Steve Wynn Interview in the WSJ

#1
Did anyone else read Wynn's interview in the WSJ today? Am I the only one getting tired of his Chinese government bootlicking? Its getting embarrassing.

I used to have a lot of respect for SW, but can't muster it for anyone who says "As much as a Western or capitalistic sense has drifted in [to China], there's still a strong sense of what's good for the people", as if western capitalism is evil and only the gentle Chinese government cares about its people.

Encore is my home (comp) base in Vegas. I don't want to give this clown any more of my business, even if I'm not giving him any money. Any suggestions for another nice place to make my new comp base that's not part of a chain in case I get burned there? Then I can go back to Wynn and torch some of those DD games.:flame:
 
#2
Wynn is moving his corp HQ venue to China.
The secret side of his PR and corporate strategy is to be closer to his secret Triad partners. zg
 

Solo player

Well-Known Member
#4
Wynn conference call

During Wynns last quarterly earnings report/conference call, or maybe the one previous, he said it was easier dealing with the chinese gov. vs. the U.S. gov. And really ripped into the current administration as being anti-business. You may or may not agree with his opinions but his confernce calls are never dull.
 

aslan

Well-Known Member
#5
Solo player said:
During Wynns last quarterly earnings report/conference call, or maybe the one previous, he said it was easier dealing with the chinese gov. vs. the U.S. gov. And really ripped into the current administration as being anti-business. You may or may not agree with his opinions but his confernce calls are never dull.
The current administration is anti-business, but what I want to know is how do you advocate for the poor (Obama) without a vibrant business economy? It seems to me it's more a balancing act than advocating for one side or the other, which creates class warfare and strife.
 

Gamblor

Well-Known Member
#6
China's more authoritarian, so bribes are much more effective there.

Here you have to lobby, contribute to candidate (that might not win) and other less certain forms of bribery, just a bigger hassle in the US.
 

Caesar

Well-Known Member
#7
Wynn and Trump and their statements

Wynn, like Trump, is a successful businessman. And their comments on Obama should not be taken too seriously. Trump, after embarrassing himself, has remained silent lately. Perhaps Wynn will one day do the same.

Of course China's government is easier to deal with; China is a dictatorship, and a corrupt one at that.

The notion that Obama is bad for business is false: corporate profits--and CEO compensation--are at an all-time high. Obama is trying to regulate business practices that helped create the debacle of 2008 and that's a good idea.

But the Republicans block him at every opportunity.
 

StudiodeKadent

Well-Known Member
#8
Wynn's China-love is embarrassing, I agree.

But he isn't a principled free-marketer in a market-oriented sector of the economy. The gambling sector is corporatist (established economic institutions are incorporated into and (to a large extent) controlled by the State), not free market.

He's making PR statements to please the Chinese government, who can legally get away with revoking Wynn's concession at will.

As for the issue of Wynn vs. Obama, let me state a few simple things.
1) High corporate profits and high executive compensation are NOT measures of business friendliness. "Business" is more than "large corporate business." Business friendliness is things like low regulatory compliance cost, simple/modest regulatory frameworks, quick approval by governments, legal system that respects property rights, etc. All these things are actually more important for small businesses than large businesses; big businesses can lobby the State for Friends In High Places.

In the case of the China issue, from what I know (which is admittedly somewhat limited), they have very simple regulatory legislation, which can make it easy to do business there even in spite of the higher actual tax rate. I know Singapore isn't China, but compare the size of the Singapore tax code to the US tax code. Simplicity is more important for business friendliness than nominal tax rate.

2) Aslan is correct; there's a difference between providing social services ("Provisional Intervention") and restricting/controlling business activities ("Authoritative Intervention"). One can easily lessen authoritative intervention without damaging provisional intervention. Indeed, too much authoritative intervention can 'kill the goose that lays the golden eggs' and make it harder to perform provisional intervention.

3) Aslan asked: "what I want to know is how do you advocate for the poor without a vibrant business economy?" The idea that one can help the poor by strangling the business economy is based primarily on an unquestioned premise that the economy is a zero-sum game and thus by helping one side you hurt the other, and by hurting one side you help the other.

Or, if I were to entertain the possibility of more malevolent motives, perhaps they don't really want to help the poor in the first place; they just want to punish business.

Or, if I were to entertain the possibility of cynical, political motives, perhaps they want to energize "the base" by making a big show of punishing businesses in order to shore up support for re-election and establish Obama's populist credentials.

I don't think Steve Wynn is Mr. Perfect, but he makes a reasonable point that needs to be analyzed rather than simply dismissed as "Republican." Wynn after all is a Democrat that supports Harry Reid (as he said in the conference call).

I hope this thread can remain civilized in the face of disagreement. Lets all refrain from slinging mud.
 

Caesar

Well-Known Member
#9
Is Wynn really a Democrat?

I played poker at the Wynn several times about six months ago. They had Fox News on all their TVs. I thought that was really strange. Poker rooms don't normally have news on; they usually have either sports or poker shows. Why would a Democrat choose to have Fox News on his poker room TVs? Seems strange, doesn't it?
 
#11
Caesar said:
I played poker at the Wynn several times about six months ago. They had Fox News on all their TVs. I thought that was really strange. Poker rooms don't normally have news on; they usually have either sports or poker shows. Why would a Democrat choose to have Fox News on his poker room TVs? Seems strange, doesn't it?
Read the full transcript of what he said. He does indeed state he's a Democrat and supports Harry Reid. See here: http://www.businessinsider.com/wynn-ceo-steve-wynn-conference-call-transcript-obama-2011-7

As for Fox News being on in the poker room, perhaps the players wanted it? Perhaps the spectators wanted it? I don't think he issued any executive directive to have Fox News on his TVs. Whatever the reason, it was probably not ideological (i.e. an attempt to promote free market sentiment) but rather business-related (i.e. to appeal to certain customers).

