Reply
Sun 20 Nov, 2005 08:07 pm
Wal-Mart thread part two.
I started a rant (see below) on the previous Wal-Mart thread, but decided to post to a new thread because the previous one was almost more about logic than anything else.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I had dinner with several people last night, one of those people was a Harvard Business School Professor. The topic of recycling came up and we got into a heated arguement about it. I am not honed in debate or in anything really, but I tried to keep up my end of the arguement.
He argued that recycling was stupid because that money is spent and resources used to recycle anything. I countered that we would still use fewer resources to making new products would. He said why worry about trees when they are a renewable resource? I said if loggers are renewing them, I see no reason to worry about cutting newer growth forests.
Then our throw-awayness came up (we were with two europeans - europeans are better at the first 2 Rs - reducing and reusing). I said we throw stuff away that could be repaired or reused. That was another waste. That we americans are selfish with 'stuff'. He countered that it's the price of progress.... or he would have if I hadn't ended the arguement. I told him he couldn't convinve me even if he was right.
My main issue was that Americans still believed in manifest destiny and that we, therfore, have a very selfish attitude to common resources (I was not even this eloquent last night after a gin and soda and a couple thimbles of sake). I opined that capitalism, unchecked, is reckless. I also opinmed that the global world would be a better place with fewer leaf blowers and more hand raking (back to a hands-on sort of life).
Walmart is capitalism, unchecked. They offshore everything and abuse workers rights where/how ever they can. They go where they don't need to worry about environmental protection (such as it is these days).
Perhaps Wlamart is the logic of capitolism, but is unchecked dog-eat-dog, cut-throat competition the way to go? I, for one, don't think so.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is capitolism a good thing without any checks to it? Without regulation, law, buyer protection, etc, is capitalism good for all of the citizenry?
if you're going to use Wal-Mart as an example of capitalism, you might as well take China--which is a supplier to Wal-Mart, conveniently enough--as an example of the alternative. i for one would rather work for Wal-Mart than be a prison or child laborer in China. Amnesty International says that in 2004, China had a judicial execution rate of 260 per 100 million, compared to 20 for the US. certainly, US capitalism has room for improvement--protecting the environment is one area--but there's room for improvement everywhere. one of the biggest potential ecological catastrophes under way is the "asian brown cloud", and all the developing economies of South Asia have a hand in it. here's an alarming quote from a 2002 CNN report:
Quote:The report calculated that the cloud -- 80 percent of which was made by people -- could cut rainfall over northwest Pakistan, Afghanistan, western China and western central Asia by up to 40 percent.
While scientists say they still need more scientific data, they suggest the regional and global impact of the haze will intensify over the next 30 years.
Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen -- one of the first scientists to identify the causes of the hole in the ozone layer and also involved in the U.N. report -- said up to two million people in India alone were dying each year from atmospheric pollution.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/08/12/asia.haze/
Oh, don't get me wrong, I believe in Capitolism, but only with some safeguards. Last night the other guy seemed just about ready to argue that the market should be allowed to regulate itself. But, I just don't buy that.
My issue with Waltmart is that it operates outside of the US without following the us guidelines for hiring and pollution policies. I think if US co.s want to go to china or mexico to use cheap labor, that they should be held responsible for the well-being of the people they hire and the country side they produce in.
The world is a pretty small place when it comes to environmental systems
Re: Walt Mart and unchecked capitolism
littlek wrote: Is capitolism a good thing without any checks to it? Without regulation, law, buyer protection, etc, is capitalism good for all of the citizenry?
Capitalism is neither good nor bad. It's an econimic system and whether it is used for good or bad is entirely within the hands of the people using it.
While Walmart is the business that people seem to love to hate it doesn't even come close to being an unregulated enterprise. There are literally hundreds of thousands of local, state, federal and international laws that apply to their operations.
But, one could argue that unregulated capitalism was responsible for the destruction of Aparthid in South Africa amongst other things (many US companies were forced by public prressure to divest themselves of any S.A. holdings, etc..). It's all in how it's used.
One of the problems with regulation is that it sets up an artifical concept of what is or isn't "fair". Once someone (like Walmart) figures out a way to lawfully skirt the regulations people start screaming that their actions aren't fair and the cry goes out for further regulation (witness the crazy mesh of zoning laws right here in MA as an example).
lk, agree with you. left to their devices, entrepreneurs will seek to maximize profit, which won't necessarily be in the best interest of society. i try the hardest not to buy items made in China, but it's often impossible, and i use the Wal-Mart pharmacy on occasion, because it's convenient, so i'm hardly a role model.
Fishin - that's is part of what makes capitolism good - the divestment in s africa, the hydrolized fats in oreo cookies, etc. But, I don't think the average consumer can keep an analytic eye on all the minute aspects of all the businesses from which they buy goods and services. If some group with authority and know-how isn't looking over the shoulders of business, they would do much more damage than they are doing now. I can't imagine that not being the case.
I do realize that Walmart isn't the worst (hell, Haliburton may not even be the worst), but there's still substantial room for improvement.
Do we really want three shops with rock bottom prices to buy from? Our choices would dwindle and we'd be at their price-tweaking, supply-monotonistic (heh!) mercy, no?
I had an employer who claimed to be my great friend. I took care of her child. That child adored me and I adored her. This couple wanted to make me dinner, have me over to hang out with them. But they also tried to screw me for a tax break.
A controlled capitalism is what I advocate. Not totally unrestrained, as it increasingly is.
littlek wrote:Fishin - that's is part of what makes capitolism good - the divestment in s africa, the hydrolized fats in oreo cookies, etc. But, I don't think the average consumer can keep an analytic eye on all the minute aspects of all the businesses from which they buy goods and services. If some group with authority and know-how isn't looking over the shoulders of business, they would do much more damage than they are doing now. I can't imagine that not being the case.
The only authority any such group would need would be the authority to tell their clients what they find. Lack of a government regulator doesn't mean that there isn't anyone looking. How many thousands of non-government consumer groups are there out there in the world today?
IMO, once government regulation is in place you lose the idea that individuals have any responsibility in the process. When a local business rips off their customers and it gets reported in the local paper people just shrug and assume the Atty General will deal with it. The act of creating government regulation also relieves the individuals within the society of the responsibility of thinking and acting in their own best interest.
If there wasn't any government regualtion and a paper reported that a business was ripping off their customers then I think you'd see more people that would react by boycotting that business. They'd know that they couldn't leave it for someone else to deal with.
Quote:
Do we really want three shops with rock bottom prices to buy from? Our choices would dwindle and we'd be at their price-tweaking, supply-monotonistic (heh!) mercy, no?
In effect what you are arguing for is the right to be lazy.
That we should let government decide what is good for us, what we want and that they should ensure we get 100% safe and environmentally sound products no matter where we get them from so that we don't have to consider anything for ourselves at all. That's not such a good place for society to be in either.
Has anyone mentioned anything about the gross profiting of the oil companies? We just have to get our own little piece of the $.
Fishin - there is some regulation (and I fear Edgar's right that business is becoming less and less regulated), but I don't expect someone else will handle things.
Years ago I found out that hydrogenated fat was unhealthy and misleading, someone else did more recently, he filed suit. The suit may not have gone anywhere (I don't know what happened), but people perked up and now many products have taken hydro-fats out of their products. But, many products haven't. And, most people still don't have had any idea what hydro-fats are. Some of us do watch out for ourselves and for others, but what about those people who don't care? We should allow products to pollute people and the environment because most people don't care? I don't think we should.
It's not a one way or the other situation, in my opinion. I think there should be organizations inside and outside the government who watch business. I think broadcasting concerns will help drive market forces to boycott some products. I think there should also be some regulation with authority to look into production processes and documents, to test for harmful ingredients and pollutants and to keep products and services safe. I think they all have their places.
I'm probably not making any sense anymore - very tired.
Husker, there's been mention on the boards....somewhere out there......
Glad to see I'm not alone Edgar and yitwail.
Holy smokes, I need to use the spellcheck more often.....
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace