The 14 Worst Corporatations

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

There's absolutely nothing wrong with presenting information.

OK, thanks then.

farfromglorified

ryan198 wrote:

b/c the source of an authors voice is PART OF the context of fact.

So if a white person tells you that 2+2=4, and a black person tells you that 2+2=4, they've told you something fundamentally different?

knowing who someone is identity-wise makes up a large portion of what/how they are going to think. so an individual's 'facts' (as if there is a such thing as a cold hard fact - even the most positivist scientist will argue against you on that) are most definitely shaped by their indentity.

If there isn't a cold, hard fact, how is there an identity?

There are no facts my friend, they are all incomplete, they are all shaped by the dominant and subversive trends of society at a current moment.

Do you understand that "there are no facts" would be a fact?

Yes one is outwardly political and admits it. The other is insidiously political and claims to present truths. I'm not saying one is better than the other, I'm just saying that I'd rather know the politics behind given statements before I make judgements on them. It's part of the context.

Ok. The next time I look up the chemical compounds of a substance on Wikipedia, I'll be sure to consider the socio-political context of the author.

That's because something that is right at this moment could be wrong in the next moment. Remember when scientists thought that women couldn't play sports because they would be unable to reproduce. Or when scientists claimed that black people were genetically dumber that white people. Now women can play sports, and the human genome project has concluded that their is no essential race. When power shifts, dominant ideologies shift, and "FACTS" shift.

Um...none of those were facts in or after the moment, pal. It's only the mindset that believes facts are the product of perception that would ever refer to those things as facts.

So using that logic...if you make more money on a particular product that you sell than you pay to the laborer and all the extra-costs (thus make a profit) YOU are a thief.

You forgot my contribution to the product.

If you make a profit, which is paying less economic value to someone for their labor value. IE - it costs 1 unit in materials to make a widget, you pay your worker 3 units to make it, and you turn around and sell it for 6 units for a profit of 2. You certainly exploited the worker, and the environment from which you took the material. That's easy to see.

Who invented the widget then? Who designed the widget factory? Or is that just a product of my genes?

Wrong. No I do not. I am arguing that neither you/Rand nor Marx allows for the kind of nuance that I am calling for. Read Lawrence Grossberg's interview with Stuart Hall called "Marxism without Gaurantees" to see where I align myself. In that Hall states that the marxist structure is too rigid, as is plain agency, the two are in constant interplay.

So I have to read someone else's words to see where you align yourself?

No but also because you are of a certain class, sexual preference, and age position that allows you to be a part of the dominant face of America. Again this is fluid, if you walk into an Ani DiFranco concert your relative level of privilege is not the same as it is if you are at a Pearl Jam concert. Generally there are more things in the U.S. that reflect a Pearl Jam concerts demographic than an Ani DiFranco concert.

I've gone to an Ani DiFranco concert. I had a good time. Nobody stole my wallet and told me it was the price I pay for my genes.

Some...but some can't and you cannot solely blame the individual in these situations you need to outline the context of the situation before blaming the poor for being poor.

I don't blame the poor kid for being poor. Similarly, I don't blame myself for the poor kid being poor. I do, however, reward the rich kid who comes out of the ghetto and does something I find value in.

Yes yourself a white, heterosexual, male who has the unspoken advantage in most situations in life.

You're right...gay black kids never beat me in chess.

First of all no I am not arguing that everything comes from your genes, but it does help. How about something as stupid as this what color is an Ace Wrap? What color are band-aids? What color is a crayola Flesh crayon? What is the universal in English Man or Woman?

My band-aids had Flinstones on them (all white by the way). But the rest is true. Now can you tell me why these things are causes, rather than symptoms?

Hey I recognize that his system wasn't perfect, but Rand's system of corporate lassez faire capitalism has never worked anywhere ever.

The difference is that in a system of lassez faire capitalism anyone is free to live by Marx's ideals with other willing participants.

