You can't handle the truth, Mr. Moore - Capitalism: A Love Story (2009) Discussion

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gabby_bm 15 years ago

======
ƒuck off
=====

oh wow! You've truly enlightened me. I've seen the error of my ways! That glib, two-word response is enough to turn my entire life philosophy completely around and save whist beetles, join PETA, protest the war, settle into a monogamous homosexual relationship, smoke pot, drink flavored martinis, donate half my paycheck to the UNCF, support a socialist agenda and trade my guns for Detroit Lions football tickets.

Go Lions!

"The truth is a virus"

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gabby_bm 15 years ago

==============
What more do you need to know about it gabby? If you know what it's called and cared about that you wouldn't defend it.
==============

What I need to know is why people are up in arms about it. Whenever I talk about it, people come back with how there's no health insurance for employees- which has nothing to do with the ethics and/or merits of COLI ("dead peasant's insurance").
.
The people in the movie complained that they didn't get any of that insurance money from WalMart, yet didn't explain how or why they thought they were entitled to it. They just cried about it as if WalMart was some thief who killed their daughter for the insurance money.

Did the insurance premiums get taken out of her paychecks? No? Then why is it any sweat off her family's nose? It's not. They're whining because they didn't get any of the insurance money they had no ability or foresight in attaining in the first place.

I think the concept of COLI is a reasonable one. Why wouldn't a corporation want to insure against the loss of a trained and valuable employee and the impact of such a loss on their business? Training costs money. Rotating through employees until you get another comparable one costs money. Filling that spot until a suitable replacement is found may cost MORE money in the form of paying overtime. It's a sensible part of a business plan.
I can't imagine a mining company's losses when there's a deadly cave-in.
COLI is a perfectly sensible hedge against such a tragedy.

So I ask- what is harmful about COLI? What is the negative impact on the surviving family members? How is the employee negatively affected by it? Is there a better way to hedge against the financial losses that occur when an employee dies?
Or is it just that a bunch of people cry about their dead daughter, WalMart collects the insurance money and they don't share it with the family of the deceased that has people up in arms?

Please answer these questions as I can't find anything online that addresses the negative impact on the employee or the surviving family.

"The truth is a virus"

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gabby_bm 15 years ago

It's NICKNAMED "dead peasant's insurance" or "Janitor's Insurance".
It is actually named (and appropriately) Corporation Owned Life Insurance (COLI).

WalMart didn't come up with the term, nor is it any indication of their attitude.
And if you understand the term "peasant", it's basically an accurate description of most employees in this country, whether they work for Walmart or Microsoft.

Am I NOT being clear?

Employer takes out a life insurance policy on an employee.
Employer pays the premium
Employee dies.
Employer collects the insurance money.

HOW DOES THIS NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE EMPLOYEE OR THEIR FAMILY?!!!

Is it just because it hurts their feelings that they weren't asked?
Is it that being called a "peasant" hurts their feelings?
Is it that WalMart doesn't share the money and THAT hurts their feelings?

It is a simple question asked repeatedly that has yet to get a valid answer.

"The truth is a virus"

reply

[–] Boricanator 15 years ago

When an average Joe takes a Life Insurance for his family, why does he do it? Because he/she loves his/her family and want to make sure they are economically protected. Why? Because unless your average joe happens to be rich and with lots of money to inherit, the family will suffer economically.

Walmart has no love for its workers. It couldn´t care less. Its a multi-billion dollar company that reaps billions of dollars in profit every year. If they lose a worker, it wont hurt them. Not enough for them to feel it, anyway. They insure their workers to greedily profit from their deaths.

It is proof of their low moral standards and how they see their workers as mere assets instead of human beings with needs and emotion.

The reason your not getting a "valid answer", is because it is a question of opinion and morality.

To you, it is okay for a company to profit from an employees death and not give any benefits to him/her or their families.

To others, including myself, it is inmoral. It is an act of selfishness and greed.

To you, calling a worker "peasant" is okay.

To others, its derogatory. It means that Walmart sees their employees almost like dirt.

To you, Walmart should not have to insure its employees or offer some protection. It is a luxury to you.

To others, it should be a right, especially since they have enough money to do that and still make billions.

So, you can continue looking for you "valid answer" from those that criticize it, but you will not find it because you share a different set of values.

reply

[–] gabby_bm 15 years ago

Thank you for providing the valid answer of *It hurts our feelings*.

----

Walmart has no love for its workers. It couldn´t care less.... They insure their workers to greedily profit from their deaths.

() True, even though a lot of people profit from death. Should we do away with funeral homes, crematoriums, veterinarians, insurance companies, etc? After all, they don't really have any love for the people either. Should we make love a prerequisite to hiring or insuring?
_____________________________

It is proof of their low moral standards and how they see their workers as mere assets instead of human beings with needs and emotion.

() I don't consider separating business from personal feelings to be a liability. Most of the companies I've worked for and ran have considered the assets to be "time, money, people and space". Just because one of your assets has emotions and needs doesn't mean that those things should govern your decisions. We ALL have needs. We ALL have emotions.
_____________________________

To you, it is okay for a company to profit from an employees death and not give any benefits to him/her or their families.
To others, including myself, it is inmoral. It is an act of selfishness and greed.

()They are welcome to attain life and health insurance for themselves. No one is stopping them. They can get millions of dollars in life insurance (and profit, themselves). No one's stopping them. Greedy, yes. Selfish, yes. Immoral, NO.
BTW, I don't consider it an employer's duty to provide benefits to their employees. What unwritten law makes it the employer's obligation? Why aren't benefits bestowed upon people by their mortgage companies, utility companies or internet service providers?

_____________________________

To you, calling a worker "peasant" is okay.
To others, its derogatory. It means that Walmart sees their employees almost like dirt.

() Since when did "peasant" equate to dirt? Since when did it become a derogatory term?
I've never heard or seen WalMart use this term. Michael Moore used this term. Does that mean Mr. Moore sees these "employees almost like dirt"?

_____________________________

To you, Walmart should not have to insure its employees or offer some protection. It is a luxury to you.
To others, it should be a right, especially since they have enough money to do that and still make billions.

()True. I don't see why a person's employer is responsible for providing health insurance and a person's ISP is not.

_______________________________

So, you can continue looking for you "valid answer" from those that criticize it, but you will not find it because you share a different set of values.

()It's not an issue of values or morality. It's business. Knowing this information, if people continue to shop at WalMart and/or work for WalMart, then THAT is a reflection of people's values and morality. Anyone who expects a business to function for something other than profit should look to charities.
________________________________

We, the people, have the power to destroy
WalMart. If everyone stopped shopping there
and working there, WalMart would cease to exist.
They might even be inclined to offer health
insurance as an incentive to get people to work
and shop there again.
The free market still works.

