Just here to say "Thanks!", Like Treasury Sec. O'Neill Said

[vibrotronica]

In this transcript of Treasury Sec. Paul O'Neill's interview on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer last night, O'Neill said this:

And you know one thing that occurred to me in listening to this and being part of this, there are so many wonderful decent human beings who are running small and medium-sized and even large corporations. They need to be celebrated, too. In our country, I think we tend to run from one side of the ship to the other. And it would be pretty good for people to stop and reflect and maybe say a word to the people that they work for that are helping create jobs and innovating new products -- thanks a lot, you know you're not guilty of this stuff and we appreciate it that you're helping our economy to be the envy of the world.

And I got to thinking, you know, maybe he's right. Maybe it's time for me to say "Thank you!" to all the CEO's and company presidents out there for all the good they've done in my life.

I'd like to start off by saying "Thank you" to the president of the publishing company I work for. Except that I don't work for them anymore. I was laid off in January as the company tried to stave off bankruptcy brought on by blatant and stupid mismanagement. But hey, that's OK, 'cause I know he was acting in the best interest of the company! Like all the hardworking and honest CEOs out there!

Next, I'd like to say a big word of thanks to the CEO of a certain air conditioning manufacturer that laid off my uncle a couple of years ago a couple years short of retirement after 20+ years of loyal service. Now, instead of collecting a pension, he has to work in the maintenence department of a small town hospital well after he was planning to retire. Thanks!

And let's give a big shout of thanks to the CEO and management of Wal-Mart! When Wal Mart moved in to the small town where I grew up, Main Street went out of business. Now, those folks who would have in times past owned small businesses and general stores, etc., work for $5.25 an hour at Wal Mart! Thank you for employing them, Wal Mart! You've done so much for the community!

But there's more thanks due for Wal Mart! Thanks so much for progressive business practices like locking employees in the building after closing time for an hour or two of unpaid labor. Or how about their refusal to pay overtime no matter how many hours you work? After all, what would all of those poor people be doing with those extra hours anyway? Spending them with their kids? Taking care of Grandma? Or maybe just enjoying life a little? Of course not! Everybody knows that poor people will just snort crystal meth and have more babies! So thank you, Wal Mart, for saving us from ourselves!

And let's thank the CEO's of all the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies out there for making sure health care resources are properly allocated! Every time I see an ad on TV for a new drug with twenty seconds worth of side effects I say "Thank God drug prices are so low!" And every time I think I should see a doctor but don't do it because I don't have health insurance I think "Thank God the CEOs of the health insurance companies are ensuring easy access to hospitals and doctors! I'm sure glad those CEO's are out on the golf course right now!" I was overcome with joy when my 90-year old grandmother's health insurance company refused to pay for the ambulance when she had to go to the hospital. You can tell by the fact that she paid into their system since the mid-50's that she's got plenty of money left to pick up the $250 ride to the emergency room! Thank you!

I'm sure all California dopers out there will join me in a big "Thank you!" to Ken Lay and the CEO of Dynergy for the caring, honest, and straightforward way they have supplied energy to that great state over the last few years! Thank you!

And I know there are thousands and thousands of people in Huston, TX who would love to send a thank you card to Ken Lay! I'm sure he's been smothered with affection!

And everybody from Mississippi, join hands and sing a hymn of thanks for the CEO of WorldCom, based in Clinton , MS. There are so many jobs there that those 17,000 folks who are looking for work as a result of the gut wrenching decisions he had to make will have no trouble finding new employment! Thank You! We know you had our best interest at heart!

And, like The Honorable Sec. O'Neill said, let's give thanks for the spirit of innovation and willingness to embrace new ideas shown by the recording industry as they dilligently look out for the interests of all of those musicians out there by fighting file sharing tooth and nail. Given the industry's track record, I'm sure they will continue to maximize the artist's profits while selflessly allowing the distribution of quality music on their corporate labels! Thanks to the system they created, it's easy as pie to make a living as a professional musician. And one listen to our corporate-controlled airwaves will confirm that a hearty thanks is in order for all of the great music they provide! Thanks, RIAA!

I'm sure that each and every one of you out there can think of dozens of examples where hard working, dedicated CEO's and corporations have selflessly served the community. So the next time you see them out there slaving away in the hot sun to make your life better, be sure to express your deepest heartfelt thanks!

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go eat cake.

[elucidator]

Come the Revolution, they go to the wall!

Splendid rant. Keep up the good work.

[BoBettie]

My God, if you were in front of me I'd stand up, salute, cheer, raise you above my head and scream "Hallefuckingleuja!!!!!"

I think you should send that letter directly to O'Neill or send it in to the "Letters to the Editor" section of a few major papers. It is so true, so true.

Zette

[Ankh_Too]

Originally posted by vibrotronica
And let's give a big shout of thanks to the CEO and management of Wal-Mart! When Wal Mart moved in to the small town where I grew up, Main Street went out of business. Now, those folks who would have in times past owned small businesses and general stores, etc., work for $5.25 an hour at Wal Mart! Thank you for employing them, Wal Mart! You've done so much for the community!

Yeah, because that's so much easier than placing the "blame" where it would actually belong. If you'd take a moment you'd probably realize that the community itself was fully capable of "saving" Main Street. It would have been fairly simple to do, in fact. Simply continue to shop there. Instead they went where it was (probably) cheaper, easier and more convienient. WalMart and any of the other megastores that are villified for running the small stores out of business aren't to blame. The consumers are.

