Printable View
Exactly. Business is smarter and faster than government 100% of the time. So if legislators are going to play these games of chicken, the people they're allegedly trying to protect will always be the losers, because the legislators are too myopic to predict the side effects.Quote:
Originally Posted by YellerDog
Horse feathers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Business plays just as many games if not more than government. Not all of the time of course, but a lot of the time, legislation is only brought forth to keep business from running roughshod over everything else around it. Without even touching on global warming, you can look at what business did to just about every major waterway near our cities. It wasn't legislation putting children in unsafe factories in order to earn a bullshit wage.
I didn't say that intelligence and speed was always used for good.
No, you said the people government tries to protect will always be the losers which is just a bunch of hooey, pardon my french.
A good example is Chicago banning guns to stop criminals from owning them. The public is so much safer now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name
You obviously don't understand the point of gun bans
Show me where business did a better job protecting the natural habitat than the government.
Show me where business did a better job protecting people from unsafe working environments than the government.
Show me where business did a better job protecting people from unscrupulous business than the government.
Show me where business did a better job protecting basic human rights than the government. Was it business men who said niggers and chinks were fit for more than just picking cotton and laying track?
Or show me one dumb thing that happened and then act like that proves everything else wrong.
What the hell are you even talking about?
That's true. They have nothing to do with crime reduction.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
I'm talking about how business is so smart and fast that all the things that have been buried in its wake were then rectified by it and not legislation.
Nothing?
Neither do youQuote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Which has shit all to do with my point. Walking behind the elephant with a broom pretty much proves the dumber and slower, does it not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name
I support criminal reduction.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
Remember that on your next dog walk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Is that the joke that Yoshi is a dog catcher, because Dogs are not supposed to take the lead when being walked.
Yoshi shits outside.
Lead or not, it's you cleaning their shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Advocate
Also: I have never in my life seen a dog trailing behind its walker. Not saying theyre not supposed to or not. Just that I've never seen it.
They are supposed to be by your side. When the dog leads, they are saying they are the Alpha(leader of the pack). That's when the dog runs the house, barks at strangers, doesn't shut up when told too, jumps on people walking in, etc. I trained my dog to stand by my side, walks without a leash, listens to me, does not bark ... at all, and never jumps on anyone nor does he bite.
It's rare, but I see it. Most people don't train their dogs for shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name
I'd see business as the 6 foot 5 autistic kid who breaks everything and hits other kids alot. Always pissing off the parents and other kids who yell at the teacher (government) to fix it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Someone needs to tell those Iditarod faggots that they're doing it wrong.
Yoshi doesn't respond to salient points that are impossible to argue against. It's part of his persona.Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name
Jesus, that would fuck rural America so hard. There are a lot of towns where the nearest non-walmart is 1 to 2 hours away.Quote:
Originally Posted by YellerDog
(though, I'm sure someone like target would buy up the buildings to fill the void.)
Maybe the mom and pop stores that Walmart destroyed would make a comeback.
I would bet money they would.
I have no doubt that's the way you see it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bojack
Way to post this five hours after I responded. I know you miss me dearly when I don't post for three hours, but it's unrelated to any grandiose point anyone may have posted.Quote:
Originally Posted by icarusfall
That's what I was thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name
Everyone would be rooting for them, but I wonder what the realistic level of damage to Wal Mart would be for that even to be a possibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name
I don't know if that would be for the best. People bitch about all the evil of walmart, but it has done some good in making a common culture for the US and not allowing rural areas to completely isolate themselves. They have all the modern toys, media, magazines, top selling books, etc. Mom and Pop will be able to censor what they want. And knowing old white rural people, that would remove at least things like rap music. Probably not out of spite, but because they have no idea what to buy and put on their shelf.Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name
Introducing buttplant, expert in old white rural people.
Yea, Wal-Mart has never used their market influence to censor anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
I know you think you're being clever, and somehow shunning my ideas publicly and being a big man, but you're wrong about this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Do you know anything about consumer history? Music History? Fads?
Back when it was mom and pop, You'd get things that would only be sold regionally. Music trends would be isolated to some areas. The general store didn't have all the hits from the whole country.
I know you think that they will be perfect businessmen, and find whatever people want to buy, but they won't. The huge success of pop music in the 80s was in part because of big chain stores like Walmart. You could now go somewhere and buy all the hits.