"The truth is a virus"

reply

[–] Boricanator 15 years ago

() True, even though a lot of people profit from death. Should we do away with funeral homes, crematoriums, veterinarians, insurance companies, etc? After all, they don't really have any love for the people either. Should we make love a prerequisite to hiring or insuring?

I had a feeling your were not going to get it and go this way.

Anyhow, I wasn't talking about Walmart having to love anyone. They idea of life insurance is to benefit those you love. That was my point. The other examples you mention are people that provide services for death and diseases. Walmart is not suppose to do that. Its a company for selling specific types of merchandize.

I don't consider separating business from personal feelings to be a liability. Most of the companies I've worked for and ran have considered the assets to be "time, money, people and space". Just because one of your assets has emotions and needs doesn't mean that those things should govern your decisions. We ALL have needs. We ALL have emotions.

See? This is just were you and us differ. Time has no feeling or emotion. Neither does have money or space. But people do. And yes, that should govern their decision. But again, that is all a manner of your values. To plenty of people, they should be considered. That is why free market with no control is dangerous.

()They are welcome to attain life and health insurance for themselves. No one is stopping them. They can get millions of dollars in life insurance (and profit, themselves). No one's stopping them. Greedy, yes. Selfish, yes. Immoral, NO.

Lol, if being selfish and greedy is not inmoral, then you have a more serious moral problem than I thought.

If by any chance you are talking about the employees themselves getting it, I hope you realize that there are millions out there that can't afford it.

BTW, I don't consider it an employer's duty to provide benefits to their employees. What unwritten law makes it the employer's obligation? Why aren't benefits bestowed upon people by their mortgage companies, utility companies or internet service providers

Fine, that is your opinion. We think otherwise and there should be laws providing the employees benefits. Eitherway several laws do exist like minimum wage and 8 hour maximum work day.

You last example makes no sense. There is an enormous difference between your employer giving you benefits and someone your a customer of giving them. You are working for you employer. You are giving more to the employer than to any of those as a customer. Besides, for the most part, whether you like it or not, you have more freedom to choose who you buy from than who you work for, that creates a certain responsibility to employers.

True. I don't see why a person's employer is responsible for providing health insurance and a person's ISP is not

I answered that above.

It's not an issue of values or morality. It's business. Knowing this information, if people continue to shop at WalMart and/or work for WalMart, then THAT is a reflection of people's values and morality. Anyone who expects a business to function for something other than profit should look to charities.

In your first sentence you say it is not an issue of values or not and on the other you say it is. You need to make up your mind on what you believe.

It is not that simple as deciding not to shop. A lot of people shop in Walmart because they are ignorant of their injustices or simply go because they can't afford more expensive materials that come from non-exploitation sources. Walmart is able to sell at a cheap price because of volume, but mostly because of its injustices to its workers.

To say that business cannot only strive for profit is to think in a 19th century business way. Businesses should have more responsibility towards the people that work for them.

However, you are right in that it is their choice, as inmoral as it sounds. Seeing as many businesses don't want to give better working conditions and benefits to their employees, the best option is to bring in Universal Health Care, increase taxes on the top 5% of the country and corporations and increase labor laws for employees, while limiting outsourcing by the rule of law.

The free market, without regulation, whether you like it or not, is what has caused this crisis and only more regulation and social justice for the middle class and poor will put an end to it.

That is all I will say on the matter.

reply

[–] gabby_bm 15 years ago

They idea of life insurance is to benefit those you love. That was my point.

() According to whom?

_______________________________

Time has no feeling or emotion. Neither does have money or space. But people do. And yes, that should govern their decision.

() Only in matters that affect the bottom line- same as one considers the properties of time, money and space. To ignore them completely is ignorant.

________________________________

That is why free market with no control is dangerous.

() Of course there needs to be some controls. We don't all drink from the same well anymore. I don't want to buy a Kobe steak and get served fillet of dog.

_________________________________

Lol, if being selfish and greedy is not inmoral, then you have a more serious moral problem than I thought.

() It's NICE to share. But sharing isn't a gauge of morality. In fact, I consider the expectation of someone else to share to be more indicative of a person's morality.

_________________________________

If by any chance you are talking about the employees themselves getting it, I hope you realize that there are millions out there that can't afford it.

() Yes, I realize that. That is why they don't get the benefits. They can't afford a lot of luxuries including life, health, renter's, auto, boat or homeowner's insurance. They can't afford a Porche. They can't afford season tickets to Lions' games. They work at a minimum wage job doing minimum wage work

_________________________________

We think otherwise and there should be laws providing the employees benefits.

() Yes, we do differ in opinion in this regard.

__________________________________

You last example makes no sense. There is an enormous difference between your employer giving you benefits and someone your a customer of giving them. You are working for you employer. You are giving more to the employer than to any of those as a customer. Besides, for the most part, whether you like it or not, you have more freedom to choose who you buy from than who you work for, that creates a certain responsibility to employers.

() And therein lies the problem. You don't fathom the concept that employing a person is a purchase. You hold the employment process to some mystical standard that has nothing to do with value and equitable trade. I see the employment process as an agreement between two parties that is mutually beneficial. You indicate that an employee has a right to a job with a set wage and benefits regardless of their value to the employer.

________________________________________________

In your first sentence you say it is not an issue of values or not and on the other you say it is. You need to make up your mind on what you believe.

() No, what I indicated is that a business is not held to a moral ground. A business' value system is based on dollars and cents. If a customer or employee holds a different moral ground, then it is THEY who have the moral dilemma and should work and/or shop based on such.

__________________________________________________

Walmart is able to sell at a cheap price because of volume, but mostly because of its injustices to its workers.

() How is it an injustice to trade a wage for labor, knowledge and effort? Every employer on the planet does that. I don't see the injustice.
Would you rather they cut their workforce in half, demand more effort, time and knowledge from the remaining employees and provide some benefits to them? I don't think the laid off employees would consider that justice.
Maybe they could raise their prices to accommodate the benefits. I don't think the customers would consider that justice.
Maybe they could lose money to provide benefits. I don't think the stockholders would consider that justice.
A minimum wage for minimum-wage work seems to be the most equitable arrangement for everyone.

_____________________________________________________

To say that business cannot only strive for profit is to think in a 19th century business way. Businesses should have more responsibility towards the people that work for them.

() Funny. As an employer, I often felt that the employees needed to demonstrate more responsibility to the employer.

___________________________________

However, you are right in that it is their choice, as inmoral as it sounds. Seeing as many businesses don't want to give better working conditions and benefits to their employees, the best option is to bring in Universal Health Care, increase taxes on the top 5% of the country and corporations and increase labor laws for employees, while limiting outsourcing by the rule of law.

