Disney has spent enormous amounts of time and money in order to ruin what was arguably the most beloved brand in the history of entertainment. Now Steve Green brings us a report that Disney not only miraculously managed to lose money on Star Wars : they also shaded the numbers in their financial reports.
Listen here on Soundcloud:
Marxism is all about seizing the means of production… Of the man. In Disney’s view the shareholders are only necessary because Death Stars are really expensive to build.
As a lifetime Disney lover, I still hold out hope that the stockholders will revolt. I did have a few shares that I sold in protest as soon as the ‘not so secret agenda’ video came out. I still retain DVC ownership, I don’t give up easily on things I love. Peltz and others must continue to press which is what the left does, they don’t give up after one loss or even a win they press on.
Even more concerning is blatantly lying on financial statement. What makes Iger that confident that he would face no consequences for his actions?
Been busy for a bit – anything interesting happen while I was away?
There’s one big question I’ve been asking for years – where are the shareholder lawsuits?
And Bill, you’re wrong about one thing about Leftists – they have fun when they’re making other people as miserable as themselves
Disney Incorporated, by virtue of its ubiquity and popularity, became a prime target for acquisition as a Leftist propaganda machine. More’s the pity. The Left acquired Disney by infiltration, not financial acquisition. They didn’t buy Disney Inc., they took it over through social guerilla warfare. It is no small feat to shame, embarrass, harass and virtue signal captains of capitalism into giving up their profits for a losing social stance. Which is as impressive as it is unconscionable. Something as big as Disney Inc. takes a long, long time to go broke. The Left knows they can continue to milk… Read more »
ZZ Top, same three guys, same three notes.
The bit about formula and execution makes me think of the comparison between eazy and hard, simple and complicated. Something can be quite simple but very hard to do. Jump up and grab that ledge. Easy, two steps, but the timing is tricky. Something might be 15 steps to do, so complicated, but each step is easy and only the number of steps makes it non-trivial.
You highlight an issue of debt, not just for Disney but applicable to the entire United States with emphasis on the Federal Government. The comparison of government debt to GDP is a false comparison. A better comparison is to government revenues. The proportion of interest payments related to revenues highlights that more and more is needed to cover debt at the “expense” of other programs, putting aside the huge number of expensive and generally worthless ones which should be cut regardless. Disney, being “private”, has an obligation to its investors, and with the direction the company is taking, deserves to… Read more »
I think the debt to GDP comparison is used so that people can see how much the government is already taking out of the economy and how much room for growth there is. Debt to revenue only shows how much more money is needed, not whether it is available. Both are useful and sometimes both might be required.
For Bill’s example, it is not that the US Gov is in debt but that the debt is a significant portion of national revenue, not just the government’s part of it.
Then there is the difference between debt and deficit to consider also.
Yup. There is a difference between debt and deficit. I know you know it, but thought I’d make my feeble attempt to explain it here hoping others read it. Deficit is a shortage of something. Debt is owing something. You can have a debt without a deficit, and a deficit without a debt. However, Federal budget has both. Example: I owe $1000, and have expenses of $1000. If I have income from $1000 to $1999, I have debt, but no deficit. If I have savings of $1000 and income of $1000, if i spend $1001 up to $2000 I have… Read more »
Yes. In our case, the deficit is why we have the debt. To take the tangent even farther I will flesh out my prior thought in case anyone else reads this far. Debt to revenue vs debt to GDP is different (not often does it practically matter) because a government might be taxing at a very low rate and thus its debt might be a small fraction of overall GDP. In that case, it could increase revenue dramatically by increasing taxes a relatively small amount of GDP and pay down its debt. On the other hand, if debt to revenue… Read more »
Hey, I always read all comments. I check daily for new ones. Its amazing how much I learn that way.
And occasionally get a good laugh.
As to your comments here… Spot on. I truly believe if we kept our spending to really Constitutional limits, we wouldn’t be in this mess.
replying to Harry….
When do you think gravitational propulsion will become a reality?
Not until an unlimited power source is discovered and can be harnessed practically. And then not for a long time after that. Gravitational manipulation and unlimited energy sources are the stuff of pure science fiction and have zero hope of being realized for many, many lifetimes to come, if ever. What a strange question to ask in this context.
The problem with having an unlimited power source, even given turning matter into energy comes down to the annoying first law of Thermodynamics: The first law of thermodynamics is a fundamental principle of nature that says energy is never lost or gained, only changed. Curses! Foiled again! Only God can create either. Eventually, we would run out of both energy and matter. And the second law of Thermodynamics makes it even worse. Entropy always increases. You have losses. Add in the third law… Well, I’ve heard the three laws of Thermodynamics restated this way: You can’t win, you can’t break even,… Read more »
“You can’t win, you can’t break even, and you can’t get out of the game.” LOL, ain’t it the truth? I reckon that’s why they’re called “Laws” not theories. Laws in Science are immutable as far as we know at this point. There’s another Law in application here too. That one is called “Newton’s Law of Gravitation”. Which states — “… any particle of matter in the universe attracts any other with a force varying directly as the product of the masses and inversely as the square of the distance between them …” You can get “gravitic propulsion” if you… Read more »
“You can’t win, you can’t break even, and you can’t get out of the game.” Had a feeling you’d like that one. But I’ve heard a theory about gravity propulsion. Create a singularity (mini black hole) in the direction you want to go. But the energy needed would be horrific. And unless you could make it go away when done with it, you and the singularity would be one. Forcefully. (Gee, didn’t you say something like that?”🤔) Still science fiction from what we know now. But if anyone thinks humans will ever know everything, they have another think coming. As… Read more »
First – let me agree with Bill. I don’t want Disney to survive as long as they are on the path upon which they currently tread. Second – as to the accounting, one would need to go back and look at how the charge was done back when the acquisition was made. Was it a one-time charge that lowered earnings for that particular year? If so, it might be well and proper to ignore that charge when talking about profits now. However, if they planned on spreading the cost over some amount of time, then that needs to be noted… Read more »