They actually read Omnivores Dilemma

March 3, 2008 6:20 AM

Checkout: Where all lanes are open.NYT article article on Walmart's new blog written by their buyers with uncensored commentary on Walmart products. "After heeding the lessons of Wal-Mart’s earlier blogs and consulting with several well-known bloggers from sites like the Huffington Post, the buyers decided the site would succeed only if they wrote in their own voice, free from censorship and corporate review."

My stereotypes are busted. Some (not all) of these people are actually smart, critical, not your usual corporate zombie. They even read books.

posted by Xurando (55 comments total)

This should be fun.

About Tifanie Van Laar

I am the video game software buyer for Wal-Mart, but before starting this role, I did not own a single video game or video game platform.

Heh.

Joe Muha...discloses that Ayn Rand is one of his favorite authors.

And you say you work for WalMart?

There's no censorship now (beyond the usual vague rules on the About page that can be used to remove a lot of the riffraff), but if these guys step out of line I'm sure the side their bread is buttered on will become apparent.
posted by DU at 6:28 AM on March 3, 2008

My mind is twisted by the idea that someone, anyone is going to, one evening, pour a cup 'o joe, sit down at their computer, open their browser, and read blogs written by Walmart buyers.
posted by Jimbob at 6:28 AM on March 3, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]

if these guys step out of line I'm sure the side their bread is buttered on will become apparent.

In the American retail world, the bread is always buttered on one side—Wal-Mart's. Allowing their employees to publicly badmouth suppliers with impunity is just one more way Wal-Mart can reinforce their alpha dog status.
posted by grouse at 6:34 AM on March 3, 2008 [11 favorites has favorites]

A blog by the WalMart buyers - not so very interesting. But a blog by the WalMart greeters - now THAT would be interesting.
posted by Slack-a-gogo at 6:35 AM on March 3, 2008 [5 favorites has favorites]

[no one is going to] read blogs written by Walmart buyers.

Those who sell to Wal-Mart, or the larger and more desperate group who wishes that they did, might read it looking for a way in.
posted by rokusan at 6:38 AM on March 3, 2008

Wake me when any Wal-Mart employee can join the blog. They've already done the filtering by picking energized, higher-level employees. These are people who are going on corporate-sponsored trips to Europe, not the everyday Joe or Jane stocking shelves and running checkout.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 6:39 AM on March 3, 2008

Slack-a-gogo: try Behind The Counter. I found it got boring and repetitive after a while, though.
posted by Leon at 6:40 AM on March 3, 2008

Allowing their employees to publicly badmouth suppliers with impunity [...]

In my quick scan of several random entries, I didn't see much besides, "hey! We've got cool stuff!"
posted by GPF at 6:42 AM on March 3, 2008

Badmouthing suppliers may not be out of line, but you can bet that something will be. How about a post urging WalMart employees across the nation to unionize?
posted by DU at 6:43 AM on March 3, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]

Actually, a *commentor* talking up unionization (always within the context of the posts subject, natch) would be pretty funny.
posted by DU at 6:48 AM on March 3, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

How about a post urging WalMart employees across the nation to unionize?

I'm sure that Wal-Mart has carefully pre-screened the bloggers to exclude any who might do such a thing. But yeah, it would be pretty amusing to see how quickly the "uncensored" blog experiment ended then.
posted by grouse at 6:54 AM on March 3, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

My guess is that the blog and the comments are made in CHINA...
posted by Postroad at 6:57 AM on March 3, 2008

You don't need Walmart's permission to write a blog criticizing them.
posted by smackfu at 6:59 AM on March 3, 2008

Economic Stimulus Payment. I have to admit that this legislation has peaked my interest.

Peaked? PEAKED? I stopped reading here.
posted by desjardins at 7:02 AM on March 3, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

Is this the new "softer" side of Walmart? "Hey, look guys! We're not a corporate monolith...we're not Satan....we have people!!"
posted by The Light Fantastic at 7:04 AM on March 3, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Hey, maybe it's right, since later on it says:

That is where my curiosity started to peak.
posted by smackfu at 7:05 AM on March 3, 2008

have to admit that this legislation has piqued my interest

It's already changed. WTF? And then they changed the proper use of "peak" to "pique" in the next sentence, which isn't the right usage.
posted by Miko at 7:29 AM on March 3, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

I don't think I would be impressed if they read Marx, Ghandi and a good third of the Diamond sutra.