Alright lets not be so egotistical for a second and look at W. He was born into a high powered family. The man was a knob for years, an alchy, coke blowing moron who's mommy and daddy paid for him to get through school. He ran 8 businesses into the ground, and sucked at owning the Rangers. He's our president?!?!?!? You're telling me that he individually earned all that on his own...got no structural help? Please, tell me that the latina lesbian living in the inner city could behave the same way as him and be president...now way! And you know it. So look at your life, and say if I were a race/class/gender/sexual pref. minority would I still have been able to make it where I was making the same decisions!??! I would again argue no way. People would treat you differently, speak to you differently, and make different assumptions about you before you even opened your mouth. That's the structure and that's where Rand's argument falls flat.

Ayn Rand's argument wins because George Bush would have absolutely no influence over any of our lives in her world. George Bush is just an idiot, understand? It takes our corrupt system to make him a leader of 400,000,000 men.

Objectivity does not and cannot exist...see above.

Objectivity does exist, but men can choose to ignore it.

Kant was a high-class snob who also made value decisions based on people's standings in life. I never said man's mind was impotent just in constant battle with the structure.

Ok, thank you.

No it's called the capitalist business sense, and since we live in a time where neo-liberal capitalist rule dominates our thoughts we just think that paying people less than what they give us is good business. In reality it's exploitation to various degrees.

But paying people less than what they give is awful business. It always has been, it always will be.

The coffee shop made a 900% profit off the cup of coffee and didn't give all that money back to their laborers...that's how exploitation works. Profit is based on exploitation. The consumer is part of it only b/c they are paying.

But their laborers didn't conceive of that coffee shop. There's your 900%.

I'm pretty sure they will find a way out of it. Although Costco would seem to help argue your point.

Wal-Mart likely will find a way out of it. And it's going to mean better stores and better labor. Costco is a different business model and likely won't supplant the day-to-day supermarket.

Again what about being the Wal-Mart employee who needs that money to be putting food on the table so they can't quit following your two ridiculous addendums? How about unpaid overtime where the employee is unable to refuse without being fired?

But it isn't Wal-Mart's fault that the person needs that job to put food on the table. Wal-Mart did nothing on its own to create such a situation.

rebornFixer

One of the unwritten credos on the MT:

When beaten in an argument, resort to bashing white men and other "people of priviledge".

angelica

reborncareerist wrote:

One of the unwritten credos on the MT:

When beaten in an argument, resort to bashing white men and other "people of priviledge".

Let me guess: as spoken by a white man.

rebornFixer

angelica wrote:

Let me guess: as spoken by a white man.

Thanks for proving my point!

angelica

reborncareerist wrote:

Thanks for proving my point!

Exactly.:)

farfromglorified

El_Kabong wrote:

i'll ask it for the umpteenth time since you always ignore it:
you say constantly it's the consumers fault for supporting corporations and eating bad stuff b/c they should spend the time to investigate what's in their food, how it's made, the business practices of the company...yet when someone posts something sheding light on it you can't wait to try and delegitimize it...why? what do you ahve w/ spreading info? b/c it's not the info YOU want to hear/read? b/c it doesn't take 5 posts or more to fit every aspect of the company in so you can think 'well that's balanced...it says coke privatizes water and lots and lots of ppl drink and enjoy their products!'?

Dude, I'l answer you for the umpteenth time. You are not interested in educating consumers such that they can make their own determinations. Stop hiding behind that claim. You are interested in voters and consumers reaching your conclusions. Your posts are consistently one-sided and anti-business. That is your right. You may be as anti-business as you'd like. But don't pretend that you're trying to paint a complete picture. You don't.

no, but that program was cut, it could've easily been funded w/ the bonus money or part of their no-bid contract $ or the overcharges...see where i'm going? see; they CUT programs that are beneficial to society and instead give that money to friends, investors and former companies.

It could have been funded just as easily with the Medicaid drug plan, or the social security fund, or the war itself, or the EPA budget, or part of the highway budget.

first, $10million is not the total figure involved here. and while it may be a small % it is still a lot of money not hte end of the world but still theft. if i robbed a bank and only took 2% of the cash, woudl they let me go? woudl it not still be a crime?

