Another reason to hate Walmart...CD censorship

[Rabid]

I always buy the "edited" or "clean" versions of CD's when I can. Most of my music listening happens at work. With clients, children and a boss wondering the hallway I have to be careful.

[rhino55]

http://www.reason.com/news/show/29236.html

 

the relevant quotes you pulled from this were

 

I agree with the notion that multi-national corporations have replaced nation states.

[lonotes]

I don't think the answer is to limit how large a business can be, but rather to limit some of the means by which they are able to monopolize markets. This would naturally have the consequence that they couldn't get as big as they are now, at least not using the same practices they do now. But if they can get huge and still be good corporate citizens, more power to 'em!

 

Please stop using the word monopoly. WM is not now, and has never been a monopoly. Continuing to call them one only undermines your own credibility. With that out of the way, what would you propose to limit or regulate? Efficiency? That's the one tool in their goody bag that allowed them to get as big as they are.

 

Yes, they are (see Rabid's example, and his is just one of many).

 

And I readily conceded that. But it doesn't change the fact that the deal was made at the local level by local representatives. I cannot fault WM for poor representation on the part of the local community. Just like the prosecution in the OJ trial, they had a job to do, and the tools to do it. It was not Johnny Cochrans fault that they failed so miserably.

 

Please try to open your mind a bit and consider the possibility that you're interpreting other people's motivations wrongly. Most people do NOT hate Wal-Mart "simply for being big and successful."

 

Believe it or not, my mind is quite open on the subject. I just haven't seen much in the way of rational discussion on the subject. Most of the ideas that I have seen will come back to bite us in the ass, probably sooner than later. And most of the people that I have seen that hate WM fall into one of two categories. Hipsters with too tight black jeans and a silly haircut, or boomers from a gated community that buy into the idea that WM shoppers are classless morons that should not be allowed anywhere near their community. There are other opinions, but that's the bulk of them.

 

There are specific practices that people "hate" which really are harmful, some of which were initiated by Wal-Mart and some of which are used by many other companies but employed to an extreme by Wal-Mart. And what most reasonable people would like is for those extremes to be curtailed, not to eliminate Wal-Mart or large companies in general. Companies can still be plenty big and their shareholders can still get plenty rich while remaining an asset to the communities where they do business, paying employees a decent wage, considering competition healthy, etc. And that is all I have to say on this subject. Have a good one.

 

Then target those specific practices, not the company. But wait, aren't those practices (specifically wages, health benefits, and pensions) exactly the same practices that we deride the US auto makers for? Aren't they the very reasons that the UAW exists? You've heard of those guys, right? The workers that destroyed an entire industry with their greed?

 

Somewhere there is a middle ground. But nobody is really interested in finding it.

[WRGKMC]

""their competitive practices, their labor practice, their manufacturing practices are a very very dark and sad joke. And ultimately their influence on the marketplace is similar to the influence of luce strife upon a swamp. You can admire the singularity of purpose on a certain level, I suppose"".

 

Meanwhile, they display no concern for the health of markets, much less of their employees, suppliers, or customers""...

 

 

 

 

What a load of crap. I hear this BS about big business being evil spewed by clueless individuals who hate big businesses, thats all there is to it.

 

My son has worked for Wallmart for many years now. He's a good humble kid whose worked himself up to lower management through the ranks. Its not the ideal job but Its no different than any other retail company except they have a sales structure that is competitive and it reinvests in its business instead of sucking it dry.

 

If the company like an employee, see growth potential and they do good honest work an employee will usually get their raises and move up in pay and position. I cant say this happens at every location, theres bad management in all walks of life. They do have a pretty good system for weeding out the bad ones and have corperate policies the management must follow or they're out of there.

 

I think alot of this sour grapes comes from employees who were working there on a short term basis and werent kept on long term. They may have been temps, bad employees, or realized they werent going to be a millionare over night. Alot of employees get caught stealing to. How many do you hear about in the news?

