Canada Kicks Ass
The Man Who Said No To Wal-mart

REPLY

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next



BartSimpson @ Fri Mar 31, 2006 6:39 am

Banff Banff:
Barts little emphasis on young girls does nothing to represent the broader picture


Fine. I won't post the pictures, but here's the link to go see them.

http://blog.khan.co.kr/media/folderList ... id=4020974

That's all as "broad" a picture as I need. Chinese soldiers killing little girls with bullets that were paid for, in part, by people who bought cheap crap at Wal Mart.

Fuck Wal Mart.

   



DerbyX @ Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:03 am

$1:
In many rural areas Wal Mart is the largest employer and many small towns have been effectively transformed into the equivalent of the 'Company Towns" of the late 1800's and early to mid 1900's. This has had a devastating effect on local governance as Wal Mart essentially gets to dictate local policy around what is best for Wal Mart.


The last I heard they were the single largest employer in over 30 states. Perhaps more by now.

$1:
The firm is too big and really needs to be broken up.


A very communist type suggestion or at the least very anti-capitalist of you. Give in to your socialist dark side. :wink:

You may be right but how exactly can you legally and fairly accomplish something like that in the USA? What about all the other mega-corps? You would need to enact legislation that limits the size (by assets/employees/etc) of all corporations which isn't such a bad idea. We should have done that decades ago I suspect because there are many corps that are megaopolies such as microsoft though various anti-monopoly lawsuits helped stem the tide a bit.

   



kal @ Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:07 am

IceOwl IceOwl:
kal kal:
IceOwl IceOwl:
kal kal:
$1:
but to blame them for security flaws that criminals exploit is like blaming banks for bank robberies

I never blamed them for security flaws. Though I'll blame MS for them. There are security flaws in MS products they blatently refuse to fix.


Given past knowledge of what's happened when Microsoft has been pressured to fix something serious because of widespread abuse (remember Blaster), there's probably some very good reasons why they don't fix those bugs - it would lead to even worse problems.

Yup. It would lead to Microsoft losing a very, very slight bit of their competitive edge. We can't have that.


I think you've misunderstood. If Microsoft wants their product to survive, it's probably better that they don't fix those bugs, as irritating as they might be. Windows code is special from any other kind of programming, and prone to things like growing gaping security holes because a few smaller ones were fixed.

The fact that Blaster was successful in causing so much havoc is because Microsoft fixed some other bugs.

I disagree, and I think you may have misunderstood me. A bug and a security flaw are not necessarily the same thing. Understandable, fixing some bugs leads to greater problems, but not always. Microsoft has been ignorant of security concerns in their products for a very long time, it's only been in the past few years they've taken notice and started to fix some known security holes. Here's an example. Internet Explorer. The thing is riddled with security holes (21 of 97 advisories against it remain unpatched http://secunia.com/product/11/). And don't say it's hard to fix. IE6 has been out for over 5 years. That's enough time. It's also not an overly complient browser. There are some out there that actually blame IE for holding the internet back because it supports shitty, non-complient code better than complient, properly scripted webpages.
And here's a security flaw that isn't a bug: ActiveX. Microsoft knows it's a major security hole, but the refuse to remove it because it gives them a competitive edge.

And the reason blaster was so effective was due more to the way Windows handles the permissions of system-level services rather than a hole created by a bug fix.

   



kal @ Fri Mar 31, 2006 10:03 am

IceOwl IceOwl:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
The firm is too big and really needs to be broken up.


I prefer "destroyed" to "broken up", but fair enough.

Well, we can't have everthing

   



BartSimpson @ Fri Mar 31, 2006 10:20 am

DerbyX DerbyX:
$1:
In many rural areas Wal Mart is the largest employer and many small towns have been effectively transformed into the equivalent of the 'Company Towns" of the late 1800's and early to mid 1900's. This has had a devastating effect on local governance as Wal Mart essentially gets to dictate local policy around what is best for Wal Mart.


The last I heard they were the single largest employer in over 30 states. Perhaps more by now.

$1:
The firm is too big and really needs to be broken up.


A very communist type suggestion or at the least very anti-capitalist of you. Give in to your socialist dark side. :wink:

You may be right but how exactly can you legally and fairly accomplish something like that in the USA? What about all the other mega-corps? You would need to enact legislation that limits the size (by assets/employees/etc) of all corporations which isn't such a bad idea. We should have done that decades ago I suspect because there are many corps that are megaopolies such as microsoft though various anti-monopoly lawsuits helped stem the tide a bit.


Wal Mart is the very essence of an evil corporation and it would be dishonest of me to rail against anti-Wal Mart comments that are demonstrably true.

Laws and government should protect people from firms who do not respond to market trends, but act to manipulate market trends as does Wal Mart.

Labor laws, unions, and etc. can get out of hand, but history shows us that labor laws and unions and etc. are also needed to reign in firms like Wal Mart that unarguably violate labor laws by not paying people for their hours worked, by hiring illegal aliens, by browbeating suppliers, by using predatory pricing to destroy competitors, and worst of all, by paying off politicians to betray their own communities and small businesses to the oligarchy of Bentonville.

