NationStates Jolt Archive

Which do you think has the most negative effect on a country: Wal-Mart or McDonald's? Poll coming.

I'm not sure either has a negative effect on the country.

Wal-Mart certainly annoys me more, but that's largely a function of their clientele. And McDonald's is really just a successful real estate company - most of their company's value is tied up in their excellent restaurant locations.

It's the Wal-Marts with the in-built McDonald's franchises you really got to watch.

Neither. Both employ a lot of people and they supply goods that consumers want at prices they are willing to pay. Wal-Mart's low prices have a deflationary effect by increasing the number of goods consumers can buy, especially at the lower end of the income scale. And they provide a lot of jobs to American workers at all levels of the business; they're not perfect, but both are by and large a positive for our economy.

Wal-Mart and McDonalds exist because people want their products, just like Toyota, Exxon, Intel, IBM, or any other company on the face of the Earth.

I'm going with mcdonald's, for a number of reasons.

First: Mcdonalds does put "mom and pop" restaurants out of business, just as Walmart puts local retailers out of business.

Second: Mcdonald's has a severely negatie affect on people's health, not just their businesses.

Third: Mcdonalds offers no benefits to the masses, none whatsoever while Walmart actually does allow people of low economic standing to buy goods at very low prices

Fourth: Mcdonalds contributes enormous amounts of garbage to the environment, their trash is EVERYWHERE.

Finally: Mcdonalds specifically targets kids in their marketing, hoping to get them addicted to their junk for life.

I dislike McDonalds simply because it has gone a long way to perpetuating the "Ignorant, Overweight American" stereotype in the minds of other nations.

Wal-Mart, I really don't have anything in particular against.

Wal-Mart and McDonalds exist because people want their products, just like Toyota, Exxon, Intel, IBM, or any other company on the face of the Earth.
No, not really, Vetalia - all those corporations persuade people to want their products. And Wal-Mart doesn't even have a product of its' own - it's more a product delivery system than anything. One that also smashes existing businesses to pieces as a sort of corporate collateral damage.

It's the Wal-Marts with the in-built McDonald's franchises you really got to watch.

The Ultimate Evil! :eek:

Wal-Mart is bigoted, sexist, refuses to give health insurance, comes down like a hammer at any attempt at forming a union and of course put other stores out of business. Evil Empire indeed.

No, not really, Vetalia - all those corporations persuade people to want their products. And Wal-Mart doesn't even have a product of its' own - it's more a product delivery system than anything. One that also smashes existing businesses to pieces as a sort of corporate collateral damage.

People are persuaded, but people can think for themselves. They're still the ones buying these products; they have the capability to think and determine if they really want whatever it is they are buying.

Even so, a lot of the stuff these places sell isn't sold by advertising; I go to Wal-Mart/Sams Club to buy things like fertilizer or socks...the advertising that persuades me is going to be for things like BMWs or expensive suits. Also, Wal-Mart enables people to get what they need at lower prices; a low-income family can save a lot of money shopping there, and if that enables them to get a little ahead and avoid incurring debt that's all the more worth it.

Competition is competition; Wal-Mart puts companies out of business because it's better at what it does; I'd rather pay less for what I need at Wal-Mart and have more money for the things I actually want. It's no different than any company putting its competitiors out of business.

People are persuaded, but people can think for themselves. They're still the ones buying these products; they have the capability to think and determine if they really want whatever it is they are buying.

Even so, a lot of the stuff these places sell isn't sold by advertising; I go to Wal-Mart/Sams Club to buy things like fertilizer or socks...the advertising that persuades me is going to be for things like BMWs or expensive suits. Also, Wal-Mart enables people to get what they need at lower prices; a low-income family can save a lot of money shopping there, and if that enables them to get a little ahead and avoid incurring debt that's all the more worth it.

Competition is competition; Wal-Mart puts companies out of business because it's better at what it does; I'd rather pay less for what I need at Wal-Mart and have more money for the things I actually want. It's no different than any company putting its competitiors out of business.

and that's why I love you Vetalia......

also, if I had to pick one, I would pick Mc Donalds because they said their fries were gluten free when they were not and made a lot of people sick. That's my own personal anti-Mickey D's thing though.

I'm going with mcdonald's, for a number of reasons. -snip-

Then convince people not to shop there...the only people who deserve blame for Wal-Mart or McDonalds' success are the ones who buy their products. It's like people blaming car companies or Exxon for global warming as they drive around in SUVs that get 15 miles per gallon; the only people who deserve blame are the ones who shop at these places.

I don't like McDonalds, and I don't eat there...and I've been exposed to their advertising my entire life. I think for myself, and if people are too dumb to do that then they deserve to pay the price for it.

McDonalds is generally pretty bad for the health of Americans, while, Wal*Mart is generally good for Americans. Sure, they drive their suppliers nuts, but that's only a small portion of the population. Not only that, but Wal*Mart serves as an anti-inflationary factor, driving the price of goods down by being able to get good deals and efficiency from their suppliers, and also brings many luxury goods within to the affordable ranges for many poorer Americans. TV's for fifty dollars and a DVD player for $25 is pretty fucking good pricing.

Competition is competition; Wal-Mart puts companies out of business because it's better at what it does; I'd rather pay less for what I need at Wal-Mart and have more money for the things I actually want. It's no different than any company putting its competitiors out of business.

Chain stores like Wal-Mart though have a tendency to sell cheap garbage that will crap out on you in a short period of time. The small stores have a much higher chance of selling you something that actually has some quality.

McDonalds because their Happy Meals toys are so lame.

Chain stores like Wal-Mart though have a tendency to sell cheap garbage that will crap out on you in a short period of time. The small stores have a much higher chance of selling you something that actually has some quality.
I have actually been in a situation before where I needed shoes, I had about $6 to spend, I could only afford the shoes at Walmart, I was thankful that they were around that day.

Some people don't have money for quality goods, they have money for cheap or nothing.

Chain stores like Wal-Mart though have a tendency to sell cheap garbage that will crap out on you in a short period of time. The small stores have a much higher chance of selling you something that actually has some quality.

I agree, and that's why I shop at small places when I want high-quality items as opposed to cheap everyday items.

However, many people do prefer affordability over quality for basic items and that's why Wal-Mart is so successful. The only way you will stop Wal-Mart is if you compete on their terms and gain ground against them; one might look at Costco as an example of a solid competitior against Wal-Mart,

Then convince people not to shop there...the only people who deserve blame for Wal-Mart or McDonalds' success are the ones who buy their products. It's like people blaming car companies or Exxon for global warming as they drive around in SUVs that get 15 miles per gallon; the only people who deserve blame are the ones who shop at these places.

I don't like McDonalds, and I don't eat there...and I've been exposed to their advertising my entire life. I think for myself, and if people are too dumb to do that then they deserve to pay the price for it.

Yeah good idea, now all we have to do is scrounge up about 3 billion dollars for a national ad campaign...

Yeah good idea, now all we have to do is scrounge up about 3 billion dollars for a national ad campaign...

Trust me, I've seen plenty of anti-Wal*Mart sentiment about, and I actually remember when the UFCW protested outfront because Wal*Mart stores are not unionized. None of the campaigns have worked, because, quite simply, people will buy Wal*Mart, so as to maximize the value they get for their money.

Yeah good idea, now all we have to do is scrounge up about 3 billion dollars for a national ad campaign...

Well, that's the way it is; if you want to beat Wal-Mart/McDonalds at its game, you're going to need a lot of money to do it. Even so, there's no guarantee people will listen...it takes a lot of money and time to change public opinion.

Trust me, I've seen plenty of anti-Wal*Mart sentiment about, and I actually remember when the UFCW protested outfront because Wal*Mart stores are not unionized. None of the campaigns have worked, because, quite simply, people will buy Wal*Mart, so as to maximize the value they get for their money.

Im talking about mcdonald's not walmart, Morgan Spurlock's documentary was a start, but really the healthier eating/ anti-fastfood lobby is completely outgunned.

on A country: McDonald's because it makes people unhealthy.

on OUR country: Walmart because it has effectively destroyed maunfacturing in America and outsourced in to China.

Im talking about mcdonald's not walmart, Morgan Spurlock's documentary was a start, but really the healthier eating/ anti-fastfood lobby is completely outgunned.

Aye, sorry about misreading your post then.

on OUR country: Walmart because it has effectively destroyed maunfacturing in America and outsourced in to China.

Which is a myth.

As American firms have invested in the developing world, American workers have taken jobs that are increasingly higher on the value chain, because, let's face it, there's things that an unskilled laborer cannot do, but a skilled worker with training, education and experience can. That's why firms like Caterpillar are staying in the US. That's why Honda, BMW and Toyota are building their new plants, not in China, but in Kentucky and the Carolinas.

on OUR country: Walmart because it has effectively destroyed maunfacturing in America and outsourced in to China.

The American people and American companies destroyed their manufacturing sector. All Wal-Mart did was give people what they wanted...and people didn't care where it came from as long as it was cheap. And now that the reality of our decisions has hit us, a lot of people are looking for someone else to blame other than themselves when in reality we are the only ones to blame for that.