If walmart disappears, some stuff just won't be available locally anymore. Sure, the local hardware store might come back. But a lot of music, movies and toys are going to have to be ordered online. In store purchases for music are already dwindling. This would just push them further online.
nothing like those that came before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
Holy shit Ironplant. You do realize Walmart doesn't even stock CDs with parental advisory stickers on them? In addition to not selling things like Maxim, FHM, etc. because it's 'racy'. I'm far less worried about a single mom and pop not carrying a CD than a store so big that not carrying it severely affects sales numbers.
So where do the old white rural people specifically come in?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
That still isn't as bad as the 1920s.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
And if you think mom and pop is going to have 8 isles of toys, with almost a full one just for one brand, you're out of your mind.
states that are 90% white. You dumb patronizing shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
To be fair, your response wasn't much of one. You denied the relation of my point to yours, though they were completely related. Then you chose an elephant to personify business. You know, the smartest and fastest animal in the kingdom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
We do agree that business dumps huge amounts of shit behind it wherever it goes. Only you see anyone trying to deal with that shit as being weak. I see them as being intelligent enough to see that a shitty environment benefits no one in the long run. And unfortunately the task of dealing with that shit has fallen to gov'ment, because business gives no fucks.
The 1920s? My history books left the Wal Mart takeover out of its description of the Great Depression.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
Mom and Pop is no Hawaii, that is for for sure.
You're reading way too much into the elephant and broom metaphor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name
Business does more for absolutely everyone than government. That is not to say that government doesn't do anything, but when it tries to get in the way, it often causes side effects that are predictable to everyone but apparently those writing the laws. That was the original point I was making, which is why none of your responses had anything to do with it. Even some of your examples, like environmental clean up, utilize technology developed in the private sector. There are responsible companies and irresponsible ones and efficient companies and inefficient ones, but there is no responsible or efficient legislature.
edit: I thought more about this in the shower, specifically your point about how a shitty environment benefits no one, which is clearly true. Why is that we can't get people motivated to take control of their own future and not buy products from companies that pollute? There are lots of examples of companies going way beyond any regulations in the this area. Why not support them instead? Are the consumers not a potentially much more effective group in this area than the slow as legislature?
Obama excuse checklist, to be filled out later:
[ ] Taken out of context
[ ] Republicans blocked him
[ ] We're racist
[ ] Bush was worse
[✔] He's only just the president
[ ] He had no knowledge of it
[ ] We're racist
[ ] It's only been five years
Stolen from reddit. Thought it was funny
This is way too broad and is totally meaningless. A lot of businesses actually do nothing for me, and I have no say in the matter because I have no representation or ability to influence their behavior. On the other hand, government has been known to do good things for me, like setting me up with a good education for ~16 years, or checking the water I drink or planes I fly on, or paying police to make sure I live in a relatively crime free neighborhood. I actually think, at this stage of my existence, as a very comfortable upper middle class American, the government has done a lot for me. That doesn't mean that I owe them everything I earn or anything, but in general it's done right by me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
And the thing is - the important thing! - is that if I don't like what government is doing, I have a say in the matter. I can influence them directly.
As the EPA and Verizon seizures get added to the list of current messes, that list is going to dwindle.
Do you still completely believe that? I have growing doubts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
The only thing standing in the way of irresponsible business is legislature. I realize in your world, everyone would simply stop supporting the shit businesses and only support the good ones. Unfortunately, that's not realistic. Look at Walmart. In the same way that expecting some inner city white (so I don't get called a racist by those who seem to think only blacks and hispanics live in the cities) chick to realize studying and keeping her legs closed (or at least utilizing birth control) might possibly lead to a better life than sitting around, getting high, and banging kids out to keep a minimal standard of living going.
Do you honestly believe that if there weren't laws in the way, every business wouldn't love to roll back to business standards as usual circa the turn of the 1900's? Think of the profits they'd be making if that darn OSHA wasn't in the way! Goddamn those inefficient and irresponsible politicians, first they made us give up our property, now they expect us to treat them as puh puh people?! I'm not going to sit on a toilet that some nigger just used! It'll be drenched in sickle cells and AIDS!
It's unquestionably true, both on a macro and micro level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Micro - granny doesn't get her SS check, calls her Congressman, gets sorted out in an hour. This never happens, though, because the SSA is accountable to voters and is very, very good at getting checks out.
Macro - Look at the tea party idiots and what they did in 2010. I mean, I donate money to political orgs I believe in. It's a battle of ideas that we hash out in elections. It's a great thing.
Every corporation (I assume the move away from "business" was intentional)? No, I don't think everyone would do that, but I am not so naive that I wouldn't expect Wall Street to try to push them if they're publicly traded.
