IM and Morality

[darenet]

For me, morality > sell and promote something that doesn't hurt/blatantly lie to people. Like a cure for cancer, or 7-day-get-rich-quickly program. There are a lot of decent stuff to promote out there and a lot of problems to solve if you're selling something.

 

[Spelunking]

If a fool and his money are soon parted, I would rather be the one getting the money. And I know I am not going to shove a huge destroy-your-life-dildo up their ass. Scamming people is not moral, but offering a product that may or may not be good is not. Buyers should be educated any way.

PS Walmart is fucking evil. they make bank, and I respect them for their ability to kick ass, but theyre evil as fuck.

 

[guerilla]

I'm not going to derail this thread with an in depth analysis of the downward effect that retailers like WalMart have on local economies - there is plenty of research on the subject that you can look up.

I would like to see this research. Can you give me keywords to search?

 

[pocketrockets]

I would like to see this research. Can you give me keywords to search?

Not sure if serious so I'll just throw a few examples out there:

- Wal-Mart:.edu

- edu:wal-mart impact studies

- wal-mart impact on small business

A great study that was performed 10yrs ago on the impact of Big Box Grocers in Southern California. (including Wal-Mart)

KEY FINDINGS
¨
The aggressive entry of supercenters such as those operated by Wal-Mart into the regional grocery business is expected to depress industry wages and benefits at an estimated impact ranging from a low of $500 million to a high of almost $1.4 billion per year, potentially effecting 250,000 grocery industry employees.

The full economic impact of those lost wages and benefits throughout southern California could approach $2.8 billion per year.

Discount retail chains that operate supercenters, including Wal-Mart, typically offer much less comprehensive health care coverage than major California grocery chains. One negative economic impact of Supercenters could be a dramatic reduction in health coverage for most of the 250,000 grocery employees in California. This can lead to lower quality care
for grocery employees whose health insurance benefits are reduced.

The fiscal benefits of supercenters, and of discount retail more generally, are often much more complex, and lower, than they first appear. This is particularly true when big box retailers close existing stores to move into larger quarters elsewhere, when they expand an existing store into food, and when retailers reconfigure an existing store to sell food without expansion. In each case the additional tax revenues generated will in
part come from existing businesses elsewhere in the city in the form of lost market share.

Supercenters, especially Wal-Mart supercenters, are often conversions of existing discount retail stores. Thus local officials should carefully consider the possibility of a future conversion to a supercenter, and any attendant negative economic, fiscal, or land use impacts, when approving big box discount retail projects, even when the proposed land use does not include immediate plans for grocery sales.

 

[blogspotter]

Not sure if serious so I'll just throw a few examples out there:

- Wal-Mart:.edu

- edu:wal-mart impact studies

- wal-mart impact on small business

A great study that was performed 10yrs ago on the impact of Big Box Grocers in Southern California. (including Wal-Mart)

KEY FINDINGS
¨
The aggressive entry of supercenters such as those operated by Wal-Mart into the regional grocery business is expected to depress industry wages and benefits at an estimated impact ranging from a low of $500 million to a high of almost $1.4 billion per year, potentially effecting 250,000 grocery industry employees.

The full economic impact of those lost wages and benefits throughout southern California could approach $2.8 billion per year.

Discount retail chains that operate supercenters, including Wal-Mart, typically offer much less comprehensive health care coverage than major California grocery chains. One negative economic impact of Supercenters could be a dramatic reduction in health coverage for most of the 250,000 grocery employees in California. This can lead to lower quality care
for grocery employees whose health insurance benefits are reduced.

The fiscal benefits of supercenters, and of discount retail more generally, are often much more complex, and lower, than they first appear. This is particularly true when big box retailers close existing stores to move into larger quarters elsewhere, when they expand an existing store into food, and when retailers reconfigure an existing store to sell food without expansion. In each case the additional tax revenues generated will in
part come from existing businesses elsewhere in the city in the form of lost market share.

Supercenters, especially Wal-Mart supercenters, are often conversions of existing discount retail stores. Thus local officials should carefully consider the possibility of a future conversion to a supercenter, and any attendant negative economic, fiscal, or land use impacts, when approving big box discount retail projects, even when the proposed land use does not include immediate plans for grocery sales.

Not to mention they are one of the biggest Importers of anything..

PS: I predict this thread will be derailed already

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

I would like to see this research. Can you give me keywords to search?

I would like to think you're smarter than that Guerilla.

 

[guerilla]

I would like to think you're smarter than that Guerilla.

Me too. I'm surprised you would appeal to research when all I have seen is conjecture.

