The interview is chock full of quotes from Tim. Here are a few:
> The reality is that government, for a long period of time, has for whatever set of reasons become less functional and isn’t working at the speed that it once was. And so it does fall, I think, not just on business but on all other areas of society to step up.
And:
> “One of the things that hits you,” he said, is “all of the major acts, legislation, that happened during just his presidency.” His eyes widened as he listed some: “You have the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Act, you have Medicare, you have Medicaid, you have several national parks, you have Head Start, you have housing discrimination, you have jury discrimination.”
And:
> He was vocal, for example, in criticizing Mr. Trump after Charlottesville in a memo to his staff: “I disagree with the president and others who believe that there is a moral equivalence between white supremacists and Nazis, and those who oppose them by standing up for human rights. Equating the two runs counter to our ideals as Americans.”
And:
> “I think we have a moral responsibility to help grow the economy, to help grow jobs, to contribute to this country and to contribute to the other countries that we do business in,” he said.
>
> He added, “I think there’s still probably a more significant group that feels my sole responsibility is to Wall Street.”
And, to the folks who suggest that Tim is running for President:
> “I have a full-time job,” Mr. Cook said. “I appreciate the compliment,” he added with a wry look, “if it is a compliment.”
Steve Jobs was a gift. To me, Tim Cook is equally a gift, albeit in a different wrapper. While Steve was the gift Apple needed to launch and then evolve as a company, Tim is the gift Apple needs now, a navigator through increasingly turbulent waters.
The more I get to know who Tim Cook is, the more I find I’m aligned and in agreement with his way of thinking.
I never would have dreamed that any corporation be a moral compass point against the whims of a demagogue. Trump is an evil man, surrounded by vil men, on a mission to destroy the fabric of society for his personal gain. That description is usually reserved for some James Bond villain. Not so now.
Tim Cook showed the fortitude to do the right thing.
One of the things I loved about Steve, is he stayed out of politics. I’m dismayed that Tim has not followed that ideal.
Honest question: why? What is he doing to which you object?
Apple is for net neutrality, except for ideas it doesn’t like.
I don’t believe any company should get itself involve in politics. They should focus on making the best products. Politics is divisive, and can anger potential customers. And that goes whether I agree with the politics the company is pushing or not.
I don’t think its possible to stay out of politics when you’re running a company the size of Apple. The Apple Steve ran was much, much smaller. Also, the president wasn’t a lunatic when Steve was in charge.
That’s a fair position to have. I’m kind of happy to see a progressive company exerting its influence in addition to all those Citizens United-type dollars.
This is not part of the job description. Tim Cook is doing well as Apple’s CEO but these comments don’t add value to the company or the shareholders. At some point he must explain why he spends his time on these and how it helps the people that trust him.
“Our consumers really value our commitment to society and this is illustrated by us taking pretty much the entire profit in the smartphone sector and us growing Mac sales in the contact of declining overall PC sales. It turns out being socially responsible is really good marketing. Who knew?
Next question.”
Big corporations have been meddling in politics as long as there’ve been corporations large and powerful enough to do so. It’s how they became able to run entire cities, if not entire states. It’s how they subvert the function of any government that still attempts to protect individual citizens from avoidable problems.
As for “focusing on making the best products,” that stopped being the imperative a few decades ago when Wall Street embraced “increase shareholder value at all costs” thinking.
The influence has been enormous and obvious. Name a major business sector, and you can probably find an industry that received enormous tax breaks on the promise of delivering infrastructure they never completed. Or another that receives enormous federal subsidies merely for the “burden” of doing business in this country. Or another that set its own safety standards for responding to a another massive oil spill that taxpayers paid to clean up.
I don’t care whether they ARE meddling in politics. I care whether they SHOULD be meddling in politics, which is highly relevant. And the answer is they shouldn’t. And in fact a lot of the reason they meddling in politics is because the government has the power to affect their business. I fully support removing that power, because most of the laws that are done in the name of “protecting citizens” are nothing of the sort.
Oh definitely, companies use the power of the government to help their business and hurt competitors. Which is why we should remove that power completely from government.
“…companies use the power of the government to help their business and hurt competitors.”
No, kid. They use their money to suborn the power of the government to eliminate their competitors.
“…most of the laws that are
done in the name of “protecting citizens” are nothing of the sort.”
Sure, Patrick. After all, we don’t actually need to keep any big corporation anywhere from doing everything it needs to do while pursuing profit.
Because we all love price-gouging monopolies that maintain false scarcity instead of building and maintaining infrastructure they’ve received subsidies for. We love rock-bottom slave wages in right-to-work states. We love unbreatheable air and contaminated water. And, as you’ve amply demonstrated, who needs a good public education system, anyway?
All those mean old burdensome regulations, oppressing poor misunderstood libertarian billionaires for decades. Pshaw.
No, buddy. My statement was accurate, yours was not.
‘
As long as they are not harming people, no we don’t. Most of the laws are not about preventing harm, but about restricting new competitors. Exactly the thing you hate.
No we don’t. You know why they can price gouge? Why they are monopolies? Why they maintain false scarcity? Because of government laws and regulations protecting them and giving them subsidies. Both should be removed.
Right to work states have better pay and better conditions, because bad employees and employers are not protected.
Given that harm is against the law, we don’t need additional regulations that do not actually help that, but only prevent businesses from succeeding.
Actually, you demonstrate the problem with our government run education system. It brainwashes us to thing government regulations are great, since its run by the government. It should be entirely public. It would be better AND cheaper.
Nope, those “mean old burdensome regulations” burden EVERYBODY and give rise to the statist billionaires. There are few libertarian billionaires, because most got where they are by exploiting the power of government. Get rid of the power, get rid of the billionaires.
Plus, don’t forgot that who has money changes- poor people get rich and rich people get poor, and everywhere in between. Its not a static set of groups.
But with regulations, it is much more static, because the poor and the middle class can’t excel.
Time to do some reading buddy. Don’t support government regulation. Its bad for your health.