Writes tim in vermont in the comments to the first post of the day (about the value of a Howard Schultz candidacy).
Do you think tim makes more sense than Scott Adams, in his podcast yesterday, expressing certainty that Schultz will not run — and is therefore only hawking his book — because it would destroy the Starbucks brand:
Tim's observation reminds me of what I said about MacKenzie Bezos a couple weeks ago when we got the the news of her bust-up with the richest man in the word Jeff Bezos. The NYT wrote that "publishing executives, who declined to be quoted on the record, spoke gleefully, at least, of the blockbuster potential if Ms. Bezos decides to write a memoir." My reaction was:
What does MacKenzie Bezos care about the "blockbuster potential" for anything? She is on track to receive half of the $137 billion fortune she and her husband amassed. She will be the richest woman in the world. The challenge for her is — I would think — to maintain a motivation to do serious, valuable work.MacKenzie Bezos has been — as far as we can see — a serious novelist. She has absolutely no reason to hanker after what would be big bucks for an ordinary writer. She's far too rich.
Now, Howard Schultz is different, though he too is rich enough not to care about making money from his book. His net worth is something like $3 billion. That's piddling compared to MacKenzie Bezos, but it's three times the net worth of J.K. Rowling (to name a person whose money came from writing books). But quite aside from making money, Howard Schultz might want attention and respect for his political opinions and economic preferences. That explains writing the book in the first place. Having written it, he wants people to care, and we're probably not going to care just because he's the Starbucks guy. So presenting himself as a potential President is a good way to claim the spotlight.
As for the force of the need to protect the Starbucks brand, Schultz is already demonstrating that it's not that strong. But maybe Adams is right and it is strong enough to keep him from running for President.
পোস্টগুলি
১০৮টি মন্তব্য:
Scott Adam's record has taken a serious hit in the last few weeks with a series of poorly argued positions. Shultz has been talking about running for president for years. Why not assume he's sincere in his intent?
He might simply want to move the commie party towards the right.
"the need to protect the Starbucks brand"
Of course, the implicit assumption is that progs will destroy anything in their path.
I invite you to think deeply about that.
United Starbucks of America,
"With Restroom Access for All"
Schultz sees a niche in the political market. He thinks he can fill it. I think he is right.
Althouse is an indicator. He's not a hack! He's competent (maybe)! He might be a "centrist"!
We will see how large a niche it is. Of course, even a small-niche candidate can be a spoiler in critical states.
President Trump has demonstrated the down side.
Occam's Razor says Schultz believes he would be superior to all potential candidates, and his leadership will be the best for the Nation.
so far, I like what he is saying. I love that the left are freaking out.
The democrat party has moved so far to the radical fascist left, we need some sanity.
Schultz is Putin's stooge.
Putin is constantly working to prevent a Dem President because he knows a thug like himself wouldn't thrive in a global utopia.
United Starbucks of America
Get a Handful of Free Federal Cheese with Any non-Cheese Purchase 1/25-1/27 Only (Check Inbox)
I hate Republicans, but hate Democrats more. I didn't vote for President in the last election, because I detest Donald Trump. To my mind he has been more acceptable as a President than a candidate. And if he ends the war with North Korea and gets us out of Afghanistan, I will vote for him, wall or no. That said, a reasoned message of fiscal responsibility is VERY attractive to me, because I dread the day that the bill comes due for decades of reckless Federal money printing. BUT. Even if elected, he will be in charge, like Donald Trump, of a Federal apparatus that is Democrat by a wild majority and interested in continued spending everywhere. I accept Buwaya's pessimism for our future and have establised outposts in faraway places.
iowan2 said...
"Occam's Razor says Schultz believes he would be superior to all potential candidates, and his leadership will be the best for the Nation."
I'm going with the simple explanation first. He thinks he has something to offer, something superior to the dreck we have, and he's testing the waters to see if he can do it.
Starbucks is trying to grow in China. Its not growing in the US anymore. It’s reached market saturation. It actually had to close some stores.
At worst, the Starbucks brand in the US will be marginally hurt by his running for president. Soccer moms aren’t going to stop going to Starbucks because if it and The Woke just aren’t that big a constituency.
Trump ran for president to build his international brand.
Shultz might ne doing the same.
Every presidential run starts out as a vanity project.
So vanity run seems like a pretty safe vote.