To reiterate, I am not claiming government has no role here, but in terms of regulations, they should be for really blatantly obvious things like OSHA. Going back to the genesis of the discussion, trying to write laws to go after a single corporation doesn't seem well thought out or likely to succeed. Hell, let me make this more specific. If you were writing the bill in CA, how would you write it to try to have the effect you desire on Wal Mart?
I was coming at it from a different point of view. At a federal level, there has been a power grab going on regardless of which party is in the White House or in control of Congress. The Tea Party gained a lot of momentum trying to stop this, but I don't see that they have had much success. I'm sure specific examples of bills they have blocked can be found, but as a general inertia, the direction hasn't changed. Look at all the scandals in Washington right now. They are universally about the federal government overstepping its bounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
I've zero knowledge of the law, but wouldn't it be easier to target the largest offender, establish a precedent, and then go after everyone else?
The Tea Party's goal was to elect Republicans and blunt the President's agenda in 2010, mission accomplished.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
The Occupy movement directly went after the moneyed interests and got laughed at and beat in the head with nightsticks. Did you support them? I don't think so.
The idea that the rich and powerful are using their influence to enrich and protect themselves is as old as civilization. You should read some Marx.
I'm pretty sure he actually is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
They straight up refuse to sell certain bands/labels/genres. I think they still won't sell anything with a parental advisory sticker? I don't know, that last part might have changed. The Nirvana "Waif Me" nonsense comes to mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
Yes, old white rural people will miss the nine aisles of toys.
Buttcheeks would have a point, if it WERE still 1920. But there's this thing called the innernet. You're soaking in it right now.
And who the fuck buys CDs from stores anymore?
Podunk, MS may not see a resurgence of stores like Kiddie City and Child World. But stores carrying necessary household items and hardware stores certainly would come in and fill the void. You know, the places that sponsor pony league and actually help the community. You might not be able to get a hammer for $3, but maybe the $10 hammer that Old Chuck Mason sells at his shop won't break the third time you use it since his margins are smaller and he doesn't have time to stock cheap shit that just gets returned.
The aforementioned White People that don't know about the Internet, or their only option is dial up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name
As dave points out, this Official Corporate Policy as practiced by a Big Company with a lot of market share can have far larger effects than a million ad-hoc decisions from a million different mom & pops. It's one of the downsides to large corporations and consolidated private power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
I'm pretty sure they're still using VHS and cassette anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
question: You do realize that Walmart not existing will have the same impact on sales numbers as them existing and not selling it, right? The outcome is the same in that situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
So New England? You've spent a lot of time there?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont are the only states that are 90% white.
Mississippi is 58% white.
edit: Source
Possibly, but that's a lot easier said than done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name
But if Walmart went away, you can't act like the void created would be left unfilled indefinitely.
Someone (or ones) would little by little work to fill that void. Perhaps the boutique shops would reappear.
I don't (and I don't think most people do) have a problem with Walmart as a concept. But these businesses which tailor their practices to take as much as possible away from us while giving as little as possible back need to be stopped.
I don't dispute any of that, but no California congressman is going to write a law that is going to stop Wal Mart or make them go away. It's far more likely he'll do more harm than good.
It may not be the solution we want, but it's the only one we got. Too many buttcheeks continue to shop there (arguably because they HAVE to, since Walmart forced all the little guys out) for boycotts to make a difference.
http://static4.businessinsider.com/i...s-terrible.jpg
Alabama and Mississippi, wtf.
This may be true but does that mean he (or anyone else) shouldn't try? Like SSJN said, boycotting isn't going to make a difference to them due to lack of competition in some areas and lack of education/understanding of economic principles in the people who shop there. "Cheaper is better" is the mentality of most uninformed consumers and wal-mart is generally cheaper. What other option is there other than government intervention? It would be fantastic if the masses suddenly became more informed and responsible but that's even less likely to happen than something good coming from a state congressmen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
The current form of that bill is worse than not trying in my opinion. That was what started the whole discussion. It's too easy to dodge for Wal Mart.
A different bill might have a better shot. But it can't be written by some clown who has never run a lemonade stand. I don't anything about the current bill's author, but his product doesn't instill much confidence.
edit: To Dave's image, I guess it's the Jersey influence, but I thought everyone called that a sunshower.
It probably is a crappy bill that won't work, but pushing negative externalities onto the people and organizations that benefit from them is good, free market oriented policy.
I don't think I'm following the second half of that thought.