ANYONE can read books and talk about them on a blog. When it comes to actually doing something with what you've read, that's the hard part. And corperate buyers are some of the most disconnected employees in any corp structure. Even good ones. They're always looking outside the corp. not in on it.
posted by Sam.Burdick at 7:32 AM on March 3, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Knowing that times are tough, we were able to work with one of our supplier partners to offer what I think is a first, a 2GB Laptop for under $500!!!

...thus ensuring that the supplier partner has a lower profit margin, fewer benefits and lower wages for employees, and that it would be impossible to produce in the United States. Good thing Wal-Mart is such a leader in helping this economy create more low-income people; heck, they're the ones who need a $500 laptop!

The post on sustainable industrialized food contains interesting comments.
posted by Miko at 7:33 AM on March 3, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

Have laptops ever been made in the US?
posted by smackfu at 7:39 AM on March 3, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

I put these posts right up their with the Bin Laden tapes, maybe higher since they do far more damage to the United States than Bin Laden ever did. Tell me how this is a great American company and not a subversive terrorist cell? They force American companies to close plants in America and open them up in Communist China which then employs what amounts to slave labor to manufacture products, the sale of which allows China to build up it's military and bid up the price of oil worldwide throwing America into a recession of which is can never recover (recovery usually comes from increased manufacturing putting people back to work).
posted by any major dude at 7:40 AM on March 3, 2008

Have laptops ever been made in the US?

I have no idea, but this is their general business model: pressure suppliers for such low prices that the suppliers eventually need to seek cheaper labor and go offshore. Perhaps laptops were never produced here, but Oster blenders and Black and Decker toasters once were, and are no longer. Suppliers have buckled under because if you had a Wal-Mart supplier contract, and grew your company to meet their steady and growing demand, and suddenly Wal-Mart threatens to freeze you out, if you refuse to negotiate for the price they want, the result will be drastic cutbacks and bad news for shareholders, who are calling the shots and want dividends. The pressure is put on the companies to cut production costs, which means going offshore.
posted by Miko at 7:45 AM on March 3, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Miko: what's most fascinating is that the profit margin for SE Asian laptop manufacturers is so painfully low now, that doing a deal with Wal-Mart could be a killer. What are they going to do? They've already moved their production lines to Shanghai and Shenzen. It's not like there's somewhere else to go... Vietnam? Bangladesh? Where does Wal-Mart's mantra of chasing lowest production costs come to an end?

Although what really gets me about Wal-Mart is the way so many Americans feel it's their patriotic duty to shop there. I can mention as politely as possible that I choose not to shop there in an attempt to support local businesses and American industry, and the reaction is bizarre - like I just slapped George Bush in the face and called myself a commie. I just don't get it.

Talking with their buyers might be interesting, but really it would be more enlightening to talk to the VP in charge of purchasing after a few rounds of drinks.
posted by EricGjerde at 7:56 AM on March 3, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]

In his book The Structure of Scientific Revolution, Thomas Kuhn argues that a change, or shift, in a paradigm is not evolutionary, but revolutionary and requires a drastic jump from one system of thought to another. While our service providers have not abandoned the current paradigm of buckets of minutes, we did see a huge leap to a potential new thought process emerge today.

Early this morning, Verizon announced that they will be offering an unlimited calls plan for only $99.99 per month beginning today.

Pretty funny.

Miko, I think you're reading a bit into that news blurb. You can get 2 GB of laptop memory for $34. Computer prices are always going to be coming down, regardless of any market pressure from walmart.
posted by delmoi at 8:07 AM on March 3, 2008

I can mention as politely as possible that I choose not to shop there in an attempt to support local businesses and American industry, and the reaction is bizarre - like I just slapped George Bush in the face and called myself a commie. I just don't get it.

According to the Fed, Wal-Mart doesn't hurt local business by opening shop up, at least in small communities.