() Universal Health Care (sigh). I've never understood why people think they have a right to health care. It's a service industry not unlike McDonald's. Paying for education, police and fire services is one thing; they benefit society. But I fail to see how fixing my neighbor's broken arm or treating their cancer benefits the community.
But more to the point, I don't understand why people insist on charging the wealthy more in taxes than anyone else. We all have equal access to the same government services. Why gouge the wealthy? Do they deserve their dollar less than the poor person?

_______________________________

The free market, without regulation, whether you like it or not, is what has caused this crisis and only more regulation and social justice for the middle class and poor will put an end to it.

()This crisis was hardly the fault of the free market (which hasn't existed for a long time) There are a variety of reasons including the thriving credit market, irresponsible loaning and borrowing, corporate and government interference/thievery/cronyism, media-induced panic...and so on.

I don't necessarily argue against regulation as long as it's applied fairly, effectively and in the areas where it's needed.

"The truth is a virus"

reply

[–] federicoarbelaezz 15 years ago

I think the comparison between a funeral home, and what walmart does with it's peasant insurance is simply wrong. A funeral home provides a service to the community, which in turn is paid, providing the well being of those who provide the service. On the other hand, walmart profiting from the death of their employees doesn't benefit anybody other than walmart. By benefiting walmart, it's basically not benefiting anyone, since walmart is not a person, and it surely won't benefit the workers, since walmart treats them like crap, the only ones such practices could benefit by deduction, would only be corporate executives looking for a way, ethical or not, to get a bigger slice of the pie. From your previous posts it's clear that you support this kind of practices, and that morality, and ethics don't concern you as long as there's no law forbidding them, and in case such laws, and regulations exist, money and power can take care of the deal. From your point of view, I don't understand why you haven't already proposed walmart to start somewhere offshore, or even in somewhere in the mid-west, a gulag,labor camp,concentration camp, where walmart keeps it's workers and their families confined working for nothing,providing the most basic of goods for their survival, that would surely skyrocket the profits, deaths would multiply increasing peasant insurance income, replacement would be readily available crossing the border, and it would be much more easy for the big fish to "protect" the small fish. You can see the evil in such practices, or you can lie to yourself, and somehow justify it as something reasonable, or even good, just like Hitler did with the Holocaust, or any of the perpetrators of the worst crimes in history, evil always starts with a white lie, those who commit evil, are always convinced they are doing good. Going back to the word "profit" and "business", if these two terms are unable to provide well being, and dignity to all of those involved in the trade, they have no use, if companies "profit" have human suffering as a byproduct, then they're no more more than an empty logo. I'm no communist, and assuming you are wealthy, I wouldn't ask you to give your money to the poor, because I know nobody in the world, including myself, would give away high social status. I just hope your able to maintain said social position, and never be forced, in order to feed yourself, or your family, to work in a low ranking position at walmart.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gabby_bm 14 years ago

I'll concur that it is the company's responsibility to provide a safe and reasonably healthy work environment, but it's certainly not a company's responsibility to PROTECT the life of a worker- especially from a heart attack.

Some days, you just can't get rid of a bomb! (Batman 1966)

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gabby_bm 14 years ago

They already HAVE that incentive to work them to death. It's called a profit margin.

But yes, it is a bit macabre. But not entirely unreasonable. A person can die and no one gets a thing, or a person can die and the company gets a nice check because they paid insurance on the guy.

It's not like they're wringing their hands in the office, twisting their moustaches and devising ways to kill off their employees. But if their employee gets hit by a drunk driver on their lunch hour, the company gets a chunk of change. It's not like anyone is hurt by that. It's just a bit weird and twisted.

Some days, you just can't get rid of a bomb! (Batman 1966)

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gabby_bm 14 years ago

Killing people for money is nothing new. Governments do it all the time. You can't (or shouldn't) illegalize the incentive. You can only really illegalize the act.

Basically, it's a fear that a company will do things (or not do things) that will put the employee's life in jeopardy for the sake of money. But that is why we make laws about putting employees' lives in unreasonable jeopardy.

There's an incentive to kill anyone. And insurance is just one out of dozens.

Some days, you just can't get rid of a bomb! (Batman 1966)

reply

[–] Earthmonkey16 15 years ago

Does that COLI include for resigning of the worker??
I that COLI limited to higher personnel (aka not the ones that stock or do the cheching out??)
Does Wal-mart insure its personnel for health costs??Cause that would be a major cost for the company.
And how much is a person valued for?? One or two months wages, one or two years wages?? How much is the damage to Wal-mart if someone leaves the company??

I'm not crazy I'm just not your kind of sane
He who laughs last, didn't understand the joke

reply

[–] syed-pccs 15 years ago

The fact is that corpoaration that hires a human being does not own that human being and hence has no right to take an insurance on his\her life. Its like i take an insurance on your life and benefit from your death. An employee owes only his working skills to the corporation for a duration of each day, nothing more, certainly not his/her life.

reply

[–] gabby_bm 15 years ago

The fact is that corpoaration that hires a human being does not own that human being...

True. But life insurance does not denote "ownership" but rather, hardship brought about by that person's demise.

...and hence has no right to take an insurance on his\her life.

Of course, neither does a wife own her husband or vice versa. Should we do away with life insurance altogether? At what dollar amount does it amount to "profit" as opposed to reducing hardship? If my wife dies, is $10K fair or am I profiting off the death of another human being? What about $100K? A million?
My mother's death won't create a financial hardship, yet I am a beneficiary. When she dies, I stand to make a nice profit.
But I'll agree the insured should have to sign their consent to the insurance.

Really, why our military doesn't do this is beyond me. One ill-conceived war and our national debt could be wiped clean.

Its like i take an insurance on your life and benefit from your death.
Like I've stated before, as long as you're not a catalyst in or a direct/indirect cause of my death, I don't really see a problem with it.

An employee owes only his working skills to the corporation for a duration of each day, nothing more, certainly not his/her life.

And all a corporation owes is the agreed upon wage for performing those skills- nothing more, certainly not paid vacations, paid medical leave, health insurance, unemployment insurance, etc...

I don't need you to tell me how good my coffee is. .

reply

[–] rohonnag 15 years ago

ƒuck u wrote ƒuck in imdb ! thats awesome!

"You are not in Kansas anymore" Avatar, The Star Wars of our generation...

reply

[–] robertmike57 15 years ago

I thought your paraphrasing Colonel Nathan Jessup from A Few Good Men was meant as parody.

Of course, Colonel Jessup was hauled off as a criminal at the end of the movie.

But it does appear you're serious, that you are advocating that peasant insurance is good business.

