What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Knee Jerk Opinion - Koch Brothers (1 Viewer)

Opinion of Charles Koch / Koch Brothers?

  • Don't know who they are

    Votes: 13 7.6%
  • Very positive opinion

    Votes: 5 2.9%
  • Slightly positive opinion

    Votes: 8 4.7%
  • Neutral

    Votes: 18 10.5%
  • Slightly negative opinion

    Votes: 49 28.7%
  • Very negative opinion

    Votes: 78 45.6%

  • Total voters
    171

Joe Bryant

Guide
Staff member
Curious here.

When you hear the name Charles Koch (pronounced "Coke") or the Koch Brothers, do you have an opinion?

Please answer without googling.

And please let's get a few votes before commenting. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I waited until there were 14 votes before posting this? Is that okay?

Anyway, I don't know much about them except that they donate a lot of money to politicians who advance their agenda. Also, I'm pretty sure one of them died recently.

 
Anyway, I don't know much about them except that they donate a lot of money to politicians who advance their agenda
that's me

its what rich people/businessman do - they finance campaigns and then get their backs rubbed in return for the $$ they send

Dems do it, Republicans do it - that's the DC game

 
Curious here.

When you hear the name Charles Koch (pronounced "Coke") or the Koch Brothers, do you have an opinion?

Please answer without googling.

And please let's get a few votes before commenting. 
OK, without looking it up, the Koch Bros have donated a ton of money to conservative candidates and causes to buy elections and in some cases have succeeded (glad I don't have to google this or provide a link as my recollection may not be 100% accurate). My take is they are probably one of best arguments in favor of campaign finance reform. 

 
Depends on the context...they do a ton of good things and enable/fund a ton of bad things....I guess I'm in the middle somewhere with strong opinions one way or the other depending on topic.

 
Thanks Folks.

I asked as I was surprised. My impression of them was not good. But I realized I knew literally nothing about them. From my not knowing anything perspective, they were sort of the conservative George Soros. The evil bazillionaire puppet master boogeyman responsible for all the bad things from the "other side".

But I heard Charles Koch on a podcast recently and he seemed like the nicest guy ever. Obviously, super rich. LIke #11 in the world or something. But the podcast (which of course would be favorable as he was a guest) talked about him buying Georgia Pacific and the first meeting with the leaders, he takes their order for lunch before they start the meeting. That all the top execs had their 51st floor with private elevator and suit and tie dress code. And when one of the "lesser" managers was summoned to talk to the top bosses, they had to scramble for a coat and tie.

Koch bought it and turned it upside down. Turned the 51st floor into meeting rooms anyone in the company could book. Instituted a bottom up management style where they listened to the people actually doing the work. Basically just great stuff. 

Now of course, there are always two sides to a story.

But I was completely surprised. To the point, I had to go back and google the guy to make sure I had the right guy. 

Interesting. 

 
And on the campaign finance reform stuff. From wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Koch

Koch disdains "big government" and the "political class."[24] He believes billionaires Warren Buffett and George Soros, who fund organizations with different ideologies, "simply haven't been sufficiently exposed to the ideas of liberty."[24] Koch claimed "prosperity is under attack" by the Obama administration and sought to warn "of policies that threaten to erode our economic freedom and transfer vast sums of money to the state."[40]

In an April 2011 Wall Street Journal op-ed, Koch wrote:

Government spending on business only aggravates the problem. Too many businesses have successfully lobbied for special favors and treatment by seeking mandates for their products, subsidies (in the form of cash payments from the government), and regulations and tariffs to keep more efficient competitors at bay. Crony capitalism is much easier than competing in an open market. But it erodes our overall standard of living and stifles entrepreneurs by rewarding the politically favored rather than those who provide what consumers want.[41]

His opposition to corporate welfare includes lobbying for the end to ethanol subsidies even though Koch Industries is a major ethanol producer. He is quoted as saying: "The first thing we've got to get rid of is business welfare and entitlements."[42]

 
Like most things and people, it's complicated.  He has some admirable desires and views, but he also has admitted playing a large role in the hyper-partisanship that cripples our government, and also has long fought climate change initiatives.  Overall, I have a very unfavorable view of him just because I think his use of money in politics and climate change have had a significantly larger negative impact on the world than his philanthropy.  Of course, I admit that to be due to my views on climate change and disdain for what the tea party became.