Even so, it's hardly an unusual or bad thing. More mature economies have a larger service sector due to higher educational attainment, a slower-growing workforce, and the diversification of the economy as a result of technology and productivity growth. In fact, almost all of the service sector jobs created since the manufacturing decline set in pay more and have more opportunities than the ones they replaced.

The American people and American companies destroyed their manufacturing sector. All Wal-Mart did was give people what they wanted...and people didn't care where it came from as long as it was cheap. And now that the reality of our decisions has hit us, a lot of people are looking for someone else to blame other than themselves when in reality we are the only ones to blame for that.

I agree that we as a people are at fault.

My question is: How are we as a people going to correct our fault?

Theres a McDonalds in the Wal*Mart near me...-_-

Which is a myth.

As American firms have invested in the developing world, American workers have taken jobs that are increasingly higher on the value chain, because, let's face it, there's things that an unskilled laborer cannot do, but a skilled worker with training, education and experience can. That's why firms like Caterpillar are staying in the US. That's why Honda, BMW and Toyota are building their new plants, not in China, but in Kentucky and the Carolinas.

It's not a myth that in 1965 80% of the US economy was manufacturing and 20% was financial services. Today those numbers are exactly the opposite. That means that 80% of the US economy now is us selling each other insurance and mortgages. That makes us extremly vulnerable to currency shocks, especially if China decides to stop accepting our paper IOU's.

I agree that we as a people are at fault.

My question is: How are we as a people going to correct our fault?

How we always do: vote with our wallets. As people become more aware of the costs involved with supporting these places, their habits will change. Also, new companies will be formed and will compete with Wal-Mart; no company is immortal, and no company stays on top forever. I mean, look at how many great companies ultimately failed or were bought out due to competition over the past few decades...it's huge.

Also, look at smoking; it took a long time for it to really decline in the US population, but once it did there was no stopping. Now it's barely holding to 20-odd percent and dropping steadily. The costs of it caught up with people, and they realized that it was bad for them...the same thing will eventually happen to McDonalds as well.

It's not a myth that in 1965 80% of the US economy was manufacturing and 20% was financial services. Today those numbers are exactly the opposite. That means that 80% of the US economy now is us selling each other insurance and mortgages. That makes us extremly vulnerable to currency shocks, especially if China decides to stop accepting our paper IOU's.

I have to agree with Dan on this. Coming from the Detroit area I can firsthand see what is happening to american manufacturers...

The American people and American companies destroyed their manufacturing sector. All Wal-Mart did was give people what they wanted...and people didn't care where it came from as long as it was cheap. And now that the reality of our decisions has hit us, a lot of people are looking for someone else to blame other than themselves when in reality we are the only ones to blame for that.Sure. Although WalMart bullying manufacturers into moving to China doesn't help.

Even so, it's hardly an unusual or bad thing. More mature economies have a larger service sector due to higher educational attainment, a slower-growing workforce, and the diversification of the economy as a result of technology and productivity growth. In fact, almost all of the service sector jobs created since the manufacturing decline set in pay more and have more opportunities than the ones they replaced.

Lets's hope we stay friendly with China. If not we'll have a lot if insurance salesmen but no drill press operators.

It's also a myth that the reason people still manufacture cars here is because our labor is more skilled. The manufacture computers and television sets all over China. The reason we still manufacture cars here is because Walmart doesn't sell cars.

Then convince people not to shop there...the only people who deserve blame for Wal-Mart or McDonalds' success are the ones who buy their products. It's like people blaming car companies or Exxon for global warming as they drive around in SUVs that get 15 miles per gallon; the only people who deserve blame are the ones who shop at these places.

By the same logic, am I free of blame if I kill someone because someone paid me to?

It's not a myth that in 1965 80% of the US economy was manufacturing and 20% was financial services. Today those numbers are exactly the opposite. That means that 80% of the US economy now is us selling each other insurance and mortgages. That makes us extremly vulnerable to currency shocks, especially if China decides to stop accepting our paper IOU's.

We'd be just as vulnerable with a huge manufacturing sector: who is going to buy all those manufactured goods if there is a major downturn in the world economy? We can't just sell them to each other, and the financial services or any other service industry isn't big enough to take up the slack...so we're in the same position. Remember, the Great Depression was exacerbated by the collapse of global trade more than anything...and it was the manufacturing hubs that got hit the hardest.

Any unbalanced economy is dangerous. That's why we don't want one sector driving all of our economic growth; we have a well diversified economy now and that means we are less vulnerable to economic shocks than we were in the past.

It's not a myth that in 1965 80% of the US economy was manufacturing and 20% was financial services. Today those numbers are exactly the opposite. That means that 80% of the US economy now is us selling each other insurance and mortgages. That makes us extremly vulnerable to currency shocks, especially if China decides to stop accepting our paper IOU's.

And the fact that American workers are no longer producing little plastic bits and pieces that are extremely low on the value chain is a bad thing? I personally find that to be a very good thing. At the same time, we're also producing less general purpose steel, but far more specialty steel and such. We're not making the crappy stuff any more, just the awesome stuff.

Furthermore, even if the US economy is now 80% service and 20% manufacturing, that has far more to do with the growth of the service sector than it does with any sort of reduction in the manufacturing sector.

American workers are now more productive than they've ever been in the past, and we're producing more wealth now than we ever have in the past.

Furthermore, this China-hawkishness is useless, they're not going to pull the credit rug out from under the US, it benefits China. Why the fuck would they ruin one of the most important markets for their products?

By the same logic, am I free of blame if I kill someone because someone paid me to?

Excessive hyperbole man, you should know that normative factors clearly come into play.

By the same logic, am I free of blame if I kill someone because someone paid me to?

No. However, I don't think killing someone is anywhere near morally equivalent to buying a product someone offers.

If it were, then yes. However, McDonalds is not doing anything wrong by selling its food or Wal Mart selling its products to consumers; they can make you fat or damage the environment, but that is a risk you are incurring to get their product. It's not a crime to sell goods legally produced to consumers, even if the cost of producing them is damaging to the consumer and the world.

We'd be just as vulnerable with a huge manufacturing sector: who is going to buy all those manufactured goods if there is a major downturn in the world economy? We can't just sell them to each other, and the financial services or any other service industry isn't big enough to take up the slack...so we're in the same position. Remember, the Great Depression was exacerbated by the collapse of global trade more than anything...and it was the manufacturing hubs that got hit the hardest.And we got out of it by running a deficit and employing American workers on domestic projects - first raods and bridges and then tanks and battleships. They used the money to buy American made washing machines and type writers. What if our next war is with the people who make our washing machines and type writers?

Any unbalanced economy is dangerous. That's why we don't want one sector driving all of our economic growth; we have a well diversified economy now and that means we are less vulnerable to economic shocks than we were in the past.

Something just tells me it's better if we make most of our stuff. I think if China was selling us our insurance we could live with a conflict. If they're making our transistors and computer memory things might be a little tougher.

Sure. Although WalMart bullying manufacturers into moving to China doesn't help.
Wal*Mart doesn't bully manufacturers into moving to China. They demand efficiency that some lower on the value chain products can best get when produced in the developing world,



Lets's hope we stay friendly with China. If not we'll have a lot if insurance salesmen but no drill press operators.
Drill press operators can be trained quickly, insurance, on the other hand, is a highly specialized field that takes years of training and experience to become fully competent in.

It's also a myth that the reason people still manufacture cars here is because our labor is more skilled. The manufacture computers and television sets all over China. The reason we still manufacture cars here is because Walmart doesn't sell cars.

No, cars are manufactured in the US because they are extremely technical and heavy duty machines. So much of the infrastructure and expertise for manufacturing cars already exists in the US, and Toyota and Honda know that full well. That's why they're building cars here.

Not all labor is equal.

And the fact that American workers are no longer producing little plastic bits and pieces that are extremely low on the value chain is a bad thing? I personally find that to be a very good thing. At the same time, we're also producing less general purpose steel, but far more specialty steel and such. We're not making the crappy stuff any more, just the awesome stuff.

Furthermore, even if the US economy is now 80% service and 20% manufacturing, that has far more to do with the growth of the service sector than it does with any sort of reduction in the manufacturing sector.

American workers are now more productive than they've ever been in the past, and we're producing more wealth now than we ever have in the past.

Furthermore, this China-hawkishness is useless, they're not going to pull the credit rug out from under the US, it benefits China. Why the fuck would they ruin one of the most important markets for their products?

Hate to break it to you, but they're not just making our McDonald's meal toys. They're making our computers, our televisions, our microwave ovens, many of the parts for the cars we assemble, our computer chips...

People in India are answering our tech support calls, doing our taxes, writing our programs, trouble shooting our databases...

We're not exporting the clothing jobs we exported in the 70s. We're not exporting highly skilled labor and financial sector jobs.

Furthermore, even if the US economy is now 80% service and 20% manufacturing, that has far more to do with the growth of the service sector than it does with any sort of reduction in the manufacturing sector.

