Walmart Means Low Morals

[Eliaures]

Walmart is undecidedly evil. Of all the instances of corporate malfeasance, this company seems to delight in surpassing all the others in acts of jaw dropping callous capitalism. Walmart has sued one of its former employees, Deborah Shank (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119551952474798582.html), after she was hit by a truck on their property to recover the health care costs its plan had paid after the accident. Since she had received a small settlement from the trucking company for her continued care, Walmart wanted what she got after legal costs and more. All this from a woman that will have to have round the clock care for the rest of her life and sacrificed a son to Bush's War.

[blatantninja]

Walmart has it's issues, and while I certainly hope that they, as a company, do something to help this woman, legally, they are completely in the right. This has been a change over the past decade or so in the legal interpretation of those clauses.

Walmart is not the problem, it needs to be addressed in Congress.

[magerette]

Wal Mart still has a choice. Just because it's legal to sue this woman, they are not forced to do so. Are their enormous profits really going to be impacted in any significant way if they don't recover her insurance costs? It's not like they're struggling to survive.

I do agree, though, that there needs to be a legal way to halt this kind of greed. The health care industry and its skyrocketing costs is probably just as much to blame for situations like this arising.

[dteowner]

Not to defend Wallyworld here, but you can't pick and choose which people to "attack". If you don't pursue the issue in this case, you set a legal precedent that will keep you from pursuing it ever again. Forever and ever, amen. So while pursuing this case is a PR nightmare (and probably a moral "wrong"), it's the guy 10 years from now that scams the system for 20 times the money over a stubbed toe that you're really trying to stop.

Companies don't generally go out of their way to screw individuals, Eliaures.

[Prime Junta]

Besides, we really shouldn't expect companies to behave morally. Companies aren't persons; they're legal fictions. We should expect companies to behave in an economically rational fashion, based on incentives set by the market on the one hand and the law, i.e., democracy, on the other hand. If there are disincentives to behave morally and incentives to behave immorally, then we should expect them to behave immorally.

What we should do is set up legislation that gives companies incentives that align with our wishes as citizens.

[blatantninja]

dte is correct. They HAVE to go after this woman, simply because of the legal precendent it sets if they don't. Like I said, Congress needs to address this issue. Walmart is hardly the first and won't be the last to do this. The legal shift away from first and foremost making the victim whole is what caused this.

[dteowner]

For the darn fer-ners, you might want to fix that "hole" typo, bn. That might be a bit confusing in translation. ;) The lawyers drove that legal shift, possibly out of concern but more likely out of greed, because "first and foremost" often didn't have the deep pockets. They wanted to keep climbing the ladder until they got to someone/something that could pay a multi-million dollar settlement.

[magerette]

Besides, we really shouldn't expect companies to behave morally. Companies aren't persons; they're legal fictions. We should expect companies to behave in an economically rational fashion, based on incentives set by the market on the one hand and the law, i.e., democracy, on the other hand. If there are disincentives to behave morally and incentives to behave immorally, then we should expect them to behave immorally.

I think this is the definition of the Lawful Evil Alignment. Don't any of you guys ever play paladins? (My sarcasm meter has registered a slight fluctuation also)

What we should do is set up legislation that gives companies incentives that align with our wishes as citizens.

Agreed. And actually your point is, as always rational and well taken. I do think that there is a grey area here, though.

Wal Mart may have to stringently protect itself from the legal incursions of the scam artists and slackers by suing, but it can most certainly make a better choice of whom to sue. There's no indication of any abuse of the system by this woman.

But actually,this legal tennis-match doesn't seem to me to be designed to weed out scammers--just to keep lawyers employed shifting money from one company to another and away from the individual, who just becomes a conduit.

I don't see how this discourages fraud. Rather the reverse, imo.

Apparently we really do need health care reform BADLY.

[Prime Junta]

I think this is the definition of the Lawful Evil Alignment. Don't any of you guys ever play paladins? (My sarcasm meter has registered a slight fluctuation also)

Never.

And I wasn't being sarcastic.

The trouble is that if any corporation acts against its economic self-interest, it'll be squeezed out of the market by more selfish corporations. (Incidentally, this is one of Marx's central and most durable observations.)

