News: Fuel Prices Effect Starving Populations

[trebuchet03]

Originally Posted by Arminius

You shift the topic with every post. Now your compliant is that you want more expensive meals at places where people make less. That wasn't the original topic, and I wasn't addressing you in the original post.

If your concern is that someone is making too much, by all means pay as much as you want, and support companies that no one else wants to support. However, the original issue was that people were having to pay too much!

Whoa there - lets not put words in people's mouths - I mean what I say - if I didn't say it, I didn't mean it. I'm not shifting the topic - I'm taking my $1 to go buy a taco because a big box chain (with a CEO/business I don't like) hasn't put the taco stand out of business.

My concern is not when someone is making too much. My concern is with business practice. When comparable products are of acceptable quality - I'll support domestic production over Chinese production (that's a Walmart reference in case I need to spell that out).

When Walmart signed a contract with Rubbermaid - Rubbermaid was really happy, retooled and upgraded their factories for all the new volume they'd be getting etc... Then, when the key ingredient of Rubbermaid's product had an 80% increase in price (and Rubbermaid increased their wholesale price) - Walmart took away much of their shelf space and gave it to the cheaper counterparts. Rubbermaid, was forced to merge with their rival competitor - or go out of business (jobs were lost, etc. etc). That's just really bad business - that strikes my ethics nerve (and it's really hard to do that). I don't care how much Walmart makes - it's the business practice that bothers me.

I like business competition - in the case of Walmart (which has 200 million customers in the US alone - 100 million weekly), companies know that if Walmart doesn't like them, Walmart has the power to take them down. Solely worrying about CEO profits can be left to the idealists - there's plenty of other issues.

However, the original issue was that people were having to pay [I]too much!

You first said

In fact, you can decide to buy from someone else if you don't like what a company does with the money THEY earned or borrowed.

Which one is it? Or are we changing subject? I don't like what some companies do with the money they earned and I don't think the government can take all the blame for what these companies do - some companies have a global impact that can, if they choose, starve populations.

and I wasn't addressing you in the original post.

That's fine, I'm addressing you and everyone else. If you only want to speak to one person - use the private message feature to avoid confusion (but if it's in public - expect a response from anyone with something to say)

[Arminius]

Originally Posted by trebuchet03

Whoa there - lets not put words in people's mouths - I mean what I say - if I didn't say it, I didn't mean it. I'm not shifting the topic - I'm taking my $1 to go buy a taco because a big box chain (with a CEO/business I don't like) hasn't put the taco stand out of business.

You are shifting the topic. The topic was that CEO's are "SQUEEZING" money out of consumers. That is false. It's not possible. This is not only the case due to competition (i.e., the consumer votes with his/her wallet), but also because the CEO's don't (usually) own the companies they work for. If the company (the Board of Directors and stockholders) don't like him/her, then they don't have a job.

My concern is not when someone is making too much.

1. But that was the topic.

2. There is no such thing as too much, unless the industry of which we speak is has no competition because of artificial barriers created by the government, or if they have engaged in illegal practices.

My concern is with business practice. When comparable products are of acceptable quality - I'll support domestic production over Chinese production (that's a Walmart reference in case I need to spell that out).

1. Your concern was not the topic, so your initial rebuttal of my position is a change of topic.

2. I agree with what you just said, in that I do the same.

When Walmart signed a contract with Rubbermaid - Rubbermaid was really happy, retooled and upgraded their factories for all the new volume they'd be getting etc... Then, when the key ingredient of Rubbermaid's product had an 80% increase in price (and Rubbermaid increased their wholesale price) - Walmart took away much of their shelf space and gave it to the cheaper counterparts. Rubbermaid, was forced to merge with their rival competitor - or go out of business (jobs were lost, etc. etc). That's just really bad business - that strikes my ethics nerve (and it's really hard to do that). I don't care how much Walmart makes - it's the business practice that bothers me.

It's not bad business. The purpose of business is to make money. Buggy whips would also still be in use if we didn't allow them to become obsolete.

I like business competition - in the case of Walmart (which has 200 million customers in the US alone - 100 million weekly), companies know that if Walmart doesn't like them, Walmart has the power to take them down. Solely worrying about CEO profits can be left to the idealists - there's plenty of other issues.