I have no idea what is going on in his head. All I can do is judge him on what he does and who freaks out about it.
We need a special council to investigate Schultz' Russia connections. Let's nip this one in the bud.
"Occam's Razor says Schultz believes he would be superior to all potential candidates, and his leadership will be the best for the Nation."
Also for the New Republic and the Atlantic.
A little bit of what everyone said, except the simple book hawk.
On the surface, Schultz wants to increase his profile and influence as a centrist, based on ideas and temperament, but I don't think he has the Trumpian resilience to actually take on the establishment of the opposition party Democrats seeking to unseat Trump.
Trump might make fun of him and beat him convincingly in the end, but he wouldn't seek to ruin Schultz the man in the matter of the Democrats if he is perceived as a threat to their ambitions.
That said, it's early. I could even be persuaded that Democrats might see Schulz's independent run as a way to peel away enough centrists away from Trump to elect a lefty Democrat.
He probably has to run independently because of his name. To be the Democrat nominee you need to be a first-namer like Hillary or Kamala or Bernie or Cory or Beto or Groucho. "Howard" is just not going to do it.
I think he is sincere. I think it will be interesting to see how the "politicons" and their minions try tearing him apart. The reaction to the hate mongering to yet another private sector guy risking his empire by throwing his hat in the ring should be eye opening to sane people. Of course, most of my liberal friends are safely wrapped in their cocoons of thinking they are on the high moral ground and won't be bothered...because of the bad orange man.
As far as I know, the Fed isn't printing money. The government is borrowing, not printing. It takes existing money from whatever it might be used for by private people and gives it to the government to spend instead. In return the private people get a bond that pays interest and matures someday.
I think they're hoping the economy will be bigger then so rolling it over will work. Otherwise interest payments will kill the system.
Schulz knows marketing, and how to target niche markets:
For the religious: "My cup runneth over."
For the compassionate women: "A bum in every bathroom!"
For the Chamber of Commerce types: "I'm a billionaire!"
For the Never Trump non-Commies: (pointing to the Democrat frontrunners) "Really?"
Ask our barristeristas about a free Summary Judgement with any tax-return over $10,000.
On the subject of whether it's unwise to destroy your brand to engage in politics, Scott Adams is the go-to guy for advice.
Does Scott Adams bring up JK Rowling in his talkcast? Because otherwise I'm bemused.
Interestingly enough, JK Rowling has better things to do than hawk books. Now she makes movies.
1/25-1/27 Only
Yes! Starbucks features expired deals on their website, so that Starbucks guy sounds like he's ready for gummint work, er, activity.
Howard Schultz will show us, as Donald Trump did on the right, that the people who have the most interest in our elections are the consultants who make a lot of money off from our elections. They don't want a rich guy who doesn't need them to interfere in their money making.
@Althouse, it seems to me that the difference between option #4 (“Preparing for a vanity run as an independent.”) and #5 (“Genuinely working on what he thinks can be a successful run at the Presidency.”) depends on whether you are dispassionately looking at his campaign from outside, or are a true believer in his candidacy.
Schultze has lots of money, but I don’t think he has Trump’s energy nor Trump’s enthusiasm for campaigning. However Schultze feels about it, it’s going to be a vanity campaign.
Unknown said...
He might simply want to move the commie party towards the right.
Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...
so far, I like what he is saying. I love that the left are freaking out.
The democrat party has moved so far to the radical fascist left, we need some sanity.
I think they have it right. Schultz is probably genuine in his run- there's so much If Trump can do it... amongst the egotistical rich guy crowd. I suspect since he's chosen to run as an independent he's set himself up to declare success should he 1) drag the communist Democrats back to some level of realism and/or 2) get his political bullet points talked about by everyone.
It's working already for these two...
I want a candidate who supports the Convention of States
"I support the Convention of States Project; a national effort to call a convention under Article V of the United States Constitution, restricted to proposing amendments that will impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit its power and jurisdiction, and impose TERM LIMITS on its officials and members of Congress."
Bonus: All K-street lobby whores dry up in the wind. winning.
He has a terrible record of showing up to vote in elections except presidential. A sign to me he has not really been engaged in politics as practiced day to day.
