Do you think Wal-Mart is evil? by chrisisall

Quote:
Originally posted by Valdron:
Got a camera?

Great. Here's me giving a rat's ass for half baked dictionary definitions of socialism.

Any fool can argue a point if they grant themselves the privilege of inventing definitions to suit their particular bent on things. Re-inventing definitions or re-writing history are the oldest tricks in the book, but an accurate understanding of the world is dependent on having consistent definitions. These are the definitions of socialism.

Quote:
Originally posted by Valdron:
Wal-Mart and its ilk is the oldest kind of socialism, which is the socialism that involves the rich and powerful manipulating the system to enrich themselves further. Specifically, by getting the rest of us saps to subsidize them or just transfer our tax money directly to them.

Otherwise known as capitalism to the rest of the world.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 18, 2005 7:58 PM

And any fool can quote latin in defense of half baked ideological posturing.

Now, are you an erudite guy? What the hell, I'll call you an erudite guy. I'm happy to call you an erudite guy. That and a package of cigarettes gets you a ticket to lung cancer.

Now, I'm not claiming to have a degree in political science, though I might well have one around here somewhere. But the core definition of socialism involves the use of the state as an agency of redistribution of wealth. The common default assumption accompanying socialism is that wealth is redistributed by the state for the 'general good' or to the 'needy.' In this case, we've got an entity which is very good at arranging the redistribution of wealth by the state to itself.

A state subsidized commercial enterprise does not fit the general conception of capitalism. It may well fit the evolving American definition of capitalism, as, increasingly, many major American companies have proven to be much better at pumping money out of the taxpayer than they are at actually making things.

But really, this sort of highfalutin jabber is not to my interest. I'm more looking for some decent convo on Firefly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 18, 2005 8:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Valdron:
Now, are you an erudite guy? What the hell, I'll call you an erudite guy. I'm happy to call you an erudite guy. That and a package of cigarettes gets you a ticket to lung cancer.

Erudite is probably fair characterization of me. But I’m not confident that the number of books you’ve read has anything to do with whether cigarettes give you lung cancer. Or so I’ve read.

Quote:
Originally posted by Valdron:
But the core definition of socialism involves the use of the state as an agency of redistribution of wealth. The common default assumption accompanying socialism is that wealth is redistributed by the state for the 'general good' or to the 'needy.' In this case, we've got an entity which is very good at arranging the redistribution of wealth by the state to itself.

And if you’d like to label the US government socialist, then I’d still disagree with you, but at least then you might be using the word correctly.

Quote:
Originally posted by Valdron:
A state subsidized commercial enterprise does not fit the general conception of capitalism. It may well fit the evolving American definition of capitalism, as, increasingly, many major American companies have proven to be much better at pumping money out of the taxpayer than they are at actually making things.

There is nothing about the general conception of capitalism that says that a corporation or business cannot receive money. In fact it is the cornerstone of capitalism. The whole purpose of a business is to make money. A company that receives money from the state is not socialist, even if the state in which it is located is. Although Wal-Mart is hardly subsidized.

And just to promulgate my erudition, I’ll produce a quote:

“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary.”
-- Adam Smith, the Wealth of Nations.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 18, 2005 8:42 PM

That's a fancy quote. Might have been better if it had some passing application to the discussion at hand, but you know how it is, you can't have everything.

On the subject of Wal-Mart, I've merely said that it is not capitalist. While business or corporate enterprises have as their function the acquisition of wealth, I think that there's a material distinction to be drawn between enterprises which realize their competitive advantage by pumping money out of taxpayers, and enterprises which operate on a level playing field in a competitive environment.

Economists have written extensively about the distortions produced by state socialism, in which wealth or advantages are channeled directly into autonomous or semi-autonomous commercial entities. Both the states and the commercial entities in these cases are described with the broad label of socialist.

As to labelling the US government. I'd say that currently, Kleptocracy is fitting increasingly well. I'm not terribly interested.

Have a nice day.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 18, 2005 8:43 PM

Wal-Mart is, for the record, heavily subsidized in a number of direct and indirect ways. This is beyond argument.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 18, 2005 10:49 PM

What utter rubbish!

In a capitalist system companies exist to make profit, in fact it could be argued that that is their only reason for existance. Northrop, General Dynamics and a whole host of defence contractors make most of their money from government contracts and by extension from taxpayers. That does not make them Socialist, if it did we'd have lost the cold war.

If I'm in business and I can find a way to get the government to give me money I'll take it be it as a contract, loan garentee, help with infrastructure or tax relief. That just means that I'm doing my job and making more money. If I pay a lobiest to make sure that my interests are heard in Washington that too is perfectly legal. Now the point at which those government grants become corporate welfare, the difference that makes a contract a payoff to corporate palls, the line that seperates lobbying from bribary is defined by law and the eye of the beholder. You can claim it's criminal if you like, but it aint socialist.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 19, 2005 5:04 AM

Well, I'm fascinated by the skewed values in which looting the taxpayer is equated with sound business practices. I applaud your ringing endorsement that corruption is in the eye of the beholder and that companies that can't make money by actually producing and selling things should have the right to fix themselves to our backs and simply use the government to take our money.

So this isn't a perverted form of socialism? Well, it ain't capitalism. So what would you like to call it? Feudalism? Corporatism? Fascism? Feel free to call it whatever you'd like.