Here's something interesting (from EPI of all places):
US Manufacturing Share of GDP (http://www.epinet.org/briefingpapers/149/fig1.gif)

Notice that the manufacturing real share of GDP has remain unchanged since 1977 even though the nominal share has fallen from 22% to 14%. That means the "decline" in manufacturing is caused by growth in services rather than any real decrease in industrial output. Manufacturing is as big a sector of the economy in real terms as it was in 1977, which is significant given the effects the 1979 oil crisis had on domestic manufacturing.

And here's another fact: Industrial production has grown steadily over the past few years despite the job losses. In fact, production grew by 3.2% last year.

Excessive hyperbole man, you should know that normative factors clearly come into play.

Really? Global warming will have worse consequences than any murder in the history of the human species.

"They paid me to do it" is no excuse.

No. However, I don't think killing someone is anywhere near morally equivalent to buying a product someone offers.

No, it isn't.

However, destroying the environment (with the ensuing consequences) so as to make a profit by providing a product to consumers is no more morally legitimate than destroying the environment for any other purpose, and environmental destruction is even more dangerous than murder.

If it were, then yes. However, McDonalds is not doing anything wrong by selling its food or Wal Mart selling its products to consumers; they can make you fat or damage the environment, but that is a risk you are incurring to get their product.

"Make you fat," maybe.

"Damage the environment," no. Firstly, it is not only the consumers of a given product who are harmed by the environmental destruction that went into making that product. Secondly, the capability of an individual consumer to change a corporation's environmental policy is virtually nonexistent, and the only way to fully overcome this problem is to have an enforceable boycott system, something that does not exist.

It's not a crime to sell goods legally produced to consumers, even if the cost of producing them is damaging to the consumer and the world.

It may not be a crime, but the government is not the first place I turn to regarding questions of right and wrong.

Something just tells me it's better if we make most of our stuff. I think if China was selling us our insurance we could live with a conflict. If they're making our transistors and computer memory things might be a little tougher.
That something is xenophobia. There is no difference between a Chinaman and an American. Whoever is going to do the best job should get that job.

Really? Global warming will have worse consequences than any murder in the history of the human species.
What? How? I’m no denier of Global Warming, but really I can’t see how it’s going to be that big of a deal.
The Ocean will rise a few inches over dozens of years? Sea walls.
Some hyper-adapted animals and plants will die out? Failure to adapt. That’s evolution.
Changing seasonal patterns? Develop GMs that can withstand harsher climates.

And we got out of it by running a deficit and employing American workers on domestic projects - first raods and bridges and then tanks and battleships. They used the money to buy American made washing machines and type writers. What if our next war is with the people who make our washing machines and type writers?

We'll do what we did during WWII, or even what the Soviet Union orthe Civil War South did: build out industry very rapidly with extensive government support. I mean, the South was able to achieve gigantic growth rates in defense industries despite huge shortfalls in material and expertise, and the Soviets achieved a growth rate of over 12% during the decade prior to WWII. When patriotism and government funds are combined, you make a lot of things happen very quickly.


Something just tells me it's better if we make most of our stuff. I think if China was selling us our insurance we could live with a conflict. If they're making our transistors and computer memory things might be a little tougher.

Well, remember that any business requires capital to keep itself running. If your banks collapse and you lack the capital to fund your industrial base, your economy breaks down and it falls in to a deflationary depression as the cash-starved industries lack the ability to replace equipment or buy raw materials. You'd have to regress to barter in some situations, or even worse print money to keep the supply of capital growing...which leads to hyperinflation and further difficulties.

Hate to break it to you, but they're not just making our McDonald's meal toys. They're making our computers, our televisions, our microwave ovens, many of the parts for the cars we assemble, our computer chips...

People in India are answering our tech support calls, doing our taxes, writing our programs, trouble shooting our databases...

We're not exporting the clothing jobs we exported in the 70s. We're not exporting highly skilled labor and financial sector jobs.

And becoming equally reliant on us as we are on them. Interdependence, it's a wonderful thing.

Do you people apply this logic in your everyday lives?

Perhaps you check carefully to make sure that your friends haven't dumped their trash into the nearby creek before accepting a gift or favor from them?

Perhaps you wouldn't be bothered if someone manipulated you into, say, getting addicted to drugs, because after all no one held a gun to your head?

Or are only capitalists permitted to act in blatantly immoral ways?

Really? Global warming will have worse consequences than any murder in the history of the human species.

"They paid me to do it" is no excuse.

Well, then do what a lot of people do and work to get emissions caps and public awareness on the ballot or in advertising!

Even so, a lot of people don't believe in global warming...their ignorance is just as bad as anything those companies do, since if people don't believe in it it doesn't matter what companies do to fight global warming. Exxon could offset all its CO2, but the people who buy the gasoline are still going to pollute by driving inefficient vehicles even though they know it's bad for the planet.



No, it isn't.

However, destroying the environment (with the ensuing consequences) so as to make a profit by providing a product to consumers is no more morally legitimate than destroying the environment for any other purpose, and environmental destruction is even more dangerous than murder.

Well, remember that crimes are only crimes because people make them illegal. The only way you will stop the abuse is if you force companies to change their positions. Again, public ignorance or denial means that many people are willing accomplices to this destruction...so where does the blame actually lie?


"Make you fat," maybe.

"Damage the environment," no. Firstly, it is not only the consumers of a given product who are harmed by the environmental destruction that went into making that product. Secondly, the capability of an individual consumer to change a corporation's environmental policy is virtually nonexistent, and the only way to fully overcome this problem is to have an enforceable boycott system, something that does not exist.

That's why consumers and workers at these places have to organize; be it boycotts, protests, unionization (even if you don't get the place unionized, it does drive the Wal-Mart out in some cases anyways). I mean, the civil rights movement seemed next to impossible for individuals, but when they banded together they were able to overthrow 100+ years of institutional racism and finally got the chance to work to repair the damages from the 400+ years of slavery that preceded it.

People have to join together if they want change. Anything that has been accomplished has been accomplished by a group of dedicated people; things can change, and they will if you work to make it a reality.


It may not be a crime, but the government is not the first place I turn to regarding questions of right and wrong.

That's true, but the government is a powerful ally. They did help to reverse many of the most egregious environmental abuses during the 1960's and 1970's, and continue to make small progress today. There are people in the government who can help and who will help if you want them to.

Im talking about mcdonald's not walmart, Morgan Spurlock's documentary was a start, but really the healthier eating/ anti-fastfood lobby is completely outgunned.

You talking about Supersize Me? Since that "documentary" was so fundamentally flawed that it wasn't even funny.

I think they're both spawn of Satan (figuratively of course), though Walmart is worse.

What? How? I’m no denier of Global Warming, but really I can’t see how it’s going to be that big of a deal.
The Ocean will rise a few inches over dozens of years? Sea walls.
Some hyper-adapted animals and plants will die out? Failure to adapt. That’s evolution.
Changing seasonal patterns? Develop GMs that can withstand harsher climates.

The flooding of coastal cities will cause immense damage and create a refugee problem, for one.

The natural disasters brought about by climate change will have similar results.

Or are only capitalists permitted to act in blatantly immoral ways?
They shouldn't be, but we have to live our lives. Not all of us can afford to be revolutionaries.

You talking about Supersize Me? Since that "documentary" was so fundamentally flawed that it wasn't even funny.

Honestly, I don't care. As long as it alerts Americans to the poison they're shoveling into their mouths, I don't mind some innaccuracy.

Or are only capitalists permitted to act in blatantly immoral ways?

q?

The flooding of coastal cities will cause immense damage and create a refugee problem, for one.
An Inconvenient Truth was bullshit. A few inches. Sea Walls. Ask the Dutch.
The natural disasters brought about by climate change will have similar results.
We don't know that yet. In fact, hurricanes have been rather quite so far this year.

The Ocean will rise a few inches over dozens of years? Sea walls.
Last I checked, it'd rise about 80 meters.


Some hyper-adapted animals and plants will die out? Failure to adapt. That’s evolution.
Some? More like almost everything in the ocean.

Changing seasonal patterns? Develop GMs that can withstand harsher climates.
Hypercanes aren't exactly things that can be withstood.

Honstly, I don't care. As long as it alerts Americans to the poison they're shoveling into their mouths, I don't mind some innaccuracy.

Some? That wasn't "some". We're talking about something that would be a failure in a middle school science class for God's sake.

Last I checked, it'd rise about 80 meters.
Maybe if all the ice caps melted. It's going to level off at some point. Last I checked it was about 100 to 900 mm in the next 100 years.
Some? More like almost everything in the ocean.

We can learn to live without fish. Mankind's greater survival and comfort is the ultimate concern.
Hypercanes aren't exactly things that can be withstood.
Where do you poeple keep pulling this shit from?

Well, then do what a lot of people do and work to get emissions caps and public awareness on the ballot or in advertising!

Okay. How does that excuse corporate environmental destruction?

Even so, a lot of people don't believe in global warming...their ignorance is just as bad as anything those companies do, since if people don't believe in it it doesn't matter what companies do to fight global warming. Exxon could offset all its CO2, but the people who buy the gasoline are still going to pollute by driving inefficient vehicles even though they know it's bad for the planet.