WalMart trashes the people it employs, has predatory business practices that makes Microsoft look like a piker and, at least for me, shopping in one of their megastores is one of the creepiest retail experiences I've ever had. But blaming them for the death of the local small businesses is ridiculous. The consumers decide where to spend their money. If it was important to the community to preserve those businesses, they would. Obviously, in the majority of instances, it's not. WalMart moves in and consumers flock to it.

[Cheesesteak]

You're right big companies haven't done a single thing, ever, to help people, or the economy, or bring innovation.

If you think your standard of living would be anything near what it is today without the ruthless cost-saving, efficiency-improving efforts of big companies, you're living in a dream world. Every single time someone comes up with a better way to do something, people scream "you will put people out of work". Bullshit, people lose those crappy jobs and get better, more efficient, more valuable jobs.

A backhoe doesn't put 40 ditch diggers out of work, it makes construction less expensive for everyone. At one point in time, somebody complained that his ditch-digging friend was put out of work by a soulless machine.

These companies and their competitive ways put this country on the map, I'm not looking forward to a time when we lose that edge.

[scout1222]

You're welcome.

--scout, pharmaceutical company accountant


I can't speak for CEOs, but there certainly are people out there who aren't actively trying to screw everyone else.

I do, however, see your point. Greed is definitely a motivator in our economy. I'd like to say I was above it all, but hey, idealism ain't payin' the rent.

[stofsky]

Originally posted by Ankh_Too
Yeah, because that's so much easier than placing the "blame" where it would actually belong. . . WalMart moves in and consumers flock to it.

Right, and the tax breaks the "city fathers" offer don't have anything to do with that either. After all, "Joe's Pharmacy" that's been there for years isn't going to offer money for a re-election campaign, because Joe doesn't have the money to both contribute and undercut Pepto-Bismol by 35%.

Find me a Wal-Mart that's paying property taxes, and I'll send you a bottle of Pepto from a local pharmacy (i.e. not an Eckerd, Revco, CVS, Wal-Mart, Kroger, etc.).

[friedo]

Yeah, it's Wal-Mart's fault that your local politicians are un-principled bastards.

And it's their fault that the citizens in your town voted for them.

And it's their fault that they shopped there instead of Mom & Pop's on Main Street.

Makes perfect sense to me.

[Tretiak]

Originally posted by stofsky

Find me a Wal-Mart that's paying property taxes, and I'll send you a bottle of Pepto from a local pharmacy (i.e. not an Eckerd, Revco, CVS, Wal-Mart, Kroger, etc.).

Well type 'Wall-Mart Property Taxes' in Google and you will see that indeed Wal-Mart does pay proeprty taxes all over the place. I'll pass on the Pepto, though.

[johnson]

Right, and the tax breaks the "city fathers" offer don't have anything to do with that either.

Here's one that pays property taxes. The tax rate in Anne Arundel County is 96¢ per $100 of assessed value, so if my calculations are correct, Wal-Mart is paying $182,720.64 in property tax on this store. No need to send the Pepto. Instead, why don't you go to the nearest Wal-Mart, buy a bottle, and give it and the 20% savings to Joe the pharmacist.

Generally speaking, I don't believe Wal-Mart demands property tax breaks, or any specific tax breaks, to get in somewhere (though they'll certainly take any offered, and those generally available, as any good business would--it's not businesses' fault that governments are too stupid to keep themselves from shelling out money). They just want to get everything through zoning so they can open the business and start making money--and, not coincidentally, helping their customers save.

A Google search for "Wal-Mart 'property tax break'" gets you 18 hits.

[Ankh_Too]

Originally posted by stofsky


Right, and the tax breaks the "city fathers" offer don't have anything to do with that either. After all, "Joe's Pharmacy" that's been there for years isn't going to offer money for a re-election campaign, because Joe doesn't have the money to both contribute and undercut Pepto-Bismol by 35%.

Find me a Wal-Mart that's paying property taxes, and I'll send you a bottle of Pepto from a local pharmacy (i.e. not an Eckerd, Revco, CVS, Wal-Mart, Kroger, etc.).

The sky is very blue today and the wind is blowing real purdy like.

Hey, it has the same relevance to your comment as yours did to mine.

Tax breaks, if they actually exist, are irrelevant. As I said in my original post, if keeping the "main streets" of the various small towns that WalMart drives out of business was a concern to the community at large, it wouldn't matter how cheaply the MegaStoreOfDeath could sell Pepto, because people would be willing to pay the extra money (or drive the extra distance, or pay for parking or whatever the additional cost or effort might be) to keep these family run stores in business. If WalMart gets tax breaks, take it up with the city council or county commisioners. Don't blame WalMart for the buying behavior of the community. As much as it seems to fit into the corporate culture they do display, they don't send their greeters out into the neighborhood to round up the customers and cart them in at gunpoint. Consumers vote with their dollars, it's as simple as that.

[manhattan]

Originally posted by johnson

Here's one that pays property taxes.

I'll be damned. I used to ride my bike in those (former) woods. Cool.

[obfusciatrist]

I would like to thank the CEO of the large financial institution for which I work fo doing a pretty good job getting us through a large and very complex merger during some pretty crappy economic changes.

Thank you for dealing with employee redundancy by establishing a very aggressive retraining/relocation program that allowed me to develop a team of project managers that are not only good at project management but have a deep understaning of financial products because they have years of experience.

[pldennison]

I would like to thank the founder and president of the medium-sized, non-public corporation for which I work for responding to changing conditions and decreased volume in our business by engaging in cost-cutting measures which resulted in you not having to lay off a single person. (The company has never had layoffs in 40 years of doing business.) And for leading the way when instituting a temporary salary freeze this year by taking a 50% reduction in your own monthly salary.