I even suggested a solution to this conundrum -- we, as citizens, set the rules by which the corporations play in the market. We can set up the rules of the market in such a way that they reward moral behavior and punish immoral behavior. In econo-speak, we can align the incentives of the corporations as economic actors, and ourselves as citizens.

[magerette]

Yes, and I agreed with your solution--(and sorry, sometimes my sarcasm meter malfunctions.) I do still disagree with your, BN's, dte's and Marx's conclusions about the problem.

I still say this is a 'lawful evil' action(doing harm to someone to benefit yourself "because you can" is pretty much my definition of evil--subjective, I know) and if being evil as an individual is punishable by society, but being a member of a group that makes a profit through evil actions is okay, then somewhere the moral compass has been bent.

I don't believe that Wal-Mart "had" to pursue this policy, I believe they routinely operate in this manner across the board as a matter of course not because they are forced to, but because they choose to and also of course because, as Prime J points out, they are legally allowed to. I find it hard to believe that treating your employees fairly automatically puts your business on the road to liquidation, or that the amount of money involved in this case or ten cases like it is anything more than a raindrop in the ocean to Wal-Mart's bottom line.

But that's just my opinion, of course. Any business I ran would fail in a week. :)

[dteowner]

Our legal system doesn't allow for common sense, magerette, nor situational decisions. Due to the system of precedents, you're only allowed one path, and it must be one-size-fits-all and uniformly applied. That's got nothing to do with Walmart's alignment check. The failing in this scenario lies solely with the lawyers.

Now, Walmart has shown a trend over many situations to squeeze the pennies until Lincoln squeals, so perhaps they are choosing the path of maximum profit and maximum legal standing when a slightly gentler (albeit more expensive) approach might have been adequate. Of course, they haven't progressed from one store to ruling the world by being nice. They've been shrewd in their business decisions and utterly ruthless in controlling/limiting expenses. That's their job as a corporation, and they've done very well at it.

[Corwin]

In similar situations here, it's not unknown for big corps to pursue little people for legal reasons, but under the pressure of the public gaze and good PR, then turn around and personally 'recompense' the little victim. Whether you Walmart is so inclined is yet to be seen, but the PR both good and bad could be worth FAR more than the individual case!! Out TV current affairs shows LOVE to broadcast these issues whenever they can!!

[Eliaures]

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that corporations HAVE to act without feeling. There are plenty of corporations that "do the right thing". Walmart has historically not. Corporations may be seen as unthinking machines of industry and capitalism, but they are run by people. I find it hard to believe that some astute and semi-intelligent person at Walmart could not have questioned this at least as a potential PR blunder.

It reminds me of the scene in "Saving Private Ryan" whereby some low level bureaucracy drone saw that several Ryans had died during the same week and instead of sloughing it off as coincidence, she did a little research and found they were all from the same family. She could have dropped it as a personal tragedy that only she knew about at her department, but she pushed it up the line and they "did the right thing". Yes, I know it's fiction, but to me it represents what can be done on a personal level at a big, unfeeling bureaucracy.

The latest news is that Walmart have done the right thing, but only after a firestorm of bad PR from newspapers and other entities. I have no admiration for a company that maximizes profits at the expense of everything else. I think Bhutan has the right idea with it's Gross National Happiness as opposed to the West's Gross National Product. Has our emphasis on growth lead to greater happiness? Statistics say no even though we are doing quite well as a nation financially.

[V7]

Our legal system doesn't allow for common sense, magerette, nor situational decisions. Due to the system of precedents, you're only allowed one path, and it must be one-size-fits-all and uniformly applied. That's got nothing to do with Walmart's alignment check. The failing in this scenario lies solely with the lawyers.



Actually the way precedents are used in common law is precisely the reverse of what you're suggesting, precedents can be overturned or modified by subsequent cases. In this example any judge worth having would find a reason for differentiating between the employee hit by a truck and your prospective fraudster (probably the fraud).

A precedent isn't even binding beyond the court's jurisdiction.

And as for common sense in law, that’s what the judge and/or jury is for - it doesn't always work as intended and the politicians can screw it up with legislation, but that’s a political not legal wrench.