 

What their corperate management does may be a different story. With all the spin that occues in the news I dont believe half of what I hear. The individual stores are not to blame. Blaming the store is like blaming a car dealership because they dont have the selection or color you want.

None of those kinds of manufacturing decisions are made at the dealership level.

 

Same goes for the stores. The stores have local employees and sell to local patrons. If you dont like what the store sells dont shop there.

[Hard Truth]

LoNote: "But it doesn't change the fact that the deal was made at the local level by local representatives. I cannot fault WM for poor representation on the part of the local community."

 

A major component of the problem is that many of the mega-corporations are bigger and more powerful than the governments that should be regulating them. The corporations make promises and threats, use litigation and legal and illegal forms of bribery (i.e. campaign donations) to control the governments, especially local governments.

 

One example: In California and other states, ATT is engaging in blatantly illegal behavior, yet few in government are willing to enforce the law because of the high cost of litigation.

[lonotes]

 

A major component of the problem is that many of the mega-corporations are bigger and more powerful than the governments that should be regulating them. The corporations make promises and threats, use litigation and legal and illegal forms of bribery (i.e. campaign donations) to control the governments, especially local governments.

 

 

 

Inflammatory statements do nothing but erode credibility.

 

 

One example: In California and other states, ATT is engaging in blatantly illegal behavior , yet few in government are willing to enforce the law because of the high cost of litigation.

 

 

 

You can bet that there is a clause, somewhere in the 4908 page document that defines the law that specifically allows their behavior. ATT knows it because they put it in there when they wrote the law that some lazy ass legislator proposed. They don't have tall buildings full of Harvard lawyers because they like the Brooks Brothers suits.

[Hard Truth]

lonotes: "Inflammatory statements do nothing but erode credibility."

 

Do you really believe that large campaign donations don't influence the votes of elected officials? Do you really believe bribery doesn't happen?

 

"You can bet that there is a clause, somewhere in the 4908 page document that defines the law that specifically allows their behavior."

 

So far, I haven't seen ATT cite this clause, so in this case I don't think it is there. Yet. The law that they are breaking was added to the regulations at the last minute at the request of municipal governments and activists. ATT wrote the rest of the regulations.

[lonotes]

 

lonotes: "Inflammatory statements do nothing but erode credibility." Do you really believe that large campaign donations don't influence the votes of elected officials? Do you really believe bribery doesn't happen?

 

 

Of course it does. But campaign contributions are legal (within restrictions). Calling them bribes is inflammatory. And it tends to make people discount everything you say afterwords.

 

 

"You can bet that there is a clause, somewhere in the 4908 page document that defines the law that specifically allows their behavior." So far, I haven't seen ATT cite this clause, so in this case I don't think it is there. Yet. The law that they are breaking was added to the regulations at the last minute at the request of municipal governments and activists. ATT wrote the rest of the regulations.

 

 

So bring it to trial. The prosecutor that does, and wins, walks on a golden carpet for the rest of his career. Not to mention the book and movie deals. Maybe they could get James Woods to play the lawyer. I saw one movie where he had a funky office and wore a ponytail. It was good.

 

Okay, I'm sorry for that (not really, it was a fun distraction as it gave me an excuse to Google for images of Sarah Carter from Shark. Mmmmm, Sarah Carter). But it certainly would be a David and Goliath story that would send a lawyers career into the stratosphere, if he won. But that's a really big if.

[Lee Flier]

Please stop using the word monopoly. WM is not now, and has never been a monopoly.

 

They are a "de facto" monopoly - meaning that although they are not currently legally defined as a monopoly, the end result on the market (in many of the rural areas where they do business, as well as many of their suppliers) is virtually the same as if they were. And the fact that some of their practices are not currently treated as antitrust violations is exactly the problem under discussion.

 

With that out of the way, what would you propose to limit or regulate? Efficiency? That's the one tool in their goody bag that allowed them to get as big as they are.

