out the microaggression.

It appears as if the main issue is sentence structure, not intent.

In law, people refer to the 'spirit of the law' vs. 'letter of the law', oftentimes having to reconcile the two when they appear to be in conflict in real-life cases.

In this vein, if the 'spirit of the post' is acceptable, why are you making an issue about the 'letter of the post'. Who wants to go through life correcting the wording of other people? Who wants to write posts trying to conform to an internet stranger's (arbitrary?) definition of 'letter of the law'.

[dougules]

Yes.  I said I didn't know you personally and everything I said was generalized to other people I know who have said similar things.  Nothing directed at you. 

But you did show your cards by ranting about trans people.  I'm for trans rights, but that's not my point.  My point is that it did get you riled, and your skin is not as thick as you let on.

It's was not a rant. It's a series of factual statements about transvestites.

Seriously?

[celerystalks]

I stand by what I said earlier regarding the original post. 

I think it is fair game to criticize totalitarian regimes and their bad policies.  In all subsequent posts after the OP, any expressed hesitancies to invest in Chinese companies explicitly cite the government and their policies as the reason.  I agree with @PDXTabs that "it's not racist if your belief is that the mainland Chinese government won't let the market function rationally/fairly/freely."  I agree with @Paul der Krake that "I don't trust anything that comes out of the Chinese government."

But the original post didn't mention the government.  I don't think @RusticBohemian meant anything with the post, so that's why I first answered the OP's question in earnest.  I even explained that it is mainly due to awkward sentence structure.  I think it's important not to conflate the current regime with the people, that's why I specifically called out the microaggression.

There are no such things as a microaggressions. This is a made up term from postmodern philosophy to describe an alleged situation where a member of an identity group with power asserts it against a member of an allegedly oppressed identity group in a way that hurts their feelings.

Guess what. That’s just life. Grow a thicker skin. Stop being offended.

I don't know about you personally, but people that generally say things like this don't realize that they get offended by a lot of things also.  Usually something like two men holding hands, transwomen in the women's bathroom, insults to Christianity, etc.  If those people had a thicker skin, these would be non-issues.

Right. You don't know me personally.  But clearly that doesn't stop you from generalizing and trying to ascribe thoughts and opinions to me.  Or excuse me... to "people that generally say things like this".   Maybe if people stopped thinking they could read minds and assuming they know what other people are thinking we would have less issues. 

That being said..

There's no such thing as a "transwoman".  There are men and there are women.  This is determined by a person's genetics.

 If someone dude wants to make a fashion statement by cross-dressing and wearing a wig in public, fine whatever... They should be treated with respect.  And who knows, maybe some of these fellas are deluded enough to believe the are women.  That is a mental condition though, not a physical one. Society doesn't need to be forced to buy into their delusions.

Yes.  I said I didn't know you personally and everything I said was generalized to other people I know who have said similar things.  Nothing directed at you. 

But you did show your cards by ranting about trans people.  I'm for trans rights, but that's not my point.  My point is that it did get you riled, and your skin is not as thick as you let on.

you know. This whole discussion sorta makes the point I was trying to make in an earlier post in this thread.  About wokesters being a threat to the U.S. economy.  Social justice warriors become obsessed with pushing social justice in all spaces.  When enough of them take root in a company it destroys profitability because the company is devoured from the inside as all of the levers of power within the company are no longer staffed by the most competent but those who most subscribe to the social justice narrative and the company is distracted from making a good product and selling it to as many people as possible.  Instead company the becomes a font of social justice messaging.... for a time as it is slowly bled dry.  Then after that it's on to the next company. 

The Chinese are absolutely laughing at this nonsense.  They don't have to do a thing.  Just sit back as U.S. companies are taken over by this viral stuff.

Watch more Jordan Peterson videos on YouTube.

[dougules]

Guess what. That’s just life. Grow a thicker skin. Stop being offended.