Hell, if Wal Mart is insuring low level employees, that should be as a benefit to the employee's and family, not to make Wal Mart a profit. That's why Wal Mart is a pile of crap as shown.

reply

[–] gabby_bm 15 years ago

Well, it started off as a parody (and I thought a fairly decent one...), but it got lost on the way. Oh well.

The more I thought about it, I started to contemplate how the employees were injured by such a practice. We can all agree it's tasteless, it's crass and essentially reduces the employees to a number and a commodity (nothing new for large corporations). But short of feelings, I failed to see how people were actually directly injured physically or financially by such a "program".

I don't think I ever advocated it. I know I never defended it as WalMart's right to do so. In fact, I think it's a dumb program for a corporation and/or an insurance company to even get involved in.
But just because it's not right, doesn't make it wrong. And just because it's not wrong, doesn't make it right.

But frankly, I find it a non-issue unless employees are injured by it. It's only become an issue because Michael Moore brought it up in a movie.

I don't need you to tell me how good my coffee is. .

reply

[–] robertmike57 15 years ago

Not that many people would know your reference, that's why it got lost. The overall theme of the movie is corporations are profiting at the expense of everyone else, peasant insurance can be viewed in that context, even with your parody.

Michael Moore can be quite manipulative in his story telling, conservatives love taking his weak points out of context to bash him, not hard mistaking you for that. If this was a 10 minute youtube vid with no context, I would agree.

reply

[–] raindog517 15 years ago

Of COURSE noone's saying it's ILLEGAL! But do ILLEGAL and IMMORAL necessarily translate into one another? It's not ILLEGAL to cheat on one's spouse (well, in some states it is on paper). It's not ILLEGAL to FORCE someone to work a double shift when they have a family at home or kids to take to school the following morning. Hell, companies have LEGALLY fired people for taking time off to tend to sick family members. And yes, it's totally LEGAL for builders to knock on someone's door and say, "Sorry but we're building a strip mall here and we're knocking your house down. But don't worry we'll give you (make quote marks in the air) fair market value for your home."
Yes, what WalMart and so many other rotten corporations do is legal (most of the time) but it's immoral. And I'll probably get grief for this but God judges them in the end. I know, I know...the minute one says something bad about a corporation they're labeled a socialist or a communist.

"You idiot, that's condensation. It's on the outside!"

reply

[–] paul-2219 15 years ago

Personally, I think most of the people here are feeling a gut emotional reaction to the horrible fiefdom imagery "peasant death" insurance brings up, and are then filling in their own justifications for this emotion afterward. If the legal term was something less insulting; like "employer training insurance", half the howls of protest would never materialize.

Obviously, there is an possible inherent conflict of interest. The unscrupulous mine owner might want to scrimp on air changers and filters when taking out huge policies on his employees. But outside of that clearly immoral activity, for the sake of argument let's just consider a company like Walmart taking out these policies, and assume that gov't regulations and owner ethics make safety a non-issue.

IMO, a large reason people here are reflexively outraged at these life insurance policies is that it is a Greedy, Billion-Dollar Profit Corporation making the profits here, and NOT some faceless "life ASSURANCE" company. It is hatred of Walmart and the thought of Monty Burns water-skiing behind too many yachts.

As a test: Would people be as outraged if a for-profit, faceless company took out policies on workers, naming themselves as beneficiaries, simply as a business model - a way to statistically make money? I doubt it. It would just be a company playing a rather ghoulish game of chance with an insurance company that has no effect on the employee. It would be akin to a private gambler taking out a bet with a Vegas bookie that an Olympic athlete will die at the Winter games. Ghoulish, perhaps, but ALL life insurance policies are two sides making monthly bets on whether a certain person survives the month.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with a factory owner taking out a policy to help him rebuild his workplace in the event of a natural catastrophe like an earthquake. Would it be nice if he gave some to the grieving families? Sure. But immoral to keep it for himself? Not in my book. To say otherwise is to suggest that everyone who does not give all his disposable income to charity is immoral.

People of Earth! I am Kronos, King of the Monkey People!

reply

[–] federicoarbelaezz 15 years ago

Although peasant death insurance is, in a technical sense,legal, and maybe even moral, it still feels wrong, or at least, it's something I would have never come up with. The concept introduces a further dehumanization of the work force, workers are viewed as company assets, much like a chair, desk,computer, machine, etc. One could state that these is nothing new, that institutions do this all the time, and that for a government, or company, behind closed doors, we are nothing more than data, a number on a database. The fact that it's a known truth, or that it happens all the time, doesn't make it right. Although legal, and seemingly harmless, the insurance is a step further in the wrong direction, we have already let corporations sell us food and products that poison us, for the sake of profits, to accept peasant death insurance means that we are permitting corporations officially,legally consider people as items, as objects, for the sake of profit. It seems that in today's society, everything is acceptable for the sake of profits, it's somewhat justifiable that a company mistreats and exploits its workers, damages the environment, and fills the world with useless, low quality products, just because they are making money, and the business is successful. I question these kinds of practices, since the company isn't helping society,sustaining it, but they are actually making it worse. If you ship all your work offshore, and basically try with all your means to destroy the middle class, who is going to buy what you produce in the long run? The corporate world, with all of its practices, including peasant death insurance, in the middle, and long run is unsustainable. This I think, is the general message of Micheal Moore's film, he simply shows us some scenarios, and asks "How much are we willing to compromise for the sake of shot term profit?".

reply

[–] gabby_bm 15 years ago

Although peasant death insurance is, in a technical sense,legal, and maybe even moral, it still feels wrong, or at least, it's something I would have never come up with.

Me either. Though I don't think morality/immorality has anything to do with it. It's a horse bet.

The concept introduces a further dehumanization of the work force,

When, ever, was the workforce humanized?

It seems that in today's society, everything is acceptable for the sake of profits,

No, but in the business world, profit is the motivation. The insignificance of the "little guy" is adversely proportionate to the size of the business.

it's somewhat justifiable that a company mistreats and exploits its workers, damages the environment, and fills the world with useless, low quality products, just because they are making money, and the business is successful. I question these kinds of practices, since the company isn't helping society,sustaining it, but they are actually making it worse.

And the consumer isn't to blame for buying useless, low-quality, environmentally hazardous merchandise from companies who mistreat/exploit their workers?
And what exactly is this 'mistreatment" or "exploitation" to which you refer? Do they beat their workers with sticks? Do they pay them less than the agreed upon wage?

If you ship all your work offshore, and basically try with all your means to destroy the middle class, who is going to buy what you produce in the long run?
This does seem to be a conundrum, doesn't it? I suppose the people in other countries will buy those products since they are now the ones working. Unfortunately, I just don't see the people of India or Laos buying into the next "pet rock" the way Americans do.