 

No, it isn't. Efficiency itself is not the problem, and it's also a mistake to treat all areas of "efficiency" as if they are equal. Things like their use of barcodes to track individual sales are smart and not a problem. Offering training to suppliers to provide them with better ways of doing business with them is smart, efficient, not a problem. Many things they do in the name of efficiency are all fine and good, and as I say, if they can succeed and grow by using those methods (which I believe they can), then more power to 'em. But such practices are not the only means by which they've gotten as big as they have.

 

If you really want a good summation of the multitude of practices they've used, try picking up a book called "How Wal-Mart is Destroying America and the World." Yes, it's a hyperbolic title. And you won't agree that everything in it is bad. But if you don't read selectively, you'll find a lot of things that I think you will agree are very bad. The author is also neither a "hipster" nor a "boomer from a gated community" - he's an older guy from a small town in Texas that was devastated by Wal-Mart.

 

I think you can read most or all of the book online at Google Books.

 

And I readily conceded that. But it doesn't change the fact that the deal was made at the local level by local representatives. I cannot fault WM for poor representation on the part of the local community.

 

But you can fault them for coming up with the idea in the first place and pressuring the local government to implement it. It takes two to tango. And if we have to enact some laws at the Federal level just to keep this kind of crap from occurring, you can blame Wal-Mart for having made such government intervention necessary.

 

Many local governments take a gamble because Wal-Mart promises them the moon and they fear they'll get complaints from constituents that they passed on the opportunity to create a lot of jobs. Of course the nature of those jobs doesn't become apparent until it's too late. So it's not entirely their fault either, although by now there should be enough material out there that local governments can do their homework.

 

Many local governments in the areas where Wal-Mart moves in also don't have the legal resources to deal with a fight with Wal-Mart.

 

Believe it or not, my mind is quite open on the subject. I just haven't seen much in the way of rational discussion on the subject. Most of the ideas that I have seen will come back to bite us in the ass, probably sooner than later. And most of the people that I have seen that hate WM fall into one of two categories. Hipsters with too tight black jeans and a silly haircut, or boomers from a gated community that buy into the idea that WM shoppers are classless morons that should not be allowed anywhere near their community.

 

Well I don't fall into either of those categories. And during the 90's, I owned property in a rural Georgia town which unsuccessfully fought to keep a Wal-Mart from opening there. This was not a "gated community" - it was an ordinary small Georgia town in the mountains, and not a very wealthy one. Although the City Council ultimately voted that they could not open a store within City limits, that isn't what Wal-Mart had in mind. They opened halfway between us and the next town, which attracted people from both towns. That's their usual M.O. and how they usually get around city ordinances that they don't like. The counties generally won't create ordinances specifically to keep big-box guys out because there are many big-box stores that are appropriate for the community, as mentioned. So that would mean they'd have to specifically target Wal-Mart in an ordinance, which is likely not legal.

 

In any case, rejecting an opinion because of who holds the opinion and not on the merits of the opinion is called ad hominem, which as you probably know is a logical fallacy. Just because you don't like many of the people who have a negative opinion of Wal-Mart doesn't mean their opinions aren't valid. Certainly it's not a valid point of argument to say "Most of the people who don't like Wal-Mart are annoying hipsters, so they must be wrong." And making sweeping generalizations about all the people who hold a particular opinion, not to mention second-guessing their motivations, isn't rational discourse, either.

 

If you don't agree with some of the specific solutions these people are recommending, perhaps you can offer your own. But refusing to acknowledge there's even a problem isn't going to get any of us anywhere.

 

Then target those specific practices, not the company.

 

I do target those specific practices, where applicable. I also reserve the right to target the company for its unethical decisions. I don't see why the company should be immune from judgment, espeically when its actions affect millions of people and whole economies, and any failures on its part often cost taxpayers whether they shop there or not. To use your words, no one is FORCING them to act as they do. They don't HAVE to. But they do, and they deserve criticism for it. If, with all their power, they can't withstand my scrutiny, then I must have a point.