So you see nothing wrong with Wal-Mart extorting millions of dollars per store in land grants, services, tax holidays, employee subsidization? You figure that the richest company in the world should be government subsidized?

You see no difference between Northrup which contracts with the government to make fighter jets, and Wal-Mart? Well, given Northrup's cost+plus contracts, 500 dollar screwdrivers, and cosy backroom deals, there isn't.

But attitudes like this go a good way to explaining why the US is running half a trillion dollar deficits, why the trade deficits are climbing steadily towards a trillion, why China makes everything Wal-Mart sells, and why the only thing America exports these days is jobs and bombs.

And you didn't win the cold war. The Russians went home.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 19, 2005 7:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Valdron:
So this isn't a perverted form of socialism?

Not according to the definition of socialism as provided by the dictionary. In fact, regardless of your various strawman arguments and convenient redefinitions, the only convincing candidate remains capitalism, perhaps a perversion of it, but capitalism nonetheless.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 19, 2005 7:26 AM

Whatever dude. Colour me bored. Give my regards to Mr. Kaczynski, I'm sure you'll have a great time together.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 19, 2005 8:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Valdron:
Whatever dude. Colour me bored. Give my regards to Mr. Kaczynski, I'm sure you'll have a great time together.

I see. Such desperate ad hominem are characteristic of a truly closed mind. Just because you find yourself in the unique position of realizing that Wal-Mart takes tax breaks from the government, like every other corporation in the country, doesn’t mean I’m a terrorist or Wal-Mart is socialism. I’m sorry if your grand delusions of a perfect capitalist world have been shattered, but if you’d ever actually bothered to read up on the issue, you would have found that such grand delusions are myths created from the ignorance of people who don’t bother to pay attention to frivolous things like definitions in the dictionary. Adam Smith, over two hundred years ago, understood that capitalist corporations will seek profit, even at the expense of the public, if necessarily. That, evidently, has escaped you, but it’s true.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 19, 2005 9:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
capitalist corporations will seek profit, even at the expense of the public, if necessarily.

I think that's exactly the point at which it tips over into evil, no matter what the law says about what is allowed. I see our laws as being especially flawed where business is concerned.

I think the concept of evil is mutable and subjective right up to the line where, through violence or coercion, I remove the ability to choose from another party. In addition to that, I try to act from the perspective that I have a responsibility to do the work to recognize and avoid any point where my will abrades another's choice, whether that choice belongs to the person sitting next to me on the bus or to an 8 year old in China. I don't think it's possible to hide behind the facade of corporation, law or convention to evade that responsibility.

Thanks to viral marketing...SERENITY: reopening soon in a theater near you.
Shiny Trees! Yavanna made Shiny Trees!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 19, 2005 10:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Valdron:
Whatever dude. Colour me bored. Give my regards to Mr. Kaczynski, I'm sure you'll have a great time together.
I see. Such desperate ad hominem are characteristic of a truly closed mind. Just because you find yourself in the unique position of realizing that Wal-Mart takes tax breaks from the government, like every other corporation in the country, doesn’t mean I’m a terrorist or Wal-Mart is socialism. I’m sorry if your grand delusions of a perfect capitalist world have been shattered, but if you’d ever actually bothered to read up on the issue, you would have found that such grand delusions are myths created from the ignorance of people who don’t bother to pay attention to frivolous things like definitions in the dictionary. Adam Smith, over two hundred years ago, understood that capitalist corporations will seek profit, even at the expense of the public, if necessarily. That, evidently, has escaped you, but it’s true.

I'm not calling you a terrorist, I'm merely calling you a crackpot. Now, I'm sorry if you're feeling put upon, but the world doesn't revolve around your callow philosophical ruminations, and narrow parochialisms.

My old law professor, Art Braid, once told us that the only purpose of an incorporated share entity is to seek profit. This was an actual legal principle, and consequences flowed therefrom. Corporate (shareholding entity) executives and corporate boards could be held legally liable if they acted in any other fashion.

But you've taken an objective, which is a fairly narrow legal obligation and you're presenting this as some sort of fuzzy moral imperative. Sad to say, the principle does not sustain the weight you put on it.

The fact that a corporation has a single goal of maximizing profits is not a moral or social imperative, its not even necessarily an imperative of corporations. It's an imperative created by statute for a particular kind of business entity. There are, even in Western culture, a variety of other business entities, including partnerships, limited partnerships, general partnerships, joint ventures, non-share corporations, statutory corporations, letters patent entities.

The principle that a corporation has the single objective of maximizing its profit is one created by statutory construction. Further, that statutory construction always presupposes that the corporate entity will not be autonomous, but that it will always be embedded in a regulatory framework.

If we existed in a hypothetical legal and social void and the corporation simply pursued its objective to maximize revenues at every turn and that the pursuit of that objective was effectively value neutral, then Wal-Mart would inevitably be selling crack cocaine to children.

However, there is no legal or social void, a corporation is not free to simply act in whatever way it wishes, nor should its actions be immune from criticism.

As Art Braid once said, the fastest way for a corporation to make money is not to pay its bills. Unpaid bills are effectively a loan or grant from the creditor to the debtor. It's free money, particularly if you never ever pay your bills.

