I'm continually blown away that the modern titans of industry readily bow down to the president of the United States.

While I don't think "corporations should be in charge", I also don't think a President should be dictating corporate culture or policy short of going through the proper channels of using Congress to write legislation that keeps corporations in check and doesn't allow their power and influence to grow too large.

But... uh... yeah that isn't happening either. Instead, those in power are helping each other out, at the expense of common citizens of the U.S. (and likely at the expense of people outside the U.S. too.)

But the president absolutely can enforce civil rights laws which clearly ban racial discrimination in hiring and promotions.

> I'm continually blown away that the modern titans of industry readily bow down to the president of the United States.

If you dont, you could suddenly find that the thing you sell has a ridiculous tariff imposed on it. Then that might mean you sell a lot less. He has done much more for much less in the past.

If you make that thing in the US, good luck having the US government slap a tariff on it.

I mean, yes, Microsoft is international, and the president could probably find an angle to put a tariff on some part of their business. Not most of it, though.

So what?

There's a hell of a lot of power vested in the executive branch especially in the DOJ to really mess with companies and the real protection against it's misuse was the agreement that the President didn't directly instruct and control who the DOJ actually indicted. It used to be a notable event when a president even appeared to hint that he was encouraging investigations (not even indictments) into specific companies now we've got a president explicitly demanding the DOJ indict specific people and find any reason to do so, see Comey and Letitia James's recent indictments.

And, of course, since businesses are fundamentally in competition, that puts them in an interesting position: even if it's a net negative for the entire industry to capitulate to the bullying tactics of the executive branch, you can get a leg up on your competition by having one fewer giant complicated court case to worry about (even if the case is guaranteed to lose, it still costs money to defend it).

Yes, there's a lot of pressure to stay on his good side, even if the charges are bogus and eventually beaten or just ends in a pay-off like many cases the process is still damaging/costly and there's large incentives to pre-comply. Look at Apple's little gift plaque for an example of that, not really a bribe unless more laws are broken but a nice little ego stroke none the less.

So "democracy" [1], that term which is bandied about so much by those who seem to consistently fail at it.

[1] Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. You [2] voted for it, now you [2] get to keep it.

[2] you as in "We, the People".

The OP was questioning why these companies are doing what this man is asking them to. I feel the reason is because this man is the president.

The fact is relevant to the statement, which is why I wrote it.

However, in the United States, the President is supposed to have very limited unilateral authority over any company.

That's proved to be an idea only held up by the fig leaf of norms like the independence of the DOJ and the idea of the other two branches actually acting as a check on the others. Instead after the 70 year project we now have a compliant Supreme Court rubber stamping practically every action and flirting with ratifying the unitary executive as law. That plus a compliant Congress either ideologically aligned or cowed by the idea of his power over the voters means we very much have a President able to exert huge amounts of influence over companies.

But on the plus (???) side, he's extremely bribable.

For minor things with immediate payoffs like a pardon that seems correct. If you're ask is longer term though I'd be hesitant, he shows the same inclination to go with whatever the last person in a room wanted for longer term stuff, see his aggressive oscillations on Ukraine.

The OP was actually not questioning that at all. It was lamenting that they are bending the knee to someone unworthy of it, in furtherance of a culture war spearheaded by said someone. In particular, a glorified reality show egomaniac who treats their current job as a glorified reality show.

It certainly isn't useless information that the person is currently president, but that alone doesn't say much, because no presidents have ever acted this way before. The difference here is that this president is also a power-tripping glorified reality show egomaniac. Thus, the operant term is the latter, not the former.

Again, that said someone is the President of the United States. If he wasnt the president, these companies probably wouldnt be doing this.

I still feel thats pretty relevant.

The part which is relevant is that he’s willing to break the law in unprecedented ways and has the full support of the Republican Party in doing so. Americans used to pride ourselves on the government not controlling businesses.

The US government has been dictating what company grows and what fails since WWII. Just like every other country.

Really? So like IBM getting big and then fading to Microsoft and then Apple and Google was a government plan? The government decided that American car manufacturers should lose to Japan but then pivoted back for … reasons?

This is not like “every other country”, it’s like corrupt authoritarian countries and you shouldn’t help cover for it by making excuses for corruption.

If he wasnt the President, he wouldnt be able to do those things.

Therefore the fact he is President is pretty relevant.

Sure, and again, that someone is also a 34-time convicted criminal and rapist. He wouldn't be doing these things if he wasn't predisposed to criminality and abusing people over which he has disproportionate power, or if he wasn't a malignant narcissist and glorified reality tv show egomaniac, with a track record of amoral transactional relationships aimed at improving his position at the expense of others.

So, your points and others' are all 'pretty relevant': we now have the means (provided by the article), the motive (provided by others), and the opportunity (provided by you). Thank you for your useful and equal contribution to the trifecta.

sorry, on HN you get flagged for stating the truth

These companies had no problem resisting "the president". Heck, if Bernie Sanders or AOC were elected president, do you think they would bend the knee the way they do?

Trump is the president AND he is part of their in-group. They submit willingly.

For three more years, and at significant risk of being basically neutered in a year (the polls aren't exactly going _great_ for him). Like, it's unclear how much accommodation one should be making to his delicate feelings.