 

As the saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility. To this point our particular brand of capitalism has put all of the emphasis on the power and virtually none on the responsibility. And it would NOT destroy capitalism, or even weaken it, to demand responsibility. In fact it would create more opportunities for more people to prosper.

 

But wait, aren't those practices (specifically wages, health benefits, and pensions) exactly the same practices that we deride the US auto makers for? Aren't they the very reasons that the UAW exists? You've heard of those guys, right? The workers that destroyed an entire industry with their greed?

 

LOL... sorry, although the unions are certainly a factor in what destroyed the industry, they're by no means the only factor, and it "erodes your credibility" to say this. As you also say, there is a middle ground. There is a reason people risked imprisonment or their lives to join unions. Unions are a good and necessary thing, just like corporations. But unions, like any organization, can get too big and demand too much power. So can corporations.

 

Somewhere there is a middle ground. But nobody is really interested in finding it.

 

I am. Lots of people are. But you seem to be taking a rather extreme position yourself, judging by your posts. Maybe if you'd stop being so selective in what you see and quick to categorize anybody who disagrees with you even a little bit, you'd find more people who want to get to that middle ground.

 

See, this is why I needed to bow out of this discussion. Discussing it properly takes way too much of my time.

[lonotes]

They are a "de facto" monopoly - meaning that although they are not currently legally defined as a monopoly, the end result on the market (in many of the rural areas where they do business, as well as many of their suppliers) is virtually the same as if they were. And the fact that some of their practices are not currently treated as antitrust violations is exactly the problem under discussion.

 

Either they are or they are not a monopoly. There is no in between. Being the most convenient place to shop doesn't make them a monopoly. Nor does having a huge selection of items at stupidly low prices. There is absolutely nothing that says another competitor (the trendy favorite Target for example) cannot come in and run WM out of town. It's an open playing field. Whether or not it's level is a different question, but it's most certainly open. As far as the anti-trust violations, earlier you advocated for increased regulation. If they are currently violating the law, how would more laws prevent that? Shouldn't we be focusing on enforcing existing laws before we jump into writing more laws?

 

 

 

No, it isn't. Efficiency itself is not the problem, and it's also a mistake to treat all areas of "efficiency" as if they are equal. Things like their use of barcodes to track individual sales are smart and not a problem. Offering training to suppliers to provide them with better ways of doing business with them is smart, efficient, not a problem. Many things they do in the name of efficiency are all fine and good, and as I say, if they can succeed and grow by using those methods (which I believe they can), then more power to 'em.

 

Is there some area where being efficient is a bad thing?

 

If you really want a good summation of the multitude of practices they've used, try picking up a book called "How Wal-Mart is Destroying America and the World." Yes, it's a hyperbolic title. And you won't agree that everything in it is bad. But if you don't read selectively, you'll find a lot of things that I think you will agree are very bad. The author is also neither a "hipster" nor a "boomer from a gated community" - he's an older guy from a small town in Texas that was devastated by Wal-Mart. I think you can read most or all of the book online at Google Books.

 

Thanks for that. I may look into it.

 

 

 

But you can fault them for coming up with the idea in the first place and pressuring the local government to implement it. It takes two to tango. And if we have to enact some laws at the Federal level just to keep this kind of crap from occurring, you can blame Wal-Mart for having made such government intervention necessary.

 

I can't fault them at all for self-interest. It's the very thing that drives us all to be successful, no matter what level we achieve. But they certainly didn't come up with the idea. Large projects have always gotten concessions from local governments. And they always will.

 

Many local governments take a gamble because Wal-Mart promises them the moon and they fear they'll get complaints from constituents that they passed on the opportunity to create a lot of jobs. Of course the nature of those jobs doesn't become apparent until it's too late. So it's not entirely their fault either, although by now there should be enough material out there that local governments can do their homework.