It certainly would be a crime. But Halliburton is not 'robbing the bank'. They are a contractor. Like many contractors, they have made billing errors. Some of those errors are willful fraud. They should be punished. But they should also be rewarded for their successes.

it depends, do those bills end up to several millions-billions? if so then i'd say yes, shut them down.

And then it would be only a matter of time until you complained about corporate America leaving our kids on the streets, right?

if i rob a lady and help her up before i leave, i still robbed her, helping her up did nothing to take away from me stealing form her. so lots of bills were correct...so the fuck what!? they overcharged multi millions - billions, what don't you understand about that? that's several millions-billions that could've stopped student loans from being cut, from headstart being cut...

So the fuck what??? I love it. Your standard of failure requires a standard of success. When someone succeeds "lots" of times, you say "so the fuck what". And when they miss it a couple of times, you go apeshit. And then you ask me how I can run a business. Punish failure, reward success. That's how it works.

that you are jsutifying the theft of several millions - billions of $ that could be used on the american society instead of the pockets of friends. iyou are too funny...they are stealing billions of dollars and you shrug and say 'meh, no one's perfect, they have done other things right so....lets give them even more money than their inflated bills and give em a bonus!'

I'm not justifying theft. That's your business, taxman. Punish failure. Punish failure. Punish failure. Punish failure. Punish failure. Punish failure. Punish failure. Got it?

Now, reward success.

rebornFixer

When my super-awesome-mega white man powers magically pay off my credit cards and student loan debt, I'll concede your point. Until then, let's just concede that people of all creeds need to work for a living ...

angelica

reborncareerist wrote:

When my super-awesome-mega white man powers magically pay off my credit cards and student loan debt, I'll concede your point. Until then, let's just concede that people of all creeds need to work for a living ...

You're free to concede what you like.

Insensitivity to the experiences of others is based on ignorance, not priviledge.

ryan198

reborncareerist wrote:

When my super-awesome-mega white man powers magically pay off my credit cards and student loan debt, I'll concede your point. Until then, let's just concede that people of all creeds need to work for a living ...

i can't even begin to argue with someone carrying the white man's burden. look you are privileged for being white, and a man. that does not mean that you didn't have to work, or didn't have to get yourself out of certain situation. in our racist and partiarchal world being white it makes it easier.

rebornFixer

angelica wrote:

You're free to concede what you like.

Insensitivity to the experiences of others is based on ignorance, not priviledge.

Flowery language does not a good argument make ... Arguably, my background makes me BETTER able to understand what poverty and discrimination is like, as compared to a brown-skinned rich kid whose daddy is putting him through med school. Poverty cuts across all boundaries.

Didn't mean to hijack this thread.

rebornFixer

ryan198 wrote:

i can't even begin to argue with someone carrying the white man's burden. look you are privileged for being white, and a man. that does not mean that you didn't have to work, or didn't have to get yourself out of certain situation. in our racist and partiarchal world being white it makes it easier.

Alright, it would be easy to respond to this by getting angry, but let's take the high road ...
I do not carry a "White Man's Burden", I am not John Travolta. I just haven't had much handed to me, I don't think I come from a background that was particularly privledged. If you cannot understand where I am coming from, then maybe you are being as close-minded as the very people you label as "the problem".

angelica

reborncareerist wrote:

Flowery language does not a good argument make ... Arguably, my background makes me BETTER able to understand what poverty and discrimination is like, as compared to a brown-skinned rich kid whose daddy is putting him through med school. Poverty cuts across all boundaries.

Didn't mean to hijack this thread.

Insensitivity and ignorance is insensitivity and ignorance, despite background.

farfromglorified

ryan198 wrote:

i can't even begin to argue with someone carrying the white man's burden. look you are privileged for being white, and a man. that does not mean that you didn't have to work, or didn't have to get yourself out of certain situation. in our racist and partiarchal world being white it makes it easier.

I find it sad that few on this board probably recognize how racist or sexist this statement is.

Ryan, I hear where you're coming from. Being of a certain sex/race/etc can help in certain situations. But it doesn't help my friend's niece who's one of ten white people in her high school class of 350, or the black kid who's in the reverse situation.

A racist is a person who believes that someone's race defines their character. A sexist is a person who believes that someone's sex defines their character. You meet both standards above. To tell another individual that they have something because of their race or sex is to make a judgment about an individual based on nothing more than that race or that sex. That is wrong.

rebornFixer

angelica wrote:

Insensitivity and ignorance is insensitivity and ignorance, despite background.

As you so aptly demonstrate.

ryan198

farfromglorified wrote:

So if a white person tells you that 2+2=4, and a black person tells you that 2+2=4, they've told you something fundamentally different?

Even in this situation where two people of different identities agree where they come from and how they've come to learn that 2+2=4 are likely markedly different. As such, since it is part of the context it's probably important to know

farfromglorified wrote:

If there isn't a cold, hard fact, how is there an identity?

Identity is fluid and ever-changing. For you when at work you are the boss right, you identify as the boss and "man in charge". When you go home you are farfromglorified. Similarly a persons ethnic (racial) make-up, gender, sex, etc. can shift from second-to-second.

farfromglorified wrote:

Do you understand that "there are no facts" would be a fact?

Yeah i guess you win, but that statement could be argued.

farfromglorified wrote:

Ok. The next time I look up the chemical compounds of a substance on Wikipedia, I'll be sure to consider the socio-political context of the author.

it may help you understand better why it was written and the way it was written in.

farfromglorified wrote:

Um...none of those were facts in or after the moment, pal. It's only the mindset that believes facts are the product of perception that would ever refer to those things as facts.

EXACTLY!!! You got it...so now you're starting to see how the structure works!!!

farfromglorified wrote:

You forgot my contribution to the product.

Alright I'll add that in, I was just trying to make it simple.

farfromglorified wrote:

Who invented the widget then? Who designed the widget factory? Or is that just a product of my genes?

You love simplifying my arguements, to genes, or rote structural determinism, when that is clearly not what I say. Do you want overhead cost, and inventors cost added in fine, but in the end it's still exploitation.

farfromglorified wrote:

So I have to read someone else's words to see where you align yourself?

Same as you would have me do with Ayn Rand. It's a 30 page article, and it provides more nuance than I can in a messageboard argument, I thought you'd like that in your constant struggle for objectivity. I gave you the basic premise of the article and how it has influenced my thinking (the same way Rand has influenced or reinforced yours), and thus was giving you the context for my argument. You really have a problem with learning from others it seems unless you do it yourself.

farfromglorified wrote:

I've gone to an Ani DiFranco concert. I had a good time. Nobody stole my wallet and told me it was the price I pay for my genes.

What? You totally missed my point. At an Ani concert being white and male is not a position of privilege. You are not in the majority, and, having been to 2 myself, I am treated differently b/c of it.

farfromglorified wrote:

I don't blame the poor kid for being poor. Similarly, I don't blame myself for the poor kid being poor. I do, however, reward the rich kid who comes out of the ghetto and does something I find value in.

I didn't say to blame yourself...you are so freaking self-centered it's not even funny. I just said have compassion and understand that you were born with certain privileges that other people do not enjoy. As a result of that and your good choices you've lived a better life, I just want you to recognize that.

farfromglorified wrote:

You're right...gay black kids never beat me in chess.

WTF? Huh. You're weird.

farfromglorified wrote:

My band-aids had Flinstones on them (all white by the way). But the rest is true. Now can you tell me why these things are causes, rather than symptoms?