 
  • Smile
Reactions: JAA
I’ve only ever encountered them in the same vein as George Soros, mega donors with influence.  I’m uninterested in those kinds of stories so never really bothered to learn more, similar to Soros as I really have no idea who they are or what they might be for

 
I had a lower opinion of the now late Sheldon Adelson, honestly. 
But you know what is the first thing I think of these days when somebody mentions the Koch brothers or George Soros or Adelson? Their helplessness in the face of populism. The Koch brothers didn’t want Donald Trump to be the GOP nominee in 2016; their man was Jeb Bush. But all of their billions meant nothing in the face of a populist uprising. This is why I’ve never quite believed in the “power elite” theory of politics. 

 
Slightly negative.  I generally like stuff from CATO, although I feel it has changed its tone quite a bit over the past 5-10 years. I loved Bill in the documentary Sour Grapes. I hate it when they fund crappy local politicians in my state just because they are aligned on a few big policy issues.

 
Depends on the context...they do a ton of good things and enable/fund a ton of bad things....I guess I'm in the middle somewhere with strong opinions one way or the other depending on topic.
Exactly what I was about to post.

I voted slightly negative.

 
I know that Charles Koch has been rehabilitating his image in the mainstream lately, and I'm willing to accept that he has moderated a bit since his brother passed away.  I like that they support NPR, and they were never big fans of Trump.  I recognize there are huge political donors with too much influence on both sides.  But I live in state (WI) where in 2010 the Kochs decided to experiment with influencing state/local politics in order to seize control of local government and impose a conservative political agenda on a 50/50 state.  We were not "trending red" then, any more than we are "trending blue" now but the Kochs saw an opportunity to force the issue in a census year and thus gain control over the politics of the state for the next decade through redistricting. Americans for Prosperity, ALEC, and other national political organizations dumped money into local/state races before the 2010 election, going negative and driving wedges in the electorate on a scale we were not prepared for in Wisconsin. People are pretty nice around here but things got ugly real quick. In many ways it was a test run for what happened on a national scale 5 years later.  Candidates they supported managed to gain complete control of state government before democrats even understood what was happening. Scott Walker and others immediately proceeded destroy public unions, pitting the taxpayer against the parasitic teachers and public employees.  Private sector unions were next.  Then the candidates they promoted proceeded to gerrymander the state so badly that even though Wisconsin is a 50/50 state overall, conservatives hold 2/3 of the seats in state government despite getting a minority of total votes.  The Koch brothers have moved on to bigger and better things but people are still at each other's throats here after their little experiment.  Put me down in the "very negative opinion" category, but I'm glad to hear about the way Charles in handling Georgia Pacific, etc as Joe mentioned.  Maybe my mind can be changed in the future.

 
I voted slightly negative.

They are great businessmen (in the same vein as Buffett, Bezos & Gates).  However, they have used their money for a lot of overt political influence.  Some of which I agree with and some of which I don't, which is why I think they and their peers should be limited somehow when it comes to politics.  Let them talk and let them do some independent supporting of candidates, but the buying of elections and policies is a really dangerous path that they have brazenly marched down.

 
  • Thanks
Reactions: JAA
Very negative - not a fan of those that are for all intents and purposes climate change deniers - especially those that donate millions of dollars to continue to harm said climate.

 
I voted slightly negative.

They are great businessmen (in the same vein as Buffett, Bezos & Gates).  However, they have used their money for a lot of overt political influence.  Some of which I agree with and some of which I don't, which is why I think they and their peers should be limited somehow when it comes to politics.  Let them talk and let them do some independent supporting of candidates, but the buying of elections and policies is a really dangerous path that they have brazenly marched down.
For me the biggest issue facing this country, even more than climate change.

 
Back in 1997 I was granted the opportunity to interview at one of their companies at the headquarters in Wichita.  I would have been 33, and had just left Houston as a Senior Director of Budgeting and Analysis at a large gas company. Had moved up the ranks pretty quickly and was considered a good employee.