[Prime Junta]

I don't believe that Wal-Mart "had" to pursue this policy, I believe they routinely operate in this manner across the board as a matter of course not because they are forced to, but because they choose to and also of course because, as Prime J points out, they are legally allowed to. I find it hard to believe that treating your employees fairly automatically puts your business on the road to liquidation, or that the amount of money involved in this case or ten cases like it is anything more than a raindrop in the ocean to Wal-Mart's bottom line.

But if it didn't, it wouldn't be Wal-Mart -- it'd be Costco.

Wal-Mart's business model is to keep the costs down -- everywhere -- and pass along the savings to its customers as lower prices. That means paying the lowest amount possible to the fewest number of employees possible, driving the hardest possible bargain with suppliers -- and, what with US tort law being what it is, acting pre-emptively when it comes to possibilities of being sued.

Costco's business model is to pay its employees decently, train them to be friendly and knowledgeable in customer service, and hire enough of them that Costco's customers feel well served -- and therefore be able to charge higher prices than Wal-Mart.

Costco's median customer earns nearly twice as much as Wal-Mart's median customer -- and Wal-Mart has a lot more customers.

The trouble is that K-Mart's business model is very much like Wal-Mart's, only it's not quite as good at it.

That means that if Wal-Mart decided *not* to pursue cost savings with absolute ruthlessness, its costs would go up and it would start to compete with Costco in a smaller market segment, with K-Mart moving into its market segment... by pursuing cost savings with absolute ruthlessness. IOW, we'd end up exactly where we started.

This particular case illustrates some of the problems with American tort law, since it provides incentives for ambulance-chasing on the one hand, and extreme pre-emptive legal action against ambulance-chasers on the other, with this highly unfortunate individual getting squashed between the two. It's an example of politically set incentives being misaligned with our interests as citizens (and, I'm fairly certain, Wal-Mart's interests as a legal fiction.)

[dteowner]

And as for common sense in law, that’s what the judge and/or jury is for - it doesn't always work as intended and the politicians can screw it up with legislation, but that’s a political not legal wrench.Puhleeze. The juries are the ones recommending a $20mil award for a wayward hangnail, so I wouldn't look there for common sense. They think their stickin' it to the man and helping out the little guy, not realizing where that pile of money comes from.

The whole point of the precedent system is to try to convince the judge and jury to apply the same solution again. It regularly leads to appeals if precedents are ignored or overturned. There's whole legal libraries dedicated to doing the same stuff over and over, so I think you're way off saying the system is designed to work case-by-case.

As for this specific case, I had a long roleplay half written but lost my enthusiasm. I summarize it with a short snippet:
Oily von Shyster- So, you chose not to pursue legal action on the previous case but brought the full force of the Walmart legal department to bear on my poor client?
Son of Sam- That was a different situation. As an innocent victim, she didn't deserve legal action on our part, even though it was legally appropriate.
OvS- So you're picking and choosing whom you will help and whom you will not? You coldhearted corporate bastard! Who are you to judge who is deserving and who is not? Walmart makes 600zillion dollars every minute and you'd deny my client a mere $20mil for this grievous wayward hangnail injury, which will scar him for the rest of his life? Is Walmart that greedy? Who are you to decide what my client's pain is worth? How do you sleep at night?

[Remus]

Well, Wal-Mart suddenly saying the ex-employee can keep the money as the company is now modifying its health care plan. Apparently they do have someone in the company that know about PR and corporate image, eh? (or only when the case is widely reported in the media...or as an "advertisement").


http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/law/04/02/walmart.decision/?iref=hpmostpop

[blatantninja]

PJ,

I disagree on the Costco-Walmart comparison. I've heard this before about how great Costco is in comparison. Well, I switched last year to Costco, mainly because I live practically next to one.

The prices are identical. The policies are identical. And most important, the employees are identical. They are no more helpful, pleasant, or available than any Sam's club employee I have ever met. They may get paid better, I don't know, but from my experience, if that is true, it doesn't translate into any better service.

[Prime Junta]

PJ,

I disagree on the Costco-Walmart comparison. I've heard this before about how great Costco is in comparison. Well, I switched last year to Costco, mainly because I live practically next to one.