That seems somewhat ridiculous, but the corpspeak name for this practice is 'offloading'. That is, trying to make sure that other people wind up paying your expenses so that you don't have to. If your expenses wind up on someone elses ledger, yours is correspondingly improved.

As an example, suppose a corporation has to deal with waste products. It can spend a lot of money treating its waste, or it can dump it in the community water supply. Under narrow corporate imperatives, it makes more sense to poison the community than it does to spend money treating its waste. If the community then expends money treating your waste, you are ahead in the game. But you are ahead at the expense of the community.

Believe it or not, this sort of conduct may be legitimately criticized as wrongful, evil, and a variety of responses may be considered legitimate.

None of this is complicated. We're talking ABC's here.

And, I might add, none of this has anything to do with principles of capitalism or socialism. Socialism as a political philosophy dates back to the early 19th century, and can be traced to a variety of thinkers mostly in France and England, including St. Simon, who were responding to social dislocations produced by industrialization and arguing that the state had two obligations: 1) to intervene in and regulate the economy, including business undertakings; and 2) to effect a redistribution of wealth within that economy so as to ensure stable functioning. There are literally hundreds of schools or lines of socialist theory, including marxism, which have developed in all sorts of different directions.

Capitalism, meanwhile, is an economic theory which refers to accumulations of 'capital' (ergo, its name) in a relatively neutral marketplace. There's also a couple of centuries of thinking going on with that stuff.

Ultimately, you are confusing principals of capitalism as an economic theory with a confused take on corporate obligations and offer up philosophical mush.

What am I to do with this nonsense?

I'm also annoyed by the running dishonesty that suffuses your posts.

First you assert that Wal-Mart does not procure state subsidization. Well, that's just patently false. That failing, you go on to assert that its okay because everybody does it. Of course, recognizing that that may not hold water very well, you simultaneously advance your back up argument that state subsidization is a legitimate organizing principle of capitalism, and is in no way socialism... because... well, because from the companies point of view, its not, and so there.

Well, Jesus H. Christ on a crutch. It's not worth my time to unravel your muddy thinking for you. And its not terribly entertaining for me to explain how and why you don't know what you are talking about, an undertaking that strikes me as without palpable reward.

Your sole accomplishment here is to derail a discussion of Wal-Mart and wrap it around yourself in order to showcase your philosophical conceits. That's very good for you, I'm happy for you, I hope its meeting whatever emotional needs you have. Feel free to quote all the random passages of Adam Smith you'd like.

But please, understand, I'm not terribly interested in your pretensions. I'm not terribly interested in half baked philosophy. If the discussions about Wal-Mart, I'm happy to talk Wal-Mart. If you see nothing wrong with the largest corporation in the world enhancing its bottom line with direct and indirect state subsidies, then that's your issue.

Now, if you'd like to confine yourself to the topic at hand, then fine. If you don't, I'm not terribly interested. Now, this is a bit harsh, and I'll apologize for bruising your feelings. But that's life. You've bored me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 19, 2005 11:38 AM

Lim,

I disagree. I think the laws are fine. There are plenty of laws regarding everything that walmart is doing that make it illegal, but it fails to obey them. In fact we seem to have a govt. which is completely ignoring the extant business law.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 19, 2005 11:38 AM

After all that I think you missed the point entirely. Nobody here is disagreeing with your assertion that it is "a bad thing" (tm) just that your conclusions seem off the mark.

For a law student you have failed to make your case, in what way is government payments to any industry socialist? That *was* your assertion right? As far as I can see the only way in which the socialism aspect could hold true would be if the government either owned or directly controlled the industry in question but it obviously doesn't. In fact, considering the amount of lobbying, campaign contributions and strong arming that corporations apply it would probably be farer to suggest that companies own congress. In socialism industry is owned or at least controlled by government for the people's benefit, even if it didn't work out that way that is the definition. In corporate capitalism the government is being manipulated for the benefit of business, something 180 degrees opposite.

So tell me, convicted many victims recently??

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 19, 2005 12:00 PM

In my time, I convicted quite a few criminals and a handful of deadbeat dads.

If you want to redefine your terms such that state subsidized business is not a form of socialism, that's your lookout. I'm really not going to engage in these semantic games.

Now, you'll excuse me, but I'm bored.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 19, 2005 12:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I disagree. I think the laws are fine....In fact we seem to have a govt. which is completely ignoring the extant business law.

I don't think laws that give business entities the status of an individual, while allowing them to evade legal responsibility for their actions are good laws. On the other hand, I think we have an empire which is crumbling, and will allow business to get away with all manner of gruesome behavior as long as the economy can be propped up with a stick.

caveat emptor
Limi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 19, 2005 2:08 PM

We're not playing symantic games, or redefining anything. You are the one that is deviating from standard accepted usage. The irony is that nobody here disagrees that this is "a bad thing" just that what you describe is corrupt practices not socialism.

Keep talking, I didn't think my respect for lawyers could go much lower but you seem to be going for the record.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 19, 2005 2:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Valdron:
Now, if you'd like to confine yourself to the topic at hand, then fine. If you don't, I'm not terribly interested. Now, this is a bit harsh, and I'll apologize for bruising your feelings. But that's life. You've bored me.