I'm not saying the consumer isn't at all at fault. I am simply pointing out that the ignorance and apathy of the consumer is no excuse for the ignorance and apathy of the corporation.

Well, remember that crimes are only crimes because people make them illegal. The only way you will stop the abuse is if you force companies to change their positions. Again, public ignorance or denial means that many people are willing accomplices to this destruction...so where does the blame actually lie?

With the corporations, primarily.

If rape were legal, would rapists be free of blame?

That's why consumers and workers at these places have to organize; be it boycotts, protests, unionization (even if you don't get the place unionized, it does drive the Wal-Mart out in some cases anyways). I mean, the civil rights movement seemed next to impossible for individuals, but when they banded together they were able to overthrow 100+ years of institutional racism and finally got the chance to work to repair the damages from the 400+ years of slavery that preceded it.

It took them a hundred years, though.

Back in the 1920s, would it have been a legitimate excuse for segregation to say that Blacks clearly like it, because if they didn't they would fight harder against it?

People have to join together if they want change. Anything that has been accomplished has been accomplished by a group of dedicated people; things can change, and they will if you work to make it a reality.

I agree. Don't think I'm attacking collective action, I happen to strongly support it.

What I'm saying is that it's difficult, difficult enough that the primary blame rests with those who commit the crime, not with those who merely permit it.

It's like people blaming car companies or Exxon for global warming as they drive around in SUVs that get 15 miles per gallon; the only people who deserve blame are the ones who shop at these places.



Nope ... it's partly Exxon's fault because they actively spread disinformation about global warming, making it more difficult for people to make an informed choice. And they subvert any attempts to require them to actually internalize the environmental costs of their product, so that the price their consumers would pay would actually reflect the total cost. This does not let the consumers off the hook, however.

They shouldn't be, but we have to live our lives. Not all of us can afford to be revolutionaries.

The way things are going, none of us may be able to afford to not be revolutionaries.

q?

Isn't that the reality?

We have institutions in our society which are expected, as a matter of course, to engage in actions we would regard as despicable if actual human beings did them in the course of their everyday lives.

A society that tolerates such institutions is a society in urgent need of reform.

A society that tolerates such institutions is a society in urgent need of reform.
Agreed. As long as nobody gets hurt, except the criminals.

Agreed. As long as nobody gets hurt, except the criminals.

Perhaps you will make your revolution with flowers? Go up to the criminal, sing Kumbaya, hand him a vase, and expect liberation?

When he laughs in your face and puts you in a jail cell (or just marginalizes you, in a "free" society), who will be to blame for the continual death and oppression implicit in the system, death and oppression that might have been prevented had you gone beyond polite requests?

You will never achieve anything significant without harming some people who do not deserve to be harmed. It took a long war to end slavery in the US. It took millions of deaths to smash the Nazi onslaught in Europe.

You seem to think that we should not feel sympathy for criminals - but why not? Are they not humans, too? Do they not have families who love them? Have they not strived and struggled to get what they have? Are they even fully at fault? Would not all of us be criminals under some circumstances?

No one deserves to be harmed. No one deserves anything but all the happiness and freedom of which she is capable. Reality compels us, however, to harm those who do not deserve it; that is something we cannot avoid. Better to do what we can than remain passive for fear of causing harm.

Perhaps you will make your revolution with flowers? Go up to the criminal, sing Kumbaya, hand him a vase, and expect liberation?
Civil disobedience.
When he laughs in your face and puts you in a jail cell (or just marginalizes you, in a "free" society), who will be to blame for the continual death and oppression implicit in the system, death and oppression that might have been prevented had you gone beyond polite requests?
There's no guarantee that it'll work, and then innocents will have died for nothing.
You will never achieve anything significant without harming some people who do not deserve to be harmed. It took a long war to end slavery in the US. It took millions of deaths to smash the Nazi onslaught in Europe.

And that is a very, very sad thing.
You seem to think that we should not feel sympathy for criminals - but why not? Are they not humans, too? Do they not have families who love them? Have they not strived and struggled to get what they have? Are they even fully at fault? Would not all of us be criminals under some circumstances?
I don't think that at all! Criminals deserve to be treated as humanely as possible. They just shouldn't be allowed to go free until reformed.
No one deserves to be harmed. No one deserves anything but all the happiness and freedom of which she is capable.
Yes!
Reality compels us, however, to harm those who do not deserve it; that is something we cannot avoid. Better to do what we can than remain passive for fear of causing harm.
I can not agree. I don’t even know how someone like you could say that. A right-winger perhaps, someone who doesn’t give jack shit about anyone anyway. It isn’t consistent with what you advocate.
These are the same arguments that Israel uses.

Which do you think has the most negative effect on a country: Wal-Mart or McDonald's? Poll coming.

Wal-Mart. My Mother used to work there, and they don't pay anything. She lives at the poverty line.

Maybe if all the ice caps melted. It's going to level off at some point. Last I checked it was about 100 to 900 mm in the next 100 years.
It won't level off.

We can learn to live without fish. Mankind's greater survival and comfort is the ultimate concern.
It'll kill off all the plankton. Guess what? No more oxygen.

Where do you poeple keep pulling this shit from?
The warmer the seas, the more powerful the hurricanes. If they get too warm, we get hypercanes. Know what a hypercane is? It's like the Great Red Spot on Jupiter.

It won't level off.


It'll kill off all the plankton. Guess what? No more oxygen.


The warmer the seas, the more powerful the hurricanes. If they get too warm, we get hypercanes. Know what a hypercane is? It's like the Great Red Spot on Jupiter.
I’m not uneducated on the subject, and everything you just said is so unsubstantiated, that it’s barely worth this dismissive reply.

I’m not uneducated on the subject, and everything you just said is so unsubstantiated, that it’s barely worth this dismissive reply.

Wow. You mean plankton aren't extremely susceptible to changes in water salinity and temperature and produce most of the world's oxygen. You mean the melting point of ice will magically increase as more of it melts? You mean that you aren't dismissing stuff that you know nothing about?

Both are fantastic. One gives me cheap, filling food. The other gives me cheap, filling products. I could careless about what it takes to keep it that way.

It'll kill off all the plankton. Guess what? No more oxygen.
Or maybe the plankton will evolve and adapt. What a surprise.

Civil disobedience.

Almost always involves harm to people who do not deserve it, even excluding criminals.

The only major exception is (as with the sit-ins during the Civil Rights Movement) when the law you are breaking is also the one you are protesting, and that is usually not an option in regard to the abuses of corporate power.

There's no guarantee that it'll work, and then innocents will have died for nothing.

And that is a very, very sad thing.

It is. That does not mean it is avoidable.

All bloodshed is a waste, but should slavery have been tolerated? Should the world have passively accepted Hitler's expansion?

You have to try. Violence should never be the first resort, but sometimes it is necessary.

I don't think that at all! Criminals deserve to be treated as humanely as possible

You want to lock criminals in a prison, right? Is that "humane"? No, it is inhumane, it is degrading, it is an insult to human dignity.

You can pretend to benevolence if you want to - perhaps it will assuage your guilt - but the fact is that you are denying someone freedom and happiness for a problem that is most likely at least as much society's fault as it is his. You are subjecting someone to awful, degrading conditions - and you can slap as many smiley faces as you want on a prison, you can add as many rehabilitation programs as you want, but the conditions are still awful and degrading, and that is an intrinsic component of imprisonment - because society doesn't approve of his behavior.

Now, you may well ask, what is the alternative? Letting him remain free, free to harm others?

Precisely. And that is why you cannot resort to absolutist standards on these questions.

I can not agree. I don’t even know how someone like you could say that. A right-winger perhaps, someone who doesn’t give jack shit about anyone anyway. It isn’t consistent with what you advocate.

I think the preference of passivity or inefficacy to genuine action is more uncompassionate than a willingness to pay necessary costs if necessary.

Any utilitarian should understand this; the opinion I have just expressed is, after all, the opinion for which utilitarianism is typically criticized.

These are the same arguments that Israel uses.

Yes, they are. The difference is that in Israel's case the benefits do not outweigh the costs.

Wow. You mean plankton aren't extremely susceptible to changes in water salinity and temperature and produce most of the world's oxygen.
Not that susceptible.
You mean the melting point of ice will magically increase as more of it melts? You mean that you aren't dismissing stuff that you know nothing about?
No, but the melting isn’t going to speed up either. We’re look at a few hundred millimeters a century, and that’s only until the Earth starts cooling again. Hell, the icecaps have been slowly melting, though not this rapidly, since the last stone age.

No, but the melting isn’t going to speed up either. We’re look at a few hundred millimeters a century, and that’s only until the Earth starts cooling again. Hell, the icecaps have been slowly melting, though not this rapidly, since the last stone age.

Huh. A massive chunk of the Antarctic ice cap melting in a fricking decade or so is a few hundred millimeters a century.

Huh. A massive chunk of the Antarctic ice cap melting in a fricking decade or so is a few hundred millimeters a century.
Spread out all over the world, yeah. It’s a big place, sparky.
Almost always involves harm to people who do not deserve it, even excluding criminals.
Not for bystanders. Not for those who choose not to be involved.
You have to try. Violence should never be the first resort, but sometimes it is necessary.
Not when it harms bystanders.
You want to lock criminals in a prison, right? Is that "humane"? No, it is inhumane, it is degrading, it is an insult to human dignity.