The prices are identical. The policies are identical. And most important, the employees are identical. They are no more helpful, pleasant, or available than any Sam's club employee I have ever met. They may get paid better, I don't know, but from my experience, if that is true, it doesn't translate into any better service.

Well, I haven't been to a Costco (or a Wal-Mart, for that matter) since my last trip to the States in 2004, so I'll take your word for it.

The argument remains, though -- I'm sure there's *some* company out there serving the higher-income demographic with better service and higher prices.

[JDR13]

The argument remains, though -- I'm sure there's *some* company out there serving the higher-income demographic with better service and higher prices.


Well it sure isn't Best Buy! :biggrin:

[magerette]

Dte, I would have enjoyed the full roleplay episode--perhaps you can introduce a game system with that theme--Lawyers and Losers or something, rolling little twenty-sided skulls to see who wins the case...

@Remus--sounds like Olberman and others did their jobs as journalists and Wal-Mart bowed to public pressure in this case. I find it even cooler that they're amending their health insurance policies, but then, I haven't read exactly how yet. ;)


And inside your lucid exposition of business models a very valid point is lurking also, Prime J, which is that the clientele of Wal-Mart benefits from their No More Mr. Nice Guy philosophy. (Civilization in Oklahoma is not sufficiently advanced to attract Costco so I remain uninformed about them.) If Wal-Mart were less focused on being the king shark and thus did not have brutally low pricing, it actually might be a hardship for those who can't afford to purchase comparably shoddy products at higher prices elsewhere.

Let me pose a question which is now hypothetical: To those defending Wal-Mart's lack of choice, what would have happened next in this scenario with Debbie Shank's health care and how would it be economically superior to Wal-Mart not claiming her settlement?

That is, who would now foot the bill for her around the clock medical costs had the trust been absorbed by WM? Obviously, her family til they were driven to bankruptcy, but then wouldn't this throw her on the mercy of the government? Wouldn't she then become another financial burden on the tax base?

So basically, you guys are defending the right of private, for-profit corporations to push the boundaries of their legal responsibilities into the public arena. Or that's how I'm seeing it with my particular bias on the subject.

and if that doesn't get dte's blood pressure into the danger zone, I don't know what will. ;)

[blatantninja]

No, they just have higher prices!

Here's one thing that is really sad about the case that started this thread.

Walmart sued for the $470k it had paid for her bills. That would have taken, if awarded, every penny plus some of the $417k she received.

However, she was awarded $1MM. The lawyer fees ended up at $587k!

And people wonder why no one likes lawyers.

[Icefire]

I really don't see an issue here. I became disabled suddenly last August. I am receiving payments through disability insurance I thankfully purchased through work. When, and IF, Social Secuirty takes over, I am required to reimburse the disability insurance from the Social security payments. I am not entitled to be paid double for some of the months. If Wal marts insurance hadnt paid the bills for her, or if she had no insurance to begin with, she would be paying them now with her settlement anyway. They knew about having to pay back the money beforehand, like I do, so I don't see what the problem is here. If anything, it sounds like she needed a better lawyer in her settlement. I would not have settled for 700k if I require serious life long health care.

[Prime Junta]

That is, who would now foot the bill for her around the clock medical costs had the trust been absorbed by WM? Obviously, her family til they were driven to bankruptcy, but then wouldn't this throw her on the mercy of the government? Wouldn't she then become another financial burden on the tax base?

Either that, or dead.

So basically, you guys are defending the right of private, for-profit corporations to push the boundaries of their legal responsibilities into the public arena. Or that's how I'm seeing it with my particular bias on the subject.

I would expect private, for-profit corporations to do anything they can, within the law, to maximize their profits.

It's unrealistic to expect corporations to behave morally from the goodness of their hearts. They may behave morally because they feel it helps the bottom line, through goodwill, better motivated (i.e., more productive) employees, and what not. But if those things don't fit their business model and the rules of the market don't give them incentives to behave morally, then they won't behave morally, and it's either naive or populist to expect them to.

The point is that we, in our capacity as citizens, can set up the law in such a way that it encourages moral behavior and discourages immoral behavior -- from corporations as well as individuals. That's what the political process is for.