I may not march in the May Day parade with you guys, but Wal Mart is bad enough to make me want to help you at the post-parade picnic.

   



Banff @ Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:40 am

believe me when I say that year after year decade after decade the ignorance of suppliers and business learned not one single lesson about consumerism for the purpose of "THE BOTTOM LINE " and realisticly invited Walmart and the cheap product industry . It is growing growing and growing more because of it until unique products and business will no longer exist . Stop kidding yourselves or make a hell of alot more noise about it .

   



MissT @ Fri Mar 31, 2006 12:38 pm

Walmart, and supermarkets in general, are destroying the economy and jobs. Walmart, as the biggest, is the worst.

If you live in a small town, you may have noticed how all the small retailers: butchers, bakers, candlestick makers, grocers, fishmongers, music, clothes and electronic stores, have all closed down. Perhaps what was once a thriving main street is now filled with empty storefronts. Why? Because of that huge, supermarket opened up in the next town a few years ago and everyone shops there now. Actually, everyone for many miles around shops there, and it seems that all the towns in the area are becoming dead.

You might think that that's a good thing, that people are now getting a great variety of cheap products all in one convenient weekly shopping experience, and that's all that matters. But what is also going on is that when the local stores close due to impossible competition from Wal-Mart, jobs are lost.

You might think that they can all go work in Wal-Mart. But the reality is that there will be many fewer jobs to fill in a supermarket that supplies 10 towns, than in the many stores that closed in each town and village. And it's unlikely to be a rewarding experience to move from being an owner of your own store, to being a shelf-stacker or stocktaker in a supermarket. And not as well paid either. If, as has been claimed here, Walmart is indeed one of the biggest employers in the country, well, that's only because its killed all the other jobs in the area. There has been a net loss in jobs and income overall.

Plus, when money is spent in a locally-owned store, the profit is more likely to be spent by the store-owners and employees locally. If that money continues to circluate in the local economy, this is called the "local economic multiplier" effect. $5 can have the same economic benefit as $20 if spent x4 in the local economy. But if the profits are going straight to the Walton family in whereever it is they live, that cash is lost to the local economy.

Furthermore, when I shop at a locally-owned grocery store, that makes an effort to source from local farms, I hope that some of that money will stay in the area. But supermarkets source from the other side of the country, or the continent, or even the planet.

Thus, money fizzles away and we all lose jobs and a vibrant community.

Thus, FUCK WAL-MART.

   



BartSimpson @ Fri Mar 31, 2006 1:07 pm

MissT MissT:
FUCK WAL-MART.


Ah, a woman after my own heart! 8)

   



DerbyX @ Fri Mar 31, 2006 1:41 pm

BartSimpson BartSimpson:
MissT MissT:
FUCK WAL-MART.


Ah, a woman after my own heart! 8)


If she brings you beer then you might just be convinced to re-examine your views on polgamy eh? :lol:

   



BartSimpson @ Fri Mar 31, 2006 1:50 pm

DerbyX DerbyX:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
MissT MissT:
FUCK WAL-MART.


Ah, a woman after my own heart! 8)


If she brings you beer then you might just be convinced to re-examine your views on polgamy eh? :lol:


If she brings me beer and does laundry then my wife will probably make me re-examine those views! :lol:

   



Banff @ Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:11 pm

BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Banff Banff:
Barts little emphasis on young girls does nothing to represent the broader picture


Fine. I won't post the pictures, but here's the link to go see them.

http://blog.khan.co.kr/media/folderList ... id=4020974

That's all as "broad" a picture as I need. Chinese soldiers killing little girls with bullets that were paid for, in part, by people who bought cheap crap at Wal Mart.

Fuck Wal Mart.


sad but misconstrueing BLOG perhaps ? ( using definitions of murder to mask the real topic yet you have refrained from US historical murder paid for by iindustry ...care to explain why ?) I'm just asking because others seem to be sticking to the topic .

   



Toro @ Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:34 pm

IceOwl IceOwl:
China becoming more industrialized is probably not really a good thing. Consider what would happen if you replaced all of the bicycles in China with cars.


Well, then would you give up, say, half your wealth - or more - to distribute to China, and other poor countries? Because otherwise you are condemning them to poverty.

   



Toro @ Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:37 pm

There are several economic studies showing that multinationals and "sweatshops" pay higher wages and have better working conditions than other local industries. Here's one.

$1:
The apparel industry has been widely criticized for “exploiting” Third World workers in sweatshops, but the data show that these workers are better off than most people in their countries.

...In 9 of 11 countries, the reported sweatshop wages equal or exceed average income, doubling it in Cambodia, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Honduras (at 70 hours). However, these figures do not include non-monetary compensation. Nike’s employees in Indonesia, for example, receive free health care and meals in addition to their wages...most of the jobs that some anti-sweatshop advocates protest raise their workers' standard of living above their nation's average.


http://www.independent.org/pdf/working_ ... atshop.pdf

   



REPLY

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next