It's not a matter of "like" or "dislike." It's not personal. The consumer votes with his or her wallet. Walmart merely listens. In fact, the little store owner does the same, or they are an idiot and should go out of business. Who goes into business to sell what people would rather not buy?

If Walmart starts selling expensive stuff, and the mom-and-pop store next door is selling the same thing from China at half the price, who do you think is going to sell the most stuff?

Which one is it? Or are we changing subject? I don't like what some companies do with the money they earned....

Me neither, but it's their money, just as the money you earn is your money. I probably don't like the way you spend your money, but it's not my business.

and I don't think the government can take all the blame for what these companies do - some companies have a global impact that can, if they choose, starve populations.

My initial comment about the government had nothing to do with that. My initial comment is that the government is the only one that can squeeze you, because you MUST do what it requires of you.

That's fine, I'm addressing you and everyone else. If you only want to speak to one person - use the private message feature to avoid confusion (but if it's in public - expect a response from anyone with something to say)

I enjoy talking to you. However, you said you disagreed with me and attributed my words to an entirely different topic. You're a good guy, but we disagree.

[trebuchet03]

Originally Posted by Arminius

You are shifting the topic. The topic was that CEO's are "SQUEEZING" money out of consumers. That if false. It's not possible. This is not only the case due to competition (i.e., the consumer votes with his/her wallet), but also because the CEO's don't (usually) own the companies they work for. If the company (the Board of Directors and stockholders) don't like him/her, then they don't have a job.

You're reading too deeply and missing the point. The overall topic here (which is apparently is being debated- but doesn't matter) is fuel prices squeezing - not CEOs. CEO's were pulled into it, but that's fine, topics meander.

CEO and company are hand in hand. CEO is ultimately responsible. If a company is sucessful - awesome CEO. If the company tanks - blame is first put on the person/people on top. I'm not changing the subject matter by talking about a company as a whole...

Originally Posted by Arminius

2. There is no such thing as too much, unless the industry of which we speak is has no competition because of artificial barriers created by the government, or if they have engaged in illegal practices.

Again, I don't care about the too much thing - I agree there's no such thing as too much in this matter. But, I can't say that government is completely to blame for the actions of private companies. The government didn't setup any barrier that made Walmart take down Rubbermaid - costs went up (for rubbermaid) due to natural supply.

Originally Posted by Arminius

It's not bad business. The purpose of business is to make money. Buggy whips would also still be in use if we didn't allow them to become obsolete.

Fair enough - poor word choice... It's bad ethics

It's not a matter of "like" or "dislike." It's not personal. The consumer votes with his or her wallet. Walmart merely listens. In fact, the little store owner does the same, or they are an idiot and should go out of business. Who goes into business to sell what people would rather not buy?

It's not that they don't want to buy it... It's that one supplier brought it to you by employing your neighbor with an ethical business versus another supplier that brought you a product by employing another country while dismantling the local manufacturers. I wish that was hypothetical.

Me neither, but it's their money, just as the money you ear is your money. I probably don't like the way you spend your money, but it's not my business.

You might not, or you might... That's not a concern though. Their money came from my money - and if I'm supporting, say a cocaine ring by shopping at one particular store - why would I do that? If your company will support something I feel is "wrong" (probably not the right word choice) - I'm not going to trade my money for your stuff.

My initial comment about the government had nothing to do with that. My initial comment is that the government is the only one that can squeeze you, because you MUST do what it requires of you.

Yes, but I go back to basic needs/services as I originally posted. If you don't have an option - you can't bring your money elsewhere. Using Walmart (again, sorry - it's just too easy ) as an example - they move in, force others out. The price of stuff at Walmart may be slightly cheaper - but the cost/impact is much higher due to less business. Walmart has low prices and low wages.

I enjoy talking to you. However, you said you disagreed with me and attributed my words to an entirely different topic.

I enjoy speaking with you too But, I feel I haven't applied it differently - the topic is the same, it's just a big topic

[Arminius]

Originally Posted by trebuchet03

You're reading too deeply and missing the point. The overall topic here (which is apparently is being debated- but doesn't matter) is fuel prices squeezing - not CEOs. CEO's were pulled into it, but that's fine, topics meander.