[dteowner]

Ah, but does one vote at the ballot box or at the cash register? ;) I would say the latter is more effective since it cuts out the middle man in the transaction.

[Corwin]

I agree, I've always been a believer in voting with your feet!!

[V7]

Yes democracy is overrated, the rich should have a much greater say in determining the course of our societies.

Warning: Opinion manufactured in brain that also manufactures sarcasm.

[JDR13]

Yes democracy is overrated, the rich should have a much greater say in determining the course of our societies.



Hey I'm starting to like this guy. ;)

[Prime Junta]

Ah, but does one vote at the ballot box or at the cash register? ;) I would say the latter is more effective since it cuts out the middle man in the transaction.

Quite, but the problem is that our interests as citizens are not always in alignment with our interests as consumers.

As a consumer, you'll want to get the best deal for whatever it is you want to buy.
As a citizen, you told me you'd like companies to start practicing the Henry Ford business model -- paying their employees enough to keep them consuming and the economy ticking.

IOW, with your consumer hat on, you'd want to shop at Wal-Mart, even though their business model depresses wages, drives industrial production overseas, and kills off small Main Street competitors -- even if, when wearing your citizen hat, you'd prefer that the wage level was higher, production stayed closer to home, and Main Street remained Main Street.

Most of the time the consumer hat wins. The reason is pretty simple, too -- consumer choice would only make any difference if enough consumers would decide to act according to their interests as citizens -- and there exists no mechanism to aggregate this consumer choice and see that "cheating" is kept to a low enough level that it's manageable.

Or, rather, the mechanism does exist -- and it's called the political process.

[V7]

More to the point consumer action isn't very good at conveying information. You know why you stoped stoped shopping there but without further effort on your part, or considerable effort on Walmart's part they won't know if you're protesting them running over employees, giving Chinese factory workers a chance at a better life or selling games that might imply two consenting adults being *gasp* undressed in the same room... or maybe you just like their compeditor better. Then there's always the problem that every company in a market segment might run over employees, sell imported goods or promote lewd games.

A law gets the message over much more clearly.

[woges]

So corps need joe public to teach them morality? I think not. Business people know exactly what shafting is.

[dteowner]

A law gets the message over much more clearly.Indeed, because our laws always get passed as intended, with no loopholes, and without any unrelated issues tacked on, by a government that has nothing but the general good in their hearts and minds. *humming America the Beautiful*

[Prime Junta]

Indeed, because our laws always get passed as intended, with no loopholes, and without any unrelated issues tacked on, by a government that has nothing but the general good in their hearts and minds. *humming America the Beautiful*

"Never let perfection be the enemy of the good enough."

Would you prefer anarchy or autocracy?

Again -- yes, the American polity is suffering from serious structural problems, and the current financial crisis may be the prelude to a major social-political-economic one. But whatever the solution to that coming crisis, it's going to be a political one. And I don't believe that a grade-A revolutionary crisis is a prerequisite for solving the structural problems -- it's been done before, y'know.

[vanedor]

As often, PJ is a true well of wisdom.

[dteowner]

Aw hell, don't inflate his ego... It's far more fun to label him a left wing crackpot.

I actually took some time to think about that question, PJ. Among your two choices, I'd definitely go with autocracy, although that sort of runs counter to my general "less government" mantra. The thing we seem to lack most is consistency. Many of the left wing, big government solutions that we've tossed around in dozens of threads could fix our fundamental problems (of course, my right wing, small government solutions are far better, but that's neither here nor there ;) ) if, and only if, they were consistently applied over an extended period of time. Our back-n-forth political system, combined with an electorate with the patience and attention span of an ADHD goldfish makes it impossible to select a plan and stick with it for 20 years. Our structural flaws are deep enough that they can't be fixed in the typical 4-8 year window policies get. Combined with the need of the parties to show "change" by tearing down everything that was done previously, consistency is pretty much out the window.

[Prime Junta]

Aw hell, don't inflate his ego... It's far more fun to label him a left wing crackpot.