You can pretend to benevolence if you want to - perhaps it will assuage your guilt - but the fact is that you are denying someone freedom and happiness for a problem that is most likely at least as much society's fault as it is his. You are subjecting someone to awful, degrading conditions - and you can slap as many smiley faces as you want on a prison, you can add as many rehabilitation programs as you want, but the conditions are still awful and degrading, and that is an intrinsic component of imprisonment - because society doesn't approve of his behavior.
Prisons shouldn't be that way. They should be all about rehabilitation, figuring out where the prisoner went wrong and where society failed them.
I think the preference of passivity or inefficacy to genuine action is more uncompassionate than a willingness to pay necessary costs if necessary.
I will not make the decision of life or death for another human being. Period. That isn't callousness.
Any utilitarian should understand this; the opinion I have just expressed is, after all, the opinion for which utilitarianism is typically criticized.
When an innocent dies an avoidable death against his or her will, every member of society is degraded. The death of an innocent can not serve the greater good for this reason.
Yes, they are. The difference is that in Israel's case the benefits do not outweigh the costs.
Not for the Israeli politicians.

First: Mcdonalds does put "mom and pop" restaurants out of business, just as Walmart puts local retailers out of business.


All the McDonald's in my area have been co-existing with mom and pop restaurants just fine for years. They're completely different dining experiences and both have their markets.


Second: Mcdonald's has a severely negatie affect on people's health, not just their businesses.


They're pretty up front about the fact that their food isn't healthy. And if you're stupid enough to eat too much, then bad things happen. It comes down to freedom of choice - do you choose to eat a balanced diet, or are you going to go to McDonalds five times a week?


Third: Mcdonalds offers no benefits to the masses, none whatsoever while Walmart actually does allow people of low economic standing to buy goods at very low prices


Getting cheap food quickly is no benefit to the masses?


Fourth: Mcdonalds contributes enormous amounts of garbage to the environment, their trash is EVERYWHERE.


Wal-Mart's trash is everywhere, too. You just don't notice it because, as has been said, Wal-Mart is more of a product delivery system than a brand.


Finally: Mcdonalds specifically targets kids in their marketing, hoping to get them addicted to their junk for life.

It's been years since I've seen a McDonald's add targeted to kids. If anything, their obnoxious dollar menu, salad and wrap commercials are trying to appeal to adults.

But all-in-all, I'm more of a Burger King and Target kind kind of guy.

Not for bystanders. Not for those who choose not to be involved.

Police cracking down on protests involving civil disobedience are notorious for not distinguishing between protesters and non-protesters. The ensuing chaos tends to harm bystanders as well. Choosing "not to be involved" can involve substantial sacrifices.

Let's not forget that it requires sacrifices for the protesters as well. You are insisting that they remain passive while under attack.

Not when it harms bystanders.

So you would have let Hitler do as he willed, for fear of bystanders getting hurt?

Perhaps you would have marched in the streets - and what would that have done, except perhaps get you and your compatriots hauled off to a concentration camp?

Prisons shouldn't be that way. They should be all about rehabilitation, figuring out where the prisoner went wrong and where society failed them.

You will never change their essential character. You are locking someone up in a place she does not want to be, putting her in conditions where she is denied most meaningful freedoms and subject to conditions almost entirely determined by others, and no amount of "rehabilitation" will change that.

I will not make the decision of life or death for another human being. Period. That isn't callousness.

No, it is just impossible. You can avoid killing someone - but what if that person goes on and kills someone else? Who gave you the right to decide that person's fate?

Now, you can say that you were not responsible for the second person's death, but this is simply sophistry. If you had acted differently, if you had not been passive, it would not have happened. Your passivity has caused the death of an innocent person, a death that could have been prevented.

Is that person's life less worthwhile than the first? Why can it be written off, but not the first?

When an innocent dies an avoidable death against his or her will, every member of society is degraded. The death of an innocent can not serve the greater good for this reason.

What if the death of an innocent prevents an avoidable death against another innocent's will?

Not for the Israeli politicians.

Their benefits are not mine.

Police cracking down on protests involving civil disobedience are notorious for not distinguishing between protesters and non-protesters. The ensuing chaos tends to harm bystanders as well. Choosing "not to be involved" can involve substantial sacrifices.
Then the police will take heat in the press.

Let's not forget that it requires sacrifices for the protesters as well. You are insisting that they remain passive while under attack.

If they fight back, they'd just be inviting more violence.
So you would have let Hitler do as he willed, for fear of bystanders getting hurt?
Yes. I am not going to advocate murder. I will not support any course of action that will lead to the death of an innocent.
Perhaps you would have marched in the streets - and what would that have done, except perhaps get you and your compatriots hauled off to a concentration camp?

Then I wouldn't have marched in the streets.
You will never change their essential character. You are locking someone up in a place she does not want to be, putting her in conditions where she is denied most meaningful freedoms and subject to conditions almost entirely determined by others, and no amount of "rehabilitation" will change that.
A nice humane place, with comfortable lodgings and good food, is far better than execution or torture.
No, it is just impossible. You can avoid killing someone - but what if that person goes on and kills someone else? Who gave you the right to decide that person's fate?

Now, you can say that you were not responsible for the second person's death, but this is simply sophistry.
No it isn't. I had no way of knowing. This isn't Minority Report for God's sake.
Is that person's life less worthwhile than the first? Why can it be written off, but not the first?
I didn't have to kill someone. That's what makes it different. If a person is a clear danger to another, though, I would have no choice but to alert the authorities.
What if the death of an innocent prevents an avoidable death against another innocent's will?
Then lock the first person up. I will not kill or be involved in the death of another human being.
Their benefits are not mine.
Exactly.

Then the police will take heat in the press.

Enough cries of "law and order" will suppress that.

If they fight back, they'd just be inviting more violence.

It seems to me that failing to defend yourself is more likely to invite violence than self-defense. Deterrence, after all.

Yes. I am not going to advocate murder. I will not support any course of action that will lead to the death of an innocent.

Say your choice is overthrowing the system violently, and in the process killing a hundred innocent people, or tolerating the system, and thus allowing the system to kill ten thousand.

Both courses of action lead to the deaths of innocents. Which do you choose?

Then I wouldn't have marched in the streets.

Meanwhile, millions of Jews, Roma, gays, disabled people, dissidents, and leftists are being sent to the gas chambers.

A nice humane place, with comfortable lodgings and good food,

What a well-treated dog!

is far better than execution or torture.

Torture, maybe. Execution, I'm not so sure.

No it isn't. I had no way of knowing. This isn't Minority Report for God's sake.

If you neglect to act upon your reasonable expectations because you adhere to a purist code of justice, it is indeed your responsibility.

I didn't have to kill someone. That's what makes it different.

And you do not have to not kill that person, either.

If a person is a clear danger to another, though, I would have no choice but to alert the authorities.

And what will the authorities do if the person begins to shoot at them?

Then lock the first person up. I will not kill or be involved in the death of another human being.

Locking the first person up is often not an option. Take war, for instance.

I believe they are both positive things in America, although I do admit there is room for improvement.

McDonalds provides dirt cheap food really fast. No one brainwashed me into going to McDonalds. I do it because cash is limited, time is limited, I'm on the road and HUNGRY. Yes, I know the food is terrible for me, but it is my choice to eat such food and I will pay the consequences and that's fine. Some government intervention would be nice, however, so that some greater standards of health could be forced upon them. Working in fast food myself, I know companies aren't going to use healthier cooking oils or better meat unless strong armed into it. At the same time though, prices will go up to cover that extra food cost or the employees on the bottom will suffer lower pay.

What's the alternative? Who else can give me food fast and cheap, but also healthy? Tell me and I'll go there. Mind you, gas is expensive so it has to have 50,000,000,000 locations so I never have to go more than two feet.

Wal*Mart... not much of a fan myself, but they do offer some great deals. Personally, I am a Meijer shopper. They have WAAAY more variety, low low prices, and carry more local brands. In fact, I hope Meijer kicks Wal*Mart's ass one day. XD I don't have too much money, so I'd rather buy Wal*Mart's $10 "Made in China" shoes than shell out $40 at some department store for the same thing. I'd rather buy a TV for $80 than $180. As for them mistreating employees, I'm thinking of applying this summer so ask me how evil they are then and you'll probably get a long rant.

I chose Wal-Mart as the most evil.

A McD's doesnt take up 9 square miles of my nice town.