The corporate world, with all of its practices, including peasant death insurance, in the middle, and long run is unsustainable. This I think, is the general message of Micheal Moore's film, he simply shows us some scenarios, and asks "How much are we willing to compromise for the sake of shot term profit?".

Indeed, it is unsustainable in the U.S.
But so are ever-increasing union wages, government wages, taxes, properties,
insurance, and everything else that we chain and saddle businesses with. We can't keep looking at businesses as cash-cows with an imaginary bottomless-pit of money. Any business- ANY business can crumble under the weight of progress and regulation.
No one seemed to care too much when their 401k was climbing at the expense of the "little guy". But once it dropped and jobs are lost, suddenly the panic makes us all a little more empathetic... until our stocks rebound and life gets good again.

I don't need you to tell me how good my coffee is. .

reply

[–] nicver 15 years ago

5 million dollars for the death of an employee? How do you explain this?

It's just a gamble that they take. They will pick out the ones that are most likely to die and take life insurance on them.

It would be like me taking insurance on your house, thinking it is more likely to be vandalized, robbed or burn down then the day it happens chaching! while you get nothing.

Losing productivity due to the death of an employee is called tough luck.

5 million dollars?!?

reply

[–] gabby_bm 15 years ago

5 million dollars for the death of an employee? How do you explain this?

This is the first I've heard of a $5M insurance policy on an employee. Unless it were a CEO, I can't explain it. I can't explain how it would be worth the premium WalMart would be paying every month, nor can I explain why any insurance company would underwrite such a policy.

It's just a gamble that they take. They will pick out the ones that are most likely to die and take life insurance on them.

Really? Do you really think Joe Blow in personnel at the Podunk store takes this into consideration when looking over the stellar application of Jane Blow and then submits an intercorporate memo with the "EZ Pickins" stamp of approval, and then WalMart throws their name onto an insurance policy? And just how does a person from personnel determine an employee's likelihood to die sooner than others? Who do they have going over the personnel records of 1.5 million employees (in constant flux, BTW) determining likelihood of early demise?

It would be like me taking insurance on your house, thinking it is more likely to be vandalized, robbed or burn down then the day it happens chaching! while you get nothing.

An old argument to which my reply is going to always be...
Unless you're the one vandalizing, robbing or burning down my house, (and unless WalMart is actually murdering their employees)- or in some way the catalyst in these events happening, then what the f--- difference does it make? Really, if the employee or surviving family never knows anything about the policy, completely ignorant of it, is the employee's life in some way altered by the existence of the policy?

Losing productivity due to the death of an employee is called tough luck.

And so is losing one's job due to a drop in productivity. Isn't it better to keep the living people employed?

I don't need you to tell me how good my coffee is. .

reply

[–] nicver 15 years ago

Dead Peasant should be repealed.

The only motivation is greed, which is a sin.

I always tell folks who ask me why I criticize the system, that I am 100% for ambition, which is the main economic motor in our nation, and that i am 100% against greed, which sends you to hell.

Issue is the hell-bound morons are taking this nation with them.

Taking an insurance on an employee to cover loss of productivity is one thing, making an obscene amount of money to profit from the death of an employee and not even showing a bit of compassion for the family to help them cover medical and funeral expenses is a sin.

Plain and simple.

But the bottom line is: losing an important employee and having to restructure, lose productivity and money on the bottom line is called PART OF DOING BUSINESS.

reply

[–] gabby_bm 15 years ago

Dead Peasant should be repealed.

Probably. I don't see a problem with corporate-paid/partially-paid life insurance policies where the company would be named a co-beneficiary. I think that would be a suitable compromise.

The only motivation is greed, which is a sin.

A sin? Well, I'm sure that the opinions of your imaginary flying spaghetti monster are important to you, but not really relevant in the business community.

I always tell folks who ask me why I criticize the system, that I am 100% for ambition, which is the main economic motor in our nation, and that i am 100% against greed, which sends you to hell.

Ambition requires motivation. Everyone has their own motivations. If not wealth-accumulation, what would be the motivation for creating a company that hires millions of people? Have you noticed all the wonderful foundations created by wealthy, greedy people? One could say that greed creates conditions that promote philanthropy.

Issue is the hell-bound morons are taking this nation with them.

Well obviously all the poor people will get their reward in your "heaven", so let the wealthy "sinners" have their "heaven" right now. It's not like they can ever shove a camel through a needle's eye anyway. Your god has already deemed them hell-bound and unsavable.

Taking an insurance on an employee to cover loss of productivity is one thing, making an obscene amount of money to profit from the death of an employee and not even showing a bit of compassion for the family to help them cover medical and funeral expenses is a sin.

Again with this "sin" stuff? Mythological creatures aren't helping our economy any more than they're hurting it...unless you're a manufacturer of "rapture" bumper stickers and chrome-plates "jesus-fish". If the family were paying part of the insurance premiums, then I would agree they would deserve a return on their stake/investment.

But the bottom line is: losing an important employee and having to restructure, lose productivity and money on the bottom line is called PART OF DOING BUSINESS.

Sure it is. So is increasing the workload for the surviving employees to pick up the slack without increasing their wages. So is laying off employees because production is down. So is consolidating jobs and doing away with "store greeters" who would otherwise be unable to work from their scooter.

I'm not saying it's not in bad taste. But if it were really such an issue, people would have stopped shopping and working at WalMart once this issue came to light. If it's not an issue to the company, to the workers or to the shoppers, then it's really a non-issue -except to those people who really have no interest in WalMart anyway.

I don't need you to tell me how good my coffee is. .

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] paul-2219 15 years ago

Part of doing business? Isn't it like saying fire and earthquake losses are part of doing business so let's forget about insurance? In my book, taking out policies on employees to cover replacement and re-training is perfectly moral (as long as the company is not sabotaging the work environment or rubbing the "peasants'" noses in it), REGARDLESS of how much they make off his/her death.

I'm NOT just taking a stubborn position, I've thought about this. If you found an insurance company that would pay you 10X the payout if you became sick or injured or died, at the same premiums as your old policy, wouldn't YOU jump ship and take the GREEDY policy, or would you stick with the payout that is "fair"? I think it has more to do here with the fact that it is Scrooge McDuck and Monty Burns that are making the "greedy" money, and not the deserving little guy.

Of course, like EVERY other system, capitalism has its weaknesses and unscrupulous people will always try to exploit these, and Michael Moore will always hunt them down and parade them in front of the camera to "prove" that the baby should be thrown out with the bath water, but I don't think the "greed" motivation is the fount of all evil.