I actually took some time to think about that question, PJ. Among your two choices, I'd definitely go with autocracy, although that sort of runs counter to my general "less government" mantra. The thing we seem to lack most is consistency. Many of the left wing, big government solutions that we've tossed around in dozens of threads could fix our fundamental problems (of course, my right wing, small government solutions are far better, but that's neither here nor there ;) ) if, and only if, they were consistently applied over an extended period of time. Our back-n-forth political system, combined with an electorate with the patience and attention span of an ADHD goldfish makes it impossible to select a plan and stick with it for 20 years. Our structural flaws are deep enough that they can't be fixed in the typical 4-8 year window policies get. Combined with the need of the parties to show "change" by tearing down everything that was done previously, consistency is pretty much out the window.

The way I parse that is that you've identified one structural problem -- the short attention span of your political system.

In my opinion, that's a good call. However, it's also a wider issue -- the exact same thing is apparent in economic activity; the fabled "quarter economics" that drive the short-term clever but long-term dumb decision-making that contributed to the current financial crisis.

What I've been sayin' is that America won't fix itself until the electorate wakes up and demands more of its government than feel-good talk -- whether the talk is boo-yah patriotism or mantras about "change" is less important. Longer-term thinking is a part of it. That means a cultural shift.

The good news is that there's a fair chance that the current economic mess will remind people that there is life beyond the next quarter, and longer-term thinking will come back into vogue. That's a shift in cultural values. Since politics are, ultimately, cultural values turned into action, this will eventually get reflected there.

IOW, in the short term I share your pessimism -- things are certainly going to get worse before they get better. We diverge when looking at the medium to long term: I believe there is a real chance for fixing some of these structural problems and turning things around there, without having to go through the pain of a revolutionary dislocation -- even a mostly non-violent one, such as the collapse of the USSR.

Good government is possible. You've done it before; you can certainly do it again -- and by global standards, you're far from hopeless now. What you, dte, need is a bigger sense of perspective: you're only comparing America now to America as it was and, perhaps, an idealized America that never could be... and perhaps also some of its peers, and realizing that some of them are actually doing better than America. If you took a more global view, you'd see that there is a lot of machinery for change there -- some of it's a bit rusty from lack of use, but it's there. Should the stresses build up to near revolutionary level, that machinery will creak into action again, and the system will reform itself. Uh... I hope.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that corporations HAVE to act without feeling.

I disagree, because as a customer, I don't want to be treated by an emotionless machine, no matter whether it consists of human and other living beings or not.

[Prime Junta]

If you have the luxury of patronizing companies that give you a warm and fuzzy feeling, then go for it -- there are companies that make giving you that warm and fuzzy feeling a part of their business model (and charging extra for it, too). That doesn't mean they're acting any less rationally economically... and it doesn't mean that lots more people won't shop at Lidl simply because they can get their Bier und Wurst there for less. (I just bought some Bier und Wurst at a Lidl the other day -- not only do they great prices, they also have great Bier und Wurst, by Finnish standards anyway.)

[magerette]

If only Wal-Mart would carry Bier und Wurst, I might shop there.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Oh, Lidl has finally reached Scandinavia ? I knew it was spreading, but this fast ? ...

We have several Lidl shops here, too.

What I meant was that I prefer to be handled like a living human being, not as a cash-cow. I very clearly prefer the so-called "Aunt-Emma-Shops", which are so small you feel warm and cosy there and have a chat with everyone.

But unfortunately these shops have almost died out.

The reason for is is simply called "business", or rather "economic reasons". companies have a tendency to get bigger, swallow up smaller shops and get bigger - like crystals, by the way, as well - and try to generate more cash which is assumed to generate more profits.

And here is the things where it loses control: More profits what for ?

Of course for shareholders. But when the mass of shareholders consists of other companioes or of banks, then it's rather like a very well hidden & masked mega-company.

A bank is sdhareholder of a hige company. like Walmarkt, for example (dunno how it is in reality), and so the ban owns in a way this company - at least to a part.

What the bank will want is drive the company to generate even more profits - for the bank.

So, the bank gets even more profits - what do they wanna do with 'em ?

The usual answer is: "Invest them."

Well, yes, okay, but you can't invest *forever* Or, you can, but then you own (as a shareholder) all companies of the world, eventually. You just need a few hundred years for that.

And then ? Even more profits ? For what ? For the greed of the individuals holding the stock ? Money and more money and even more money ?