Another aspect is that for some people. Wal-Mart is their best option. People shop there because of the low prices that they need when they work for minimal wage jobs. I think something a lot of people miss out on when they make fun or put down Wal-Mart, is that for those who feel they have no choice to shop there, it feels like an attack on themselves as well. There are a lot of families out there where every penny counts and places like Target are a luxury rather than an option, etc.
posted by Atreides at 8:23 AM on March 3, 2008

I think you're reading a bit into that news blurb.

No, I'm not basing my comments on one news blurb. The blog reflects what I already know about Wal-Mart through my own reading (NYer: Selling Wal-Mart: Can the Company Co-Opt Liberals?), Big Box Swindle: The True Cost of Mega Retailers and the Fight for Independent Business)and through organizations I follow or am involved with (Alliance for Local Living Economies, Institute for Local Self-Reliance).

There are some reasons that the price of any technology drops over time that don't have to do with the costs of labor, safety and environmental standards; but also plenty of reasons that do. The model applies equally to clothing, toys, and housewares.
posted by Miko at 8:25 AM on March 3, 2008 [4 favorites has favorites]

shop there because of the low prices that they need when they work for minimal wage jobs.

The bigger question being: why are so many of our jobs minimum wage? Because of the corporate welfare and favorable legislation we have given these companies to take advantage of American workers, driving down wages, opposing unions, and shipping jobs overseas.
posted by Miko at 8:26 AM on March 3, 2008

Atreides wrote:

People shop there because of the low prices that they need when they work for minimal wage jobs.

This is what is commonly referred to as the "race to the bottom". Walmart forces good paying companies off-shore thereby resigning their employees to have to resort to lower paying jobs thereby the only place they can afford to shop is Walmart. Pretty evil and devious business plan if you ask me.

Another thing that Walmart has done is artificially keep inflation in check because it is so massive and employs so much slave labor. As China's economy matures there will be less and less of this low cost manufacturing (it's already moving to places like Vietnam) and now the real inflation that has been happening for years will rear its ugly head in America. Allowing Walmart to get so dominant has been America's deal with the devil.
posted by any major dude at 8:35 AM on March 3, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

I don't think you can pin the blame squarely on Wal-Mart for the absence of the higher paying factory/industry jobs that are going over seas. It certainly has taken advantage of the situation, but its not the root of the process. (To my knowledge, for example, I haven't read any role of Wal-Mart in the collapse of the domestic steel industry) One question I've struggled with is whether or not the loss of these jobs are good thing or not. To clarify, are these loss jobs just part of a greater change to the American business landscape, changing towards service oriented jobs, etc. A lot of people don't have the education to get into these careers and without the aforementioned jobs, end up in the minimum wage hells of food service or retail.

If our country placed more emphasis on education, would that make a difference? Would it make the minimum wage businesses up their salaries for lack of employees? Or would it just result in lower wages in the service industry? I simply aren't sure how to wrap my head around the state of things these days. What I do think is that the day of plenty of well paid factory Union jobs is permanently over, regardless of how change occurs now or in the future.
posted by Atreides at 8:50 AM on March 3, 2008

Wait, wait I have a vision without youtube...

***dream puff on ***

Hi, I am Joe !
Y'all should check out that shit at Wal-mart , it's convenient ! Finally a company that puts money on the front line, helping us leave the american dream ! I mean, what do the others do for us ? Do they lower price ? Do they offer so much for so little ? Monopsony schmonopsony , bite me !

*** dream puff off***

-typing on crackberry-

Hi hon ! I just finished spinning the 'neck on the walmart site, we shall see them lining up in thousands soon enough..can you image all these 'neck in one place ! LOL ! Get me some chokolatte while I listen to the last Limbaugh on my Zune ! Damn liberal LOL ! XXX
posted by elpapacito at 8:52 AM on March 3, 2008

from the article Atreides linked to:

The bank study of 40 counties in its district between 1986 and 2003 found that Wal-Mart slightly boosted business growth, employment and earnings compared with counties without a Wal-Mart, senior economist Terry Fitzgerald said in a paper released Tuesday.