[manhattan]

I'd like to thank the CEO and majority owner of our small mutual fund company for LBO'ing the place in 1968 and growing it from a simple sales organization to a fully integrated (if small) financial services company, with a life company, a bank and all kinds of other stuff. In particular, I'd like to thank him for the phantom stock plan for all employees, for not laying anyone off after the '87 crash, for teaching the sales force (and pounding and pounding and pounding!) the importance of clients' diversifying even though all they really wanted in the late '90s was an internet fund, thus saving the clients billions and billions of dollars.

Oh, and that paycheck dealie every two weeks is kind of cool, too. So thanks for that.

[vibrotronica]

OK. I've calmed down now. I usually stay out of the Pit, but when I read that quote I had whatcha call one of them spontaneous outpourings of emotion. Meaning it really fucking pissed me off. So it was either rant in the Pit or go on that three state killing spree that everyone I went to high school with is convinced that I will embark on some day.

No, I do not believe all corporations are evil. There are some things that corporations are very good at. I love my Honda Civic, which was made by a corporation. I love my computer, which was made by Dell, another corporation. I have a little kitchen timer that was made by Timex which has both a magnet and a little stand that you can use to set it up where you can see it. These are good things.

But you must admit, each and every one of you, that the modern corporation has caused some very serious bad things to happen in America and in the world. The ones I listed above are just the tip of the iceberg. Furthermore, you must admit that the particular remark that prompted my decent into madness was both poorly timed and hovering dangerously in Marie Antoinette territory, especially coming from someone who has "unindicted co conspirator" written all over him.

I stand by my statements about Wal Mart. They have caused more harm to my hometown than good.

Cheesteak, I wasn't aware that large companies "put this country on the map". I thought it had something to do with, you know, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Or maybe the rule of law. Or maybe the stable democratic system and hatred of tyranny. At least, that's the part that we were selling for fifty years during the Cold War. But now certain elements of corporate culture border on tyranny, and I see my duty as an American to speak out against them.

Scout, I'm glad you can get those motherfuckers to pay you money. Bully for you. I still believe that advertising as it is practiced by many pharmaceutical companies is unethical. I furthermore believe that entities like health insurance companies and pharmeceutical companies should put the welfare of the people they serve, whose very lives they hold in their hands sometimes, over profits. Period. Just because you CAN gouge someone for a lifesaving drug doesn't mean you have the right to. Business is not amoral. Is that simplistic, naive, and idealistic? Sure it is. But so is "All men are created equal".

obfusciastrist, pldennison, and manhattan, you have each provided examples of good behaviour by CEOs. I am glad you are privelaged to work for such organizations, 'cause I've read some very intellegent posts from y'all and I figure I'd like you if I ever met you in person. Southwest Airlines managed to get through the end of last year without laying anybody off. The other airlines took what, $30 billion of taxpayer money and laid off thousands and thousands? And I'm supposed to thank them for that?

Now I must eat more cake.

[Some Guy]

Hey, can't you at least let us eat some cake?

[Weirddave]

I'd like to thank the CEO of the company I work for for reassesing the corporate priorities when financial times got tough, and for then buying a large chunk of our stock when it's price was depressed with his own family money and guaranteeing that we, the employees, would be able to purchase the stock at that price with the company stock matching plan for 3 years, regardless of what the price went up to in that time. ( I'm currently buying $18 shares for $5 each. Wheeee!)

Oh, plus we provide afordable health insurance in the face of all the people screaming "There is no afordable HI available!". Good coverage too.

[Neurotik]

Originally posted by vibrotronica
Cheesteak, I wasn't aware that large companies "put this country on the map". I thought it had something to do with, you know, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Or maybe the rule of law. Or maybe the stable democratic system and hatred of tyranny. At least, that's the part that we were selling for fifty years during the Cold War.

That's a nice little patriotic sermon. Cute, too. Guess what, it's crap. America is on the map because of its rather large manufacturing base and economic power. America had the 'life, liberty and pursuit of happiness' thing going for it for 200 years. It didn't become a power until 100 years ago...right about the time large corporations came in and developed the manufacturing base.

Of course, it's arguable that 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' is what allowed businesses to prosper here...along with a government that didn't impede it very often unless when necessary.

Of course corporations should be held accountable for illegal actions. They definitely should be regulated. Workers and environmental laws are extremely valuable and needed. But to not give large corporations their due when discussing the success of the US is to just be plain ignorant.

[johnson]

But you must admit, each and every one of you, that the modern corporation has caused some very serious bad things to happen in America and in the world. The ones I listed above are just the tip of the iceberg.

Well, yeah, in the same way I'll admit that every single human institution, bar none, (and virtually all humans) has caused some very serious bad things to happen in America and (or) the world. On balance, however, the coming together of individuals for commercial and other activities has been vastly to the good.

Furthermore, you must admit that the particular remark that prompted my decent into madness was both poorly timed...

No, I mustn't admit that. When else would such a comment be necessary? When CEOs are collectively thought of as the second coming, as they were four or so years ago? Now is exactly when we need reminding of the benefits of corporations and those who lead them.

...and hovering dangerously in Marie Antoinette territory, especially coming from someone who has "unindicted co-conspirator" written all over him.

Oh? I'm sure you're not stereotyping CEOs here, so do you know something about O'Neill's tenure at Alcoa that I've missed? While he has a proclivity for saying what he thinks (dangerous in Washington, but we could use more of it), it strikes me that if there's one thing he's not, it's crooked. I've seen nothing to indicate otherwise.