To believe that Walmart provides a cost without a benefit implies that trade is a zero sum game. That's obviously a fallacious position.

 

[guerilla]

Not to mention they are one of the biggest Importers of anything..

And what does that mean? How do they pay for foreign goods? By trading US dollars for foreign currency? So are they not exporting dollars, which come back in future trades (or used as reserves to soak up inflation)?

Trade is not a single step in a complex economy with a sophisticated division of labor and multiple mediums of exchange (currencies).

 

[guerilla]

Not sure if serious so I'll just throw a few examples out there:

Absolutely serious. I would like to see quality research.

KEY FINDINGS
¨
The aggressive entry of supercenters such as those operated by Wal-Mart into the regional grocery business is expected to depress industry wages and benefits at an estimated impact ranging from a low of $500 million to a high of almost $1.4 billion per year, potentially effecting 250,000 grocery industry employees.

The full economic impact of those lost wages and benefits throughout southern California could approach $2.8 billion per year.

Discount retail chains that operate supercenters, including Wal-Mart, typically offer much less comprehensive health care coverage than major California grocery chains. One negative economic impact of Supercenters could be a dramatic reduction in health coverage for most of the 250,000 grocery employees in California. This can lead to lower quality care
for grocery employees whose health insurance benefits are reduced.

Not very specific or precise, is it? I could make the same assertions in reverse, and no one would buy it. Or at least, I would be disappointed if anyone did.

The fiscal benefits of supercenters, and of discount retail more generally, are often much more complex, and lower, than they first appear. This is particularly true when big box retailers close existing stores to move into larger quarters elsewhere, when they expand an existing store into food, and when retailers reconfigure an existing store to sell food without expansion. In each case the additional tax revenues generated will in
part come from existing businesses elsewhere in the city in the form of lost market share.

This is basically a complaint about how these super stores are more efficient, and thus generate less property and business taxes, and this makes city council feel bad that a business is so efficient, because it means they get to expropriate less money from citizens through higher prices at checkout.

You see, super stores like this are popular because they can offer lower prices, and they do it by being more efficient, and this includes negating the effect of taxation as an overhead.

Supercenters, especially Wal-Mart supercenters, are often conversions of existing discount retail stores. Thus local officials should carefully consider the possibility of a future conversion to a supercenter, and any attendant negative economic, fiscal, or land use impacts, when approving big box discount retail projects, even when the proposed land use does not include immediate plans for grocery sales.

This doesn't seem to have any value to the debate. It's more "don't license efficient businesses which take over inefficient businesses and deliver lower prices! They are bad for us!"

There are some decent critiques that can be made of Walmart, but I almost never see them online. Instead, it's the same mercantilism that Adam Smith refuted in The Wealth of Nations in 1776.

 

[justo_tx]

I felt cheated and disappointed in my father. You know why? His moral objection had no bearing on whether people decided to smoke or not. It's their choice, not his.

That strikes me as a pretty serious statement. While normally I loathe to see a thread devolve into another parody of Godwin's law I see inflections, for lack of a better word, of the banality of evil in that statement. To each his own.

 

[cheshire]

Morals and Ethics are just words that the poor hide behind to justify their lack of ambition, willpower and their shitty position in life. Its an excuse son.

- My Dad

Morals are subjective, what is immoral or unethical to you is all in a days work for me. I don't have to justify what I do to me or anyone else, I accept it at face value. People buy shitty products, day and night, year round. Are you going to be the one to take their money, or are you going to stay poor and remain jealous of the people that do?

 

[justo_tx]

Morals and Ethics are just words that the poor hide behind to justify their lack of ambition, willpower and their shitty position in life. Its an excuse son.

- My Dad

Morals are subjective, what is immoral or unethical to you is all in a days work for me. I don't have to justify what I do to me or anyone else, I accept it at face value. People buy shitty products, day and night, year round. Are you going to be the one to take their money, or are you going to stay poor and remain jealous of the people that do?

That's bullshit posturing unless the only thing keeping you from pushing heroine and pimping out runaway teenage girls is the fear of jail time (and if that is all that's holding you back, well then kudos of sorts to you.)

 

[cheshire]

That's bullshit posturing unless the only thing keeping you from pushing heroine and pimping out runaway teenage girls is the fear of jail time (and if that is all that's holding you back, well then kudos of sorts to you.)

I have sold drugs in the past, doesn't bother me a bit selling a junkie his fix. I quit because I got tired of getting harassed by cops, and other factors.

I don't pimp out runaway teenage girls because pimping isn't my chosen profession, but if it was, I'd do it and sleep soundly at night. And for the most part yes, its the law that "holds me back" from doing a lot of things. If I'm in jail it hurts my long-term ability to profit, so it makes better sense to make money within the limits of the law.