This is an insidious argument. Of course it's going to raise employment, it offers many many jobs - low paying jobs without benefits that no one can support a family, but this is yet another number those scumbag financial pundits smugly point to on television when discussing the economy (unemployment is still low) yet underemployment is at historic highs. Also it's true that Walmart adds to the business growth of the town because not only does it cannibalize the local business in the town it's built but also the local business from every town in a 50 mile radius. Fuck the Fed for cherry-picking the most Walmart-favorable stats without illustrating how those numbers are skewed.
posted by any major dude at 8:52 AM on March 3, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

are these loss jobs just part of a greater change to the American business landscape, changing towards service oriented jobs, etc.

There is that argument (though I'm absolutely not sold -- keeping manufacturing infrastructure and knowhow in your own coutry has excellent security benefits), but another question: assuming that we have no choice but to transition away from a manufacturing to a service economony, why have we not then insisted that the service economy jobs paid, and provided for their employees, at least as well as the manufacturing jobs they replaced? Why allow them to ban union activity? Why not insist that they provide health insurance and other benefits? Why not have labor-practice inspections and certifications?

It's not just a simple this-for-that change. Along with granting these outscaled companies such power to control the legislative agenda, we've handed them our wage and labor standards to re-craft as they wish.
posted by Miko at 8:59 AM on March 3, 2008

I always thought "All that and a bag of chips" (second para, NYT article) was a British expression, used by cockney geezer types where the chips in question were thick cut potato fries. Now I know it is an American expression which refers to crisps and is used by Wal*Mart employees. Thanks, Metafilter.
posted by rhymer at 9:11 AM on March 3, 2008

People shop there because of the low prices that they need when they work for minimal wage jobs.

I've been there for windshield washer fluid and haven't seen many low prices. I see lots of loss leaders prominently displayed, however. Like America itself, perhaps.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:23 AM on March 3, 2008

Personal story: My grandfather invented a valuable Product (sorry, I can't say what it is -- privacy concerns and all that, please try to believe that I'm telling the truth here.), took out a patent on it and started up a business to sell the Product. 40 years later, the patent has expired but the business is still owned by my family (my uncle, to be exact). I worked as a manager at our family company for a year while I was in college. It was the first time in my life that I ever had to truly experience running a business rather than just earning a paycheck.

Anyway, when the patent expired other competitors in our industry swooped down to make generic copies of our Product. I'm not angry about that -- we had a good run and made lots of money from it. Most of my childhood expenses were actually funded by revenue grandpa's Product, which makes me quite a bit more lucky than most people on the planet.

Today, we are still in business -- but just barely. Our factory is located here in the US -- we employ about 40 - 50 workers full time, pay them relatively well and provide full benefits (Medical, 401(k) and so on). Yes, we provide 401(k)'s for our line workers, because most of them have been with us for 10+ years, and being nice to them is important to us. As you can imagine, our profit margins are razor thin.

Our competitors, on the other hand, don't have that problem. They moved their factories to China at the first opportunity, make a piss-poor copy of our original Product from inferior materials, pay their workers next to nothing, offer them no benefits and reap enormous profits.

Guess who's Product is sold at Walmart?

If you guessed "the Product made by slaves in China", you're right! WalMart buyers laugh their asses off every time we tried to pitch our product to them. Believe me, we've tried. We have thin profit margins that can't be sustained below a certain sales threshold. Any lower and we would need to either remove benefits, lower pay or start laying people off. Our competitors, on the other hand, would probably chain workers to their machines for 16 hours if WalMart demanded another 5 cent reduction in per-unit cost.

So next time you're at WalMart and you see our competitor's Product on sale for such a "reasonable" price, just think of the WalMart buyers and their continual struggle to bring America down to a Chinese standard of living.
posted by Avenger at 9:25 AM on March 3, 2008 [15 favorites has favorites]

Greeters blog:

Day 1: First day on the job! I said "Welcome to Walmart 327" times today. I wonder if every day will be this busy.

Day 8: There must be a sale or something because we were even more busy today if you can believe it.

Day 15: I said "Welcome to Walmart over 500 times today. My throat is tired and my feet kinda hurt.

Day 22: Wow, People just keep coming and coming and coming, it's like they can never get enough stuff. I said WTWm about a 750 times today. My head hurts.

Day 35: WTWm = 1000

Day 45: ...

