And once again, we are facing a month of intensified corporate rainbow bombardment, called "Pride Month". The question a thinking person must ask is: why are they doing this? What is the point? Here is my explanation.
First of all, it is based on such an economic concept as "time preference". In short, it is a greater or lesser propensity to postpone consumption in order to accumulate capital and increase one's income in the future. Figuratively speaking: some people waste money and they do not have enough to get to the next month, they have to support themselves with loans, pay interest, they do not have money set aside for even a course increasing competences at work or for a small investment; others live frugally to invest the surplus after some time - whether in themselves or in some business, buy real estate, start a company, whatever.
For large companies, the desired type of customer is the one with a high time preference (who spends money quickly). And the way of life and ideology around the LGBT movement is very conducive to high time preference. People living in loose relationships, without children, focused on themselves, snowflakes like the mice in the Calhoun experiment, licking their fur all day. On the other hand, a man living in the spirit of traditional values will be willing to save money for the security and future of his children, their education, etc. He will strive to spend more time with his family (and not in places where bored singles and childless couples spend money). He will spend more on basic products (e.g. food) than "designer" toys, on which corporations have a greater profit. He will be less inclined to borrow, especially risky ones (the risk may burden his relatives and the debt may be inherited). Especially having children is disadvantageous from a corporate point of view, because it distracts women from the treadmill of work sold to them by clever social engineering as a "career". Less work means less money to spend on corporate products. And two lesbians will not have children (except in marginal cases of artificial insemination or temporary "eclipse of the mind" regarding their sexual orientation). The same with heterosexual women, but jumping from "flower to flower" and taking advantage of the benefits of contraception and the child murder industry touted as “the right to abortion”. After all, this is a package: LGBT goes hand in hand with abortion and the so-called "reliable sex education".
Another thing is that from a corporate perspective, the biggest problem is competition from smaller companies. To reduce it as much as possible, you need a lot of state regulations, complicated taxes, requirements, concessions, etc. Big companies can afford tax optimization, moving the company from place to place, lawyers and lobbying, and meeting the threshold requirements (e.g. how many cars need to be broken in tests to introduce a new model to the market) is a drop in the scale of the company's finances. So from their point of view, the left is extremely useful. By demanding higher taxes, government institutions and regulations, it becomes an “useful idiot” for corporations. Even if they demands higher taxes for corporations, in practice the implementation of these demands only hits the middle class. Thus, corporations support various slogans of the left, strengthening it, in particular slogans about LGBT, gender or racial inequalities (equalizing imaginary inequalities, what is a great potential for regulatoryism in which corporations will thrive and small companies will lost), women's career and environmentalism (a wonderful new market for new "green" goods, not to mention the replacement of the entire energy system with a new one, much less efficient, i.e. requiring more resources).
The question remains: don't they realize it has short legs? That it will be profitable in the short term, but in the long term it means losses for everyone? After all, children who are not born will not work in the future. The collapse of the work ethic, the decline of knowledge capital in society, etc. Well, the point is that corporations do not care about any long-term perspective, but only short-term profit. The former, oldschool, decent capitalist entrepreneur, company owner, when making key decisions, was thinking in a different time horizon. He wanted to leave the company in good shape for his children. There is no such perspective for a corporation. There are shareholders and managers. Both are interested only in short-term profit. Scorched earth tactics are no problem for them. The scale of waste is also not a problem. Individual directors like feudal princes waging guerrilla wars against each other... In a free market, with a minimum state, most of today's corporations would have to fail. A few would survive, but at the cost of profound changes. It is only thanks to the implementation of the left-wing vision of the state that we have such an imbalance on the market today. And this alliance deepens, much to our misfortune.
Huh. Yeah, I see your point. Thanks for giving me a new perspective. Reposting.
Thanks for your appreciation and sharing.