I see nothing at all "Antoinette-ish" about his comments. He's right--we do go from one side of the ship to the other far too quickly, and far too often. I think putting CEOs on pedestals four years ago was a mistake (I also think far-reaching changes to CEO compensation are long overdue), but to say now that all CEOs are evil is equally wide of the mark, if not more so.

[vibrotronica]

Yes it was! Here's a man who was a CEO and as Treasury Secretary said that we should repeal all taxes on corporations telling me I needed to be thankful for privelaged, rich CEOs! And yes it was poorly timed! Think about this from a purely political standpoint. An amoral, tactical standpoint. This moron's job was to get up there on national fucking telelvision and have some softballs lobbed at him so he can spew crap about what a good fucking job the criminal president is doing keeping all of the other criminals in check. All he has to say is "We're gonna go out there and clean house so you investors can retain confidence in the companies." That's all he has to do. Instead, I get "Be thankful for your betters!" from this patrician while people lose their jobs and their retirement savings all over the company because of crimes committed by his fellow patricians! Now why would that piss me off?


Sorry...sorry...calm...calm...must remain calm...

[vibrotronica]

Yes it was! Here's a man who was a CEO and as Treasury Secretary said that we should repeal all taxes on corporations telling me I needed to be thankful for privelaged, rich CEOs! And yes it was poorly timed! Think about this from a purely political standpoint. An amoral, tactical standpoint. This moron's job was to get up there on national fucking telelvision and have some softballs lobbed at him so he can spew crap about what a good fucking job the criminal president is doing keeping all of the other criminals in check. All he has to say is "We're gonna go out there and clean house so you investors can retain confidence in the companies." That's all he has to do. Instead, I get "Be thankful for your betters!" from this patrician while people lose their jobs and their retirement savings all over the company because of crimes committed by his fellow patricians! Now why would that piss me off?


Sorry...sorry...calm...calm...must remain calm...

[Cheesesteak]

Not for nothing, but O'Neill wasn't talking about the dishonest, cheating, lousy CEOs at places like Enron and WorldCom, those guys, and everybody involved in that fraud deserve punishment. The good CEOs out there who create good corporate environments, and build the actual value of the company do a great service for our country. They create jobs by keeping American businesses competitive and growing. They make products and services cheaper for everybody so we can all enjoy a higher standard of living. They get paid handsomely for this, but the good ones are worth every penny.

There are a lot of lousy CEOs out there, and lousy business practices, I'll not expend a single breath to defend them. I just really hate to see corporations in general slammed, because they are not the enemy.

On preview:

spew crap about what a good fucking job the criminal president is doing keeping all of the other criminals in check

I'll post this since I've already typed it, but it's obvious there is absolutely no point to continuing this at all.

[vibrotronica]

Sorry for the double post. I only hit the button once. And now I notice that I said "company" instead of "country". But hey, if what cheesteak and Neurotik say is true, maybe it wasn't a mistake after all. But it just doesn't work as well to convince men to get in those great machines that the wonderful huge manufacturing base has produced and fly off to their deaths to defend "The company". When the Honorable President Bush was rallying the populace after September 11, he said that we were fighting for "freedom" not "the companies". At least that's what I'm rooting for.

[Ankh_Too]

Originally posted by vibrotronica
But you must admit, each and every one of you, that the modern corporation has caused some very serious bad things to happen in America and in the world. The ones I listed above are just the tip of the iceberg.

Absolutely, just as the church (pick one) has done very serious bad things, small business owners have done very serious bad things, individuals have done very serious bad things and even the (gasp) government has done very serious bad things. VSBT happen. To all subsections of society. Picking corporations out to excoriate without recognizing that it happens everywhere is just a tad disingenous. [i]on preview, I see that johnson has already made this same point. I really need to type faster.

Furthermore, you must admit that the particular remark that prompted my decent into madness was both poorly timed and hovering dangerously in Marie Antoinette territory, especially coming from someone who has "unindicted co conspirator" written all over him.

Actually, I don't have to admit anything of the sort. I didn't happen to catch the rest of his speech, only that part which you brought to my attention, but that particular remark seemed quite accurate to me. I personally believe that there are far more people out there working away in (or even running) corporations small, medium and large, that do their job aggressively, working to maximize the company's profits and minimize the costs, without delving into the excesses of greed that make those oh-so-juicy headlines.

I stand by my statements about Wal Mart. They have caused more harm to my hometown than good.

Stand by whatever you desire, it doesn't mean that the blame should be borne by WalMart instead of the consumers. I'm no fan of WalMart myself, but I'm not deluded enough to blame them for what the customers themselves do.

Scout, I'm glad you can get those motherfuckers to pay you money. Bully for you. I still believe that advertising as it is practiced by many pharmaceutical companies is unethical. I furthermore believe that entities like health insurance companies and pharmeceutical companies should put the welfare of the people they serve, whose very lives they hold in their hands sometimes, over profits. Period. Just because you CAN gouge someone for a lifesaving drug doesn't mean you have the right to. Business is not amoral. Is that simplistic, naive, and idealistic? Sure it is. But so is "All men are created equal".

Oh please, this is nothing more than a rehash of that ridiculous canard about "charging $10 for a pill that costs 15¢ to produce..." is bullshit. The second pill might cost 15¢, but the first one could have cost half a billion dollars in research and development. There certainly is room for improvement in the health care industry and there probably are cases of price gouging to be found, but to slap a big red sign on the entire industry is simplistic beyond belief.

obfusciastrist, pldennison, and manhattan, you have each provided examples of good behaviour by CEOs.