Day 50: I am the Angel of Death. Welcome to Hell.
posted by quin at 9:58 AM on March 3, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]

I am the video game software buyer for Wal-Mart, but before starting this role, I did not own a single video game or video game platform.
Heh.

Right, because what Wal Mart needs is some hard-core anime nerds doing their video game purchasing. Did you take a look at any of her posts (it wouldn't take long)? She seems to be the exact sort of person to do a good job on that.

why are so many of our jobs minimum wage? Because of the corporate welfare and favorable legislation we have given these companies to take advantage of American workers, driving down wages, opposing unions, and shipping jobs overseas.

Where would these jobs have gone if none of that legislation had come to pass? If I can get something assembled at 1/10th the cost overseas, what's the incentive to stay local if staying local means my costs are so high I will go out of business and take away all the jobs I provide? See also: US auto industry.
posted by yerfatma at 11:47 AM on March 3, 2008

what's the incentive to stay local

Trade restrictions - and negotiating for comparable trading policies in some foreign export markets - are one incentive.

I'm not sure where you're getting information on the U.S. car industry. Its downturn was caused not simply by cheaper foreign labor, but by innovation resulting in far more efficient production methods in foreign companies, which reduced the amount of time it took to bring one vehicle to comlpetion? That's what fueled the competition from Japan beginning in the 1980s. The US is still the second largest producer of cars in the world, a very close second behind Japan and well ahead of all other auto producing countries at this time.

Foreign car makers are building plants in the U.S. today and hiring American workers for good wages with good benefit packages. They find the quality of the work good, and inexpensive land available in the South and Southwest for little money and a low tax burden. They are able to produce more cheaply than the big 3 American-owned corporations largely because they are significantly more efficient. They have yet to be organized by labor, also, while the American-owned companies all have contract ties to the UAW, and have agreed to honor pay scales and retirement packages. The newer foreign-owned plants offer more salaried jobs with benefits packages including health, 401(k) and dividend sharing, making the unions less attractive and the employees more supportive of the management. The companies offer the sorts of benefits unions secured, only without the historically adversarial relationship.

But there are certainly other incentives to stay local; not the least being that there are non-monetary incentives. Providing jobs, knowing every employee, insisting on quality and human rights, simplicity, proximity to skilled/experienced labor and to suppliers, avoiding legal wrangles, and maintaining a local history and a sense of place are actually important to some employers who make the financial sacrifice of staying stateside. The growth of social entrepreneurship is interesting, but it's not anything new; there are many companies that could have 'gone national' but preferred to keep quality high and scale manageable. There are some CEOs who have motives aside from the profit motive. One change in the last 50 years is that it's less and less common for CEOs to truly be in charge of the opportunity decisions for their companies - the expansion of the investment marketplace means that shareholders now bring pressure for profit to bear on leadership in ways which are extreme as compared to only 50 years ago. Shareholders may not share the non-monetary incentives of a CEO - there may be a disconnect between company vision and values and shareholder pressure. But people enter businesses for reasons other than maximizing profit; otherwise, the only businesses that attracted people would be those which provided the greatest profit potential, and a look around you shows that people don't make decisions about business leadership that way.
posted by Miko at 12:41 PM on March 3, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

"...we're not Satan....we have people!!"
So does Soylent Green.
posted by wendell at 1:23 PM on March 3, 2008

Trade restrictions - and negotiating for comparable trading policies in some foreign export markets - are one incentive.

Trade restrictions aren't an incentive, they're a tax. Make them onerous enough and people will stay local until they cannot be competitive anymore, but the majority of people suffer higher costs to maintain jobs for a few. That's the part I don't understand: while it's understandable to argue in favor of the people you can see, people losing jobs or working for low wages, there's no one to argue for everybody who benefits from outsourced jobs and low prices. Who has the right to decide that I ought to pay more to ensure someone else keeps a job or gets a higher wage? I don't want it to sound as awful and as cut-throat as it comes out, but why do you get to add a little tax to my life?

I'm not sure where you're getting information on the U.S. car industry

Sorry, it was a crappy shorthand example, a stand-in for the idea that manual labor is inexorably moving out of he First World. We need to figure out how to create more knowledge workers locally, not how to hang on to horse and buggy shops.
posted by yerfatma at 1:51 PM on March 3, 2008

We need to figure out how to create more knowledge workers locally, not how to hang on to horse and buggy shops.