This is - thought consequently to the end - insane. In the end it will mean companies sucking the money from its customers - consequently thought to the end there ill be only two classes, then: The class of who own, and the one of who don't.

Of course there are taxes, but I assume that at one point such mega-constructs (-companies) generate so much power that they will be mightier than the government, than the law, and be able to bend or break laws at their will - like Microsoft, for example.
You just need enough mercenaries, for example. In South-Americva, there already are such companies !

In the end, capitalism is just this: I (as a manager or other head of a company) let people work for e and thus increase my income. It's a masked form of slavery, masked by taxes and wages.

[Prime Junta]

In the end, capitalism is just this: I (as a manager or other head of a company) let people work for e and thus increase my income. It's a masked form of slavery, masked by taxes and wages.

Whoa, cool! That was as pure Marx as I've ever seen. Great to see we have someone here who's thinking straight. :D

Lidl has been in Scandinavia for quite some time. One opened just on my way to work not too long ago. The interesting thing is that it's not really in direct competition with the big Finnish chain stores -- instead, it's more like a German/Central European delicatessen, only cheap. Last time I went, I bought two bags of Müsli (it's the best in town), some Czech beer, some of their very nice chocolate, and some excellent Spanish cured ham -- all of which are available there for a good deal less than at competing Finnish stores.

But they don't have the things I want for my regular shopping, so I do that either at the regular Finnish chain stores or, on weekends when I have the time and inclination, at the market just next door. I really enjoy shopping there; the products are superb and the shopkeepers know me -- but it's not really an option for daily shopping, because the hours are inconvenient, it takes time, and it would get rather expensive fast.

[dteowner]

The way I parse that is that you've identified one structural problem -- the short attention span of your political system.Not really, although it might be terminology. I would call the attention span thing an organizational problem. I would call things like the national debt and tort reform structural problems.
What I've been sayin' is that America won't fix itself until the electorate wakes up and demands more of its government than feel-good talk -- whether the talk is boo-yah patriotism or mantras about "change" is less important. Longer-term thinking is a part of it. That means a cultural shift. I think we've both been saying that. Our difference is that I think Americans like that smoke up our butts a little too much to manage that cultural shift until it's too late.
What you, dte, need is a bigger sense of perspective: you're only comparing America now to America as it was and, perhaps, an idealized America that never could be... and perhaps also some of its peers, and realizing that some of them are actually doing better than America.Guilty as charged. I would point out, though, that a global perspective isn't terribly valuable for a unique situation. The problems in the US are historically unique, if only for their magnitude. I would say the closest historical parallel is Classic Rome. If you'll grant me that "the world was quite a bit smaller back then" (in other words, largely ignore Asian civilization of the time and focus on Europe) and perhaps a bit of American arrogance, I would say the parallel holds up pretty well. Dominant military power, dominant economy of the world, nearly all-encompassing sphere of influence, decadent consumer populace, cultural and technological leadership, marked internal division of wealth and power (citizens versus slaves), well-developed national arrogance. Seems like a fairly good fit, and that one didn't end so well, did it.

[zahratustra]

The big difference is that USA doesn't have multitude of barbarians snapping at your borders. Even if some are considering Hispanics as a sort of a modern equivalent of Vandals, there is no threat of a sack of Washington.

[dteowner]

Wouldn't you say al-Qaeda might qualify? They did, in fact, attack Washington.

[Corwin]

Comparing the US to Rome is 'old hat'. We did that back when I was in school. I remember comparing the Kennedys to the Grachii. It's still fairly accurate and I also agree with Dte, that there's plenty of barbarians out there who love to tear it all down!!

[Prime Junta]

Wouldn't you say al-Qaeda might qualify? They did, in fact, attack Washington.

Are you serious?

Al Qaeda in America has, thus far, knocked down two buildings and damaged a third.

Barbarian invaders were regularly running rampant over the Roman heartlands, sacking the capital, and putting its inhabitants to the sword.

On that scale, Al Qaeda doesn't even register.