Reading Shattered, which is about Hillary in the 2106 election, I was struck by how difficult it was to build a Dem coalition with a message. You can promise a policy to every group but the sum of all promises will be wildly contradictory and no message can emerge. So at least she found. And the Dems haven't solved that problem by, for example, supporting Ilhan the anti-Semite while trying to keep the Jewish vote (and money). Or by talking about abolishing all the insurance companies while trying to keep their political donations. In that situation Howard Schultz has a chance to become the candidate. At the same time I think Starbucks is ruined already. It's become very fraught - the barista might challenge you (Schultz's idea), the homeless might be in the bathroom shooting up (Schultz's idea) and in general it isn't about relaxing with coffee any more. It's the city streets brought inside. And that whole "Starbucks destroys its brand trying to be PC" is an example of how difficult a simple clean message has become for the Dems. And Schultz will have that problem. But I think he's been positioning himself, he's sincere.
Democratics detest and HATE the private sector and only run government insider whores.
It's the publishers what's wanting to hawk the books. For Schultz a book is one more avenue for the expression of his political ideas just like so many leftie politicos do these days. CNN and MSNBC have a valuable source of quotes to use for and against.
United Starbucks of America
"A chicken in every coffee pot."
But can he tweet?
He’s trying to repair Starbucks public image with right-leaning America after going left on the bathroom thing. Possibly.
rehajm -
1) drag the communist Democrats back to some level of realism and/or
2) get his political bullet points talked about by everyone.
Agreed - Schultz is winning already as he forced KKKamala, a radical leftwing government whore, to back track, albeit lightly, on her calls for dismantling all private health.
Problem is on the left, any dragging of communist democrats is only temporary. They remain communists and will strike back when we let our defenses down. Scratch a commie, find .... a commie forever.
I'll guess positioning himself, in case the Dem primary field tears each other to pieces.
Bob Boyd said...But can he tweet?
If John Lennon were alive he'd write a chiding song for Bezos called "And Your Bird Can Tweet" to go along with "Tax Man."
Howard Schultz owns only 2.6% of Starbucks, and has resigned his positions at the company. Perhaps he doesn’t care that much about the Starbucks brand, or thinks it can take care of itself now. Or perhaps Schultz wants to diversify his concentrated equity position in Starbucks, and looks at “running” for President as providing an excuse for selling his shares without tanking the stock.
Why isn't Occam's Razor applied to Gillette's commercial motivation?
Brand damage: I have a cartridge of Gillette Fusion blades. I'm fixed for the next year. (I have a beard and only shave around the edges once a week.) When it comes time to make my next purchase, maybe I'll re-up with Gillette. There's nothing about their ad campaign that appeals to me, but I do like their product. If they don't become too insistent on this toxic masculinity crap, I'll probably let bygones be bygones and buy another cartridge. The way market forces work the better product at the better price should prevail. Adam Smith's Razor. I don't think chicken sandwiches, razor blades, and coffee consumption should be politicized, but liberals, who are less into Adam Smith, may hold different views.......I had the impression that Starbucks was the kind of place that appeals to liberals. This might cause Schultz to lose some business, but he's in a position to lose a few million dollars for the higher cause. At this stage of the game, he's probably more into enhancing the brand image of Howard Schultz than Starbucks.
I wonder where Starbucks really makes its money. In my left-wing town, there are lots of coffee shops that I believe are preferred to Starbucks. People tend to look down on Starbucks. It's corporate chain.
So I suspect that out in middle America, the Starbucks places are much more appreciated. I know I go to other coffeeshops when I'm in Madison, but when we're out traveling around the country, we look for the Starbucks signs and make a point of going to Starbucks. It's a trusted brand outside of the blue cities.
From a strategy standpoint, Schultz as an independent has leverage over the Democrat Party. He sets up a hostage situation: Come to me or I blow it all up by stealing enough votes so you won't win. A couple of election cycles and Democrats will have to wise up.
Should I kill Albert Camus, or have a cup of coffee?
Probably like that lyric in Hot in Here
Stop placin, time wastin
Em
I gotta a friend with a pole in the basement ([girl’s voice:] What? )
F
I'm just kiddin like Jason ([girl’s voice again:]Oh )
Unless you gon' do it
and looks at “running” for President as providing an excuse for selling his shares without tanking the stock.
It’s so obvious now that you say it! <Snark off>
Schultz has been planning a presidential run for years. He is in this for the long term. Meaning maybe even 2024 too. Schultz has hired away SBUX corporate-types to work for him personally. He is not concerned with what his run will do to the SBUX brand - this is the man who incurred the wrath of all of Seattle when he sold the Supersonics to out of state investors who moved the team. He is a marketing genius who has not used (much) advertising to promote the SBUX brand. He will advertise soon but will run his campaign like he did SBUX - with calculated positioning on issues.
I wonder where Starbucks really makes its money. In my left-wing town, there are lots of coffee shops that I believe are preferred to Starbucks. People tend to look down on Starbucks. It's corporate chain.
It's a recognized global brand. There are better restaurants than McDonald's too, but the key is familiarity and reliability of the brand experience. They cultivate a loyal following. They own half of their own stores and franchise half but the majority- like 80% - of their revenues come from their company owned stores. They sell a high margin product. They don't spend big on advertising and rely on buzz.
Andrew Carnegie vertically integrated the steel industry. He increased steel production and provided a better product at a cheaper price. In doing so, he triggered a number of strikes. I believe a few dozen people were killed in those strikes. He became intensely reviled among intellectuals, socialists, and the liberal press. Fortunately for him, these entities were not bulk purchasers of steel and the US Steel company's business was not affected by Carnegie's bad press......Contrast Andrew Carnegie's record with that of Joseph Stalin. The first of Joseph Stalin's Five Year Programs was forged to increase steel production. Hundreds of thousands of workers were killed in the process of amping up steel production. The people who were most critical of Andrew Carnegie were most fulsome in their praise of Stalin's efforts to transform the Russian economy.........Some people are mass consumers of ideas rather than products. Marxism has a lot of consumer appeal among the Ocasio- Cortez demographic, and they drink designer coffee.
So I suspect that out in middle America, the Starbucks places are much more appreciated.
I love the idea that Madison, Wisconsin isn't "out in middle America" to you.
Blogger readering said...
He has a terrible record of showing up to vote in elections except presidential. A sign to me he has not really been engaged in politics as practiced day to day.
I like him more and more. Not committed to “the cause” and perhaps a little bit open minded.
Starbucks brought the idea of take-out coffee to Tokyo just before I lived there. Before that, you got a little cup of coffee and sat at a table at the end of a meal. Starbucks brought it world wide, which is a pretty amazing feat.
Mr. Pants spent some time with Schultz recently in a professional and work-social capacity; this is the second or third time they had worked together. I showed him the poll and he said he’d go with two and predicts that Schultz wants to be secretary of commerce.
I do agree that most of the people I see in Starbuck are not Bernie voters, but white collar workers and professionals. Unless I am in Florida, then there are a lot of horsey people etc, aka, people unapologetically dripping with money to go along with those people. I was in a Starbucks in Boca Raton and there were two Bentleys, a Porsche, something I didn’t recognlze.. McLaren? and a BMW 750.
I don't doubt that he is very serious about making a run. Donald Trump proved that a non politician with a lot of wealth can indeed become President under the right circumstances.
Given that he'd have to run as an Independent and court some sort of hypothetical middle/centrist group of voters, the question really is what kind of chance does he have? Are their really enough people who are unhappy with both the Dems and Trump and who would be willing to vote for an old school Democrat that's a throwback from the 1990s? Would he peel enough voters away from both sides to gain the presidency? My guess is no, but to be fair I'm not the best at prognostication.
My thinking is that he'd end up being a Perrot style spoiler, but for the Dems. I believe this because at the moment I think there's both a hardcore Trump base and a hardcore anti-Trump base that are both probably in the neighborhood of 40% of the electorate each. That leaves 20% in the middle who are in theory persuadable. Obviously 20% isn't enough to win the presidency. But when you drill down on that 20%, you'll most likely find a lot of white, middle class, middle aged women (whose husbands are probably gonna vote for Trump), some middle class minorities, and a few white males. Sure, these sorts of people may find Trump repulsive but ultimately might have to concede his economic successes, and they wouldn't be attracted to a hardcore progressive/socialist messages of the Dems, and wouldn't want to "throw away" their vote on some sure to lose third party guy.
Maybe the San Francisco Progressives dressed up as AntiFas will dump the Starbucks Coffee into the Bay and call it the San Francisco Coffee Party.
Schultz is bored. He is too young to be retired, so he needs to volunteer his expertise in the business world to those with ideas but no training in converting inventions to profits and better living conditions for mankind. Politics ain't the answer.