[bwall]

you know. This whole discussion sorta makes the point I was trying to make in an earlier post in this thread.  About wokesters being a threat to the U.S. economy.  Social justice warriors become obsessed with pushing social justice in all spaces.  When enough of them take root in a company it destroys profitability because the company is devoured from the inside as all of the levers of power within the company are no longer staffed by the most competent but those who most subscribe to the social justice narrative and the company is distracted from making a good product and selling it to as many people as possible.  Instead company the becomes a font of social justice messaging.... for a time as it is slowly bled dry.  Then after that it's on to the next company. 

Can you give some examples of companies this is happening to or about to happen to? It sounds like there is a great short potential and I would like to help put a dagger in the heart of a company that is unfit to survive.

[celerystalks]

Guess what. That’s just life. Grow a thicker skin. Stop being offended.

I have a thick skin and I’m not offended. I viewed our exchange as a civil dialogue between two individuals with differing viewpoints and opinions.

 I am pointing out what I see as a threat to the U.S. economy.

It’s why I think its important to diversify into Asian countries that that are not having a problem with social justice infecting all of their institutions. They have other problems, sure. But they don’t seem to be having this particular one.

The social justice ideology is rooted in post modernism and a type of neomarxism built around power as opposed to circling the means of production.

A lot of study has been done on the topic.

Check out Dr. Jordan Peterson’s videos on YouTube.

James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian have also produced some good content with New Discourses on Youtube.

Look. I don’t fault people for getting sucked into this social justice nonsense. It is pushed on people in college. It taps into peoples desire to be a good person. And it exploits people’s empathy. It creates a narrative around claiming status in a victimized group. And people naturally want to come to their aid.

But this is analogous to people having sympathy and empathy for the working class in the 20th century which ushered in communism, and all of their atrocities, in many countries.

They say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

It should really be..

The road to hell on earth is paved with good intentions.

[celerystalks]

you know. This whole discussion sorta makes the point I was trying to make in an earlier post in this thread.  About wokesters being a threat to the U.S. economy.  Social justice warriors become obsessed with pushing social justice in all spaces.  When enough of them take root in a company it destroys profitability because the company is devoured from the inside as all of the levers of power within the company are no longer staffed by the most competent but those who most subscribe to the social justice narrative and the company is distracted from making a good product and selling it to as many people as possible.  Instead company the becomes a font of social justice messaging.... for a time as it is slowly bled dry.  Then after that it's on to the next company. 

Can you give some examples of companies this is happening to or about to happen to? It sounds like there is a great short potential and I would like to help put a dagger in the heart of a company that is unfit to survive.

Check out victoria’s secret.

Also chipotle.

Probably also Nickleodeon when parents find out what is being pushed to their kids.

[PDXTabs]

you know. This whole discussion sorta makes the point I was trying to make in an earlier post in this thread.  About wokesters being a threat to the U.S. economy.  Social justice warriors become obsessed with pushing social justice in all spaces.  When enough of them take root in a company it destroys profitability because the company is devoured from the inside as all of the levers of power within the company are no longer staffed by the most competent but those who most subscribe to the social justice narrative and the company is distracted from making a good product and selling it to as many people as possible.  Instead company the becomes a font of social justice messaging.... for a time as it is slowly bled dry.  Then after that it's on to the next company. 

Can you give some examples of companies this is happening to or about to happen to? It sounds like there is a great short potential and I would like to help put a dagger in the heart of a company that is unfit to survive.

Check out victoria’s secret.

OMG, "conservatives" care so much about how private enterprise advertises its lingerie? WTF? I don't think that the problem here is the "wokesters."

[JLee]

you know. This whole discussion sorta makes the point I was trying to make in an earlier post in this thread.  About wokesters being a threat to the U.S. economy.  Social justice warriors become obsessed with pushing social justice in all spaces.  When enough of them take root in a company it destroys profitability because the company is devoured from the inside as all of the levers of power within the company are no longer staffed by the most competent but those who most subscribe to the social justice narrative and the company is distracted from making a good product and selling it to as many people as possible.  Instead company the becomes a font of social justice messaging.... for a time as it is slowly bled dry.  Then after that it's on to the next company. 