I find it amusing that your whole argument rests on trying to convince me of your own self-worth, and there is almost a since of accomplishment in your self-assurance that you have bruised my feelings. My feelings aren’t going to get bruised because you don’t know what you’re talking about or you’re mean spirited. You put an awful lot of undeserved stock in your opinion to think that I care that much about you say.

Though even with your vast supposed knowledge of the subject you can’t confine your arguments to the facts or even the definitions. No where did I argue that Wal-Mart does not procure state subsidies or that subsidization is in no way socialism (basically impossible to get that form anything I’ve ever said, I would imagine). These are your own fabrications, evidently. All I said was that neither excludes capitalism, which is a far cry from how you’ve conveniently characterized it. But while you have completely misconstrued my point, you have also completely failed to argue your own. You’ve not made a single convincing point that suggests that a company that receives moneys from the government is not capitalist. Indeed companies of all sizes receive money from the government in many different forms, from small business incentives to investing in high dollar technology. Incentives and tax shelters abound in the US corporate capitalist world.

But finally, it may be fruitless to continue this line of argument, since the only thing we can be sure of at this point is that you don’t know what I’m talking about, you can’t seem to make your own argument, and your solution to this is a juvenile attempt to bully people with some highbrow cliché, not to mention referring to definitions in the dictionary as “half-baked.”

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 19, 2005 2:19 PM

You still here?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 19, 2005 2:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Valdron:
In my time, I convicted quite a few criminals and a handful of deadbeat dads.

If you want to redefine your terms such that state subsidized business is not a form of socialism, that's your lookout. I'm really not going to engage in these semantic games.

Now, you'll excuse me, but I'm bored.

Your bored again? What does that mean? Are you gone, or will you come back with a thousand word response that says nothing. And you’re not going to engage in these semantic games, are you? But of course, someone of your caliber is above such things.

Come! Let us retire to sitting room away from this low society, where we will partake in tea and crumpets.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 19, 2005 2:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Valdron:
You still here?

Did you think you scared me away?

That's hilarious.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 19, 2005 4:26 PM

Check this out, the sound of one hand clapping.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 19, 2005 6:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by liminalosity:
I think that's exactly the point at which it tips over into evil, no matter what the law says about what is allowed. I see our laws as being especially flawed where business is concerned.

I’m not so sure that evil is the word I would use. I don’t view economic corruption as evil, anymore then I view boys playing hooky evil. Human beings are always breaking rules. It’s not evil. It’s natural human activity. It should be controlled, but it’s not evil.

I also don’t view the corruption that exists in corporation isolated to Wal-Mart. In fact, I don’t even think that anyone can make a convincing argument that Wal-Mart has more then its share. Wal-Mart happens to be the whipping boy, right now. Before Wal-Mart it was Exxon and before that it was General Motors. There has always been one corporation sacrificed by the American psyche to sooth its concerns over corporate America. For some reason Americans seem to believe that if they slay the Wal-Mart dragon all will be well, but corruption will always be inherent in a system run by human beings.

I think that labeling Wal-Mart or corporate America as evil or even “bad” is a vast oversimplification that hides the root causes. For example, many people claim that Wal-Mart puts small businesses under and stifles competition. There may be some truth to that. However, Wal-Mart did not appear in a vacuum and there are many reasons why small businesses go under that have nothing to do with Wal-Mart. When politicians scream to have the minimum wage raised many anti-capitalists who call Wal-Mart ‘evil’ are enthused without even realizing that this is a vote for Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart pays its employees well; in fact they generally pay well above minimum wage, so raising the minimum wage need have no effect at all on Wal-Mart, but even if Wal-Mart must raise its employees wages in response, the worst that might happen is that they will cut back on opening new stores for a while. On the other hand, many small businesses might discover that they can no longer afford to pay all their employees, so some will have to be let go, and that could drastically impact operation and sales. Effectively raising the minimum wage will reduce the number of small businesses while possibly increasing Wal-Mart’s costumer base.

When politicians say they are going to raise taxes on the rich, this is a vote for Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is certainly “the rich,” but it is wealthy enough that it can weather an increase in taxes. Those who will have a harder time will be people who are “rich” simply because they own assets of $250,000-$1,000,000 tied up in a small shop.

If Wal-Mart is evil then what does that say of the politicians who through their desire to raise taxes “on the rich” or increase the minimum wage facilitate Wal-Mart’s “evilness?”

These are just two examples; there are many more, but my point is that the word “evil” has a very one-sided connotation to it, and there are generally many sides to corporate America.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 19, 2005 7:24 PM

Limi,

14th amendment debate aside, I think it's okay. I don't even have a serious problem with it. The whole citizenship thing. The punishments smaller than the reward for the the crime, aka the Nader factor, is a problem. But still and all, it's a decent system. The US, Japan, Korea, hardcore capitalism is working pretty hard towards progress, and holding together pretty well. I'm pragmatic and I look at the results. Even if I just look at the US post 14th amendment vs. pre, we definitely moved forwards. Corporate America was doing pretty well up until quite recently. It has it's political opponents, but I have one thing to say:

Show me a corporate evil and I can show you where a govt. is doing evil, quite possibly the same evil, in spades.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 19, 2005 7:27 PM

I don't want in on your argument, seriously, if I get targeted I won't respond because I just have so much else to do.

But I just wanted to make an observation.

Finn, when I saw you're first post I thought you were abrasive. I was wrong. Abrasive has clearly been redefined by your opposition. Valdron that is, not lim. But no offense, do carry on.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 19, 2005 7:28 PM

Quote:
When politicians say they are going to raise taxes on the rich, this is a vote for Wal-Mart.

I basically just think you're right here. Thought it was worth echoing, so: echo.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 19, 2005 11:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t view economic corruption as evil, anymore then I view boys playing hooky evil. Human beings are always breaking rules. It’s not evil. It’s natural human activity. It should be controlled, but it’s not evil.

corruption will always be inherent in a system run by human beings.

I think that labeling Wal-Mart or corporate America as evil or even “bad” is a vast oversimplification that hides the root causes.

Effectively raising the minimum wage will reduce the number of small businesses while possibly increasing Wal-Mart’s costumer base.

When politicians say they are going to raise taxes on the rich, this is a vote for Wal-Mart.

If Wal-Mart is evil then what does that say of the politicians who through their desire to raise taxes “on the rich” or increase the minimum wage facilitate Wal-Mart’s “evilness?”

I don't see the corporation itself as evil; the corporation is only a concept. I agree with you on many points...

I don't think it's only economic corruption though, I see the current focus on Walmart as only a reflection of a systemic corruption. As you write, Walmart is only the current whipping boy, a couple of years ago, it was indeed Enron, and many others have been, however briefly, in the same spotlight. In 6 months we will have some new whipping boy. Always looking for the magic bullet solution to our problems avoids making hard daily choices. Especially in the current economic and political climate, I think those in power (red and blue) will use just about any device they can muster to distract us from from other things being done to line the pockets of the most economically secure 10% of the population, and to keep the powerful in control. I consider adults in power as more responsible for their choices than boys playing hookey, and I see the stakes in this as much higher than an afternoon off for fishing. Sorry about the coyness of the Tom Sawyer reference, I wonder if you're baiting me with this picture of seeming harmlessness, hmmm? As I said above, I only make my own choices where my view of evil is concerned, and I try to live within those boundaries. I don't plan to force anyone else to get on my bus (or coerce them to paint my fence). I don't claim to be perfect at it either, my only claim is that I try to keep using finer filters on my own choices to try not to have a negative effect on others' experience.

Breaking rules, or looking for new definitions of the world, is, as I see it, largely what keeps us moving forward in our understanding. Without the heretic, we wouldn't make many advances. Where I see the problem in this, is in taking choice from someone else; in making choices that negatively affect someone else's quality of life. That is a difficult thing to define and to control. I think we will always have trouble finding the balance where control isn't too rigid, doesn't infringe too much on the highly motivated, yet protects the powerless and the innocent from those who would scoop everything they can get their hands on into their own bank account, regardless of the affect it has on others.

I recognise that there are many factors at work in this, and that WalMart is only wallowing in the paradigm. One of the reasons it works so well is the very reason that WalMart is so successful. Americans especially have been pretty thoroughly conditioned to seek happiness in things. That will be a hard addiction to cure, and I'm not sure there are many who see the value in the cure.

I found it pretty amusing (in a horrifying way) a couple weeks ago to hear that WalMart has the pieces in place to lobby to raise the minimum wage, and part of what I found humorous (gallows humor, mind) was that they were using this news to placate and sooth in the middle of the latest imbroglio over the dread memos. I recognise that isn't something that would essentially hurt them much, but it would be a fatal stroke for many small businesses they compete against.

Often, when the government waves the banner of raising taxes for the rich, that somehow manages not to happen in any real enforcable terms, and in any case, state and local governments usually manage to find ways to help corporations get around a healthy portion of tax, and execs manage to have written into their own systems other ways around paying personal tax, and so it goes. Also not my problem, except when it comes time to decide who to write a letter to this week, or choose how to cast my vote. My daily problem is only to find ways around supporting WalMart and others of its ilk, and to learn more about where else that tree has put out roots.

Thanks to viral marketing...SERENITY: reopening soon in a theater near you.
Shiny Trees! Yavanna made Shiny Trees!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 20, 2005 5:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
There has always been one corporation sacrificed by the American psyche to sooth its concerns over corporate America. For some reason Americans seem to believe that if they slay the Wal-Mart dragon all will be well, but corruption will always be inherent in a system run by human beings.

Effectively raising the minimum wage will reduce the number of small businesses while possibly increasing Wal-Mart’s costumer base.

When politicians say they are going to raise taxes on the rich, this is a vote for Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is certainly “the rich,” but it is wealthy enough that it can weather an increase in taxes. Those who will have a harder time will be people who are “rich” simply because they own assets of $250,000-$1,000,000 tied up in a small shop.

Finn, the voice of reason. Your job on this thread has been done, and done well. While some of us are screaming 'Evil!', you slow us down long enough to think. Thank you.

If I were to do this thread again now, I would title it 'Do you think Wal-Mart's questionable business practices lower it a few feet closer to Hell than other corperations?'

Yeah, human nature is to always take an opportunity for personal gain, so why should corporations be different?

I find nothing to oppose in any of your posts, and many offered a POV that throws light on important matters.
If I may, my only criticism is that your neutrality on this issue can seem to some to be condoning all that Wal-Mart and Corporate America does in the name of profit, since that's just what they do (I don't think that's your feeling here,BTW).

It is not my hope that Wal-Mart come crashing down, that would be terrible. I would like, however, to see them forced to make business decisions that benefit them, the employees, the communities, and the workers of other countries.

We gotta fight corporate giants, not to kill them, just to keep 'em from stepping on our kids and dogs and such from time to time.

Anyway, keep it up!

Fie fi fo fum Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 20, 2005 5:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t view economic corruption as evil, anymore then I view boys playing hooky evil. Human beings are always breaking rules. It’s not evil. It’s natural human activity. It should be controlled, but it’s not evil.

I suppose that raises the question of whether you view any corruption as evil. Or whether you accept the notion of evil in any meaningful sense.

Take a middle aged man having sex with a five year old girl. Is this evil? Sex is a natural human activity. Our hypothetical pedophile would argue that he's just following his natural drives, as corporations follow a natural drive to economic corruption. Are both evil, neither, or do you make some arbitrary distinction between the two of them.

Your argument on economic corruption rings hollow. I would presume from your threads that economic corruption is not inherently evil because its just following the dictates of human nature. A corporation that engages in economic corruption is just following its natural instincts, much as a tiger follows its natural instincts to kill game.

There are two problems with this, of course. One is that a corporation, being strictly an artificial entity, has no natural instincts. To the extent that it does, these 'instincts' defined by statute and regulation, a corporation which engages in corruption is violating its 'natural' instincts. Hence, it can't be justified on those grounds.

On the other hand, you run up against your other example - children playing hooky. You're equating corporate corruption and malfeasance with children being naughty? Children have no natural instinct to play hooky. It's a volitional act. They choose to break the rules. Ergo, your supporting example suggests that corporate corruption is a volitional act.

Of course, arguably, children playing hooky mean no harm. You might be arguing that a corporation in engaging in corruption, intends no harm to others and is merely pursuing its best interests, and is therefore not evil in this regard. But a pedophile or a crack dealer could make the same claim.

It strikes me that your benign attitude towards corporate corruption is indifferent to the consequences and outcomes of that corruption.

Let's take an example: Thalidomide. The general impression is that the company that made and distributed Thalidomide had no idea that it was a teratogen that would produce a generation of deformed babies. Well, that doesn't really hold up, the clinical trials were showing peculiarities, particularly in pregnant rats from the beginning. Despite this, Thalidomide was prescribed specifically for pregnant mothers. The anomalies in clinical trials were ignored, specifically because there was so much money to be made. This was a form of corporate corruption. A lot of people suffered horrificaly from this. A lot of people suffer to this day.

What about the corporation that sold poison gas to the Nazi's? Were they evil? The folk from the Nuremberg trials seemed to be of the opinion that this conduct was evil.

So, assuming corporate malfeasance results in thousands of people dying or injured from defective products, or in a degradation of the environment, such as the destruction and development of 'barrier' islands that protected New Orleans from hurricanes, or the extinction of species... these are arguably serious social harms. The situation is far closer to pedophiles preying on little girls, rather than children playing hooky.

You might argue that if its legal, or at least, if the corporation is not sanctioned by law, then its okay. But would that really hold up? If a Pedophile gets away with it, is that moral? If the Pedophile claims that the five year old was consenting? That he wasn't the first to have the five year old, but that it's a child prostitute? What if he goes to some place like the Phillipines or Thailand where it is at least tolerated?

The corporation, as a legal construct, has been accorded a legal status equivalent to a human being, notwithstanding its insubstantial character and its built in limitations. Given equivalent status to a human being, I think that its character, its actions and the consequences of its conduct are fair game for moral judgement and censure.

Hmmm. I suppose I could have skipped all this and said you didn't know what you were talking about.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 20, 2005 8:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
We gotta fight corporate giants, not to kill them, just to keep 'em from stepping on our kids and dogs and such from time to time.

I agree. And I’m not trying to convince everyone to agree with me. I personally think that a healthy economy needs detractors as well as supporters of the general theory.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I find nothing to oppose in any of your posts, and many offered a POV that throws light on important matters.
If I may, my only criticism is that your neutrality on this issue can seem to some to be condoning all that Wal-Mart and Corporate America does in the name of profit, since that's just what they do (I don't think that's your feeling here, BTW).

I suppose that maybe that is a source of confusion. I can’t passionately champion every injustice in the world. I don’t have the time and that sounds like something that would give you a heart condition, anyway.

It’s too broad of a category ; it’s like being angry about ‘crime.’ I certainly would admit that the rape and murder of an 11 year old might be evil and I could get some feathers ruffled over that, but stealing a loaf of bread is criminal also, though I might not even view that as wrong under the circumstances. And corporate corruption is almost as broad. It ranges from murder and mayhem to things that might not even be criminal.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 20, 2005 12:51 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Valdron makes some good points. To highlight one, corporations aren't people. They are artificial entities. Corporate functions supercede the wishes and values of the people who 'run' them. As such, these businesses should be judged not as people, but by how well they meet the needs of society.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 20, 2005 3:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
these businesses should be judged not as people, but by how well they meet the needs of society.

Some would say that if they're making a profit, they must be meeting society's needs in some way. But that leaves a big grey area as to where they are detrimental to society, also.

I personally dislike the word corporation, it's root word suggests a body, as if it is alive and should have rights.
I mean, can you throw a corporation in jail?
(hmmm, in theory....)

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 20, 2005 6:03 PM

Socialist or not, Walmart isn't normal capitalism, it's too mixed up in politics and too mixed up in China. It breaks too many extant rules. It's not just a new whipping boy of an ongoing problem, it's the poster child for that ongoing problem.

Enron was not an evil corporation. Enron was a good company, with some corrupt people in it who essentially took the money and ran, but apparantly not far enough away. Few things compare to Walmart. Another might be Halliburton. I think AOL Time Warner and CBS Viacom are also out of control, as is Citigroup, aka Saudigroup.

{quote]
Limi wrote:
Without the heretic, we wouldn't make many advances.

Excellent point. That which does not kill us makes us stronger, but bear in ming that that which does kill us, kills us. Ie. Up to a point I agree, but when Walmart breaks extant rules, then it's probably teaching us a less we already learned, and now it's time to put that knowledge into action and stop it. Walmart killing local businesses to build another Walmart clearly gives us nothing. Just more southern christian Sovietization.

Quote:

I found it pretty amusing (in a horrifying way) a couple weeks ago to hear that WalMart has the pieces in place to lobby to raise the minimum wage, and part of what I found humorous (gallows humor, mind) was that they were using this news to placate and sooth in the middle of the latest imbroglio over the dread memos. I recognise that isn't something that would essentially hurt them much, but it would be a fatal stroke for many small businesses they compete against.

Another excellent point. I guess I'm just agreeable guy today. But I thought this one was shrewd. Assuming that Walmart stategizes to eliminate all competition, a strategy of defense might be a good idea. I haven't thought of one yet. Anyone got any ideas?

Here's one idea I had. What about a web consignment shop. Is this a workable idea? I mean a real world front for the internet marketplace for the non-net crowd. By which I mean old people, mostly. Poor people also. But you know, there are a lot of them around, supporting Walmart. I never buy movies and stuff at Walkmart because I buy all that online. I meant walmart, but I thought walkmart was an interesting slip so I left it.

In general, re: the whole natural course, the thing is the goal of a society is to set up the reward system so that the natural flow is in the right direction.

Here take a look at the situation. There is nothing natural about capitalism, it's a completely artificial construct. It was made to emulate nature, but it is not nature. If there is something in it that encourages the total extermination of all that is other, than there is something wrong with the system, and it needs a slight tweaking to set things towards proper flow again. That was done before with the creation of the anti-trust. It may need to be done again.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 20, 2005 10:03 PM

DT:

I don't think anybody disagrees that there is something wrong but unfortunately Walmart isn't that unusual as far as Corporations go.

Within Capitalism, at least the way we currently practice it there are two "evolutionary forces" one is the market, the other is regulation. Regulation is the method governments use to effect the market, hopefully in a way that ensures that the capitalist obsession with the bottom line doesn't interfere with the rights of the people.

Look for a moment at animal evolution. Normally if an animal wants to operate in a region colder than it's normal zone it develops thicker fur and extra body fat. That takes several generations. Man invented clothing and fire. Want to hunt animals faster than you? Most animals become faster over time to match their prey. Mankind developed traps and ranged weapons. The environment doesnt change us, we develop techniques to manipulate the environment for our benefit.

Walmart manipulates the market, and leverages governments to use their control of markets to its advantage. By doing so it is successfull and prospers. Competitors seeing what works adopt matching strategies.

My guess is that if tomorrow you changed the rules to stop Walmart getting any help through lobbying or extra grants they would still be as powerfull as before, because they will adapt their strategy to the current situation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 21, 2005 8:26 AM

I guess they're not that bad if you don't have a problem with them devasting small family run businesses in rural communities; exploiting third world labor for increased profits; and poorly paying their employees while providing substandard benefits; and actively using labor union busting techniques. But then again, your right about that being almost every major player in corporate America. I wonder what that says about us?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 21, 2005 8:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:
I wonder what that says about us?

That we're living in the movie world of Robocop, only without the good-guy cyborg.

Chrisisall, CEO of OCP

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 21, 2005 8:48 AM

BOOKSWORD

Wal-Mart is not evil.

Wal-mart is ruthless, underhanded, and determined to cut costs and screw workers in order to gain the almighty dollar.

In short Wal-mart is your average company. American or New Zealand owned the purpose of a company is to make money.

We may not like it but that is its purpose.

Apologies for sounding condesending but I find the term Evil a little strong. Evil is ordering a genocide of another tribe, Wal-mart is just being a cold hearted, two faced bastard of a place.

As its function decrees.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 21, 2005 8:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Booksword:
Wal-mart is just being a cold hearted, two faced bastard of a place.

So...you shop there regularly?

Name witheld upon request

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 21, 2005 9:36 AM

I am not looking to pick a fight here, but being "ruthless and underhanded" in the pursuit of money could arguably be considered evil, even if it is common place. Exploiting third world labor, so that you can raise your company stock a point or two is neither ethcial, moral, nor virtuous. Just because it is the norm does not make it right. There are plenty of other companies that are not doing what Wal-Mart is doing, and they are still profitable. When is enough money enough?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 21, 2005 9:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:
When is enough money enough?

Who are you, STEVEN SEGAL????(On Deadly Ground reference)

Seriously, one point down in stock can be the beginning of the end in their eyes, so the answer is: NOTHING is enough.
Like sharks, they MUST constantly move foward or DIE.

Only these sharks use calculators.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 21, 2005 9:48 AM

GORANDEN

I don't know what everyone is concerned with. I love Blue Sun products. I mean Wal-Mart. I buy my medicines, food, clothing, well everything from Blue Sun. I mean Wal-Mart. They're not bad at all, wonderful. I'll have my children buy from Blue Sun. I mean Wal-Mart. Live life with Wal-Mart. I mean Blue Sun.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 21, 2005 9:59 AM

I never saw that movie, so the reference is lost on me. But I think you can still run an ethical and profitable company. After all, there are plenty of people who will not invest their money (shopping or buying stock) with compnaies like WM.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 21, 2005 10:29 AM

BOOKSWORD

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:
I am not looking to pick a fight here, but being "ruthless and underhanded" in the pursuit of money could arguably be considered evil, even if it is common place. Exploiting third world labor, so that you can raise your company stock a point or two is neither ethcial, moral, nor virtuous. Just because it is the norm does not make it right. There are plenty of other companies that are not doing what Wal-Mart is doing, and they are still profitable. When is enough money enough?

Understood, and you have a valid and moral point.

Logically we would live in a world when a person(s) would be satisfy themselves with a nice sized profit.

Unfortunately we dont.

Cold truth, it is never enough. I guess thats why they call it a consumer market.

We consume.

Its been feed to us that more is good, bigger is better and the in style is what counts.

A company grows, it feeds to grow and it grows to feed and feeds to grow.

Some kid in a third world country who should have a childhood, is working for pennies so a company can sell a shoe for hundreds of dollars.

Its cold.

Its wrong.

Its indifference.

And pardon my french its f***kin not right at all.

Buts its our world, and its not evil.

Maybe Its the word that gives me a problem. Janet Jackson nearly exposes a nipple and the masses cry 'indecent'
Enron screws millions. Lives shattered and dreams gone and its 'wall street.'

In a way its worse then Evil, evil has malice, rage and hate.

I get Evil.

Corporations to me lacks that, the worse part is that the workers and other unfortunates are not screwed over by some villian who is caressing his thin moustache while cakling like a heyena.

Its by some guy with a icey gaze and his finger running numbers.

Apologies for ranting.

See you in the black.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 21, 2005 11:05 AM

Fletch,

I don't think so. I agree regulation can be bad, but I don't think that it's contrary to the market. I think the market is an artificial construct of regulation. Overregulation is bad, but to some extent, sure society is a set of regulations. Without regulation we'd all just kill each other for cash.

The regulations create the incentive to destroy. If written differently, they wouldn't. I mean not regulations that say 'you can't do this' but ones which make it disadvantageous to do that. It would have to be clever.

I beg to differ on the walmart/evil thing. Walmart is Evil. Plain and simple. The princple core value in Walmart's portfolio is slavery. Slave labor makes the products cheaper than any well regulated labor in the world.

Walmart doesn't seek to compete with other companies in a way which is superior, it seeks to stab them in their sleep. Walmart knows its service is inferior, so it breaks any law to make it cheaper, and if that doesn't work it buys local politicians.

Walmart on both ends is a force for destruction. I rips open and breaks apart the system of free market capitalism on one end, and the labor market on the other. In the end there will only be Blue Sun.

Picture the end position, the big merger from chinadoll Mall*Wart and saudidaddy AQL-Tomb-Warmer. All America under the permanent emercency code, and all the world under America, China or the Al Qaeda puppet govt. network.

The European states of America, ie the EU, the NAFTAmerica, the Chinese Chavezopoly of SA, and the East Asian technological control complex locked into endless war with perpetual chaos society, the mideast and africa, under the control of al qaeda chaos. Of course, this war could obviously be won, but there's no need, winning the war isn't the goal.

It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 21, 2005 11:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:
I never saw that movie, so the reference is lost on me. But I think you can still run an ethical and profitable comany. After all, there are plenty of people who will not invest their money (shopping or buying stock) with compnaies like WM.

You must see On Deadly Ground, it's one of Steve's funniest (unintentionally) movies, and it actually has something to say about big companies (they're Evil)

And Good stores like Trader Joes seem to do okay...

Maybe another thread....yeah, that's it!

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 21, 2005 12:12 PM

I'll look into that, even though I'm not a big fan of Segal. I agree with you about Trader Joes. I shop there or the local farmer's market all the time.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 21, 2005 2:09 PM

Trader Joes has THE best frozen organic pizza!!!!!
And priced right!!!!!!!!!

Chrisisall off topic

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 21, 2005 6:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Assuming that Walmart stategizes to eliminate all competition, a strategy of defense might be a good idea. I haven't thought of one yet. Anyone got any ideas?

The best offense is often subterfuge. Or obfuscation. The gift horse will usually do quite nicely in a pinch.

and for Chris...
I've never felt rich - in the oil business others were all much richer than I was -J Paul Getty

Thanks to viral marketing...SERENITY: reopening soon in a theater near you.
Shiny Trees! Yavanna made Shiny Trees!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 21, 2005 9:59 PM