Shadroch said:
So Obama is creating an unsafe environment for business' to invest in, unlike the Red Chinese? That about sum it up?
That's not what Wynn said. Wynn clearly knows he needs to suck up to the Chinese government to make sure he keeps his Macau concession. Given how big and heavy-gambling the Chinese market is, this is a risk he's willing to take.

First, lets look at "Red Chinese." No offense Shad, but that's a misrepresentation. The Chinese Communist Party is Communist in name only. Their actual economic ideology is Corporatism, or Economic Fascism. They are not Marxists by any stretch of the imagination. In the Chinese system (as well as in most of Asia), large economic institutions are incorporated into the State.

Corporatism is a broad category and most economies including that of the US have elements of Corporatism. But Corporatism is far more entrenched, 'official' and accepted there than in the US. In the US, people will criticize it for what it is; an alliance of the State and certain special interests.

But I digress. The point is that China is not Communist any more. Fascist would be more accurate (and it actually arguably is; corporatist economics, authoritarian statism and nationalism are all important parts of the Chinese system, and all of them are very fascist in nature (note that whilst I disagree with fascism, I'm using the term descriptively rather than as a term of abuse)).

Now, lets end that digression. The "safety" of Wynn's investment in China is a function of how much he sucks up to the government. What Wynn is saying that doing business in China is easier than in the US in terms of 'red tape' (once, of course, the State's blessing has been secured).

Additionally, he's saying that the prospect of a large increase in red tape in the US economy is scaring businesses. Businesses don't like regulatory frameworks which are complex, inconsistent, unclear, or changing.

He then goes on to argue it is this 'regulatory uncertainty' that is prolonging the recession.

Sorry for that overly-long digression-filled reply. But I hope its an accurate summary.
 
#12
Caesar said:
Wynn, like Trump, is a successful businessman. And their comments on Obama should not be taken too seriously. Trump, after embarrassing himself, has remained silent lately. Perhaps Wynn will one day do the same.

Of course China's government is easier to deal with; China is a dictatorship, and a corrupt one at that.

The notion that Obama is bad for business is false: corporate profits--and CEO compensation--are at an all-time high. Obama is trying to regulate business practices that helped create the debacle of 2008 and that's a good idea.

But the Republicans block him at every opportunity.
I am the last to be pro either party but exactly how could the republicans block him until after the last election that was a referendum on Obama. The dems didn't even invite the republicans to the bargaining table. The only reason they tried to spin a republican block (they could pass anything without 1 Republican vote) to legislation is they knew passage of their agenda would trash the economy. Without Republican support they bear the entire blame for the natural progression to economic death for the economy. Even without any Republican support of insane policies for a down economy they still try to blame the republicans. This post is evidence that some people will believe anything that blames the other guys no matter how much it goes against what actually happened. The big business interests that gave so much to elect Obama are getting their payback as this poster points out but the middle class and poor are not. It is a new era of welfare for the rich. All I know is I saw them give hundreds of billions to the people that caused the collapse. That should stop the practices that caused this. Make the people that did it so rich that they don't need to anymore. Wait these type of people never have enough.
 
#13
tthree said:
The big business interests that gave so much to elect Obama...
This is true. Obama got tons of support from Wall Street money.

The idea that Obama would be less Corporatist than the vast majority of Republicans is, put gently, naive.
 
#14
StudiodeKadent said:
Additionally, he's saying that the prospect of a large increase in red tape in the US economy is scaring businesses. Businesses don't like regulatory frameworks which are complex, inconsistent, unclear, or changing.

He then goes on to argue it is this 'regulatory uncertainty' that is prolonging the recession.
x2. Exactly why the economy is flatlining. The businesses have the money to invest and create jobs but the regulatory environment and it's uncertainty is prohibitive of this development. If this doesn't change soon the money that hasn't already been invested in foreign economies will go there.
 

Machinist

Well-Known Member
#15
tthree said:
x2. Exactly why the economy is flatlining. The businesses have the money to invest and create jobs but the regulatory environment and it's uncertainty is prohibitive of this development. If this doesn't change soon the money that hasn't already been invested in foreign economies will go there.
x3..........i as a consumer am also waiting......have been since the man was elected.....
Lots of money just waiting to go to work.........
Saw a bumpersticker the other day............... it said

ANYBODY BUT OBAMA 2012

Machinist
 

aslan

Well-Known Member
#18
StudiodeKadent said:
I agree. The levelheaded, flame-free discussion we've all had so far is excellent. I hope it can continue.
Don't hold your breath! The Forum has a long history of political and religious discussions that ended in food fights and worse. You guys have been exemplary in your conduct, but I hope you realize that political discussions are forbidden on the Forum. I should know, being possibly the biggest offender, but don't be surprised to have one of the following occur: (1) someone enters the discussion blasting the common view here :flame:, or (2) the moderators shut down the discussion, that as you say, has been nothing but levelheaded and flame-free. Apparently, there is just too much overhead in terms of moderation time and effort to allow even the most well-meaning and genteel political and religious discussions. I wish it were not so.
 

Solo player

Well-Known Member
#19
Wynn stock

Just look at the stock peformance of WYNN over the last couple of years. He made his investers a lot of money. Hard to be critical of that. A lot of what he says makes sense. You may not like it, but business wise he is dead on.
 
Top