 

Nothing more than buyers remorse. You're trying to shift the blame from the public and its representatives to WM. If the local reps are afraid of their constituents, educate the public as to the nature and number of the jobs and why you are opposing them. The information is out there, as you say. It's not WMs responsibility to represent themselves in a negative light. It's the local reps responsibility to show both sides of the proposal.

 

Many local governments in the areas where Wal-Mart moves in also don't have the legal resources to deal with a fight with Wal-Mart.

 

As long as they're not trying to treat WM differently than any other industry, there's not much to fight about. It's when you start trying to impose restrictions on them that don't apply to other businesses that things get expensive.

 

 

 

Well I don't fall into either of those categories. And during the 90's, I owned property in a rural Georgia town which unsuccessfully fought to keep a Wal-Mart from opening there. This was not a "gated community" - it was an ordinary small Georgia town in the mountains, and not a very wealthy one. Although the City Council ultimately voted that they could not open a store within City limits, that isn't what Wal-Mart had in mind. They opened halfway between us and the next town, which attracted people from both towns. That's their usual M.O. and how they usually get around city ordinances that they don't like.

 

Is that how they get around ordinances? Or is that how they draw from two different markets simultaneously? Or possibly, that's where the large parcels of land are cheapest. And what about the guy that sold them the land? How much of the blame does he share?

[lonotes]

The counties generally won't create ordinances specifically to keep big-box guys out because there are many big-box stores that are good for the community, as mentioned. So that would mean they'd have to specifically target Wal-Mart in an ordinance, which is likely not legal.

 

But wait, isn't that acting in the counties self-interest? I thought this was bad when WM does it. Of course it's not legal to write ordinances specifically to keep one company out, but that doesn't stop cities from trying to do it. Which brings us back to the expensive legal battles referenced above.

 

In any case, rejecting an opinion because of who holds the opinion and not on the merits of the opinion is called ad hominem, which as you probably know is a logical fallacy. Just because you don't like many of the people who have a negative opinion of Wal-Mart doesn't mean their opinions aren't valid. Certainly it's not a valid point of argument to say "Most of the people who don't like Wal-Mart are annoying hipsters, so they must be wrong." And making sweeping generalizations about all the people who hold a particular opinion, not to mention second-guessing their motivations, isn't rational discourse, either.

 

Of course the opinion is not wrong simply because of who holds it. But remember what started this thread. Green Day won't sell their latest CD through WM because WM is evil. Is that really a valid reason to keep a store from opening in a town? But no matter what website you go to, if there is a WM thread, there's a whole lotta posts about edited CDs.

 

 

 

I do target those specific practices, where applicable. I also reserve the right to target the company for its unethical decisions. I don't see where the company should be immune from judgment when their actions affect millions of people and whole economies. To use your words, no one is FORCING them to act as they do. They don't HAVE to. But they do, and they deserve criticism for it.

 

Criticism and personal judgment for it's decisions? Certainly, go for it. Boycott them if you like. Maybe if enough people agree with you, they will vanish from the face of the earth forever. But to penalize them for being tough negotiators and efficient retailers is not right.

 

 

As the saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility. To this point our particular brand of capitalism has put all of the emphasis on the power and virtually none on the responsibility. And it would NOT destroy capitalism, or even close, to demand responsibility. In fact it would create more opportunities for more people to prosper.

 

A far greater power is held by the consumer and voter in this country. Vote with your wallet, vote with your ballot. Stop giving a pass to the local reps that gave away the candy dish just to buy a few votes. Stop allowing regulators to look the other way when WM violates anti-trust regulations. No one has greater power in this country than the public, but as you said, with power comes responsibility.

 

 

 

LOL... sorry, although the unions are certainly a factor in what destroyed the industry, they're by no means the only factor, and it "erodes your credibility" to say this.

 

How so?

 

 

As you also say, there is a middle ground. There is a reason people risked imprisonment or their lives to join unions. But unions, like any organization, can get too big and demand too much power. So can corporations.