Yeah, and it's probably that they're the only three, right?


redux:

All he has to say is "We're gonna go out there and clean house so you investors can retain confidence in the companies." That's all he has to do.

You mean something like:

And so the president is saying we need to take action so that people can count on what's said to them.

from this patrician while people lose their jobs and their retirement savings all over the company because of crimes committed by his fellow patricians!

The workers control the means of production... the struggle struggle of the urban proletariat...

Guess you don't get that lounge suite, huh Karl?

[johnson]

Aside from other comments from vibrotronica, it's rather amusing to see you call O'Neill a "patrician." Are you aware of his background? He's only a "first-generation patrician," if that.

[LouisB]

<snip>But there's more thanks due for Wal Mart! Thanks so much for progressive business practices like locking employees in the building after closing time for an hour or two of unpaid labor.</snip>

I wanna know more about when and where this happened---none of the people I know who have or do now work for Wal-Mart has ever mentioned this, although they do have a lot of other complaints.

I believe that forcibly restraining people in a locked building would be the basis for some massive lawsuits, but maybe I am wrong about that.

[johnson]

And, by the way vibrotronica, I'd like to know why you called O'Neill "someone who has 'unindicted co-conspirator' written all over him." I know it's the Pit, but if there is some factual basis behind this, a cite would be appreciated.

[elucidator]

One hastens to note that the posters who are so deeply grateful for the beneficence and civic-mindedness of CEO's have one unifying characterisitc: they are all doing rather well, thank you.

Gone for good are the horror years when the Fiend Leavitt tried to impose accounting rules that would stifle the creativity of God's Chosen Ones! A kinder, gentler SEC is bestowed upon us by the grace of the Party! An SEC that recognizes, in the deathless words of the Reborn Churchill, that just because something is improper, doesn't mean its illegal.

So Enron's partnerships are, shall we say, very "creative". Well, isn't creativity the very life blood of our economic system? The free enterprise system that allows any American with $2 and a dream to go out and compete, openly and fairly, with GE, or Microsoft, or WorldCom!

Who else could provide such a spectacle, as a WorldCom or an Enron vaults nimbly from the edge of a precipice and drops, like a thunderbolt, straight into the toilet!

And how can we, as fellow beings, not shed a tear at the fate of such men as these? Disgraced, hounded, doomed to face the grim fate of a Stern Talking-to, and have only the meager comfort of a gazillion dollars!

I, for one, am deeply moved! Would that I could sacrifice myself, and take thier place in this tragic moment!

[scout1222]

Hey, thanks Ankh_Too for watching my back.

Incidentally, the pharmaceutical company I work for is not yet profitable. We've been R&D'ing for about 12 years or so, and are just finally beginning to sell our products in the marketplace. So the place is pretty much a money pit right now, and we're trying to dig our way out of it.

That of course does not mean that we never piss away money on stupid things. Trust me, I've seen the shit we spend money on.

[Tretiak]

Originally posted by elucidator
...blah blah blah...

[stofsky]

First, mea culpa on Wally World & property taxes. I had limited anecdotal evidence from two towns that offered Sam & Spawn 10 year exclusions to build a store in town--city fathers thinking that all the new jobs at minimum wage would make up for the people who lost their jobs at Joe's Pharmacy. Then Wal Mart comes in and uses their size to drive Joe out of business by selling at a loss. Nah, not unfair business practices, just driving David out by being Goliath.

Second, while our putative President's status as a criminal is, as yet, undetermined and uninvestigated, it is becoming more and more clear that questionable/unethical/illegal accounting practices have been proliferating throughout the corporate world. According to the (apparent) Big-L Libertarians who've been posting, why should we not be questioning the leaders of every business in the world?

Third, I once had a mutual fund worth a few thousand bucks. I now, due to the crappy ethics of a few CEOs, have a mutual fund worth a few hundred bucks. Someone want to come in here and tell me it's my fault for not paying attention? Someone want to come in here and tell me that--I dunno, as an investor in a mutual fund, I should have known that a liar and a thief was the head of one of the companies? Someone want to come in here and pay back the thousands of dollars I lost based on illegal/unethical accounting practices?

Fourth, as to Wally World's lack of overtime and locking people in the store:

http://www.now.org/issues/wfw/wm-legal.html

Another:

http://www.lieffcabraser.com/wal-mart.htm

A quick Google will give you more than 10 pages of results.

[johnson]

Obviously, elucidator, if one points out the fact that corporations have done a great deal of good in this world, and improved the lot in life for almost all Americans, they necessarily support all corporate abuses including the accounting practices of Enron, the professional responsbility and ethics of Arthur Andersen, and the lack of SEC regulation in the Clinton years.

Not to mention the monopolistic practices of Microsoft.

I'm all for those things and much, much more, and I have no doubt, from careful reading of their posts that Ankh_too, Neurotik, Cheesesteak, Manhattan and all the rest are, too.

[Ukulele Ike]

I'n not usually one to quote scripture for the Devil's purposes, but sometimes it's just too fershlugginer hard to resist...

"Christ, leave it to the Teeming Millions to speak up for the rats." -- Cecil Adams

[elucidator]

But of course! How could I fail to see it! It is civic virtue that drives these men, civic virtue that gushes from the wellspring of thier humanity!

That, and that alone, impels them, hollow-eyed and weary, to trudge thier way to brutal toil: e-mails, memos, meetings, in an office where the air conditioning is never quite right, and the cappuccino imperfectly frothed!

Woe! Woe, to see their wives and children turned out into the snows of Aspen, and spurned at the gated communities of the Hamptons!

Pray for me, blessed disciples of Mammon, for I have sinned.

