Which is more Evil: Wal-Mart of Microsoft?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,548
10,171
126
Originally posted by: Amused
Larry, there would be no "corporate welfare" if regulations and taxes of corporations were ended. Corporate taxes are merely indirect taxes on the consumer and make our businesses less competitive on the world market. They should be abolished.
Thanks for mentioning all of that. It should be clear to everyone now what your POV is. Personally, I find it abhorrent. Why should corporations be above the law? What should they be free from being taxed? But yet, "ordinary people" are held to the confines of the written law, and taxed just the same. You truely are in favor of the "slave-master corporate state", aren't you? That really makes me sick.

Or are you in favor of abolishing all taxes altogether, which would imply abolishing gov't itself, which would lead to a true outlaw state. Is that what you would favor? No gov't?
Originally posted by: Amused
Everything you have ranted about is directly connected to the regulation of business. Separate business and state just as we have religion and state and business loses all power.
ALL your arguments are weak. What's more, you implying that I am indirectly advocating socialism because Walmart doesn't offer benefits to your liking is so laughable, I only respond to point out it's absurdity.
You initially pointed out Wal-Mart's "success". I point out that "success" was based on indirect socialism. It is not the "pure capitalist" success that you make it out to be.
Originally posted by: Amused
Health care and all other "benefits" are the sole responsibility of the individual. Not the state, or any business. If you don't like the "benefits" offered at your place of employment, find another employer.
That's a different issue, and I basically agree with that. But there are legitimate issues, and if you think about it, "insurance" is based inherently on a collective model to make it work. Does that mean that health insurance cannot exist in a profit-driven capitalist world? Not everything in life can be strictly measured by just dollars and cents. That's why the "pure capitalist" model, is itself, inherently blind, and not directly suitable for the real world that we must all live in.
Originally posted by: Amused
Finally, anti-discrimination laws are an unenforceable joke. You cannot change hearts and minds with laws. People discriminate every day. The only way to stop it is not forcing them to do things they do not want to do, but by ending bias itself through education and the changing of hearts and minds.
I wasn't arguing against personally-held biases and beliefs, nor that one would be able to change those. But this country is a Republic, which is based in part on the principles of respecting the rights of the minorities, at the same time that the overall will of the people is decided by majority vote. Everyone should be considered equal under the law, at least in terms of rights, and opportunities. The fact that you see nothing wrong with racially-prejudicial hiring practices, in pursuit of your "pure capitalism" dream world, speaks volumes, both about your viewpoints, and about how different they are from the basic principles that this country was founded upon. I think you should leave this country, quite frankly. You and everyone like you. Start your own "outlaw free capitalist state", somewhere else. I, for one, do believe in the legitimate purpose of a limited gov't, for the primary purpose of serving and upholding the rights of the people. In order to do that, one must also regulate business and commerce. For safety, and for freedom.
 

suse920

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2005
6,889
0
0
Originally posted by: MogulMonster
Wal-Mart, for sure. As much as I hate the way Microsoft does things, they are good to their employees and generous to causes around the world. Wal-Mart is so profit driven that they wouldn't know ethics if it kicked them in the ass.

 

artikk

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2004
4,172
1
71
Walmart is definately more evil although I can see that Microsoft's monopoly in OS business would present a problem for the competitors. While Microsoft donates billions of dollars to charities, Walmart stifles competition from the other chain retailer stores by importing cheap junk from China and overall Asia. Those underhanded commercial techniques alone decrease the survival rates of entrepreneurship in this country further strengthening Walmart's increasing retail monopoly.
 

alius

Member
Jan 13, 2003
82
0
0
I too hate Walmart. Everyone who works there is generally apathetic (who can blame them?). The stores are usually dirty as hell and they drive out local buisinesses. As other posters have said I go out of my way not to shop at their stores. Microsoft on the other hand has done a great deal making our society what it is today, for better or worse.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,548
10,171
126
Originally posted by: Amused
All I am reading is a lot of paranoid hysteria.
So... well-establish principles of civil contract law and procedure... and my desire to see that those are enforced, properly, legally, against and for both corporation and citizen... and that constitutes "paranoid hysteria"? Please, get real here. The simple problem is that you have constantly expressed that you feel that corporations should not be subject to restrictions by law. But that's not how this country works. If you find that distasteful, then perhaps you should leave this country.
Originally posted by: Amused
Again, your right is to not use MS's product. It's that simple. No one is forcing you to buy it or use it.
You are apparently either unable to grasp the nuances that I am trying to point out here, or you are intentionally avoiding discussing them, because you know what I am saying, and you know that it is correct. I am not against MS selling their software, nor am I against them attempting to require a properly-executed civil contract prior to and as part of the terms of the sale. Simply, if they wish to do so, then they should, indeed, do so.