Enough cries of "law and order" will suppress that.
Then there's nothing I can do.
It seems to me that failing to defend yourself is more likely to invite violence than self-defense. Deterrence, after all.
Violence is a cycle. You fight back, then they fight back harder. Pretty soon, you have two sides killing each other and they don't even remember why.
Say your choice is overthrowing the system violently, and in the process killing a hundred innocent people, or tolerating the system, and thus allowing the system to kill ten thousand.
I have no way of knowing that the system would kill ten thousand. Not to mention the extremely high chance of failure which could lead to more deaths.
Violence is simply not an acceptable solution.
Meanwhile, millions of Jews, Roma, gays, disabled people, dissidents, and leftists are being sent to the gas chambers.
Nothing I could have done could have changed that.
What a well-treated dog!
When you break the social contract in such a fundamental way as killing another human being or hurting their livelihood or the livelihood of the community, certain rights are forfeit. Never life. Never comfort, but certainly freedom of mobility.
If you neglect to act upon your reasonable expectations because you adhere to a purist code of justice, it is indeed your responsibility.
I fail to see how.
And what will the authorities do if the person begins to shoot at them?
Fire back. If a police officer is injured or killed, that is acceptable. Anyone that uses weapons in their line of work should be prepared to die. "Live by the Sword, die by the Sword."
Locking the first person up is often not an option. Take war, for instance.
War is a failure of diplomacy.

It's the Wal-Marts with the in-built McDonald's franchises you really got to watch.

Yeah! Half the time they don't even put the toy in the Happy Meal. What the fuck is that about?

Wal*Mart... not much of a fan myself, but they do offer some great deals. Personally, I am a Meijer shopper. They have WAAAY more variety, low low prices, and carry more local brands. In fact, I hope Meijer kicks Wal*Mart's ass one day. XD I don't have too much money, so I'd rather buy Wal*Mart's $10 "Made in China" shoes than shell out $40 at some department store for the same thing. I'd rather buy a TV for $80 than $180. As for them mistreating employees, I'm thinking of applying this summer so ask me how evil they are then and you'll probably get a long rant.

But it didn't ask if it's good for you. It asked if it's good for the country. The discounts that Walmart gives don't compensate for the low wages that they pay, the number of people that they put on public assistance (they actually have people to help employees fill out the form to apply for food stamps) or the jobs that they destroy. Yes, if you want to buy a shirt, it's good for you. If you want the clothing stores in the area, and the bike shop, and the grocery stores, and auto shops, and the... well, you see where I'm going with this.

All those places pay more money to their employees. Those that provide a service usually provide a better one (both times I got a tire "fixed" at a Walmart auto-center I ended up having to buy new tires within the week. And the second time they lost my key!

War is a failure of diplomacy.

So Bush was right to fire Colon Powel?

It seems that Bush treats diplomacy as the failure of war, since now he's going to the UN and sending Condi on the rounds to ask for help and support.

Both employ many people. I'm thinking the good far outweighs any bad.
If they were really so bad, people wouldnt be patronizing them as much and they would change their way of business or go out of business.

Seems like both are doing extremely well.

Both employ many people. I'm thinking the good far outweighs any bad.
If they were really so bad, people wouldnt be patronizing them as much and they would change their way of business or go out of business.

Seems like both are doing extremely well.

So then we should let market forces take care of crack dealers?

As for the people they employ, most of those people would have higher paying jobs if Walmart had never showed up. Most of them did.

So then we should let market forces take care of crack dealers

People aren't addicted to what Wal-Mart sells and Wal-Mart doesn't push addictive drugs on children or bring guns and crime to neighborhoods and it doesn't murder people to gain ground against competitors....it's not an even comparison by any stretch.

They have the power to make their own decisions, and if they think for themselves and decide to shop at Wal-Mart, that's entirely their decision. No one is forcing them to shop there, and there is no product that Wal-Mart sells that could not be purchased elsewhere.

As for the people they employ, most of those people would have higher paying jobs if Walmart had never showed up. Most of them did.

What about the people who had low-paying jobs before Wal-Mart but have had their standards of living raised because of the lower prices? What about the unemployed people who got jobs thanks to Wal-Mart when they had no opportunities before? There's definitely as many of them as there are people who lost their jobs to Wal-Mart, and many more if you consider that shopping there climbs fairly high up the income ladder.

That something is xenophobia. There is no difference between a Chinaman and an American. Whoever is going to do the best job should get that job.

How the Hell is that Xenophobia? You PC freaks can find an affront to your ideology in the kind of cereal someone chooses to eat for breakfast. It's not xenophobic to recognize that we may be headed for a showdown with China over the remaining oil reserves in the Middle East and Central Asia. It's not xenophobic to recognize that we may be headed for a trade war with China over copyright, trademark and patent infringment and currency policy. It's not xenophobic to recognize that we may be headed for a showdown with China over Taiwan's independence and nuclear proliferation on the Korean peninsula. If every person in China was blond haired and blue eyed all those things would still be true.

Jesus, you people sometimes. Pull your head out of your PC ass and smell the reality.

We'll do what we did during WWII, or even what the Soviet Union orthe Civil War South did: build out industry very rapidly with extensive government support. I mean, the South was able to achieve gigantic growth rates in defense industries despite huge shortfalls in material and expertise, and the Soviets achieved a growth rate of over 12% during the decade prior to WWII. When patriotism and government funds are combined, you make a lot of things happen very quickly.We have no more East Texas Oil Field to fuel that industrial expansion like we did the last time and, seeing as any new conflict will very likely involve a conflict over energy and that the largest oil producing areas of the world will, thanks to good 'ol G.W., will likely align with China we may not even be able to import the quantities necessary to do that.




Well, remember that any business requires capital to keep itself running. If your banks collapse and you lack the capital to fund your industrial base, your economy breaks down and it falls in to a deflationary depression as the cash-starved industries lack the ability to replace equipment or buy raw materials. You'd have to regress to barter in some situations, or even worse print money to keep the supply of capital growing...which leads to hyperinflation and further difficulties.

But China is no stranger to a command economy and they are now taking steps to divirsify away from the dollar. Couple that with the building of a Chinese consumer class and their reliance on a healthy North American market grows less and less.

While Mc Donalds may kill more Americans than Walmart, it's essentially the same as legal drugs. Some will die, most will use it responsibly. McDonalds is like legal alcohol and tobacco in that regard. I'm all for letting people decide what to do with their own bodies.

Walmart, however, is a threat to all that America stands for. It kills free speech, it destroys labor unions, it eliminates competition and creates monopolies, and it diverts American money to unfriendly and brutal regimes like the PRC.

Walmart quickly drives small record, movie and book stores nearby out of business, and Walmart sells censored versions of music and movies and sometimes chooses not to sell certain books, music or movies at all. After they've driven every competitor out of business their refusal to sell certain books, movies and music is de facto censorship. It has the result of eliminating freedom of speech.


Walmart is notoriously anti-union. They've shut down locations to prevent the employees from unionizing and they subject their employees to anti-union propaganda. If you believe in the right of workers to bargain collectively you shouldn't shop there.

Walmart sells quite a lot of Chinese merchandise. China has an extremely poor pollution record, so buying products from walmart poisons our air and water. China uses prisoner labor and it's civilian workforce often toils away in unsafe factories. Buying from walmart costs Chinese workers their lives, limbs and liberty.

Walmart is also treats it's employees like crap. For example, they've decided to turn an additional 20% of their workforce from full time to part time employment and they've decided to institute salary caps in order to get rid of workers who've been there for a while.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/business/02walmart.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=login

We have no more East Texas Oil Field to fuel that industrial expansion like we did the last time and, seeing as any new conflict will very likely involve a conflict over energy and that the largest oil producing areas of the world will, thanks to good 'ol G.W., will likely align with China we may not even be able to import the quantities necessary to do that.

That's true; however, we do produce a fairly decent amount of oil domestically and we have extensive coal deposits to make synthetic fuels with. The Germans did it while having to fight a war on their soil with 1940's technology and infrastructure, so we should definitely be able to do it with the tools we have no. If we imposed strict gasoline and diesel fuel rationing as well as heating oil rationing and severely crimped transportation oil consumption overall we could most likely meet industrial demand with our production.

It wouldn't be easy or painless, but it is possible...even with the Texas oilfields in WWII, we still rationed gasoline and encouraged huge amounts of energy conservation as necessary to winning the war.

Also, we could still import a healthy amount from Canada; domestic production plus Canadian production is something like 7 million or more bpd, which is a lot of oil for industry, agriculture transportation, and military uses. They have no incentive to supply China over us or anyone else, especially considering China would simply take over Canada if the US were defeated in a war against them. And, we've got a billion plus barrels in the SPR; that would be an extra 600,000 bpd for five years if we need it not to mention the oil holdings of our allies. I doubt NATO is going to ally with China, and Russia's economy is too fragile to fight a war; having tons of oil and gas is an incredible resource, but they simply don't have the industrial base necessary to fight a major war. They've only just recovered to their nominal 1990 GDP level, 16 years after the fact...they are still fairly weak economically.

But China is no stranger to a command economy and they are now taking steps to divirsify away from the dollar. Couple that with the building of a Chinese consumer class and their reliance on a healthy North American market grows less and less.

Not necessarily. As China has developed economically, it has gotten more and more expensive to produce goods and services there especially in higher-skill industries; they're rapidly losing their cost advantage over the US or other developed nations, and they are dependent on us for advanced manufactured goods and services. We have to remember that China's got 1.3 billion people; we're talking a market over four times the size of the US, and if you combine that with India there is going to be a lot of new demand for goods and services. And, as their economies develop, they lose their sizable cost advantage and have to compete with the US/Europe in terms of quality rather than cost or quantity. We are simply too interdependent to fight each other.