And will again, at the earlliest opportunity

[Binarydrone]

Weighing in here on the Wal-Mart issue:

This is directed at the folks touting the BS “If people did not want Wal-Mart they wouldn’t shop there” arguments. For some time now, I have seen these arguments as unsatisfying, but have a hard time saying why.

There is a grain of truth there. Generally, I will shop at a locally owned establishment (even choosing to pay a slightly higher price) when given a choice. For example, on the street where I live, there is a Starbucks and a local type coffee shop. A Grande (read Large) drip coffee will cost me $1.63 at the Starbucks, and $1.75 at the other. I go to the other.

But you see, it is also corporations (that after all, exist only to create a profit) that pay employees as little as the market will bear and who charge as much as the market will bear that make these choices so very hard. A $0.12 choice in favor of the little guy is easy, but $1 or more starts to feel spendthrift.

And lets not overlook the horrible aesthetics involved here. My lord those stores are fucking ugly! A blight on the landscape really.

I think, ultimately, the objection here is that these huge corporations (while undoubtedly doing some good for the USA) are pretty bad citizens. Just in the paper today, the stock market is at a 5 year low because of the mistrust that is generated by all of these crooked accounting practices. My guess is that this will have global consequences.

And really, I think that it is OK to be pissed off about this. I think that the fact that such a very small (if we believe that most corporations are noble and good and have the interest of the little people at heart ) group of crooked fucks can throw the economy in to a tailspin is something that deserves attention.

[ElwoodCuse]

blah blah revolution blah blah blah first against the wall blah blah blah marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation

Because it had to be done.

[Cheesesteak]

elucidator you really think corporate execs just sit around drinking martinis and smoking cigars all day don't you? I've seen the hours that the execs around here put up, and the crap they deal with. Not the top guys either, the execs in charge of little $300M/yr business units. I've seen the job, and don't want any part of it, because I'd like to have a life.

An execs day is 100% meetings, people in and out of the office every half hour, a decision to be made every time. lunch? the secretary brings it in so he can eat it during a meeting. e-mail? that's for the end of the day, start reading the 100 daily e-mails after 7pm or when you're home, whichever is more "convenient". Of course, as often as not, the drive home is yet another chance to have a meeting, thanks to the cell phone.

Customers hounding you, your subordinates asking for your blessing on every stupid thing, your superior questioning every blip in your finances. IMHO, it's a crappy life, one that I'm totally not interested in, regardless of the money involved.

I doubt anybody here is dumb enough to actually think that altruism is what drives these people. It's greed, mostly, love of power perhaps, along with some other factors, I'm sure. Greed is what makes capitalism work, give people the opportunity to be rich, and they will work their asses of to do so. People will build the better mousetrap, not for the betterment of society, but for the betterment of their bank account. That's ok, because your bank account doesn't grow (generally) if you don't create something of value.

[elucidator]

...Greed is what makes capitalism work...

Is there a better reason to loathe it?

[Cheesesteak]

Loathe it? That's why I love it!

Capitalism takes the basest, the lowest of human desires and uses it to distribute wealth in a fairly equitable manner. Those who contribute (economically) more get more, those who contribute less get less. It forces everyone to work harder and doesn't rely on convincing them to do so.

[johnson]

I'll differ slightly with Cheesesteak here--I would say self-interest is what makes capitalism work and that there's no reason to loathe self-interest. I think greed is neutral in its effects on capitalism--it often helps grease the wheels and spurs innovation, but in other cases (and sometimes the same ones) it can lead to abuses.

originally posted by Binarydrone
But you see, it is also corporations (that after all, exist only to create a profit) that pay employees as little as the market will bear and who charge as much as the market will bear

Mom and Pop aren't driven by exactly the same motivations?

And there are plenty of additional reasons the market is at a five-year low (including the greed of the little man), and the market is not the only factor driving the real economy.

[Binarydrone]

Originally posted by johnson
<snip>...

Mom and Pop aren't driven by exactly the same motivations?

Sure they are, I think the difference here is in scale. Leaving aside the fact that “mom and pop” still need to be able to meet the eyes of their neighbors (unlike a Bill Gates who probably does not give a rip about what I think), the fact remains that if pop is caught steeling from the till, the Tokyo stock market probably won't crash.

also,

[Finagle]

Originally posted by Cheesesteak

I doubt anybody here is dumb enough to actually think that altruism is what drives these people. It's greed, mostly, love of power perhaps, along with some other factors, I'm sure. [/b]

Actually, you may do these people an injustice. Based on what I know of corporate execs, particularly in startups and tech industries, what primarily motivates them is the feeling that "if I don't do it, someone else will f*** it up."

It's not greed (although none of the execs I know would object to making a packet), and it's not power per se , it's mostly the belief that they and they alone are most qualified to do the job. You can call it arrogance (particularly if they are wrong in their belief) but at its heart, it's the desire to see the job done right.

[Ankh_Too]

Originally posted by stofsky
First, mea culpa on Wally World & property taxes. I had limited anecdotal evidence from two towns that offered Sam & Spawn 10 year exclusions to build a store in town--city fathers thinking that all the new jobs at minimum wage would make up for the people who lost their jobs at Joe's Pharmacy. Then Wal Mart comes in and uses their size to drive Joe out of business by selling at a loss. Nah, not unfair business practices, just driving David out by being Goliath.

Explain again how they're going to "use their size" to drive out Joe's Pharmacy, if the people in these two small towns don't want to shop there. Conversely, if the people in those towns do want to shop there, who are you to force them to continue to pay higher prices for their goods by keeping WalMart out?