Is it "greedy" to want to have 2 nice cars in the garage instead of one, or to want to go to Hawaii instead of the campground in the summer? When does "wanting a better life" turn into evil? I suppose it's when you have a Rockefeller-type sending kids down chimneys with brushes so he can sit on his mountains of cash in his golden Money Bin. But for all its downside, I believe the Greed motive is what made the Western world what it is today. Business owners that strive to create more and better and more efficient products create more wealth for themselves and their communities. I realise "trickle down" doeesn't always trickle down straight into the workers' pockets, but the alternative is the stagnant and ambition-less economies of the dictatorships and USSRs of the world.

Like Gordon Gecko said, "greed is good", at lest for a society. And Michael Moore is good, too. We need people like him to shine flashlights on those who are abusing the capitalist system, like the privatized juvenile detention center. That place needs to be closed down and the gov't officials tasked with overseeing that project fired and replaced. Mr. Moore, of course, would suggest that juvenile center is proof that the system needs to be scrapped and we all should join communes and work the fields together singing with flowers in out hair. I wonder if he is aware such a system would probably have no use for his particular skill and he might have to give up his Haliburton stock options and 5-star restaurants.

People of Earth! I am Kronos, King of the Monkey People!

reply

[–] federicoarbelaezz 15 years ago

Opposing "peasant death" doesn't mean that you are pro-communist.I recognize up front that communism is even more permeable to greed than capitalism, and much more unsustainable. The USSR collapsed in less than a century, China is pure capitalism with limited personal freedoms, and Cuba and North Korea are almost a joke. On a daily basis it can be observed how inefficient bureaucratic institutions are, compared to privately owned institutions. An undeniable truth is that money is a stronger driving force, than the desire to help fellow man. The problem with the system is that there's always someone "imaginative" enough to bend the rules to their own benefit, and take greed to new unseen scales, even if it compromises the economic well-being of an entire nation. Of course the problem with corporate unsustainability, is not only the corporation who ships jobs offshore, and produces contaminating, harmful, cheap, disposable products, but also the consumers that buy them. Who in most cases is the "little guy", who complains about the corporate-capitalist system, but who paradoxically, demands cheaper products, from those corporations. Off course Michael Moore's documentaries are biased to a certain degree, and that the man himself is also a paradox, who criticizes the system, but whose sole existence is endemic to such system. Still I can share the main points of the documentary, specially the part where points out at the death of the middle class. The middle class has been the strongest component of American society, it has been the main enabling factor behind military, and economic success throughout the XXth century. Having a large middle class enables a country to have a massive number of people, who are well educated, and well fed; waging economic, or military battles against a country with such strength is almost suicide. However, an increasing gap between the rich and the poor, where you have an increasing super-rich minority, and on the other hand have an increasingly poorly educated, poorly fed (don't have to be skinny, con also be obese) lower class, its what makes the whole system unsustainable. A countries success isn't measured on how wealthy it is, since "developing countries" make a pretty decent output, but on how that wealth is distributed throughout the population, and what % of such population has access to infrastructure, and basic products and services. The "basic" in basic products and services, is constantly being pushed down by the corporate system, at the expense of the environment, and society, and it's a shared responsibility between consumers, and companies. It may seem extreme, since American get off pretty well, compared to the rest of the world. However if the United States continues walking down that road, the more uncertain it's position as the undisputed world superpower will be, resembling more and more the model of a third world nation. One might see the world full of allies,but given the slightest chance to surpass, the superpowers of yesterday will eagerly take the spot.

reply

[–] paul-2219 15 years ago

I agree with just about everything you say, except for the assertion that American corporate unsustainability is a foregone conclusion, that rampant greed will inevitably collapse the capitalist system. If businesses can be motivated to keep our own people working (regulations and monetary penalties/rewards for employing AND buying American), the free market system will naturally redistribute the wealth. The companies that won't pay a decent wage or benefits won't find any employees. I realise these "motivations" and regulations are a step in the socialist direction, I think we all know pure laissez faire capitalism is as unsustainable as pure Communism.

And everyone keeps talking about "corporations" as the problem: evil, monolithic entities. My partners and I are technically a "corporation", even though we are just 3 people, and even WE were forced to ship computer modelling jobs overseas. I say "forced" of course because what I really mean is the only way we could compete with other companies was by hiring workers at a fraction of our minimum wage. It's not just "corporations" who have this "greedy" attitude, even the little guys like me have to adopt these strategies to stay afloat.

Of course this system has problems, but Moore's solution seems to be a Robin Hood one. At the risk of labelling the "other side", his attitude is depressingly typical of the "left". Whenever I think of the typical "democrat", the first thing I think of is "short-term thinking", knee-jerk immediate solutions.

Moore sees an injustice and wants to make sweeping changes to redress the universe immediately. Corporations are getting filthy rich? Tax all their profits away. A nice family is weeping at the kitchen table over the imminent loss of "their" home? Take it away from the evil bankers and give it back to the nice family. Your bosses won't pay what you DEMAND of them? Well just get a big enough MOB together and illegally squat on the property until they do whatever you DEMAND. Simple. Problems solved. Moore doesn't realize or care what kind of systems will move into the breach once he demolishes the one we have, and how ANY other system is MUCH more fraught with the potential for human rights abuses and personal ambition, as you pointed out.

Moore chickens out at the end of the film when he runs out of 1950's Macarthy-esque jingoistic video clips praising Capitalism, and then says "replace it with..." and then he chickens out and lamely says "democracy". He was afraid to actually say Socialism, probably because he didn't have any good video clips (other than the Roosevelt one) of Socialists he cared to champion his cause, probably realising belatedly what the end result of such societies were.

I forget who it was that said it, "Captitalism is the worst system there is, except for all the others." The problem with people like Michael Moore is they only seem to see the first half of that sentence.

People of Earth! I am Kronos, King of the Monkey People!

reply

[–] seanander 15 years ago

It was Winston Churchill, and what he said was "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried"

Keep on the grass and please don't feed the Trolls!

reply

[–] seanander 15 years ago

hey Fed,
You make many valid points, but could you please try and seperate your ideas into paragraphs. It would make it much easier to read.

Keep on the grass and please don't feed the Trolls!

reply

[–] nicver 15 years ago

I had my own business and it was mildly successful.

Mildly, because no insurance companies would cover my wife and stepson, and I had to go work first part-time, then full-time for someone else.

From this I learned two things:

1. How to run a successful business (had I been younger or single with no kids, it would probably still be running)
2. Greed is what is costing out nation grief

I had to shut down my business because our medical costs were too high. Basically, it was one of these "tough *beep* situation, and I just moved on, not complaining, just keeping on doing my thing, but for someone else.

I did keep an awful lot of resentment towards the health insurance industry, but decided to just turn it into something positive.

Yes, greed, is a bad thing. And doing business is risky. It's just part of doing business. My dad had his own business. One day he lost his best roofer. How did he lose him? He fell from the roof and died. Not only did he lose his best roofer, he lost a friend, he saw a wife become a widow and children become orphans. Of course there was an investigation and it was declared that the poor fellow died because he was doing a dangerous job and made a mistake.