Plenty of hard-core anti-Trump people would vote for Schultz. That’s why the Socialists are scared shitless of him.
They finally are about to take control of the National Dem Party and Schultz is ripping out the rug from under them.
while looking to see if Schultz Owned Starbucks; i noticed this:
While working for Hammarplast; Schultz visited a client, a fledgling coffee-bean shop called Starbucks Coffee Company in Seattle, curious as to why it ordered so many plastic cone filters
I'm not the first to notice that this is EXACTLY the Ray Kroc story, am i?
Methinks he is talking about running as a way to drive books sales. NOT because of the profits in such, but due to EGO. He thinks he needs to way more well known and wants the publicity that comes along with what he is doing now.
THEOLDMAN
Our Beloved Professor said...
People tend to look down on Starbucks. It's corporate chain.
So I suspect that out in middle America, the Starbucks places are much more appreciated. I know I go to other coffeeshops when I'm in Madison, but when we're out traveling around the country, we look for the Starbucks signs and make a point of going to Starbucks. It's a trusted brand outside of the blue cities.
again, the similarities with McDonalds and Ray Kroc shine through!
So what am I Ann, chopped liver?
Scott Adams apparently read my post of 1/29/19 where I said:
Re Howard Schultz:
Is he really thinking of running or is this just a particularly obnoxious way to promote his book?
Or maybe it's pure coincidence it was released yesterday?
Let's see how long his campaign lasts. I give it 30 days tops.
Then he will, very publicly, withdraw and milk that for 15 to 30 days.
John Henry
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6329595&postID=3874385864908142589&bpli=1
Now I'm going to have to listen to that podcast and see if Scott credits me or if it is just GMTA.
John Henry
The best thing about Starbucks (Charbucks) is they raised the bar such that gas station coffee is not bad.
I agree with Pants... Hyman's working an angle to get the Dems to give him a chip in the game
If guys as rich as Shultz have better things to do than hawk a book, why wouldn't they have better things to do than write one?
Shultz wrote the book, I assume, because he had something he wanted to say and wanted people to hear it. Having gone to the trouble of writing the book, even with a ghost writer there is still a lot of work, why would he not promote it to assure that the maximum number of people read it?
I agreed with Tim that Shultz might be serious about running and the book is to support the candidacy.
OTOH, I remain skeptical and my $2 bet that he drops out by the end of February remains on the table.
Any takers?
John Henry
gilbar said...
While working for Hammarplast; Schultz visited a client, a fledgling coffee-bean shop called Starbucks Coffee Company in Seattle.
Rest of the Story
In 1987, Baldwin and his Starbucks co-investors sold Starbucks to focus on Peet's
Blogger rehajm said...
It's the publishers what's wanting to hawk the books.
But not just the publishers. They have one motive for hawking the books, money.
Shultz doesn't need the money and that is not why he is hawking the books.
For Schultz a book is one more avenue for the expression of his political ideas
That is why he is hawking the book.
John Henry
At least Trump wasn't dumb enough to hire Steve "Obama's Cuckboy" Schmidt.
Shultz could elbow Hillary off the stage. Trump - Shultz - Hillary
A LOT of people are going to vote Shultz in that scenario. Democrats have to know that.
narayanan said...
Rest of the Story
In 1987, Baldwin and his Starbucks co-investors sold Starbucks to focus on Peet's
Just like the McDonalds brothers! The stories are identical; right down to Burger King's Whopper being better than either store's stuff
I guess I will buy his book through the portal. Shultz doesn’t have the Democratics’ partisan interest in open borders and may see it as an economic issue where the best interests of American citizens is the primary driver. You look at it that way and there is only one conclusion, build the wall.
I have better things to do than reading self serving books by Presidential candidates,
I don't think, in the end, he will run. I think this because I believe he will be driven out of the race with libelous attacks by the Democrats at some point- and I think the accusations will be of the most insane and libelous kind. However, he is testing the waters to see if such a candidacy is possible, and I think the motive is a blend of narcissism and idealism (much like any presidential campaign attempt). He can see just how far left the party has turned in the last 3 years. If Schultz felt certain that a more moderate candidate like Biden were assured of getting the nomination, he might not even attempt a run simply because winning would be impossible and unnecessary.
You almost got me to vote. But here’s my vote: Genuinely working on what he thinks can be a successful VANITY run at the Presidency.
