Nike and Levis Strauss Political Business Strategy

quote:

---

From a pure economic/financial perspective this Nike branding campaign doesn’t make sense…. unless, you realize a much bigger picture. A hidden bigger picture.

On its face, it just seems absurd. Why would any major corporation intentionally stake out a branding position that is adverse to their financial interests?

---

quote:

---

This presents a dual risk. #1 there are likely to be tariffs on Chinese imports; and #2 there are current sanctions against any companies operating in North Korea.

A multinational company doing simultaneous business with ASEAN nations, China and North Korea for the majority of their manufacturing is extraordinarily exposed to the risks inherent within a U.S. -vs- China/DPRK trade reset.

A 20% drop in Nike value (based on current evaluations), as a result of branding themselves with controversial and political Kaepernick, is nothing compared to the staggering financial risk inherent within multi-billion manufacturing contracts that can become worthless overnight.

---

quote:

---

Therefore the Nike Company would be sympathetic to, and financially dependent on, alignment with the objectives of the Chinese Communist Party. In fact, with so much on the line, Chairman Xi Jinping would openly embrace and assist anti-U.S. endeavors around trade.

To that extent Beijing (the ultimate decision-maker and approval body) would willingly lower production costs to offset any drops in U.S. revenue for parent corporation, Nike. A rather interesting quid-pro-quo.

And that answers the question: “Why would any major corporation intentionally stake out a branding position that is adverse to their financial interests?”

They, wouldn’t; and they didn’t.

The Nike political branding position is reconciled when you look at the bigger picture and see where the real financial risk aligns. The Nike economic decision is to align with China, and by extension North Korea, for a position of mutual benefit. It is all about the proverbial $$$$ and Nike’s best financial play is to mitigate risk and assist Communist China in their trade strategy.

China is willing to subsidize Nike (lower production costs), and replace any dropped revenue, in exchange for mutually beneficial political opposition against Trump and by extension his policies that are a risk to Beijing. As a result there is minimal financial risk to the Nike Corporation.

And with the current multinational Wall Street agenda now being confronted, we should not expect this approach to stop at Nike. Likely, many more multinational (globalist) corporations, specifically those in the apparel sector, will stake out a similar position.

Remember, there are TRILLIONS at stake.

---

quote:

---

The multinational Wall Street firms are aligning with domestic political positions that align with Democrats. The agenda is to defeat the trade reset; however, they, in this example Levi Strauss, cannot openly side with China and Asia against the United States. So they do it covertly by supporting domestic political opposition toward the President who is threatening the construct of their multinational business model.

Both Nike and Levi Strauss stand to retain their current level of benefit if President Trump is blocked from instituting America-First trade and manufacturing policies. Supporting gun control (Levi Strauss) or supporting BLM/Antifa (Nike) is simply a tool to support political opposition.

Can you see what’s happening?

---