Unfair business practices are one thing, but until you see the WalMart storm troopers, clad in black and wearing the Smiley face where the ATF sign should be, rounding people up and throwing them into black, unmarked vans to be shuttled to the local MegaMart and forced to shop at gunpoint, the consumers have a choice.

Originally posted by Binarydrone
Weighing in here on the Wal-Mart issue:

This is directed at the folks touting the BS “If people did not want Wal-Mart they wouldn’t shop there” arguments. For some time now, I have seen these arguments as unsatisfying, but have a hard time saying why.

There is a grain of truth there. Generally, I will shop at a locally owned establishment (even choosing to pay a slightly higher price) when given a choice. For example, on the street where I live, there is a Starbucks and a local type coffee shop. A Grande (read Large) drip coffee will cost me $1.63 at the Starbucks, and $1.75 at the other. I go to the other.

But you see, it is also corporations (that after all, exist only to create a profit) that pay employees as little as the market will bear and who charge as much as the market will bear that make these choices so very hard. A $0.12 choice in favor of the little guy is easy, but $1 or more starts to feel spendthrift.

That's fine, you've made a decision that supporting the local business instead of the mega-mart is worth approximately $1. There's nothing wrong with that choice. But it is a choice.

Let's also remember that prior to the Mega-Mart moving in and undercutting the prices of the local businesses, the consumers were quite happily paying the prices set by those local businesses. Why can't they keep paying those prices without any loss of "quality of life" in order to support those local stores? They might incur an opportunity cost by not shopping at the Mega-Mart, but that shouldn't really matter if the health of the local small businesses is so important to the community.

And lets not overlook the horrible aesthetics involved here. My lord those stores are fucking ugly! A blight on the landscape really.

I'm forced to agree with you whole-heartedly there. There's nothing wrong with a WalMart that several hundred pounds of Semtex couldn't fix.

I think, ultimately, the objection here is that these huge corporations (while undoubtedly doing some good for the USA) are pretty bad citizens. Just in the paper today, the stock market is at a 5 year low because of the mistrust that is generated by all of these crooked accounting practices. My guess is that this will have global consequences.

Some are, some aren't, there's a whole variation in the behavior of large corporations, just as there's a variation in the behavior of small business owners, citizens and government employees. Singling out corporations and pretending that all of them have sunk to the despicable levels that Worldcom and Enron have plumbed is engaging in sterotyping of the highest order.

As for the drop in the markets... of course it's the fault of the corporations. It couldn't possibly be the result of the influx of huge sums of cash over the last decade and a half overvaluing the market. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the downturn in actual business precipitated by the attacks on September 11. There's absolutely no way the basic causes are economic in nature and are smiply being magnified by the news coming out about corporate mismanagement. Nope. It's the evil corporations that are doing it all.

I hope there are global consequences to these revelations. I hope that the oversight rules are tightened on the way corporations do their accounting. Not because I think the majority of corporate officers are plotting somewhere in the depths of their dark little hearts to subvert the accounting practices we now have, but because there are a few out there who are willing to cut any corner they have to in order to make the balance sheet look good. I wouldn't want any one else to have to go through what happened to Enron and Worldcom employees over the last few months. If tightenng the rules will help to prevent some mercenary sunovabitch from diddling the numbers so his stock options are going to go through the roof, I'm happy to see them come in. But I'm not going to pretend that all or even most of the people involved in corporate America (or the rest of the world) are heartless pirates that are only interested in raping and pillaging, leaving nothing but a scorched earth behind.

And really, I think that it is OK to be pissed off about this. I think that the fact that such a very small (if we believe that most corporations are noble and good and have the interest of the little people at heart ) group of crooked fucks can throw the economy in to a tailspin is something that deserves attention.

Pissed off about what? The horrendous conduct of Enron, Worldcom, Arthur Andersen et. al.? Absolutely. String the fuckers up. Their actions were criminal. but let's not suddenly pretend the each and every CEO runs around with a Jolly Rogers and an eye patch.

Originally posted by Ukulele Ike
"Christ, leave it to the Teeming Millions to speak up for the rats." -- Cecil Adams

All rats are rodents, but not all rodents are rats. There's a difference between the species. Figuring out which are which is the key, particularly when they all wear the same tie.

[Kimstu]

Cheesesteak: Greed is what makes capitalism work [...] Capitalism takes the basest, the lowest of human desires and uses it to distribute wealth in a fairly equitable manner.

Well, in the first place, while capitalism has a very good record of creating wealth, it doesn't actually produce a very equitable distribution of it; consider the wealth disparities in our own heavily capitalist economy. Are the ones receiving the most money necessarily the hardest workers, or making the best contributions?

In the second place, I'm struck by the contrast between your championing of "greed" (or johnson's less loaded "self-interest") as the mainspring of capitalist success, and the tributes we just heard from, frinstance, manhattan and pld:

manhattan: I'd like to thank the CEO [...] for not laying anyone off after the '87 crash, for teaching the sales force [...] the importance of clients' diversifying even though all they really wanted in the late '90s was an internet fund [...]

Weirddave: I'd like to thank the CEO of the company I work for for [...] buying a large chunk of our stock when it's price was depressed with his own family money and guaranteeing that we, the employees, would be able to purchase the stock at that price with the company stock matching plan for 3 years, regardless of what the price went up to in that time.

pld: I would like to thank the founder and president of the medium-sized, non-public corporation for which I work for [...] leading the way when instituting a temporary salary freeze this year by taking a 50% reduction in your own monthly salary.