Blogger gilbar said...
Just like the McDonalds brothers! The stories are identical; right down to Burger King's Whopper being better than either store's stuff
And some people say management doesn't matter. (Not you, Gilbar)
What did Ray Kroc do that the McDonalds brothers could not have?
What did Jeff Bezos do that others could not have done?
Wendy's is an even better example. Dave Thomas started it from scratch, built a very successful chain and eventually sold it in the 90s (I think). The company that bought it couldn't figure it out and ran it into the ground. Dave Thomas bought it back for about half what he sold it for and made it wildly successful again.
re McDonalds: Very few people realize what business they are in. Most people, if asked, would say that they are in the food, restaurant business. Nope. McDonalds is a real estate company and that it the secret of their success. The restaurants and food are an adjunct to enhance the value of the real estate.
Avis is another company that people don't understand. Most people think they are in the car rental or travel business. Wrong. They see themselves as being in the used car manufacturing and sales business. The car rental business exists to supply that. (This was true up to the 90s. I've not followed them to see if it still is)
Shultz knew what business Starbucks was in.
John Henry
Could Schultz plot a path to a win? I really don't see how he could win a majority of the electoral vote no matter how far left the Democratic candidate is- if the Democrats ran Lenin, Lenin would still win more states than Schultz.
"It's a recognized global brand."
Go to the airport and look at the lemmings lined up for burnt water.
Their prerogative of course.
"Very few people realize what business they are in. "
Elon Musk still mistakenly believes he's running a car company when he's actually running an energy company.
A few years back during a sales slump (they expanded too quickly and donuts temporarily became symbolic of poor eating), Krispy Kreme toyed with the idea of adding ice cream to their stores.
What a stupid idea.
In a 3 way race with Harris, Schultz, and Trump, I think Trump wins in a landslide. Similarly, a three way race between Harris, Romney, and Trump would be won by Harris in a landslide.
Shultz would force the Dem nominee even farther to The Left on economic issues. Who knows what Shultz thinks in foreign policy/military. He’s probably another idiot like W and Obama. War is bad and we should not be in these countries for a long time, but for now we must be and I’m going to attack a few more of them or supply weapons to our allies to attack them.
He’ll absolutely bring out the rabid Anti-Semitism of The Left.
But Shultz isn’t a Wall Street Jew. So he won’t trigger the soft Anti-Semitisn of the average voter. He’s a coffee guy from Seattle. He’s not a financier
"@Althouse, it seems to me that the difference between option #4 (“Preparing for a vanity run as an independent.”) and #5 (“Genuinely working on what he thinks can be a successful run at the Presidency.”) depends on whether you are dispassionately looking at his campaign from outside, or are a true believer in his candidacy."
I could have phrased it more clearly but what I intended was to ask you to guess about what HS's intentions are.
By the way, there's still some question about what Trump's intentions were. Some people still seem to think that he intended only a vanity run and accidentally became President.
I'd like to see an "I don't care" place to check. I'd check that.
rhhardin said...
"As far as I know, the Fed isn't printing money. The government is borrowing, not printing. It takes existing money from whatever it might be used for by private people and gives it to the government to spend instead. In return the private people get a bond that pays interest and matures someday."
RH, if you're increasing the amount of currency in circulation, you're printing money. It is true, that the effect of that printing, is to shift first consumption, and thereby production, from things people want to things the government wants. But the way that is accomplished is that the money in your pocket is worth less, so the government can outbid you.
Ann Althouse said...
"By the way, there's still some question about what Trump's intentions were. Some people still seem to think that he intended only a vanity run and accidentally became President."
That's because they can't believe he was so vain as to think he could win.
Remember when everybody was saying that Trump was just running to jump start some kind of news network?
The fact that he won doesn't prove his original intent. Trump was in a no lose situation in 2016. No one expected him to win (probable including himself) and if his candidacy failed, he had a very profitable Plan B.
Schultz thinks his past actions will have insulated him from the kind of damage leftists could do to his company.
I, for one, look forward to the mobs outside his stores only allowing in the homeless to use the bathroom.
I could have phrased it more clearly but what I intended was to ask you to guess about what HS's intentions are.
Then I don't see how we can believe Schultz believes it's a "vanity run".
Do you think it's possible for any other candidate in America besides Donald Trump to openly criticize Nathan Phillips and/or the black Israelites? Trump doesn't just have market share. He has a monopoly.