 

Won't the next round of UAW negotiations be fun though? Either they will completely destroy GM if there's anything left to destroy, or they will be able to say "see, we weren't the problem after all".

 

I am. Lots of people are. But you seem to be taking a rather extreme position yourself, judging by your posts. Maybe if you'd stop being so selective in what you see and quick to categorize anybody who disagrees with you even a little bit, you'd find more people who want to get to that middle ground.

 

 

I'm not being extreme at all. But on this subject there's a huge amount of bull{censored} mixed in with some very valid points. I'm very interested in the valid stuff, but you have to get rid of the bull{censored} first. Or else no one will ever take you seriously. All that I have intended to say since my first post on this subject is that WM is not the Death Star. They are not inherently evil. They are a business. Nothing more, nothing less. How many times have we all been told to "Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door"? Well, here we have a bunch of Arkansas hicks that built the best freaking mousetrap the world has ever seen, and proved that axiom to be true. If they have run roughshod over your town, it's because somebody let them. If they have violated the law, stop them and punish them. But if you try to restrict or regulate them under different standards than other companies, expect to get beaten.

[Jeff da Weasel]

Wasn't this thread about CD censorship? I'll have to scroll back and find out.

[pink floyd cramer]

 

I'm not being extreme at all. But on this subject there's a huge amount of bull{censored} mixed in with some very valid points. I'm very interested in the valid stuff, but you have to get rid of the bull{censored} first. Or else no one will ever take you seriously.

 

 

+1. and IMO the ratio of valid points to the BS is as the ratio of the peanuts to the rest of the stuff you can't pick up by the "clean end" (referencing lonotes' sig). You can't pick up propaganda by the "clean end" either.

[Anderton]

Vote with your pocketbook: If you'd prefer that locally-owned stores stay in business, don't buy at Wal-Mart. It has nothing to do with being anti-Wal-Mart as much as being pro-locally-owned stores.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Wasn't this thread about CD censorship? I'll have to scroll back and find out.

 

 

There's some words that automatically create specific discussions.

 

For example:

 

Wal-Mart = debates about monopolistic and piss-poor business practices

Analog = gawd, this sounds so much better than digital!!!

Economy = debates about whether we're towards socialism

Behringer = prison camp labor + jeeez, this sucks!

PC = Macs are better

Macs - PCs are better

[pink floyd cramer]

There's some words that automatically create specific discussions. For example: Wal-Mart = debates about monopolistic and piss-poor business practices Analog = gawd, this sounds so much better than digital!!! Economy = debates about whether we're towards socialism Behringer = prison camp labor + jeeez, this sucks! PC = Macs are better Macs - PCs are better

 

You left out:

 

Tibetan throat singers- do they REALLY sing through their throat? And why can't you buy their CD's at WalMart?

 

edited for painful admission: I SUPPOSE that if, President Obama's administration passed a law enforcing a minimum local (non-exorbitant) tax on corporations (such as WalMart) expanding into a new area, I guess I could go along with that (groan). Hope y'all are happy..

[Hard Truth]

 

So bring it to trial. The prosecutor that does, and wins, walks on a golden carpet for the rest of his career.....

 

 

The problem is that going to trial is very expensive and is risky, no matter how clearcut the violation of the law. ATT has huge reserves of funds and probably has thousands of lawyers on staff, so they have less to lose if it goes to trial.

 

Fortunately a couple of jurisdictions are taking them to court, but not enough to hurt them.

[Lee Flier]

 

+1. and IMO the ratio of valid points to the BS is as the ratio of the peanuts to the rest of the stuff you can't pick up by the "clean end" (referencing lonotes' sig). You can't pick up propaganda by the "clean end" either.

 

 

There's a lot of propaganda on both sides of this debate. And it's true, there's a lot of BS thrown around, but we can't just ignore the valid points, or lump all debate on the subject into the BS category, just because of that.