My dad suffered anguish, lost sleep and, to be honest, his company lost on the bottomline as well, as he had to hire someone and train him and while doing it had to decline a few contracts.

Although he was a tough business guy, waking up in the wee hours and still able to do every single one of his employee's job, he had very strong principles and always berated the "Wall Street types", those who make a fortune from the comfort of their desks selling and buying stocks and assets.

When I think ambition, my dad is my model.

Although he never went to church, he knew the difference between greed and ambition and taught it to me from a young age.

reply

[–] gabby_bm 15 years ago

The insurance industry is probably the biggest catalyst for unaffordability. Instead of billing individuals, businesses bill "faceless" insurance corporations which means businesses don't have to keep the market (supply and demand) in mind in their prices.

If we did away with health insurance altogether, I'm quite certain we'd see a lot more reasonable prices

I don't need you to tell me how good my coffee is. .

reply

[–] procletnic 15 years ago

You just can't seem to understand the whole point. All that people like you can think about is money, how to save money, how to create money out of thin air if you will... The monetary system in it's core is corrupt and with the FIAT currency that gets printed everyday it's all spiraling out of control. And you are talking about a little scam with life insurances? Justifying it? You are a joke.

reply

[–] gabby_bm 15 years ago

The difference is that we should separate the value of money from the value of a human being- keeping business as a trade agreement between people with regards to goods and services. Five or ten dollars per hour is a reflection of that worker's service value to the company- not a reflection of their worth or their value to themselves, their family or to society.
The system is out of control because the government is out of control - from all sides. And the fact that the latest healthcare bill hands 30 million+ more customers to health insurance companies on a silver platter simply augments that point.

I don't need you to tell me how good my coffee is. .

reply

[–] stanleygoodspeed99 15 years ago

Hi gabby,

for what it's worth, I think you have identified some of the issues, ie, people's individual sense of entitlement, ie, 'it was our sibling/parent/offspring/spouse that died, therefore we should be getting money to cope with our loss if the business is getting it' which I agree with you, isn't really a valid argument.

Now, I agree with you that losing a 'high value' employee that a company has invested significant time in hiring and training would be a loss to the company that may affect its profitability negatively and also may have a flow on effect to other employees if insurance is not available. I don't for one second dispute that and agree with you that a COLI is a good idea in this case.

I think the issue is one of morality though. You can not put a Wal-Mart worker who gets paid $4/hr in the bracket of a 'high value' employee. Why? Well, for one thing, recruiting that non-skilled individual most likely didn't cost you that much. Secondly, there is a significant chance that employees such as this will be highly mobile and as such will have a lower retention rate than skilled employees mainly due to the fact that ANY job they get offered other than this one is likely to allow them to be paid more. Thirdly, such employees don't cost much to train at an individual level. 'Stock this shelf' is not hard to learn or difficult to teach to someone new who comes in, so there is no real significant investment at an individual employee level (obviously, if you look at it in total, the cost is larger, but if COLI is performed on individual employees or is charged on a per unit basis, we must look at its payoffs on a per unit basis).

The point is, to ensure yourself against the loss of such an employee appears to be more of a gamble that they will die and you will get a pay day, rather than an insurance against possible loss of this 'valuable' employee that will hurt your business immediately from them not being able to work for you anymore.

So, rather than spend the money on giving the employee health insurance, which would probably result in higher productivity and fewer absentee days, the money is spent on COLI for these low paid workers because it gives the company the bigger payoff. IE:

x = total probable productivity, efficiency and morale gains in dollar terms from providing employees health insurance

m = expected profit or gain from COLI for employees that have become incapacitated.

t = cost of health insurance for all employees

g = cost of COLI for all employees.

It is more than likely that t > g. I would say it is more than likely that t would be much larger than g. This means that straight away, for t to be a reasonable investment, x also has to be significantly higher than m. Seeing as though x is very difficult to measure and outlaying a significant amount for t without full knowing the payoff is a huge business risk.

The moral issue is that due to 'business' or 'profit', Wal-mart haven't tried the option of investing in t to gain x, they continue to invest in g to gain m. So, they are essentially hoping some of their employees die because they are worth more dead than alive when they are such low paid workers. That is the immoral part.

The question I would be asking, is how can it possibly be a profitable exercise to invest in g for low value employees? Are Wal-Mart really suggesting that m > g, ie that the m successfully offsets their training and recruitment costs for replacement staff? I would have said that is probably voodoo maths as well. I am surprised their outlay on insurance against the lives of low value employees earns them back more than the cost of the insurance in the first place, plus the cost of training and hiring a new staff member.

If it does, I want to know who their insurance agent is. No wonder AIG went under, it can't do cost benefit analysis!

"I am Jack's cold sweat."

reply

[–] paul-2219 15 years ago

I think the issue is one of morality though. You can not put a Wal-Mart worker who gets paid $4/hr in the bracket of a 'high value' employee. Why? Well, for one thing, recruiting that non-skilled individual most likely didn't cost you that much. Secondly, there is a significant chance that employees such as this will be highly mobile and as such will have a lower retention rate than skilled employees mainly due to the fact that ANY job they get offered other than this one is likely to allow them to be paid more. Thirdly, such employees don't cost much to train at an individual level. 'Stock this shelf' is not hard to learn or difficult to teach to someone new who comes in, so there is no real significant investment at an individual employee level (obviously, if you look at it in total, the cost is larger, but if COLI is performed on individual employees or is charged on a per unit basis, we must look at its payoffs on a per unit basis).

I agree with you that the entitlement/emotional argument about Dead Peasant Insurance is a spurious one, but I think your "immoral" argument is similarly flawed. You're right, there is very little if any re-training down time for WalMart to replace an unskilled worker, and WalMart's insuring shelf-stockers on that basis is dishonest. But it is not immoral. What if WalMart just came out and spoke the truth? If it said, "we've found and insurance company that will pay us a very favorable settlement for ridiculously low premiums, so why the hell shouldn't we take the deal? Who (beyond knee-jerk emotional arguments) is being hurt by this contract outside of us and the insurance company? With the two of us it is really just a "bet", a zero-sum "game" that one of us will ultimately lose." So, other than the white lie about the reason for this "wager" with the insurance company (Surprise! They want to make money) and the admitted grisly nature of the enterprise, where exactly is the immorality in this practice?