I'm not in favor of widespread horse and buggy shops (Wal-Mart doesn't sell horses and buggies) but I am in favor of broader support for independently owned businesses, owner-operated businesses, and smaller-scale regional industry. With smaller scale and more independent operations, jobs can be service jobs but still good jobs. There is a larger (and more local) owner class, and business profits are far more likely to stay circulating within the local economy rather than being exported to the distant economies of corporate headquarters cities.

Who has the right to decide that I ought to pay more to ensure someone else keeps a job or gets a higher wage? I don't want it to sound as awful and as cut-throat as it comes out, but why do you get to add a little tax to my life?

There are a couple of responses to that:
1. We all have a right to decide, in a democracy. We are deciding right now. Right now we are deciding that our most important national priority is low price. That's why we've allowed the government to create a tax and policy structure that unfairly favors big business over small, and maintains tax loopholes to prevent companies paying an appropriate share of the burden they place on us. Our world is constantly changing as a result of our priorities in ways that are not always financially calculable. We could decide to prioritize differently, putting standard of living, reduced crime, quality of life, open space, environmental factors, full employment, or other values ahead of lowest price.
2. Why do you get to add a tax to my life? The system we do have is not free - it just shifts costs to the future or to other industries. The deferred costs of long-distance goods transportation on the environment and on fuel and food prices are 'taxes' you and I are already paying right now, in order to enrich the shareholders of the globalized cpmpanies. The deferred human services need that they push aside in favor of lower wages and no benefits becomes a burden on the polity, as we are forced to deploy the governmental system to insure the uninsured, feed the unfed school kids who wouldn't otherwise have breakfast or lunch, incarcerate criminals, subsidize rents and housing, provide food stamps, take military and diplomatic action to ensure continued fuel supplies, and clean up the environmental damage inflicted by the packaging and shipping of these products.

After you look at all we're doing to help these companies shift the burden onto the public via taxes, the prices really don't look so low anymore.
posted by Miko at 2:16 PM on March 3, 2008

tax and policy structure that unfairly favors big business over small

There's a judgment in there again. What is fair and what is unfair?

The deferred costs of long-distance goods transportation on the environment and on fuel and food prices are 'taxes' you and I are already paying right now, in order to enrich the shareholders of the globalized cpmpanies

I get the idea of the long-term effect on the environment, but the rest of it seems open to interpretation. The problem I have with all of this is there's so much information, so many factors to keep track of yet we've all got established positions based on our take on a slice of that information and we can always dig up one more fact to turn the light back in our favor. To wit, how much of your higher food prices are due to ethanol subsidies, which are an attempt to create an inefficient business in order to keep production local? I also don't get the idea about how I'm incorrectly enriching stock holders by buying lower-priced goods instead of paying out the nose to some local business and enriching them.

I'm not as far from you as I sound, but that sort of Populism is where I have to get off the bus. I do think we have some decisions to make as a country about the rise of corporations that can compete with states and how to provide incentives/ penalties to make sure companies that benefited from growing up under a country's economic umbrella don't just walk away. But I always fall back on "Expect the best, prepare for the worst". Money's like water and it will seek it's own level no matter what strictures we place on it legally, so there has to be a bit of judo to how policy is enacted, where it doesn't seek to attack profits so much as use their weight to our advantage (if that tortured metaphor makes any sense).

I do think that 10-20 years from now, a good deal of manufacturing will be an afterthought, something you have done at a local fabrication shop or on a printer at home. In such a world, information and ideas are truly the only things that matter. It's true to a great extent now and it seems like it will become more prevalent. Crafting economic policy to deal with The Way Things Were or, worse yet, crafting it to maintain a status quo is not going to work.

Anyway, this has all drifted a long ways from Wal Mart blogs. Apologies for the long-windedness.
posted by yerfatma at 2:46 PM on March 3, 2008

yerfatma: the easiest thing is just to do some research. Read one of the books I linked to above, or google around about the issues. You're right, there is a ton of information. There are always embedded values in legislation: right now, our legislated values favor large companies. Things don't 'just happen' - they're a result of economic policy. The differences between our economy and that of some other industrialized countries provide good comparitive examples. You may not agree with my values, but it's hard to argue that by reducing restrictions on corporations, we aren't supporting one set of values over and to the near-exclusion of another.

paying out the nose to some local business and enriching them.

Look at some of the data from my above links about what happens to your dollar after you pay it. You can send it to Omaha and thence to shareholders living around the country who will then spend it elsewhere, on vacation or on their houses or investment elsewhere; or you can spend it locally and see its benefits multiplied in ways that are very real to you: increased tax money available municipally, more local spending, more donation to local charities, more time available for spending on local nonprofit leadership (Scouts, church, sitting on boards), stronger social networks and greater general abundance.

At some point, people just decide how important a factor price is to them. Some people have very little choice, which is why I don't get on anybody's case for shopping at cheap stores. But other people have choice and just choose to seek low price above all other benefits. My life is pretty seriously enriched by the local buying I do do, in ways I just can't quantify, and I know my state and community are better because of the impact of local spending. It (sometimes, not always) costs more, but the rewards are far greater, and will be visible to you, where you live.
posted by Miko at 2:59 PM on March 3, 2008

Money's like water and it will seek it's own level no matter what strictures we place on it legally
It does, to disastrous effect in lesser off countries, at least once we force them to allow unrestricted flows of capital in and out of their countries, destroying what stability they may have once enjoyed due to those restrictions.

It amazes me how naive people are when they play the optimist and laugh off the continuing destruction of the manufacturing base of our own country. As if knowledge work can't be exported. As if we'll be able to be a nation of stock brokers, day traders, and fast food workers when the capital evacuates our country as our economy and currency suffer due to massive trade imbalance.

Service work is great, but it only exists when you have people who have money to service. Real productive capacity is required on some level. We became a first world nation not through free trade but through highly restrictive trade, as did almost every other nation with comparable economic success. When third worlders try to do not what we did, but what we tell them to do, they have, thus far, had a 100% track record of failure.

Luckily for China (and Japan, and to a lesser degree Korea), they told us to go fuck ourselves and made their own way. Sad for us, but good for them.
posted by wierdo at 4:08 PM on March 3, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

the easiest thing is just to do some research. Read one of the books I linked to above, or google around about the issues

Ah yes, if I just dip my toe in your personal echo chamber, all will be revealed. Instead I am drowning in ignorance.
posted by yerfatma at 4:48 PM on March 3, 2008

Ah yes, if I just dip my toe in your personal echo chamber, all will be revealed. Instead I am drowning in ignorance.

How observant of yourself. If you're unwilling to understand where people are coming from by reading materials which may contradict your point of view, you'll find it hard to have reasonable discussions, rather than conversations that merely consist of talking past one another.

Sadly, that passes for a dialogue these days.
posted by wierdo at 5:21 PM on March 3, 2008

My grandfather invented a valuable Product.

I'm ridiculously, unreasonably curious. I know you won't, but please, please mefi-mail me the product?

I was going to post a comment earlier, but in researching discovered a bit of tarnish on the brand name I was going to praise. Le sigh.
posted by tarheelcoxn at 5:48 PM on March 3, 2008

if I just dip my toe in your personal echo chamber,

It's hard to argue with my position without knowing more about what it is. You're right, economics is complicated. I'm basically arguing for a system that puts quality of life for individuals in the citizenry first. That obviously includes a healthy economy. So I want to ask the question: how do we build a healthy economy that serves society? Rather than, how do we take advantage of society to serve the economy?

Ethanol subsidies aren't really an 'attempt to create production local.' They get their steam from the fuel company lobbies in partnership with big agribusiness; regional economies with a history of corn growing are hopping on a gravy train already in motion. The force behind ethanol doesn't come from a concern for local economies, it comes from the concerns of fuel companies who are worried about what they will do with their expensive infrastructure in a post-petroleum economy. By shifting to another, renewable fluid fuel source that we can produce with less international dependence, capital can stay within the major fuel companies we have today. Fuel companies and GWB aren't embracing ethanol because they want the general store to stay open. They're embracing it because their shareholders see it as the strategy which will protect the long-term ROI of those big fuel companies. As this ecent NYT piece indicates, concern for local agriculture for local people's quality of life isn't what's driving ethanol. If our first concern was regional quality of life, the agriculture policies would look a lot different from what's described here.

I basically agree with you that companies that benefit from the rich soil of our national culture and business climate should be expected to contribute back to the system, not export profits to evade taxes and then return them as private dollars in individual hands. At least I think that's what you're saying. And I agree that economic change is unavoidable, though I'd be absolutely shocked if we were only 20 years out from local fabrication plants. But even if we were, isn't there a pretty important argument for not impoverishing our schools, colleges and job training programs so that we'd be equipped to prepare workers for a knowledge economy in which innovation was the greatest value? We're just unable to do that now, and I can't imagine how we would become able if we continue to allow enormous sectors of our society to exist outside a basic benefit structure that would enable them to learn, be well fed, and have the financial and intellectual resources they need to succeed. Some protectionism isn't crazy, and some stricter approaches to limit - not end! - limit the powers of corporations is a good idea. The wealthiest democracies in the world, with the highest standards of living, are a lot more restrictive than we are. The pendulum has swung very far away from the center in our country, and it bothers me that we're taking advantage of our workers and workers around the world.

But for me to really break down the arguments point by point would be to rewrite great books and articles that are already out there. We do have problems and i don't claim to have all the solutions at hand - that would be crazy. I do think there are some very positive ways to make progress and some very real criticisms of present-day corporate law and practice that really need to be surfaced and recognized so the public can decide if they are a genuine boon to the populace, or not. For what other reason do we unite in government?
posted by Miko at 7:31 PM on March 3, 2008

It is gong to be very interesting watching to see if the people of the world figure out it's not sustainable for everyone on the planet to follow the same consumerist path of the USA.







Now where's the latest greatest newest shiny thing I can buy...
posted by doogyrev at 10:30 PM on March 3, 2008

Money's like water and it will seek it's own level no matter what strictures we place on it legally

Unfortunately for your metaphor, we build dams and engineer rivers to our purposes, despite nature's predilection for chaos.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:50 PM on March 3, 2008

It's hard to argue with my position without knowing more about what it is. You're right, economics is complicated.

My problem is I can't get up the steam to discuss it here because it seems a waste of time. All the answers are decided. I discovered economics was complicated when I got a degree in it. I'll admit I'm not putting that degree to great use in this discussion, but what's the point when simple respect for others' opinions has a 1:1 correlation with agreement here? All I did was argue the other side of the coin and the nicest response I got was your assumption that I'm clueless on the subject and just need re-education. The rest of the direct responses are nitpicks of metaphors and tut-tutting about how I need to improve my discourse:

If you're unwilling to understand where people are coming from by reading materials which may contradict your point of view, you'll find it hard to have reasonable discussions

The idea that I'm somehow not doing my civic duty by stopping, going out and reading multiple works before responding in a thread that will be forgotten within a day or two is a tremendous barrier to entry for anyone who disagrees. Next time let's just post a list of who's qualified to talk.
posted by yerfatma at 7:47 AM on March 4, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Do you really think I was disrespectful of your opinion? I disagree with the way you view this situation, but where was I disrespectful?
posted by Miko at 10:27 AM on March 4, 2008

...and basically, I suggested that you do the reading up because you haven't really argued here, just made some vague statements. I've tried to respond to all your points, and you can certainly look at the materials I've used myself to arrive at my point of view and refute their content, but you basically just seem to be saying you don't feel like it. Which is fine, but it's not like anyone's trying to silence or brainwash you. It's up to you to present a cogent counterargument if you feel like it. And it's okay if you don't feel like it, as well.
posted by Miko at 10:35 AM on March 4, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

No, that was more in response to the rest, sorry. But again, I can't see the invitation to look at the same materials and then refute their content as anything more than an empty offer. Tree falling in the forest sort of thing. I can't disagree with the "just made some vague statements" assertion, but I can't get up the energy to try here anymore.
posted by yerfatma at 11:47 AM on March 4, 2008

OK. Well, I've studied the topic a fair bit, and have some working knowledge. I'd be happy to have a discussion about it that really challenged my point of view sometime.
posted by Miko at 12:40 PM on March 4, 2008