Posted on 11/14/2003 9:42:50 AM PST by em2vn
A gallon-sized jar of whole pickles is something to behold. The jar is the size of a small aquarium. The fat green pickles, floating in swampy juice, look reptilian, their shapes exaggerated by the glass. It weighs 12 pounds, too big to carry with one hand. The gallon jar of pickles is a display of abundance and excess; it is entrancing, and also vaguely unsettling. This is the product that Wal-Mart fell in love with: Vlasic's gallon jar of pickles.
(Excerpt) Read more at fastcompany.com ...
sends the town's money to Bentonville AR.
Not at all: only the amount of profit that local merchants used to have is "sent out" -- and not to Bentonville AR but all across America.
In fact, the consumer in that town can now, for the first time, get some of those profits also --- by buying a stock in Wal-Mart.
Americans used to take pride in the unparalleled social mobility we always had in this country. Not any more: climbing is a sin now. Success is to be avoided at all costs. Even conservatives on this board do not recognize when they sound like socialists.
And, when socialists like Willie Green, take out all stops and use FR for socialist propaganda, hardly anybody notices. Nice.
The type that use Capatialism as an excuse.
Ahhh, sweet class envy.
"The type that use Capitalism as an excuse" is a knock on those who strive to "Be Somebody" at the expense of "Doing Something". These are the people who use Capitalism as a clean word for Corporate Strip Mining. They aren't good capitalists.
Even conservatives on this board do not recognize when they sound like socialists.
Don't forget that many of these so called "capitalist" are big time lefties like Soros, Buffet, and that Progressive insurance nutter. Hillary Clinton herself was on the BOD for Walmart, Starbucks and Apple (IIRC). These people aren't capitalists.
No, it isn't "sweet class envy", but a sincere concern for the state of corporate governance. I personally love big corporations. We need more Microsofts (even though Gates is a lefty) and Toyotas. I see Fast Company, as promoting more Global Crossings, Enron, Tycho's and other misinterpretations of Shareholder Value. Capitalism used to destroy capitalism.
Everyone loves that line from Wall Street...."Greed is good". Unfortunately they forget that it was Oliver Stone speaking through Michael Douglas. A left wing caricature of the free market. Greed isn't good, the ambitious and efficient creation of wealth is.
Fast Company, from what little I've read, seems to be another CEO worshiping mag. I admit that I knew nothing about Fast Company, and the article made me confused: finding Wal-Mart at the root of outsourcing is not forgivable even for an MBA student, and it sounded like something Hillary would think and say.
But you make a good point: nowadays even the top corporate management is Leftist, so I should stop seeing this as a contradiction.
I agree with the points you made but would like to emphasize that it is wrong in principle to look to corporate management to provide moral leadership. It is not supposed to. These institutions have not been designed for that purpose. Corporate management is supposed to make money for the shareholders while being bound, not propelled, by ethical norms. The norms themselves were to be cultivated by two other institutions: the family, thoroghly destroyed by now; and the church, which is almost destroyed in Europe and is on the defensive in this country. I would suggest that, because all vacua are filled, the duty abrogated by the church and the gamily has been pleaced, absurdly, onto the shoulders of the corportate bosses: even the management textbooks routinely summon them to be the engines of the social change.
We live in very dangerous times indeed.
I don't think so. Nor do I think that making a groundless accusation of someone, calling that entity "predator" is aesthetical or, more importantly, ethical (it's one of the commandments, you know).
Economics covers also the dimension to which you refer as "aesthetics:" social value of one's actions. These indeed differ: you may enjoy better standard of living but miss the "community feeling," for instance. Here a private value increased at the expense of the social value.
Social values are attacjed to public goods, which the markets do not provide and which must be provided by the governments. Where business actions create undesirable consequences is precisely the place for regulation. That requires benefit-cost analysis.
This is not what you engage in, however. Without even understanding the benefits of Wal-Mart and who the receipients are, you simply demonize that company. Not only it is ethically problematic, but you also contribute to the attack from the left that is now focused on one of the last American institutions standing --- corporations.
It's your choice which side to be on. Standing with the crowd is very popular nowadays: declare everyone else "fat cats," "elites" --- and you have a million friends. Beats being right, of course. Or even reading a book to learn what the h-ll you are taling about.
Welcome to The Socialist FReepers Club, comprised of the most conservative of all commies.
SO why doesn't it? P&G is one of the best-managed companies around.
So, where do you keep them, in the garage? That's too far for when you need them.
I am also pretty sure you did not take "economies of scale" in college.
Perhaps. But your rendition of history can and should be denied.
However, that does not make WM a "white knight."
That is not how YOU treat it. Failing to be a hero is not a sin; failure to be a white night in business is not a moral failure either. If you were simply to say that there are social consequences in conflict with private actions of Wal-Mart, I would agree and see no need to reply.
That is not what you do: you defame a million of hard-working honest people who provide a valuable service to this country. And you do that without exhibiting even a single evidence that you have familiarity with the subject matter.
There is more to life than lower costs and material goods.
Yes, and they are to be dealt with by institutions other than corporations. Not only is your blame unfounded --- it is misplaced: you have a problem not with Wal-Mart but with the VALUES of your fellow citizens that vote with their pocketbooks in favor of Wal-Mart. As I said earlier, those values are shaped by family and church, not Wal-Mart or other corporations.
And you must be an amoral thick-skinned creature that thinks that people are motivated only by their material gain. I have provided extensive details to identify the source of my disagreements with your statement. Anyone but a moron would think that I am guided by anything but principle.
But I am not surprised at all by your statement: with the same ease as you defamed a million of Americans working for Wal-Mart you now tried to smear me.
So stop lamenting the destruction of the Main Street: you are the main perpetrator. Morality did not stay with you in the same house for the night, let alone your soul or mind.
I shall not be writing to you again: I do not wrestle with pigs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.