Can you give some examples of companies this is happening to or about to happen to? It sounds like there is a great short potential and I would like to help put a dagger in the heart of a company that is unfit to survive.

Check out victoria’s secret.

OMG, "conservatives" care so much about how private enterprise advertises its lingerie? WTF? I don't think that the problem here is the "wokesters."

Conservatives are the biggest hypocrites in this respect.  The "you lost the election, get over it" and "elections have consequences"  and "riots are bad" and "blue lives matter" crowd from 2016-2020 suddenly had a change of heart when Jan 6, 2021 rolled around and they refused to accept the consequences of losing an election while they rioted and murdered police in the capitol.

[celerystalks]

you know. This whole discussion sorta makes the point I was trying to make in an earlier post in this thread.  About wokesters being a threat to the U.S. economy.  Social justice warriors become obsessed with pushing social justice in all spaces.  When enough of them take root in a company it destroys profitability because the company is devoured from the inside as all of the levers of power within the company are no longer staffed by the most competent but those who most subscribe to the social justice narrative and the company is distracted from making a good product and selling it to as many people as possible.  Instead company the becomes a font of social justice messaging.... for a time as it is slowly bled dry.  Then after that it's on to the next company. 

Can you give some examples of companies this is happening to or about to happen to? It sounds like there is a great short potential and I would like to help put a dagger in the heart of a company that is unfit to survive.

Check out victoria’s secret.

OMG, "conservatives" care so much about how private enterprise advertises its lingerie? WTF? I don't think that the problem here is the "wokesters."

He asked for an example, I offered one.

Victoria’s secret was the sexy underwear company. They managed to sell it to women, and their men, in a way that wasn’t completely tasteless.

Now. Who knows. But the outlook is grim in my opinion. Their spokespeople are social justice activists.

[JLee]

you know. This whole discussion sorta makes the point I was trying to make in an earlier post in this thread.  About wokesters being a threat to the U.S. economy.  Social justice warriors become obsessed with pushing social justice in all spaces.  When enough of them take root in a company it destroys profitability because the company is devoured from the inside as all of the levers of power within the company are no longer staffed by the most competent but those who most subscribe to the social justice narrative and the company is distracted from making a good product and selling it to as many people as possible.  Instead company the becomes a font of social justice messaging.... for a time as it is slowly bled dry.  Then after that it's on to the next company. 

Can you give some examples of companies this is happening to or about to happen to? It sounds like there is a great short potential and I would like to help put a dagger in the heart of a company that is unfit to survive.

Check out victoria’s secret.

OMG, "conservatives" care so much about how private enterprise advertises its lingerie? WTF? I don't think that the problem here is the "wokesters."

He asked for an example, I offered one.

Victoria’s secret was the sexy underwear company. They managed to sell it to women, and their men, in a way that wasn’t completely tasteless.

Now. Who knows. But the outlook is grim in my opinion. Their spokespeople are social justice activists.

You have it backwards.  Victoria's Secret is now recovering after losing market share for doing exactly what you think was what they should still be doing.

Victoria’s Secret had long held a dominant market share in the lingerie industry, but had fallen out of favor due to its overtly sexy marketing that shunned certain body types. That marketing message wasn’t working for many women, and they had started shopping at other brands, such as American Eagle’s Aerie, that embraced inclusivity and comfort. Victoria’s Secret has had to pivot to meet their needs.

[celerystalks]

you know. This whole discussion sorta makes the point I was trying to make in an earlier post in this thread.  About wokesters being a threat to the U.S. economy.  Social justice warriors become obsessed with pushing social justice in all spaces.  When enough of them take root in a company it destroys profitability because the company is devoured from the inside as all of the levers of power within the company are no longer staffed by the most competent but those who most subscribe to the social justice narrative and the company is distracted from making a good product and selling it to as many people as possible.  Instead company the becomes a font of social justice messaging.... for a time as it is slowly bled dry.  Then after that it's on to the next company. 

Can you give some examples of companies this is happening to or about to happen to? It sounds like there is a great short potential and I would like to help put a dagger in the heart of a company that is unfit to survive.