I show up for the interview, and the receptionist hands be a packet with HR info, and several newspaper clippings from the local newspaper.  One of the clippings had the following highlighted in yellow "Koch employees are no longer required to work on Saturdays".   Of course this piqued my curiosity.  In the interview with an HR rep, we get the chit chat over and I ask about the clipping.......about 10 minutes in.  She says "yeah we changed that requirement about a year or so ago, but if you want to get anywhere in here, I'd just apply that to Sunday morning, but Saturday you would probably want to at least show your face in the office for a good portion of the day".  I took this in for a second, thanked her for the opportunity and said "I don't want to waste anymore of your time, as this would not be a fit".  She turned about 3 shades of white.  I didn't miss out, and some of the friends that I met (via Fantasy) hated working there, but the pay was so good they couldn't bring themselves to leave.

One thing that they did do that was interesting was they did not budget.  They wanted their management focused on running the business.  At the end of the year, they were graded on expectations based on the circumstances that occurred during the year.  IE...........you may do the best job of your life preventing losses, but you don't meet target so you get no bonus in most companies, but at Koch, you had a chance still.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back in 1997 I was granted the opportunity to interview at one of their companies at the headquarters in Wichita.  I would have been 33, and had just left Houston as a Senior Director of Budgeting and Analysis at a large gas company. Had moved up the ranks pretty quickly and was considered a good employee.

I show up for the interview, and the receptionist hands be a packet with HR info, and several newspaper clippings from the local newspaper.  One of the clippings had the following highlighted in yellow "Koch employees are no longer required to work on Saturdays".   Of course this piqued my curiosity.  In the interview with an HR rep, we get the chit chat over and I ask about the clipping.......about 10 minutes in.  She says "yeah we changed that requirement about a year or so ago, but if you want to get anywhere in here, I'd just apply that to Sunday morning, but Saturday you would probably want to at least show your face in the office for a good portion of the day".  I took this in for a second, thanked her for the opportunity and said "I don't want to waste anymore of your time, as this would not be a fit".  She turned about 3 shades of white.  I didn't miss out, and some of the friends that I met (via Fantasy) hated working there, but the pay was so good they couldn't bring themselves to leave.

One thing that they did do that was interesting was they did not budget.  They wanted their management focused on running the business.  At the end of the year, they were graded on expectations based on the circumstances that occurred during the year.  IE...........you may do the best job of your life preventing losses, but you don't meet target so you get no bonus in most companies, but at Koch, you had a chance still.
That doesn't surprise me. I'm not sure how it is now but lots of companies 20 years ago had the "hours are long but the pay is great" angle. That's appealing to some people but not to others. Now, it seems less a thing. Although I'm sure some of the attorneys here might have an opinion that. 

 
Other quick stuff after reading a little more. 

He said thankfully, Georgia Pacific was a private company and did not have to deal with stock price issues. In his opinion, obsessing over stock price encourages short term thinking at the expense of long term. 

Big thing he talked about "what are the goals?" Georgia Pacific had the goal of being the "low cost producer of Southern Pine material". But there were tons of negatives to that. Equipment wasn't maintained as well when low cost was priority. Innovation was stunted when low cost was priority. That kind of thing. Pretty interesting. 

 
everything flat earth said up there about the kochs in wisconsin is true and its a huge shame we used to be rivals but friendly and all good in the hood after the whistle blew now we are as divided as dc and thats thanks to the kochs basically they ruined the states political landscape and if there is one thing they could do to change my mind about them it would be to pour as much money in as they did to ruin it to fix it take that to the bank brohans 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I voted slightly negative.  But despite that how many of you guys ever voted for a Koch brother?

✋

Granted I was sixteen and this was a mock election so it didn't count for anything.  And it wasn't a vote for them so much as I wanted to be the only one in two thousand that knew of Clark - Koch to write them down in my high school straw poll.  Unfortunately one other person snuck in a late ballot to thwart my plan.  His vote was specifically to thwart my plan.  Over the years this seems pretty typical of how votes for the Libertarian candidates play out in real elections as in about something else.