I think he's intending to run for president.
In the process of writing a future-history thriller, I created a businessman who became wealthy by taking over government services and streamlining them. He'd be contracted by a government, say, Taiwan, to keep track of its citizens and maintain tax collections and disbursements. Much of it would be handled automatically, and he became insanely rich as a result.
Then he looked around and saw that he was one among thousands of men and women around the world who were insanely wealthy. No matter how many zeros in his bank accounts, he'd never get any respect from them. He was just another billionaire.
But billionaires don't get that way by accident. They're competitive, and he wanted to set himself apart. So why not found your own nation? Even better, find some land that was defensible, like the Delmarva Peninsula, and declare independence?
He may be #482 on the Forbes list, but #1 on the Founding Fathers list.
That's Howard Schultz. He saw what Trump did, said "I can do that, and get more of the deep state to love me," and is going for it.
What else is he going to do, collect stamps?
Kushner got $285M loan from Russian Mafia money launderers Deutsche Bank the day before the election. Someone knew that Trump was going to win. The Siberian Candidate.
If I could insert a picture of Hillary's sad table at CostCo here I would.
You'll just have to click the link yourself
Schultz is currently Chairman Emeritus at Starbucks. Chairman Emeritus is normally an honorary or vanity position but a CE may serve in an advisory capacity.
If and when he abandons that position you can begin to take his candidacy seriously.
Vanity. That word keeps popping up when I think of Schultz.
Yeah, Mr. Adams. And Trump won't run for President because it'll ruin the Trump brand.
rhhardin said...
"As far as I know, the Fed isn't printing money. The government is borrowing, not printing.
from https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-total-amount-of-US-currency-currently-in-circulation
"Quantitative easing is a system where the Federal reserve pays the interest on Treasury Bills with money it prints out of thin air"
If I could insert a picture of Hillary's sad table at CostCo here I would.
Heh- Is she offering free samples of mac and cheese?
Unless it is to help the Starbucks brand...Howard is reasonable; you know what else is reasonable? $6 for a large, top quality coffee, that you can enjoy with reasonable, not extreme people...
“Kushner got $285M loan from Russian Mafia money launderers Deutsche Bank the day before the election. Someone knew that Trump was going to win. The Siberian Candidate.”
Indeed. Things will get very interesting soon, I suspect.
"Howard said...
Kushner got $285M loan from Russian Mafia money launderers Deutsche Bank the day before the election. Someone knew that Trump was going to win. The Siberian Candidate."
Can you tell us where you found this information and cite the source.
Thank you.
Howard, naturally, buys the idiotic notion that DB launders money for the Russians. The loan was one standard issue real estate loan of unremarkable size.
A real estate developer took out a loan! Howard the educated fool doesn’t understand why a real estate developer would take out a loan.
'Officials from the German bank, which U.S. regulators slapped with a $14 billion fine this month, paid $955,000 to the Clintons between 2012 and 2014 for a total of four speeches, according to financial disclosure records.' because anything the Clinton's do doesn't count, its only when Trump does something, then its a gotcha moment. The leftists here always seem to 'forget' about obama, and the clinton's when it comes to real corruption. Their criticisms would actually mean something if there was a common standard. There hasn't been one, and the leftists imitate pretzels to avoid mentioning any Dem politicians.
By the way, there's still some question about what Trump's intentions were. Some people still seem to think that he intended only a vanity run and accidentally became President.
He campaigned as hard as he did because it was only a vanity campaign? I think anyone who thinks that should try to match one week of the travel and speech-giving that Trump went through, and he did it day after day, month after month. If you want to see vanity campaigning in action, look at Hillary’s schedule in October 2016 and compare it to Trump’s.
(Yes, Althouse, I see that you carefully worded those two sentences to make sure I wouldn’t accuse you of being among the “some people.”)
The Financial Times has a different take. This article considers the possibility that Shultz and other oligarchs who support the Democrat Party are taking the proposed wealth tax seriously and warning the Democrats that they can act as spoilers for what they would regard as chump change.
Worth considering.
He's bored with just running a successful company and ready for a new challenge.
i had found a site from which we can download royalty free files for free at-http://vikingsaber.tk/
Howard goes full Ethel Merman.
Deutsche Bank is a very large international banking concern. They will loan money to anyone with good credit. Even you, Howard.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন