Ha! Wal-Mart retreats from Germany

[RGBVideo]

Social irresponsibility

Supporting inefficient corporations with the excuse of "social irresponsibility"

WTF has "social responsibility" to do with corporations? If you outsource such a basic government function which is impossible to measure objectively to private corporations, you're only inviting corruption. The mission of a corporation is whatever it's owners want it to be, and for Wal-Mart it has always been providing decent food and consumer goods for the cheapest possible cost for their customers. A mission of the government is social responsibility because government is elected by all the people, not just by the people who have $$$ (unlike corporations, which are kept alive buy stuff from 'em). Confusing government and corporate functions

[RGBVideo]

Anyway, since completely legal competition of Wal-Mart's local competitors got Wal-Mart off Germany (not the other way around), this debate is fruitless.

My point was and is that dissing Wal-Mart because it's trying to ensure that it's customers are paying the least $ amount from a product is elitist BS.

[Ecthy]

The corporation is run by people who should be well aware of what results their actions will produce. Since everyone knows that the US don't provide a big welfare state, every actor in the economic system is the more responsible for the outcome his actions produce.

I will agree that social welfare is not the main purpose of the corporations offering products, but more so one of the customer through his decisions in purchasing those products.

But when one supplier acquires a local monopoly position as Wal-mart has done in several parts of the US, it becoems clear that the consumer loses his power of decision-making. Strong market position increases the supplier's responisiblity, in any system that knows only a minimum of values.

You however don't even WANT to see those values. You talk of capitalism like a holy cow that allwos no questioning, and you hold anything that derives from your vague idea of capitalism as a strict law impossible to question.

Modern capitalism was born out of liberal ideas, part of which is responisibility for your actions. The ideas you support however are not liberal, they're cynical.

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by VJ
My point was and is that dissing Wal-Mart because it's trying to ensure that it's customers are paying the least $ amount from a product is elitist BS.

To be honest with you I get the feeling you're unable to discuss these matters on an appropriate level. You're so quick at labelling your opponents "commies" when I talk of responsibility, and now this crap about "elitist BS". How is anything that I said uin any way "elitist"? I talk of values and personal responibility in making free decisions.

[RGBVideo]

I will agree that social welfare is not the main purpose of the corporations offering products, but more so one of the customer through his decisions in purchasing those products.

We fundamentally disagree.

You talk of capitalism like a holy cow that allwos no questioning

no

The ideas you support however are not liberal, they're cynical.

no

[Ecthy]

If you disagree with the basic notion that you're responsible for your actions and what consequences they produce, you are indeed a cynic. And you do base all this on a unquestionable construction of capitalism.

[RGBVideo]

You're so quick at labelling your opponents "commies" when I talk of responsibility, and now this crap about "elitist BS". How is anything that I said uin any way "elitist"?

The viewpoint is elitist because it's presuming everyone has enough money to "vote with their money" what corporation they want to stay alive. Again, this is why outsourcing "social responsibility" out from government to corporations is so flawed. If you create "social responsibility" functions for a corporation, government will eventually drop it's job of providing them. This is a Very Bad thing for poor people since they have no way of affecting "social responsibility" functions of a society except sabotage and rebellion.

[Ecthy]

"Oh look, that piece of *insert product* is soooo cheap. It costs only 10% of the next cheapest offer. I know very well that its production involves cooking babies alive in some Asian country where this isn't forbidden, but I only care for the price. Get me a dozen!"

[DinoDoc]

Your point is?

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by VJ
The viewpoint is elitist because it's presuming everyone has enough money to "vote with their money" what corporation they want to stay alive. Again, this is why outsourcing "social responsibility" out from government to corporations is so flawed. If you create "social responsibility" functions for a corporation, government will eventually drop it's job of providing them. This is a Very Bad thing for poor people since they have no way of affecting "social responsibility" functions of a society except sabotage and rebellion.

1. The outsourcing argument doesn't stand because there is next to no welfare in US gov't spending. It's all in charity, which is indeed elitist already. They might as well consume properly.

2. I'll agree that it can be a matter of affording. I personally don't go about purchasing organic food and fair traded sugar all the tiem because I simply can't afford. But there still is a certain variety, always. The less money you have, the less room you have for making decisions, so much is true. This is why I blame the supplier, not the purchaser. My points would only be elitist if I had blamed the consumers, when I was really aiming at the supplier.

[RGBVideo]

If you disagree with the basic notion that you're responsible for your actions and what consequences they produce

Perhaps if you wouldn't think of debates as competitions you wouldn't have need for this kind of strawmen. I just think paying $1.50 instead of a $3 for a bottle of cola isn't a political message.

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Your point is?

No responsible person would buy it, no responsible supplier offer it. By simple price logics, many babies would be cooked to satisfy western cheapness.

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by VJ
Perhaps if you wouldn't think of debates as competitions you wouldn't have need for this kind of strawmen. I just think paying $1.50 instead of a $3 for a bottle of cola isn't a political message.

Look at yourself, you consider them entire crusades. You've insulted me ("commies", "elitist BS") but haven't even tried to find arguments. I on the other hand have been showing you were your logic is flawed.

Why am I dealing with you guys?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Why am I dealing with you guys?

You feel the need to defend spending more money on products to protect inefficent business models and a desire to paint Germany's poor economy as a defeat for Wal-Mart.

[Ecthy]

If by "inefficient" business model you refer to acceptable working conditions and greater overall wealth production, you might even have a point.