Check out victoria’s secret.

OMG, "conservatives" care so much about how private enterprise advertises its lingerie? WTF? I don't think that the problem here is the "wokesters."

Conservatives are the biggest hypocrites in this respect.  The "you lost the election, get over it" and "elections have consequences"  and "riots are bad" and "blue lives matter" crowd from 2016-2020 suddenly had a change of heart when Jan 6, 2021 rolled around and they refused to accept the consequences of losing an election while they rioted and murdered police in the capitol.

Where did this even come from? Its not related to the discussion at hand.

Maybe you need to be deprogrammed?

[bwall]

you know. This whole discussion sorta makes the point I was trying to make in an earlier post in this thread.  About wokesters being a threat to the U.S. economy.  Social justice warriors become obsessed with pushing social justice in all spaces.  When enough of them take root in a company it destroys profitability because the company is devoured from the inside as all of the levers of power within the company are no longer staffed by the most competent but those who most subscribe to the social justice narrative and the company is distracted from making a good product and selling it to as many people as possible.  Instead company the becomes a font of social justice messaging.... for a time as it is slowly bled dry.  Then after that it's on to the next company. 

Can you give some examples of companies this is happening to or about to happen to? It sounds like there is a great short potential and I would like to help put a dagger in the heart of a company that is unfit to survive.

Check out victoria’s secret.

Also chipotle.

Probably also Nickleodeon when parents find out what is being pushed to their kids.

Thank you!

Victoria's Secret is owned by L Brands. Today the stock is at $63, market cap of $17.5 billion, and recently off a 52 week high.

Chipotle stock is trading at $1400, market cap of $39.3 billion, also recently off of a 52 week high.

Nickelodeon is owned by Viacom. Stock is at $40, market cap of $24 billion. Stock is well below the 52 week high, but, to be fair, Archegos was heavily invested in Viacom, so when they exploded the stock dropped considerably.

According to your thesis, LBrands and Chipotle would be good shorting opportunities as the market hasn't yet recognized that they are distracted from their true purpose. Viacom--it looks like the stock has dropped a lot already, so it might be too late to get any easy money. Although, with a market cap of 24 billion, it could still easily drop 90%.

It might be fun to circle back around in six months or so and see if the market agrees that these companies are being bled dry, turned into a weak, helpless shell, a parody of their former selves. Or, if they continue to grow and sell more product to more people, morphing into profit making machines as they deliver the exact product that their customers want. These are exciting times! ! !

[PDXTabs]

Victoria’s secret was the sexy underwear company. They managed to sell it to women, and their men, in a way that wasn’t completely tasteless.

This is getting OT, but can you explain what you mean? VS was started in 1977 to be a lingerie store that men were comfortable in (according to the above article). Now they are going all in on the female crowd. How is Megan Rapinoe "completely tasteless?" She's a badass, and women know it.

[JLee]

Where did this even come from? Its not related to the discussion at hand.

Maybe you need to be deprogrammed?

Conservatives say businesses should be able to do what they want, then get outraged when businesses do what they want.

Therefore, hypocrites.

you know. This whole discussion sorta makes the point I was trying to make in an earlier post in this thread.  About wokesters being a threat to the U.S. economy.  Social justice warriors become obsessed with pushing social justice in all spaces.  When enough of them take root in a company it destroys profitability because the company is devoured from the inside as all of the levers of power within the company are no longer staffed by the most competent but those who most subscribe to the social justice narrative and the company is distracted from making a good product and selling it to as many people as possible.  Instead company the becomes a font of social justice messaging.... for a time as it is slowly bled dry.  Then after that it's on to the next company. 

Can you give some examples of companies this is happening to or about to happen to? It sounds like there is a great short potential and I would like to help put a dagger in the heart of a company that is unfit to survive.

Check out victoria’s secret.

Also chipotle.

Probably also Nickleodeon when parents find out what is being pushed to their kids.

Thank you!

Victoria's Secret is owned by L Brands. Today the stock is at $63, market cap of $17.5 billion, and recently off a 52 week high.

Chipotle stock is trading at $1400, market cap of $39.3 billion, also recently off of a 52 week high.

Nickelodeon is owned by Viacom. Stock is at $40, market cap of $24 billion. Stock is well below the 52 week high, but, to be fair, Archegos was heavily invested in Viacom, so when they exploded the stock dropped considerably.

According to your thesis, LBrands and Chipotle would be good shorting opportunities as the market hasn't yet recognized that they are distracted from their true purpose. Viacom--it looks like the stock has dropped a lot already, so it might be too late to get any easy money. Although, with a market cap of 24 billion, it could still easily drop 90%.

It might be fun to circle back around in six months or so and see if the market agrees that these companies are being bled dry, turned into a weak, helpless shell, a parody of their former selves. Or, if they continue to grow and sell more product to more people, morphing into profit making machines as they deliver the exact product that their customers want. These are exciting times! ! !

Yep, Victoria's Secret in particular is doing much better now with their revamped ad campaign (that appears to be triggering people such as celerystalks).

Victoria’s secret was the sexy underwear company. They managed to sell it to women, and their men, in a way that wasn’t completely tasteless.

This is getting OT, but can you explain what you mean? VS was started in 1977 to be a lingerie store that men were comfortable in (according to the above article). Now they are going all in on the female crowd. How is Megan Rapinoe "completely tasteless?" She's a badass, and women know it.

Agreed 100%.  They're listening to women now.

[celerystalks]

Victoria’s secret was the sexy underwear company. They managed to sell it to women, and their men, in a way that wasn’t completely tasteless.

This is getting OT, but can you explain what you mean? VS was started in 1977 to be a lingerie store that men were comfortable in (according to the above article). Now they are going all in on the female crowd. How is Megan Rapinoe "completely tasteless?" She's a badass, and women know it.

No. No. I was not saying the new spokes people are tasteless..

I was comparing VS’s previous strategy to that of say Fredrick’s of Hollywood which sort of tasteless.

[dougules]

Us "wokesters" and "social justice warriors" are asking to solve problems that are actually doing harm to real people.  But those problems are also hurting the economy as a whole.  Does the lack of women, people of color, and LGBT+ people in the levers of power make it look like our companies are being staffed by the most competent?  We're wasting the talents of a big portion of the population.  Plus, the reduced earning power in these groups is holding the economy back even more.  The 21st century is the opposite of a zero sum game.  If we make sure everyone has the greatest opportunity to be themselves and use their talents without having to worry about confirming to a specific norm, it will help you, not hurt you.  The next Einstein may be black or trans, so we need to make sure they have the unfettered ability to push our world forward.

And yes Xi and Putin are taking advantage at every turn of the fault lines in our society.  Join us so that we can fight them and not each other.  As a side benefit you can help make sure that transwoman working on the cure for the type of cancer you may be diagnosed with in 10 years doesn't have to spend all her time in therapy. 

[celerystalks]

Can’t some of you see how obsessed you are becoming when your ideological views are challenged?

This is the issue I am talking about. I view it as a threat to the U.S. economy.

There is an intense need to come out in favor of “trans rights” whatever those are.. and these people make up a minuscule fraction of society. And no one is attacking them.

But there is casual disgust for people who are conservative.

Guess what. About half the country would likely identify as conservative. If these people feel a company is hostile to their values, they will politely take their business elsewhere.

[JLee]

Can’t some of you see how obsessed you are becoming when your ideological views are challenged?

This is the issue I am talking about. I view it as a threat to the U.S. economy.

There is an intense need to come out in favor of “trans rights” whatever those are.. and these people make up a minuscule fraction of society. And no one is attacking them.

But there is casual disgust for people who are conservative.

Guess what. About half the country would likely identify as conservative. If these people feel a company is hostile to their values, they will politely take their business elsewhere.

There's no such thing as a "transwoman".  There are men and there are women.  This is determined by a person's genetics.