My point was that if you put the "morals and ethics" microscope on any money making venture can find something "morally and ethically" wrong by traditional Judeo-Christian ethics (which most of us are taught from birth, and drilled into us). Morals are subjective to the person. I was taught it is morally wrong to not try and earn a profit where there is a viable, paying market. Its their duty to protect themselves, not mine. Caveat Emptor.

 

[pocketrockets]

Not very specific or precise, is it? I could make the same assertions in reverse, and no one would buy it. Or at least, I would be disappointed if anyone did.

You didn't even read that study did you? There was 119 pgs of full of analysis and real numbers.

 

[justo_tx]

I have sold drugs in the past, doesn't bother me a bit selling a junkie his fix. I quit because I got tired of getting harassed by cops, and other factors.

I don't pimp out runaway teenage girls because pimping isn't my chosen profession, but if it was, I'd do it and sleep soundly at night. And for the most part yes, its the law that "holds me back" from doing a lot of things. If I'm in jail it hurts my long-term ability to profit, so it makes better sense to make money within the limits of the law.

My point was that if you put the "morals and ethics" microscope on any money making venture can find something "morally and ethically" wrong by traditional Judeo-Christian ethics (which most of us are taught from birth, and drilled into us). Morals are subjective to the person. I was taught it is morally wrong to not try and earn a profit where there is a viable, paying market. Its their duty to protect themselves, not mine. Caveat Emptor.

Fair enough, so many people throw out unqualified statements without acknowledging the world outside their current context.

 

[galacon]

Marketing is inherently manipulative.

As marketers (especially "direct" marketers), it is our goal to convince our fellow man, through differing degrees of persuasion and/or subterfuge/dishonesty, to purchase products and services that they probably would NOT have purchased without our influence, at least not from us or through the venues we would like them to.

Many use hype copy, NLP techniques, fear, greed, scarcity, envy... and sometimes Outright Bullshit LIES, especially when the heat is on to convert or starve.

It's up to each individual to decide where there "Ethical Threshold" is, and abide accordingly. It's different for each of us.

Now GTFO and go write your "Ethics In Marketing" E-Book, and market it "Ethically". Just be careful how you quote me, or I will sue you for royalties.

 

[guerilla]

You didn't even read that study did you? There was 119 pgs of full of analysis and real numbers.

Did you read all 119 pages?

Do you have anything substantive to refer me to in the study, besides the summary I dissected?

 

[Rusky]

About Walmart.
Whether you think its good or bad.
There is no point arguing about it. Because you'll never make someone pay $50 for a regular pair of jeans, when he can buy the same pair for $20 made in china.
America has such a small population compared to China or the World. We really should be concerned with how our little population can provide services or product over seas (the pie is huge).
I possibly agree with some form of tariffs, we should also enforce win win trade agreements.

 

[Moxie]

This is basically a complaint about how these super stores are more efficient, and thus generate less property and business taxes, and this makes city council feel bad that a business is so efficient, because it means they get to expropriate less money from citizens through higher prices at checkout.

" Wal-Mart has gotten subsidies from local governments in the form of tax abatements, tax increment financing, tax-financed infrastructure improvements, and the use of eminent domain. These practices provide Wal-Mart with an advantage over smaller firms that do not have access to the "political means" to wealth. "

Why Wal-Mart Matters - Art Carden - Mises Daily

Wal-Mart Subsidy Watch - brought to you by Good Jobs First

 

[guerilla]

" Wal-Mart has gotten subsidies from local governments in the form of tax abatements, tax increment financing, tax-financed infrastructure improvements, and the use of eminent domain. These practices provide Wal-Mart with an advantage over smaller firms that do not have access to the "political means" to wealth. "

Now that ^^^ is a solid criticism.

Why Wal-Mart Matters - Art Carden - Mises Daily

Great article. Art is a very clever guy.

Art Carden - Papers on Walmart

The last link, watching subsidies is good stuff. The fact it is brought by a group called Good Jobs First is sorta sad, because they miss the entire point. If they want better jobs, compete with Walmart. Their real issue isn't that Walmart pays too little, but that humans are economizing creatures (seek efficiency; lower costs).

@Rusky, jfyi a tariff is also a subsidy to local manufacturers, paid by the citizens. It's the same as people paying more for local goods, but enforced by law, and subverting free choice and the market. No free marketer can be for tariffs, which are essentially a tax paid to the manufacturer and their employees.

You were very right about the need to compete. There is only one way up. Hustle.