CEO and company are hand in hand. CEO is ultimately responsible. If a company is sucessful - awesome CEO. If the company tanks - blame is first put on the person/people on top. I'm not changing the subject matter by talking about a company as a whole...

The previous points still stands. No one was crying when, just a few years ago, the oil companies were having a hard time making a profit. Now profit is bad? Yet the little store owner you identify with is good for wanting the same thing? Remember, in BOTH cases the MARKET determines what their goods are sold for.

The fact is that there are innumerable goods and services that are more profitable than oil. It's silly to demonize the industry, even if all the "cool kids" are doin' it.

Again, I don't care about the too much thing - I agree there's no such thing as too much in this matter. But, I can't say that government is completely to blame for the actions of private companies. The government didn't setup any barrier that made Walmart take down Rubbermaid - costs went up (for rubbermaid) due to natural supply.

I wasn't blaming the government for their profits. I was blaming the government for taking YOUR money. I wouldn't bother me if they or you made more money.

Fair enough - poor word choice... It's bad ethics

It's not bad ethics. It's a noble endevor.

It's not that they don't want to buy it... It's that one supplier brought it to you by employing your neighbor with an ethical business versus another supplier that brought you a product by employing another country while dismantling the local manufacturers. I wish that was hypothetical.

Neither is unethical.

You might not, or you might... That's not a concern though. Their money came from my money - and if I'm supporting, say a cocaine ring by shopping at one particular store - why would I do that? If your company will support something I feel is "wrong" (probably not the right word choice) - I'm not going to trade my money for your stuff.

Your example involves illegal activity, so it's not a good parallel.

Yes, but I go back to basic needs/services as I originally posted. If you don't have an option - you can't bring your money elsewhere. Using Walmart (again, sorry - it's just too easy ) as an example - they move in, force others out. The price of stuff at Walmart may be slightly cheaper - but the cost/impact is much higher due to less business. Walmart has low prices and low wages.

Of course it forces others out. That is the the history of the world. No one wants to pay more for less. This has been going on since the beginning of time, resulting in better prices and superior goods and services for the consumer. When I was a kid they were complaining about Kmart. So what!

In fact, no one would be complaining if there were a oil war between the leading oil producers and the price dropped 90%. When the OPEC countries were feuding and dumping oil onto the market a few years ago, no one complained. Not one person said that it was unfair to offer better prices. NOT ONE.

I enjoy speaking with you too But, I feel I haven't applied it differently - the topic is the same, it's just a big topic

True that.

[RH77]

May I bring the topic back to the origin:

Food prices are Increasing for the World's poor.

To respond to the ancillary discussion:

I have inside info that Wal-Mart intentionally will contract with suppliers (sometimes domestic), take a huge share of their sales, and insist on cheaper prices: only to put them out of business and buy the whole works at a discount. Fully planned and executed. Ethical? No. Business? Yes.

It happens as the supplier cannot handle the lower prices and attempts to negotiate. WM says "See-Ya" and the supplier lost 90+% of their sales. Bankruptcy ensues and jobs go overseas while WM buys the "Name".

The same is going to happen to the local, and even Corporate, Pharmacies (read: Walgreen's, CVS, Osco, etc.) Wallie World underprices scripts to bring customers into the store. Profit is made on the "While I'm here" purchases. Personally, I haven't set foot in a Wal-Mart for more than 2 years.

Personally, I don't agree with it. It's a poor business practice and represents a biased business model. Remember the anti-trust laws from History class?

I support workers' rights -- anywhere, but it's good to see jobs stay in the U.S. and Canada. Our manufacturing base has dwindled to a blip on the radar in the World market. The advantage to the weakening Dollar is more jobs filtering in.

My 3.5-cents adjusted for inflation.

Sooooooo...World food supply anyone?

RH77

[trebuchet03]

Originally Posted by Arminius

It's not bad ethics. It's a noble endeavor.

I don't think we can see eye to eye on this then - only because our disagreement is on a a fundamental level.

I'll use Google as a example. One of the points of their corporate philosophy is:

You can make money without doing evil.

As simplistic/easy way to say it - but to the point.