Seems that what these lauded CEO's are getting gratitude for is not "greed", or even simple short-term "self-interest", but for having forsaken their short-term self-interest---in some cases, even taking money out of their own pockets---in order to try to preserve their employees' financial security. (Geez, sounds even a little bit, I don't know, socialist??) What these happy corporate employees seem to be saying to their bosses is, in effect, "Thank you for being bad capitalists."

Now you may respond that, in fact, such self-denying measures are actually examples of good capitalism because they are valuable for the companies' long-term interests by fostering solidarity and retaining valuable employees. Sounds good to me, but in that case, why is our society in general so richly rewarding and praising so much bad capitalism?

If sweating workers and maximizing one's own salary while minimizing employees' pay and cutting staff and benefits to the bone and so forth is actually stupid and inefficient capitalist practice, then why is there so much of it going on? Why do company structures reward such behavior? Why do tax laws provide incentives for it? Why do regulators permit it? And why are we so strongly encouraged to be proud of the economic structure that produces it?

Or, on the other hand, if that's the way capitalism is really supposed to work and the way it works best, then why should we thank CEO's for practicing bad capitalism with such pinko bleeding-heart measures as avoiding layoffs and subsidizing employees' stock purchases?

[elucidator]

Kimstu Well put. An addendum, if you wouldn't mind.

Wall Street changed a lot during the years when money was falling from the skys. Previoius to that, there was a growing tendency for investors to act primarily in favor of corporations that promised a higher re-sale value, rather than corporations that offered a steady, but modest, dividend. The dot.com years simply poured the kerosene.

Worse still, corporate biggies began to be paid primarily based on how they affected that value. A huge cut in staff sends Wall Street into multiple orgasm, even though it very well may be a poor decision in terms of longer term goals. Thus, they are led to see as positive anything that makes Wall Street think things are swell.

Further, it strongly affects the very nature of CEO's. Financial press media whores glorify "lean and mean" "hard-headed" executives. the competition between contenders then becomes who can look more like Ayn Rand's love child. Hence, the system encourages, even more than it did, that the top tiers of decision making are occupied with persons with no humanistic values whatsoever. The Peter Principle meets the Vicious Circle.

Which is why it sucks.

[vibrotronica]

One of the reasons why I don't slug it out in GD regularly is that I always let my emotions get the better of me and blurt out stuff without thinking which leaves me open to counterattack. I guess it's a good thing I didn't go to law school like my mom wanted me to.

Thanks, Stofsky for the cites on Wal Mart's labor practices. But I guess the folks of my hometown are actually to blame for all the bad stuff that Wal Mart has caused. You should have seen how they were dressed. They were asking for it.

And I'm sorry about the slander against the Plebian Tresury Sec. O'Neil. I don't have have any evidence that he has personally been involved in any of the harmless corporate shenanigans that had me all in a tizzy before these powerful, powerful antidepressants kicked in. I think what happened was that I conflated him with Army Sec. Thomas White, who made a killing by, among other things, making sure the Army bought energy from Enron. Oh, and did I mention he used to be a vice chairman of Enron? My mistake.

No wait, it wasn't White I was thinking of, it was SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt, the accountant who promised a "less confrontational approach" to enforcement. Kudos to him for keeping his word! He's the one I was confusing with O'Neill.

Or maybe it was Vice President Dick "Undisclosed Location" Cheney, whose ass is currently chafing because of the Judicial Watch lawsuit concerning his stewardship of Haliburton Oil. Yes, he must have been the one.

No, I know! I was confusing Treasury Sec. O'Neill with...wait for it...President George W. "At Least Nero Could Fiddle" Bush! See, it was the whole Alcoa/Aloha thing. O'Neill was the CEO of ALCOA, while Bush was on the board of Harken when they pulled an Enron by selling themselves a company called ALOHA. I think you can all understand how I made the mistake. Surely just because O'Neill is a former CEO and was appointed by and taking orders from these characters doesn't mean I have any right to trash his good name. I'm sorry.

Now if you will excuse me, there's a bottle of Prozac with my name on it.

[Kimstu]

elucidator: Hence, the system encourages, even more than it did, that the top tiers of decision making are occupied with persons with no humanistic values whatsoever.

If so, then it sounds as though vibrotronica rather has a point in her OP. I've got no problem with thanking those CEO's who are obeying the law and looking out for the little guy at the sacrifice of some short-term profits. (Hell, I'll thank 'em right now. Thanks!!! ) But from what you suggest, the laissez-faire practices that Secretary O'Neill, among others, have supported will tend to produce a very different kind of CEO. In other words, the big economic boom that recently ended isn't actually a very shining chapter in the history of capitalism, and maybe we shouldn't be so quick to assume that our system is "the envy of the world".

[LouisB]

Stofsky, thanks for the links. I would never have believed it possible that a major corporation would lock employees in a building and force them to work w/o pay. I must be truly naïve.

[Estilicon]

Originally posted by friedo
Yeah, it's Wal-Mart's fault that your local politicians are un-principled bastards.

And it's their fault that the citizens in your town voted for them.

And it's their fault that they shopped there instead of Mom & Pop's on Main Street.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Was I the only one that read this? I am fed up with this kind of "double moral" expressed by many fucking morons (This is the pit right?)
YES Wal Mart is responsable (If they payed a bribe) that politicians are un-principle bastards. After all the law is not only broken by those that receive the bribe but also from those that pay it.
I am from the third world, it's really amazing when O'Neill mentions the "corrupt leadership" of Argentina (They most certainly are and he forgets this:

http://www.transparency.org/cpi/2002/bpi2002.en.html
The world certainly needs a change in attitude.