Also, China doesn't want to do anything to affect the dollar negatively because we are their largest trading partner and we will be the largest for a long time; they're letting the yuan appreciate to close the trade gap and further broaden trade between our countries, and a stronger yuan will help the dollar appreciate against other currencies as less and less money has to be held by other central banks to finance our debt. If we balance the budget some time soon and keep it there for a while, our financial position will improve considerably.

Then there's nothing I can do.

Then you are complicit in oppression.

Violence is a cycle. You fight back, then they fight back harder. Pretty soon, you have two sides killing each other and they don't even remember why.

Unless you win first.

I have no way of knowing that the system would kill ten thousand.

No, but you can make reasonable assessments.

Not to mention the extremely high chance of failure which could lead to more deaths.

Nothing is ever certain. You do not try, however, without a decent chance of success.

Violence is simply not an acceptable solution.

And your preference is standing passively in the face of oppression.

Nothing I could have done could have changed that.

No government is invulnerable. Violence stopped the Holocaust; revolution might have at least slowed it.

When you break the social contract in such a fundamental way as killing another human being or hurting their livelihood or the livelihood of the community, certain rights are forfeit. Never life. Never comfort, but certainly freedom of mobility.

There is no "social contract"; we do not have meaningful free association, so the notion of a "contract" is out of place. There are merely rulers, rulers whose rule we did not individually consent to.

And if anything is inalienable, it is basic human dignity. Freedom is as much a part of that as life is.

I fail to see how.

Because you expected that the person would kill another, and you did not stop him despite the fact that you could have.

But let's say you're right, you are not morally responsible. Fine. In some metaphysical sense you attain no moral guilt for not saving the person. So what? Are you so selfish that you would rather free yourself of guilt than act to save another's life?

Fire back. If a police officer is injured or killed, that is acceptable. Anyone that uses weapons in their line of work should be prepared to die. "Live by the Sword, die by the Sword."

And killing the criminal is acceptable? I thought you refused to have another's life in your hands?

What about bystanders who may be harmed?

War is a failure of diplomacy.

So? If someone invades, there's not much you can do but defend yourself or give up.

After working at Walmart for just one year my ex is making 13$/hour

How the Hell is that Xenophobia? You PC freaks can find an affront to your ideology in the kind of cereal someone chooses to eat for breakfast. It's not xenophobic to recognize that we may be headed for a showdown with China over the remaining oil reserves in the Middle East and Central Asia. It's not xenophobic to recognize that we may be headed for a trade war with China over copyright, trademark and patent infringment and currency policy. It's not xenophobic to recognize that we may be headed for a showdown with China over Taiwan's independence and nuclear proliferation on the Korean peninsula. If every person in China was blond haired and blue eyed all those things would still be true.

Jesus, you people sometimes. Pull your head out of your PC ass and smell the reality.
I assure you. I am far from pc.
Cooperation is possible. The only thing that keeps it from being so is xenophobia on both sides of the Pacific. There is no other explanation for viewing this unpredicted volume of trade as anything but an opportunity.

Unless you win first.
By then it is too late. Violence will have consumed your intentions. Corruption and human nature aren’t what caused the Soviet experiment to fail; it was its violent beginnings that did.
There is no "social contract"; we do not have meaningful free association, so the notion of a "contract" is out of place. There are merely rulers, rulers whose rule we did not individually consent to.

Nonsense. Whether we like it or not, we live in a society. Any other view point is unbearably selfish
And if anything is inalienable, it is basic human dignity. Freedom is as much a part of that as life is.
Yes. Which is why the dignity of those that are a danger to society must be protected. For example, if they stole because they are poor due to a lackluster education, the prison system should undertake to teach them a skill with which they can earn a comfortable living for themselves and their families.
But let's say you're right, you are not morally responsible. Fine. In some metaphysical sense you attain no moral guilt for not saving the person. So what? Are you so selfish that you would rather free yourself of guilt than act to save another's life?
First of all, there is no metaphysical sense to anything I believe. Secondly, blood on my hands instead of his serves no one.
And killing the criminal is acceptable? I thought you refused to have another's life in your hands?
If the criminal is shooting at them, yes. When a human being takes up arms against another human being he should not be surprised when his life is ended by another in arms.
What about bystanders who may be harmed?
Te police must take care to avoid collateral damage, and never undertake a course of action which they believe would put innocents in harms way.
So? If someone invades, there's not much you can do but defend yourself or give up.
No one is going to invade the United States or any other modern country. The days of those kinds of fears are long past us thanks to the frowth of international trade and MAD.

People aren't addicted to what Wal-Mart sells and Wal-Mart doesn't push addictive drugs on children or bring guns and crime to neighborhoods and it doesn't murder people to gain ground against competitors....it's not an even comparison by any stretch.

They have the power to make their own decisions, and if they think for themselves and decide to shop at Wal-Mart, that's entirely their decision. No one is forcing them to shop there, and there is no product that Wal-Mart sells that could not be purchased elsewhere.

Not if Walmart has destroyed all the competition. If the only store within 50 miles is a walmart (true in many parts of the country) then you really don't have a choice but to shop there.

If market forces were the only force used to control drug dealers then they wouldn't kill people to gain territory. However, if you think that Walmart is law abiding then you need to take a closer look at their hiring practices.

What about the people who had low-paying jobs before Wal-Mart but have had their standards of living raised because of the lower prices? What about the unemployed people who got jobs thanks to Wal-Mart when they had no opportunities before? There's definitely as many of them as there are people who lost their jobs to Wal-Mart, and many more if you consider that shopping there climbs fairly high up the income ladder.

It's been established that there is a net negative economic impact that results from the presence of Walmarts. No matter how many "but what abouts" you care to bring up.

By the same logic, am I free of blame if I kill someone because someone paid me to?
As long as you're legally allowed to provide that service, sure.

It is not a corporation's job to protect consumers. It is the government's job to protect consumers.

Both are horrible.
I can see the desire people have to eat healthy, but a line has to be drawn when someone tries to force it down your throat. At McDonalds they give miniscule serving sizes and have done away with super size, like they think they need to play mommy and daddy and say "Now now son, that's not healthy now is it?", and to further it along they only have their monopoly pieces on their chicken sandwhiches, not on their burgers, because once again mommy says if you don't eat healthy you don't get to go out and play.
And what gets me most is they're doing it to reward some dumbass who honestly thought it was their fault he got fat off eating their food.
And a personal thing I hold against them is back when they had that Pirates 2 thing going on and you could download a song from the soundtrack, and they said it wouldn't work on iPods. Considering they only said iPods I assumed that meant it would work on my Creative brand MP3 player. No, apparently McDonald's is just too retarded to be able to recognize that Apple isn't the only ones that make MP3 players.
But it's playing mommy that I really hate about them... when they stop doing that is when I start going back.

Wal Mart is another one where it's practices have driven me away. Aside from some certain hardware store chains having nothing on Wal Mart when it comes to employees not knowing where things are, Wal Mart is just the cruelest department store out there. I've heard too many stories of people being denied lunch breaks, forced to work unpaid overtime, work off the clock, and I heard of someone who had to work a 48 hour shift. And when Maryland talked about trying to force Wal Mart to be more humane to it's employees, Wal Mart was actually inbred enough to threaten to pull out of Maryland. What in the hell is up with that?
And they too try to play mommy, by not selling toys they don't think are politically correct and not wanting to sell CDs with bad words.

So when it comes to which company is a greater threat to the country, both feel the need to play mommy and tell you what you're allowed to buy thus promoting the idea of consumers just buying what their told until we have no choice, but I've never heard of McDonald's being as cruel to it's employees as Wal Mart. If it is and I'm wrong about that, then sorry, although I can't say too much else right now considering I already refuse to eat at McDonalds. But for now, Wal Mart is still the bigger threat.

I assure you. I am far from pc.
Cooperation is possible. The only thing that keeps it from being so is xenophobia on both sides of the Pacific. There is no other explanation for viewing this unpredicted volume of trade as anything but an opportunity.

Wrong. I will not deny that xenophobia plays a role in international relations, particularily when it comes to China who are often cited as the most racist people in the world, but it is y NO means the ONLY thing. As I said in the post you quoted, energy security plays a major role. China's view of Taiwan being a part of China when Taiwan does not want to be plays a major role. China's unwillingness to crackdown on counterfeit western goods plays a major role. China's unwillingness to let their currency float on the international market plays a major role. What I said was in no way xenophobic, it was just an acknowledgement that their are many barriers to overcome before our nations can have the same relationship that, say, the U.S. and the U.K. have or the U.S. and Canada have. Because that is the case, and because a conflict with them is not just possible in the future but some would say even likely, I would contend that it is a bad idea to export our manufacturing to China. In fact, I think we should just give them the same deal they give us. If they want tio peg their yaun to 1/8 of a dollar then I contend that we levy an equivalent tarrif on all Chinese goods. If China says that the only way we can sell our goods in China is to license the product for sale to a Chinese company then all Chinese goods should have to be licensed to American companies. If China refuses to crackdown on knock-offs of American goods then we should not allow Chinese companies to file copyright, patent or trademark lawsuits in American courts.