[V7]

, I would say the parallel holds up pretty well. Dominant military power, dominant economy of the world, nearly all-encompassing sphere of influence, decadent consumer populace, cultural and technological leadership, marked internal division of wealth and power (citizens versus slaves), well-developed national arrogance. Seems like a fairly good fit, and that one didn't end so well, did it.

Guys in togas, perhaps but with the possible exception of the 'decadent consumer populance the description you've given there fits the late British Empire pretty well.

(so watch out for your ostensible major ally in the next world war ;) )

[Prime Junta]

Not really, although it might be terminology. I would call the attention span thing an organizational problem. I would call things like the national debt and tort reform structural problems.

Yup, that's a valid use of the terminology as well.

Guilty as charged. I would point out, though, that a global perspective isn't terribly valuable for a unique situation. The problems in the US are historically unique, if only for their magnitude. I would say the closest historical parallel is Classic Rome. If you'll grant me that "the world was quite a bit smaller back then" (in other words, largely ignore Asian civilization of the time and focus on Europe) and perhaps a bit of American arrogance, I would say the parallel holds up pretty well. Dominant military power, dominant economy of the world, nearly all-encompassing sphere of influence, decadent consumer populace, cultural and technological leadership, marked internal division of wealth and power (citizens versus slaves), well-developed national arrogance. Seems like a fairly good fit, and that one didn't end so well, did it.

I really hate that parallel -- it's facile, emotionally laden, grandiose, and very misleading. The similarities are superficial or trivial, while the differences are structural. Specifically:

* Your laundry list fits just about any great power in decline, not just Rome. Britain pre-WW2, France pre-Revolution, the Seleucid empire before Mithradates II, the Khalifate before the Turks, you name it.
* Not all of those declines ended in collapse. Rome, for example, reformed itself on multiple occasions before they finally went down. Consider Marius and Sulla, the Punic wars, the civil wars and the end of the Republic with the subsequent rise of the Empire, and, if you will, the little detail that Eastern Rome picked up the pieces after the Dark Ages and continued merrily for another millennium as Byzantium -- even as it abandoned the ecologically, economically, and demographically ruined Western parts of the empire.
* The time scale is all wrong. American ascendancy has lasted for barely three-quarters of a century; Roman ascendancy lasted 500 years (or more, depending on how you look at it).

And most importantly, the Rome parallel says nothing particularly meaningful about the causes of the decline, nor about what could be done to reverse it -- that is, nothing more meaningful than most other, similar periods of history. Specifically, the causes of the collapse of Western Rome are in many very important respects completely unlike the causes of the American decline:

* The population movements that put constant barbarian pressure on the empire. (No, Mexicans or Al Qaeda don't count. Really.)
* The top-to-bottom militarization of society. The only way to make a career in late Rome was through the legions -- and the only way to get to power was at the point of the gladius. If you want to look for parallels, political life in late Rome looked a lot like political life in any of the tin-pot little countries with a coup or two every year.
* Ecological destruction. By late antiquity, Rome had barbered off pretty much all the forests usable for construction and shipbuilding that it could reach; fields were over-farmed and crops were failing regularly. (And no, the loss of a part of the American industrial base overseas doesn't count.)
* Geography. Rome was bang in the middle of everything, which was both a source of its power (Italy is a great base to expand from) and a source of its downfall (no matter how far they expanded, they had hostiles just over the border).

There are much more meaningful parallels around, if you're interested in looking for them. Most of them just aren't as sexy as Rome. Some of them are even around now -- the American scale isn't as unique in the world as you appear to think.

[zahratustra]

1- There can be no doubt that, while fall of Roman Empire was due to internal as much as external factors, US current troubles are overwhelmingly internal.

2- Nobody seems to be able to build Empires like they did in olden days :) While Roman, Byzantine or Ottoman Empires lasted for many centuries, Spanish Empire lasted only for something like 200 years. Brits managed it for a little over a century and French 1st and 2nd Empires lasted about 40 years alltogether.

[Prime Junta]

French ascendancy lasted longer than that, though -- Louis XIV was something of a high point, and France very much dominated the continent at that time.

[Squeek]

It's obvious to me that the Walmarts found a genie in a bottle, somewhere, and made a wish. That they didn't wish for world peace or to feed the hungry everywhere proves beyond a doubt that they do, in fact, have low morals.