Intentionally destroying other business - ones that don't even compete with you - is unethical... There's nothing noble in taking away other people's livelihoods. It's just "evil" as the people at Google said.... Is it business, yes - but I, for one, will not run my business that way.

Your example involves illegal activity, so it's not a good parallel.

It's not the parallel - it's the point. Replace cocaine with something legal if it makes you feel better

Sooooooo...World food supply anyone?

Here's something I wrote up on the blow awhile back that I mentioned awhile back...

http://ecomodder.com/blog/2008/01/23...ew-black-look/

[Arminius]

Originally Posted by RH77

May I bring the topic back to the origin:

Food prices are Increasing for the World's poor.

To respond to the ancillary discussion:

I have inside info that Wal-Mart intentionally will contract with suppliers (sometimes domestic), take a huge share of their sales, and insist on cheaper prices: only to put them out of business and buy the whole works at a discount. Fully planned and executed. Ethical? No. Business? Yes.

It happens as the supplier cannot handle the lower prices and attempts to negotiate. WM says "See-Ya" and the supplier lost 90+% of their sales. Bankruptcy ensues and jobs go overseas while WM buys the "Name".

Lower prices are not the issue, per se - sales are. If they have the lowest price for the identical item, they will get the sales. In other words, they would be foolish to sell for less than it costs to make an item, so the real competition is with other companies who make the same thing. They can't be put out of business otherwise, unless Walmart and their existing customers simply refuse to sell the item, no matter who it is sold by. As for negotiating lower prices, every chain does that. EVERY single one!

Personally, I don't agree with it. It's a poor business practice and represents a biased business model. Remember the anti-trust laws from History class?

It doesn't apply.

I support workers' rights -- anywhere, but it's good to see jobs stay in the U.S. and Canada. Our manufacturing base has dwindled to a blip on the radar in the World market. The advantage to the weakening Dollar is more jobs filtering in.

Interesting that in a thread about the poor in other countries not being able to afford food that someone would promote protectionism for the sake of workers' rights. Only the employed are workers, and only competition will keep that ball rolling. History has shown this time and again. No exceptions, worldwide.

[Arminius]

Originally Posted by trebuchet03

Intentionally destroying other business - ones that don't even compete with you - is unethical.

You can't destroy businesses that don't compete with you by selling things. Until now you haven't even proposed this, so now you've moved onto yet another topic.

[RH77]

Originally Posted by Arminius

Lower prices are not the issue. Sales are. If they have the lowest price for the identical item, they will get the sales. They can't be put out of business otherwise, unless Walmart simply refuses to sell the item, no matter who it is sold by. As for negotiating lower prices, every chain does that. EVERY single one!

Indeed; however, you have to admit that WM has taken it to art-form. To the extent of running businesses out for the sole purpose of acquiring them? Common in small quantities, but it seems Cancerous in big business.

[antitrust laws]It doesn't apply.

Of course it doesn't -- but should it?

Interesting that in a thread about the poor in other countries not being able to afford food that someone who promote protectionism for the sake of workers' rights. Only the employed are workers, and only competition will keep that ball rolling. History has shown this time and again. No exceptions, worldwide.

I'm far from a business and Economic expert -- but I do know this: if someone loses their job, it's a hardship on the immediate and stratified parties. No matter where in the world you live. It impacts that nation's economy, stability, trade, and consumer confidence.

There are plenty of companies that are employee-centric that thrive worldwide -- including large, employee-owned operations.

Where does Food fall in the mix? The U.S. economy, fuel prices, grain (and other) exports, and the bottom line of the transport industry are crucial. Despite our arrogance, the United States' economy impacts the world markets heavily.

RH77

[Arminius]

Originally Posted by RH77

I'm far from a business and Economic expert -- but I do know this: if someone loses their job, it's a hardship on the immediate and stratified parties. No matter where in the world you live. It impacts that nation's economy, stability, trade, and consumer confidence.

This is true. It's the history of human life - you live, you compete or die, and then you die in the end, anyhow. Those who follow learn from both your successes and failures. If I were working for GM or Ford and came to this site, I would be afraid......VERY AFRAID

Fear is a good motivator. Hope they learn so that I can buy from them. If not, it will impact "that [company's] economy, stability, trade, and consumer confidence." And so our entire nation....