After working at Walmart for just one year my ex is making 13$/hour

Is $13/hour enough to pay for everything WalMart doesn't offer and still live on? Hell, is it enough to live on period?

Is $13/hour enough to pay for everything WalMart doesn't offer and still live on? Hell, is it enough to live on period?

How much do you make an hour?

Is $13/hour enough to pay for everything WalMart doesn't offer and still live on? Hell, is it enough to live on period?

my husband supported our family (me, he, and the two crumb snatchers) for a year on $16 an hour.

it took some mean budgeting on my part though.

my husband supported our family (me, he, and the two crumb snatchers) for a year on $16 an hour.

it took some mean budgeting on my part though.

My ex doesn't have to support anyone but himself and he's living somewhat comfortabley in a small town where realestate isn't too expensive. He has no car because you can walk across the entire town in 2 hours. And my earnings? Well I'm doing an internship with my school soon and they tell me I should expect 10-12$/hour. So, there you go.

My ex doesn't have to support anyone but himself and he's living somewhat comfortabley in a small town where realestate isn't too expensive. He has no car because you can walk across the entire town in 2 hours. And my earnings? Well I'm doing an internship with my school soon and they tell me I should expect 10-12$/hour. So, there you go.

with nobody to support and some good money sense $12 an hour can give you a pretty comfortable life.....not like Paris Hilton comfortable, but a "I have electric service and I don't have to eat Ramen 3 nights a week" comfortable. ;)

with nobody to support and some good money sense $12 an hour can give you a pretty comfortable life.....not like Paris Hilton comfortable, but a "I have electric service and I don't have to eat Ramen 3 nights a week" comfortable. ;)

Indeed, I have been living around or below that line since I arrived in the US. It's pretty shitty, especially considering I need government vertification for my job, and have achieved the highest level available, educationally.

But, I look back a couple of years, when I was making $5 an hour in a video store... at least we can afford to eat, now.

Indeed, I have been living around or below that line since I arrived in the US. It's pretty shitty, especially considering I need government vertification for my job, and have achieved the highest level available, educationally.

But, I look back a couple of years, when I was making $5 an hour in a video store... at least we can afford to eat, now.

back then we got a lot of our food from Angel Food (http://www.angelfoodministries.com/)... the girls couldn't eat it, but it saved us enough $$ to buy things they could eat.

back then we got a lot of our food from Angel Food (http://www.angelfoodministries.com/)... the girls couldn't eat it, but it saved us enough $$ to buy things they could eat.

I need something like that. The minute government agancies learn I'm a permanent resident immigrant, they throw out any applications for help. After almost five years in this country, I have finally made it past the $13 per hour mark... with two kids and a wife to support.

It's possible to barely get by. It's just shitty.

Indeed, I have been living around or below that line since I arrived in the US. It's pretty shitty, especially considering I need government vertification for my job, and have achieved the highest level available, educationally.

But, I look back a couple of years, when I was making $5 an hour in a video store... at least we can afford to eat, now.

What do you mean by "highest level available, educationally?" You didn't do somethig dumb like get a bachellor's in psychology or English, did you? Because if you have at least a bachellor's degree you should be making a LOT more than $12.00/hour. If you're not, you either got a useless degree, you just got your degree in the last year or so or you're not trying hard enough. I know people who are highschool dropouts that make more than $12.00/hour.

What do you mean by "highest level available, educationally?" You didn't do somethig dumb like get a bachellor's in psychology or English, did you? Because if you have at least a bachellor's degree you should be making a LOT more than $12.00/hour. If you're not, you either got a useless degree, you just got your degree in the last year or so or you're not trying hard enough. I know people who are highschool dropouts that make more than $12.00/hour.

No - I work for a municipality, and the specific nature of my job requires certification. There are four possible levels of education in the system, and I have reached the highest level this last year.

It isn't any kind of degree programme - it is governmental regultion certification. I should be making more than I am, perhaps - the same 'level' pays better in Atlanta, for example... but I can't fund the move TO Atlanta.

As for the dropout thing... I was amazed to see someone saying Wal-Mart was paying $13 for a first year employee. My wife worked at one of our local ones, and they don't pay anything like that, around here.

No - I work for a municipality, and the specific nature of my job requires certification. There are four possible levels of education in the system, and I have reached the highest level this last year.

It isn't any kind of degree programme - it is governmental regultion certification. I should be making more than I am, perhaps - the same 'level' pays better in Atlanta, for example... but I can't fund the move TO Atlanta.

As for the dropout thing... I was amazed to see someone saying Wal-Mart was paying $13 for a first year employee. My wife worked at one of our local ones, and they don't pay anything like that, around here.

I have two friends who are both highschool drop outs who got class A licenses and make $20+ as truck drivers. There are places that will pay you to learn to drive a truck. I believe Swift is one of them. There re jobs with the department of sanitation that, while probably not very fun, pay you six figures a year and do not require more than highschool equivalency. There are jobs at ports and harbors that pay $20+ an hour to start - longshoreman for example. All you need to do is have the motivation to seriously persue it - even if it means you have to wake up at 5 AM and take a bus to the employment office. When the new longshoremen contracts came out at Long Beach Harbor there were people lined up for days - literally for days - to get the applications. You just have to want it badly enough.

I have two friends who are both highschool drop outs who got class A licenses and make $20+ as truck drivers. There are places that will pay you to learn to drive a truck. I believe Swift is one of them. There re jobs with the department of sanitation that, while probably not very fun, pay you six figures a year and do not require more than highschool equivalency. There are jobs at ports and harbors that pay $20+ an hour to start - longshoreman for example. All you need to do is have the motivation to seriously persue it - even if it means you have to wake up at 5 AM and take a bus to the employment office. When the new longshoremen contracts came out at Long Beach Harbor there were people lined up for days - literally for days - to get the applications. You just have to want it badly enough.

None of those things seem to be true around here. There are no ports or harbours, for a start.

CDL drivers get about my current wage, around here - for which I'd have to leave my family alone for extended periods.

The department of sanitation pays nothing like 6 figures a year around here... I wonder if it really does anywhere.

I say Wal-Mart. McDonald's typically outsources its environmental degradation, so most countries don't feel the negative impact on the environment that they feel when Wal-Mart degrades the environment.

Competition is competition; Wal-Mart puts companies out of business because it's better at what it does; I'd rather pay less for what I need at Wal-Mart and have more money for the things I actually want. It's no different than any company putting its competitiors out of business.Of course it's different; many companies don't violate labor laws or do business with companies who commit human rights abuses. Wal-Mart does.

By then it is too late. Violence will have consumed your intentions. Corruption and human nature aren’t what caused the Soviet experiment to fail; it was its violent beginnings that did.That might be the most accurate thing I've ever seen by a non-Communist about the Soviets on this forum.

my husband supported our family (me, he, and the two crumb snatchers) for a year on $16 an hour.

it took some mean budgeting on my part though.I think what CthulhuFhtagn was asking was did the person making $13 an hour have health insurance, or be able to afford it? Was your husband able to insure your family on the $16 an hour?

I think what CthulhuFhtagn was asking was did the person making $13 an hour have health insurance, or be able to afford it? Was your husband able to insure your family on the $16 an hour?
no, we hoped around to the free clinics and the health department, a local charity paid for our medication.

Let me tell you about where I live. Its called British Columbia, Canada.
Minimum wage is $8/hour and heath care is covered by tax. And you don't pay tax if you make less than $8,000 a year. Thats where my ex makes 13$/hour. I realize in parts of the US min. wage is maybe only $6/hour.
But my BF says that his employers @ walmart are real nice and they have an open door policy where you can talk to any level of management about your wage or any other problems you may have.

Let me tell you about where I live. Its called British Columbia, Canada.
Minimum wage is $8/hour and heath care is covered by tax. And you don't pay tax if you make less than $8,000 a year. Thats where my ex makes 13$/hour. I realize in parts of the US min. wage is maybe only $6/hour.
But my BF says that his employers @ walmart are real nice and they have an open door policy where you can talk to any level of management about your wage or any other problems you may have.Ah, Canada. That explains it.

end of the day theyre both the same really they sell you crap you dont really need, kill the enviorment (bush still doesnt reconise global warming as a problem) keep poor people poor, and rich people rich but were still going to keep feeding these companies our money becouse we think we got a good deal work till we are 60 and then get told to f**k off and die

im in a bad mood today lol:headbang:

Let me tell you about where I live. Its called British Columbia, Canada.
Minimum wage is $8/hour and heath care is covered by tax. And you don't pay tax if you make less than $8,000 a year. Thats where my ex makes 13$/hour. I realize in parts of the US min. wage is maybe only $6/hour.
But my BF says that his employers @ walmart are real nice and they have an open door policy where you can talk to any level of management about your wage or any other problems you may have.

Aaah - you live in one of the less distopian realities. I believe minimum wage around here is $5.15.