And if they thought they would be more profitable doing this, they would have already.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
They will probably close stores that are no longer above the long term profitability line. Which is a reduction of profits.
I agree, but this will change that equation and possibly the decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony
Yet still a reduction in employment. Depending on the location, that could test SSJN's void theory though. And maybe those stores will turn into wormholes and return the towns to the 1920s to make buttplant's ramblings valid.Quote:
They will probably close stores that are no longer above the long term profitability line. Which is a reduction of profits.
Walmart's true form...Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
On topic, Diff's line "pushing negative externalities onto the people and organizations that benefit from them is good, free market oriented policy. " is a great way of putting it. If businesses are creating damage for everyone else, ideally they are forced to pay for the damage done (the most common example being pollution). Often though, it is the people who get the damage, and the businesses who capture the profits.
First the NSA wiretaps Verizon customers.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3393466.html
Now they (NSA) has a program mining your online data. Codenamed PRISM.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ion-documents/
Is that what he meant by that? I'm still not 100% clear. I was reading it as saying that the employees should suffer the side effects of legislation meant to protect them, which is why I asked him to clarify.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony
I guess that extended honeymoon with the press is finally coming to an end when even the NY Times publishes stuff like this:
Quote:
The administration has now lost all credibility on this issue. Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it.
What are the side effects of overtime laws? Risk of ascension to a higher tax bracket?
You just hire two people at 2/3 time or whatever instead of letting one person get benefits and overtime pay, so the original employee loses 1/3 of his hourly pay.
And child labor laws put hard-working ten year olds out of mining jobs. What of it.
Related to the NSA stuff, it's worth noting the companies that knowingly participated in the program: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube and Apple, the Washington Post reports. So you're fucked if you own a non-Blackberry smartphone. And imagine the possibilities of the Xbox One to help the NSA!
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Robot Bit Me
Child labor laws would be in the same category.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
What would actually be more beneficial to the company tho, one worker with OT and bene's or carry two with the increased down time from two people getting sick, addtional HR, liability and training etc. etc?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Besides, quite a few companies will reprimand and then fire hourly people and sometimes their managers too for hitting overtime so benefits are all that's really left to squabble over.
You're definitely right about the last part, but the reason that is the case is what ARBM asked about. The first part would probably vary by company, industry, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bojack
Yeah, sometimes there's a ton of overlooked costs involved in a worker. I work at an auto dealer on pure commission, BUT the company is required (to my knowledge) carry accident and liability insurance of up to like 10,000/year and then there's HR costs with writing my paychecks, yearly hazmat and sexual harrasment seminars that very well could be charged per worker trained and so on and so forth so they can't just have 100 of us mechanics sitting around the shop.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Couldn't help myself. I know there wasn't a PRISM on the show but still. Anyway, this is complete bullshit and yeah, the NY Times is apparently not happy with Obama any longer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Advocate
Bait and switch, imo.
It's exactly what I meant. Wal-mart is underpaying workers and dumping them onto taxpayers - that's the negative externality I was talking about. This is a bad thing for many reasons, one of which is that a company that wants to treat its employees with dignity and respect cannot compete as effectively.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Washington knew about the IRS shenanigans a year earlier than previously thought.
Is it too late to return my vote?
I decided against voting for either dem's or repub's last year, and am really happy about that choice.
Dude, I figured at worst he'd keep up his Jimmy Carter pt. 2 Revenge of the Peanuts presidency but right out the gate in his 2nd term....... holy shit man. What's driving me bananas is that he's not even playing the fool like Bush sometimes would or letting Cheney take the fall or something, he actually seems to be getting angry and defensive over what DC is up to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony
This is most no bueno in my book because leaders show their worth not by being perfect but in how they handle mistakes. Obama is burning good will like Iraqi oil wells in Desert Storm.
The NSA is using the powers Bush gave them and Obama has supported wholesale after his election in 2008. So shocking! Google is the only company who hasn't made it easy for them by filing opposition motions.
Drew, don't forget Twitter; they did the same thing.
He feels the only mistakes made were people finding out. That's the problem. And when he got a free pass from the media for almost five years, it really shouldn't surprise us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bojack
Well you should be happy people are quite upset about it.
At least John Roberts has proven to be a just pragmatist.
Now, in addition to making all of the garbage bill come after the 2012 election, Obama is pushing out one of the "key" provisions regarding mandatory employer coverage until after the 2014 one too. Obama is walking caricature of a career politician.
So businesses get a reprieve but individual citizens need to own health insurance or else. I doubt that's true. The Democrats are the party of the working man, not corporations.