People of Earth! I am Kronos, King of the Monkey People!

reply

[–] mjswooosh 15 years ago

I'm going to (shocker) jump in here and say 1) that damnumalone makes a brilliant breakdown of the grisly nature of this business; 2) however, I'm going to counter gabby's assertion about emotional appeal of families being irrelevant in these cases, I think in fact this is a necessary component of future decision making if we are to survive as a nation state. Excluding human value and emotional response is not only unrealistic and immoral, it has a long term negative effect on economic outcome. And on a more simple level, saying that any decision making can or should be done without emotion is a bit silly anyway. Investors frequently take decisions contrary to “pure” economic judgment because they hate to admit they made mistakes in the past and because they may even be “wired” with a risk-taking gene that confounds objectivity. Decision makers at all levels do this sort of thing. CEOs with massive egos make decisions against rivals almost purely out of emotion. What needs to be done is to limit these emotional decisions when they are harmful to the collective good and encourage them when they are beneficial. An economic policy completely devoid of emotion is devoid of humanity. Ultimately, I’m very interested in the intersection of evolutionary game theory and economics, poli-sci, and the behavioral sciences. There is a lot to be learned by modeling us as we are: an animal species. Rather than modeling us as some economic theorists wish we were: robots.

reply

[–] gabby_bm 15 years ago

Considering how corporations exploit emotions for marketing (beer, diet pills, penis enlargement) it stands to reason that emotions play a part- but only from a marketing perspective (sales, charity, image). If COLI would have had a severe impact on business, they would have stopped doing it. This is why it's the responsibility of the consumer and investor to put their money where their mouth is.
You are wanting to unite the businessman with the man as if they are inseparable entities. The life of a businessman is often a double life, replete with personal conflicts in responsibility, both social and economic.
I'm not saying that a businessman should put all emotions aside on all business decisions and become robotic any more than employees should. But it would be beneficial for all to be aware of their emotionalism and conclude which decisions are emotional outbursts and which ones are sensible economics. This applies to the CEO who responds emotionally to falling sales, all the way down to the grunt worker who quits his job in a huff (often followed with regret).
A boss can be sensitive to an employee's feelings or lifestyle, but is acting generously in the best interest of the business, the investors and the employees overall?
And is it fair to apply this argument one-sidedly? After all, a boss doesn't expect his employees to act generously should business necessitate it. How many employees offer to take pay cuts and work harder hours when a business starts failing? Did we see much in the way of union worker concessions over the last few years from the UAW? Did they offer to take a reduction in pay? Or are they also greedy businessmen who care only about THEIR profits?

I don't need you to tell me how good my coffee is. .

reply

[–] mickeyone 15 years ago

This is why it's the responsibility of the consumer and investor to put their money where their mouth is.

Hear that all you consumers out there? Gabby says you must find out about the companies you buy from before you do so. So, the next time you are out shopping for a new set of razor blades (oh, do they still sell those separately anymore?), before you choose what brand to buy, please go and research each company and make sure the one you do buy from is operating in a manner that coincides with your values and principles. Before you shop at any store, please look into what their business practices are! Are they truly treating their workers fairly and with respect and decency? Are they paying them the wages they deserve? Do they sell their products at reasonable prices? Be sure to get a large selection of views from different perspectives, because, after all, some reviewers might be more inclined to give them a good grade then others, you know. Like, some reviewers might even be being paid off by the company/retailer they are reviewing so you have to watch out for things like that. Why not do a bunch of random on-the-spot interviews of employees, to get a real good idea of what goes on there. Oh, what's that? You don't have time to do that, because you are already working 2 jobs just to stay afloat. Oh, well that's real tough. Maybe you could read the reviews during your lunch breaks.

reply

[–] doug-643 15 years ago

Just because it's hard doesn't remove your responsibility. Go ahead and buy your stuff made with virtual slave labor in China because it's "too hard to be responsible".

reply

[–] mixedmed 14 years ago

Just because it's hard doesn't remove your responsibility. Go ahead and buy your stuff made with virtual slave labor in China because it's "too hard to be responsible".

Seems like that argument should also apply to corporations. Funny how responsibility always have to fall on the individuals but it's *too hard* or *harmful* to also expect corporations to apply the same principle.

reply

[–] gabby_bm 14 years ago

Seems like that argument should also apply to corporations. Funny how responsibility always have to fall on the individuals but it's *too hard* or *harmful* to also expect corporations to apply the same principle.

Yes, it probably should apply to corporations. But the difference is that a corporation lacks a conscience. All we can hope is that the individuals who are the construct of a corporation use theirs.
An individual has several motivations from which they address their actions. A corporation generally has a single focus. You won't see many corporations weeping for the whales, even though the individuals who make up that corporation do.
This is why it does come down to individual responsibility. I cannot make my fellow shareholders care. Nor is it right to use their money according to my personal values. I can only be guided by my own conscience and they, theirs. And perhaps those with a common sense of social responsibility can form a corporation.

I don't need you to tell me how good my coffee is. .

reply

[–] BigFatLou 15 years ago

I will agree with the OP on one thing: banks and financial intermediaries are needed to channel funds from savers to investors. This is fundamental to a healthy economy and a healthy society. If you have a good idea and need funds to make it happen, you need an intermediary to borrow from.

However, I don't think the movie criticizes the free market as such. It criticizes the fact that government has undermined the free market system, and allowed 1% of the population to control 90% of the wealth. Do they deserve it? Probably not. Under a completely free market, this would never be the case.

I enjoyed the scenes with the worker-controlled bread factory and engineering firm. It would be awesome to have a free economy like that. Being controlled by a CEO and board of directors isn't necessarily a bad thing, but by this point it may be a bit outdated. I hope for a future when companies and corporations will be controlled partly or wholly by workers working in competition against other firms.

So, OP, there is nothing wrong with the profit motive. We are all human beings, and we all have goals that we'd like to maximize, profit being one of them. Heck, even union members want to maximize their own well-being. However, the truly free market should be defended against oligarchy.

reply

[–] JimmyCarter-1976 15 years ago

Congratulations on your paraphrasing. I could almost hear Jack Nicholson saying those words. I have also concluded, based on your choice of passages to paraphrase, that it was intended satiricly.

The reality is that the vast majority of people that shop at Walmart are not at all interested in saving domestic jobs, unless that job is their own. They assume that someone else will pay the price of them being able to buy a microwave for $39. So what if another human being is deprived of their livilihood, as long as they get what they want at a good price.

When they finally have to pay for globalization of goods and services with the loss of their jobs, they won't see the irony that they helped bring about their own demise. It's a little like smoking, you know it's bad for you, but it is just too addictive to give up.

reply

[–] criztu 15 years ago

"dead peasant's insurance", while tragic, probably saved money and that WalMart's existence

exactly. Walmart could hire hitmen to kill its employees to get the money from insurance they put on their life without their consent and knowledge. That is unethical, immoral by creating criminal premises, it should be illegal. I hope you dont need to be explained how is that.

reply