Disney Shares Are Cratering While They War With DeSantis ; It Has Lost 31.5% Over the Year

DeSantis signs bill stripping Disney of its special corporate self-government status, sending its stock price tumbling.

Disney stock fell 2.79% on Friday, according to Google Finance. Company stock has fallen 31.25% in the past 6 months and trades for $118.27 per share as of press time.

Disney stock prices dropped 5% on Wednesday, dropped further on Thursday, and have dropped 2.79% more so far today.

Granted, stock prices overall have fallen 500 nearly 1000 points today thanks to the America Is Back, Baby NeverTrump-endorsed fake president in the White House, but still: Not a good performance for Disney. Not what its shareholders are looking for.

That can't be blamed on their recent Woke War troubles, but there recent recent Woke War troubles are worsening their problems.

The corporate hustlers at National Review are hustling for the corporations again.

Corporate-sponsored nostalgist Phil Klein types up the latest missive from his time capsule, where's always 75 degrees with no humidity and just a perfect shade of 2003:

Using the state as a vehicle to reward friends and punish enemies is something that conservatives once excoriated, for good reason, as Gangster Government. Government policy toward individuals and businesses should be neutral to whether or not those in government agree or disagree with a given person or entity. Conservatives cheering on the idea of the government splitting the populace into friends and enemies should also recognize that there are times when they will end up as enemies of the state.

LOL, really, we have to recognize that at some date in the future, we will be targeted by the government?

Will end up as? I'll be sure to let Jack Phillips of the Masterpiece Cakeshop to look out for that! I'm sure he'll appreciate the heads up!

What time is it, Phil?

How are things in 2003? Who do you like for the World Series that year, buddy? There's a new show coming out with some buzz behind it called Arrested Development; do you think you'll watch it?

I support going after Disney. They do not have any right to this special advantage; it does no violence to the Constitution, then, to take it away. If they use their corporate power to injure the rights of the citizens to protect their children from harm, they can expect the representatives of the citizens will not be inclined to extend special favors to them.

I'm reminded of this old column by Peggy Noonan about the Protected and Unprotected in our society. Now, this isn't quite on-point, but think about the categories of the Protected and the Unprotected.

She talks about the Unprotected suffering the consequences of rules the Protected make about immigration.

Instead, think about the Protected making rules about CRT in schools, and teaching gender identity, and forcing those things into schools despite the people having chosen, through their democratic processes, to keep them out of schools.

Maybe it's time to make the Protected unprotected, no?

There are the protected and the unprotected. The protected make public policy. The unprotected live in it. The unprotected are starting to push back, powerfully. The protected are the accomplished, the secure, the successful--those who have power or access to it. They are protected from much of the roughness of the world. More to the point, they are protected from the world they have created. Again, they make public policy and have for some time.

I want to call them the elite to load the rhetorical dice, but let's stick with the protected.

They are figures in government, politics and media. They live in nice neighborhoods, safe ones. Their families function, their kids go to good schools, they've got some money. All of these things tend to isolate them, or provide buffers. Some of them--in Washington it is important officials in the executive branch or on the Hill; in Brussels, significant figures in the European Union--literally have their own security details.

Because they are protected they feel they can do pretty much anything, impose any reality. They're insulated from many of the effects of their own decisions.

One issue obviously roiling the U.S. and western Europe is immigration. It is THE issue of the moment, a real and concrete one but also a symbolic one: It stands for all the distance between governments and their citizens.

It is of course the issue that made Donald Trump.

Britain will probably leave the European Union over it. In truth immigration is one front in that battle, but it is the most salient because of the European refugee crisis and the failure of the protected class to address it realistically and in a way that offers safety to the unprotected.

If you are an unprotected American--one with limited resources and negligible access to power--you have absorbed some lessons from the past 20 years' experience of illegal immigration. You know the Democrats won't protect you and the Republicans won't help you. Both parties refused to control the border. The Republicans were afraid of being called illiberal, racist, of losing a demographic for a generation. The Democrats wanted to keep the issue alive to use it as a wedge against the Republicans and to establish themselves as owners of the Hispanic vote.

Many Americans suffered from illegal immigration--its impact on labor markets, financial costs, crime, the sense that the rule of law was collapsing. But the protected did fine--more workers at lower wages. No effect of illegal immigration was likely to hurt them personally.

It was good for the protected. But the unprotected watched and saw. They realized the protected were not looking out for them, and they inferred that they were not looking out for the country, either.

The unprotected came to think they owed the establishment--another word for the protected--nothing, no particular loyalty, no old allegiance.

Mr. Trump came from that.

Think about who gets to make the rules, and who suffers for those rules.

And think about the possibility that it's time that the Protected should be made to understand that they will now be made to suffer as well, if they want to keep playing these culture war games.

I think it's time the Protected were made to understand that they will be made to suffer for the rules they would impose on the Unprotected --- that the Unprotected will not be the only ones whose lives are thrown into chaos by the Protected's social experimentations.

Throw our lives into chaos, we'll throw your corporations into chaos.

Did we make your stock prices drop?

Whoops.

Whoopsie.

Gee, I guess it's kind of scary to be unprotected, isn't it? To live your live at the mercy of other people's whims, isn't it?

Perhaps it would be better to pursue a policy of letting people make their own choices and not insisting on making Cultural War on them and conducting Social Experiments on their children...?

The cucks' "offer" of a policy libertarianism from citizen to corporation and a policy of authoritarianism from corporation to citizen is R E J E C T E D.

STOP OFFERING US THE SAME FUCKING "DEAL."

Go to your corporate masters and sell them on a policy of libertarianism towards us, the actual citizens of the United States, then maybe we'll talk about a policy of reciprocal libertarianism, not the one-sided libertarianism-for-corporations-only you never stop selling us on.

As Elliott Ness said to the odious, oily man sent to bribe him: "Go back and tell your master that we will have to agree to disagree."

"Build your own Florida." -- garrett

Meanwhile: Has corporate America started to get the message that it is no longer a cost-free move to always side with the exotic flora of the extreme left? And that maybe just staying out of politics and making business the business of business is the better path?

posted by Ace at 05:31 PM

| Access Comments