 If someone dude wants to make a fashion statement by cross-dressing and wearing a wig in public, fine whatever... They should be treated with respect.  And who knows, maybe some of these fellas are deluded enough to believe the are women.  That is a mental condition though, not a physical one. Society doesn't need to be forced to buy into their delusions.

[PDXTabs]

No. No. I was not saying the new spokes people are tasteless..

This is getting even more OT, but when was the last time you thought to yourself "I sure would like to buy X and Y is a good store for that, but their spokespeople are so tasteless." In my experience, personally, maybe one purchase a year that I make is diverted for non-economic reasons. I know liberals that avoid Home Depot because Bernard Marcus gave money to the Trump campaign, but they are few and far between. I hate Trump but let's be real, I'm not going to drive 20 extra miles to go to Lowe's, because I'm a selfish consumer like everyone else.

[PDXTabs]

There's no such thing as a "transwoman".  There are men and there are women.  This is determined by a person's genetics.

That is a demonstrably false statement for more reasons than just Androgen insensitivity syndrome, but I only need one counterexample.

[bwall]

Guess what. About half the country would likely identify as conservative. If these people feel a company is hostile to their values, they will politely take their business elsewhere.

Nothing new there. This has always been the case. Like when Lestor Maddox chased a man out of his restaurant with an axe handle. It was very good for his business. So good, in fact, that he was elected governor. Read all about it here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_Maddox

[celerystalks]

Us "wokesters" and "social justice warriors" are asking to solve problems that are actually doing harm to real people.  But those problems are also hurting the economy as a whole.  Does the lack of women, people of color, and LGBT+ people in the levers of power make it look like our companies are being staffed by the most competent? We're wasting the talents of a big portion of the population.  Plus, the reduced earning power in these groups is holding the economy back even more.  The 21st century is the opposite of a zero sum game.  If we make sure everyone has the greatest opportunity to be themselves and use their talents without having to worry about confirming to a specific norm, it will help you, not hurt you.  The next Einstein may be black or trans, so we need to make sure they have the unfettered ability to push our world forward.

By adopting the social justice narrative and engaging in identity groupings based on race and sexual characteristics, one is essentially arguing for group rights based on identity group.

But the flipside of that is necessarily group responsibility that is assigned to another identity group. This is essentially group guilt, though.  And this has been an atrocious concept every time is was experimented with.

And yes Xi and Putin are taking advantage at every turn of the fault lines in our society.  Join us so that we can fight them and not each other.  As a side benefit you can help make sure that transwoman working on the cure for the type of cancer you may be diagnosed with in 10 years doesn't have to spend all her time in therapy.

Social justice doesn’t solve problems. It makes them worse.

The U.S. is was built on individual justice. This requires individual rights and responsibilities. Not group ones.

Putin and Xi come from countries that have a history of experimenting with this stuff and they know exactly where it leads.

[celerystalks]

Can’t some of you see how obsessed you are becoming when your ideological views are challenged?

This is the issue I am talking about. I view it as a threat to the U.S. economy.

There is an intense need to come out in favor of “trans rights” whatever those are.. and these people make up a minuscule fraction of society. And no one is attacking them.

But there is casual disgust for people who are conservative.

Guess what. About half the country would likely identify as conservative. If these people feel a company is hostile to their values, they will politely take their business elsewhere.

There's no such thing as a "transwoman".  There are men and there are women.  This is determined by a person's genetics.

 If someone dude wants to make a fashion statement by cross-dressing and wearing a wig in public, fine whatever... They should be treated with respect.  And who knows, maybe some of these fellas are deluded enough to believe the are women.  That is a mental condition though, not a physical one. Society doesn't need to be forced to buy into their delusions.

Exactly. I didn’t attack anyone.

I didn’t address an individual. I made no threat. And my words don’t harm anyone.

[celerystalks]

There's no such thing as a "transwoman".  There are men and there are women.  This is determined by a person's genetics.

That is a demonstrably false statement for more reasons than just Androgen insensitivity syndrome, but I only need one counterexample.

Still genetically a male or a female.