 
OK, without looking it up, the Koch Bros have donated a ton of money to conservative candidates and causes to buy elections and in some cases have succeeded (glad I don't have to google this or provide a link as my recollection may not be 100% accurate). My take is they are probably one of best arguments in favor of campaign finance reform. 
I finally agree with you. They are the George Soros of the right.  Both should be eliminated.  We need a reform where every candiate on both sides gets a set amount of dollars to spend.  Othewise elections will be bought as they are now.   Almost a billion was spent on the Georgia senate race alone.  That is insane.   

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I voted neutral, but I honestly don't know a ton about them other than they have conservative views and spend a lot in campaign funding & I would imagine lobbying efforts as well. I do know that they give a boatload of money in charitable donations, so there's that.

 
Voted neutral.  Rich people controlling the world isn't new or partisan.  This is the world im in.  And I like my world. 

 
This thread is honestly shocking to me, ai had the impression the Koch brothers ate babies.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Voted slightly negative.  I don’t know enough about them to be passionate enough to say very negative.  But from what I remember/understand they were a driving force behind the GOP tea party movement. Feel like that was where I started to lose any real connection to the right.   

 
Very negative - not a fan of those that are for all intents and purposes climate change deniers - especially those that donate millions of dollars to continue to harm said climate.
His stance is against stupid counterproductive policies such as shutting down a pipeline which ends up leading to more carbon producing means to accomplish the task.  

 
You couldn't be more wrong. 
Lol...keep listening to your propaganda news networks.  It is like the favorite tactic to lable people in extremist terms to deflect legitimate criticism.  Koch does not buy into the fear-mongering of global doom and does not believe the answer is government taxes.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
His stance is against stupid counterproductive policies such as shutting down a pipeline which ends up leading to more carbon producing means to accomplish the task.  
Don't even worry about it.
As long as we have philanthropists on the Left such as Bill Gates....definitely NOT a "climate denier", who proposed that we "dim the sun" in order to fight climate change, we will be just fine.

What could possibly go wrong?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't even worry about it.
As long as we have philanthropists on the Left such as Bill Gates....definitely NOT a "climate denier", who proposed that we "dim the sun" in order to fight climate change, we will be just fine.

What could possibly go wrong?
Do you not believe in man-made climate change and global warming?

 
Lol...keep listening to your propaganda news networks.  It is like the favorite tactic to lable people in extremist terms to deflect legitimate criticism.  Koch does not buy into the fear-mongering of global doom and does not believe the answer is government taxes.
LOL - like you and all your absolutely horrible COVID19 predictions? I think you are the one who listens too much to propaganda news networks.

 
rcam said:
Do you not believe in man-made climate change and global warming?
No...I have not drinketh of the kool-aid.

I was too young to care when the problem was "global cooling"
I was too busy to care when the problem was "global warming"
...And now I have been around long enough and seen enough, not to be suckered into believing in "climate change"

If there was money to be made in monitoring Big Foot....people would be warning us about the problem and asking for more money to keep Big Foot in check.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
No...I have not drinketh of the kool-aid.

I was too young to care when the problem was "global cooling"
I was too busy to care when the problem was "global warming"
...And now I have been around long enough and seen enough, not to be suckered into believing in "climate change"

If there was money to be made in monitoring Big Foot....people would be warning us about the problem and asking for more money to keep Big Foot in check.
If you don't believe in climate change - then why do you think anything Bill Gates can do would affect anything? What could go wrong? Well, using your logic - absolutely nothing. If billions of people aren't capable of changing the climate why would you think one man could? 

 
If you don't believe in climate change - then why do you think anything Bill Gates can do would affect anything? What could go wrong? Well, using your logic - absolutely nothing. If billions of people aren't capable of changing the climate why would you think one man could? 
Oh...but I DO believe in "climate change"
It's been going on since the Earth cooled (the beginning of climate change)....just take a look at what happened to the Sahara Jungle.

Gates (and his money) can obviously affect lots of things.....just not climate change.
But hey....if there is money to be made from his idea.... add it to the religion, jump on board, and continue to kneel at the alter!

…and for God's sake....do not ignore the collection plate when it is shoved in your face!

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top