Symptoms of what farfrom? Say it...say it...ok we'll start slowly S-T-R-U-C-T-U-R-E, that spells structure. A society that privileges white maleness is a symptom if it's STRUCTURE. The very thing you deny existing.

farfromglorified wrote:

The difference is that in a system of lassez faire capitalism anyone is free to live by Marx's ideals with other willing participants.

i disagree wholeheartedly. unless we start at 0, and that means erasing histories of opression, there is no way for lassez faire capitalism to work in the democratic way you mention.

farfromglorified wrote:

Ayn Rand's argument wins because George Bush would have absolutely no influence over any of our lives in her world. George Bush is just an idiot, understand? It takes our corrupt system to make him a leader of 400,000,000 men.

no this is where it falls off b/c you would have to erase histories of opression and dominance by rich white men for her plan to work...it can't happen.

farfromglorified wrote:

Objectivity does exist, but men can choose to ignore it.

That's subjective.

farfromglorified wrote:

But paying people less than what they give is awful business. It always has been, it always will be.

If you are paying more than what they give then you shouldn't be turning a profit.

farfromglorified wrote:

But their laborers didn't conceive of that coffee shop. There's your 900%.

So conceiving a coffee shop is worth that much? That's a bit elitist.

farfromglorified wrote:

Wal-Mart likely will find a way out of it. And it's going to mean better stores and better labor. Costco is a different business model and likely won't supplant the day-to-day supermarket.

When has the shift to neo-liberal economics EVER meant better stores and better labor? It has always meant cheaper labor and similar prices.

farfromglorified wrote:

But it isn't Wal-Mart's fault that the person needs that job to put food on the table. Wal-Mart did nothing on its own to create such a situation.

Wal-Mart contributes to the structure. If you want me to break it down into simplistic (this is way causal but for the time being follow) terms think of this. Underpaid Wal-Mart worker has a kid she can't afford to live in the burbs with the richies. Sends kid to shitty inner-city school that you'd like to abandon for lassez faire capitalist schools where the richest get to go to the best schools and the poor go to the poor (oh wait that's what's happening today pretty much). Kid gets shitty education, can't go to college, has to work at Wal-Mart. Now obviously more stuff goes into that equation, but Wal-Mart certainly has it's hand in the underprivileged cookie jar...they need a willing workforce.

El_Kabong

reborncareerist wrote:

When my super-awesome-mega white man powers magically pay off my credit cards and student loan debt, I'll concede your point. Until then, let's just concede that people of all creeds need to work for a living ...

you fool!! you're not supposed to let them know about the super-awesome-mega powers!

ryan198

farfromglorified wrote:

I find it sad that few on this board probably recognize how racist or sexist this statement is.

Ryan, I hear where you're coming from. Being of a certain sex/race/etc can help in certain situations. But it doesn't help my friend's niece who's one of ten white people in her high school class of 350, or the black kid who's in the reverse situation.

A racist is a person who believes that someone's race defines their character. A sexist is a person who believes that someone's sex defines their character. You meet both standards above. To tell another individual that they have something because of their race or sex is to make a judgment about an individual based on nothing more than that race or that sex. That is wrong.

I said nothing of a persons character now did I? What I did say is that we live in a society that more often than not privileges men and white people, it just does. As such being a man and white gives you unearned privileges regardless of your character. I'm sure reborn is a good person who works hard, but in most of America if he were a woman and latina and made the same choices and worked just as hard he would likely not be in the same position. White man's burden is when people of the majority fail to see their privilege and actually think they have it harder in a society that has bent over backward to their needs. If you think that's racist then I am sorry, but I disagree.

ryan198

El_Kabong wrote:

you fool!! you're not supposed to let them know about the super-awesome-mega powers!

i know how are we supposed to keep them if we let "others" know about them?

farfromglorified

ryan198 wrote:

I said nothing of a persons character now did I?

Yes. The character of the men who offer and receive the privileges you describe here:

What I did say is that we live in a society that more often than not privileges men and white people, it just does. As such being a man and white gives you unearned privileges regardless of your character. I'm sure reborn is a good person who works hard, but in most of America if he were a woman and latina and made the same choices and worked just as hard he would likely not be in the same position. White man's burden is when people of the majority fail to see their privilege and actually think they have it harder in a society that has bent over backward to their needs. If you think that's racist then I am sorry, but I disagree.

Everything you say above requires granters and receivers of those "privileges".