But they should not do so in a manner which is inconsistent with the law. Why should MS be above the law? (Notwithstanding your apparent belief that all corporations should be above any kind of restriction or regulations. But that's not reality, nor does it match with the proper function of limited gov't in a Constitutional Republic.)
Originally posted by: Amused
And no, corporations do NOT exist for the sole purpose of the "public good." They exist to make money, just as any business does.
WOW.... once again, "blind". Please study your corporate history, and why corporations are chartered in the first place. That's exactly the problem these days, that people have lost sight of what corporations were created and exist for, and instead foolishly (and greedily, I might add!) believe that they are somehow a purely profit-driven enigma, an entity unto themselves, who should not be contrained in any way, such that they would be allowed to generate the most profit possible, by any means possible.

That's simply just not true, and that "blindness" is fueled by pure greed.
Originally posted by: Amused
They have not infringed on your rights one bit. You want to make up rights by taking away their rights to set the terms at which they do business.
It's really honestly sad how you can't seem to see how strongly pro-corporate biased your viewpoint really is.

Instead of "equal under law", as I have been suggesting, now you are trying to suggest that forcing corporations to adhere to the letter and well-established principles of law, is somehow "making up rights" on my behalf as a citizen, and somehow "infringing on the rights" of corporations. Apparently, as you have already well established, you believe that corporations somehow have the inherent right to avoid being beholden to any sort of law, regulation, or restriction. That's the part that makes me sick. I am strongly in favor of basic legal equality, but apparently that's not good enough for you.
Originally posted by: Amused
I'm not blind. I see just fine. Just because I don't see your paranoid delusions does not mean I can't see reality.
And the discussion starts to devolve; when you run out of things to say, attack who is saying them. Alright. I see how it is.
Originally posted by: Amused
Your paranoid dribble is the same sad hysteria that has led to every communist uprising
Again, I'll take freedom.
Your definition of "freedom", as I am seeing a better picture here, is the absolute "freedom" to not be beholden to any principles or code of law - what's known properly as "outlaw". Our great Republic is most certainly not an outlaw state. I think that you really need to take a better look at how things are, and reconcile that with your ideal viewpoints. I think that it is not I that has trouble seeing reality, but you, blinded by your desires of idealism, and a mistaken view of what "freedom" is, as it exists in a Republic governed under written law. I view it as freedom to not have my rights infringed, which is what is effectively happening, if MS is allowed to bind me into contracts, that are not properly executed in accordance with established legal principles.

I fail to see how a Constutional Republic, governed by the "will of the people", is considered to be akin to a "communist uprising". If you think that, well then, I'm not really sure what to say to you. Perhaps you need to refresh your study of civics, and the operations and framework of the gov't of this country.
 
Nov 7, 2000
16,403
3
81
LOL did you just say corporations are created for the public good and not greed?

perhaps you are trying to say that they exist to serve their stockholders? newsflash, they only serve their stockholders if they make money.

its ALL about the $$$
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,548
10,171
126
Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
LOL did you just say corporations are created for the public good and not greed?
perhaps you are trying to say that they exist to serve their stockholders? newsflash, they only serve their stockholders if they make money.
its ALL about the $$$
It's truely sad how many people now think that these days, because they lack a proper understand of history. It's also one more reason why our current state of the world is all just going straight to heck in a handbasket.

But the fact is that, yes, first and foremost, corporations are created and chartered, "for the public good", as a economic tool.

It's kind of like when the President (or really, any political officer), is "sworn in", and they have to recite an "Oath of office". Long ago, it used to actually mean something, and they (perhaps) actually believed, at least in part, that they were in fact supposed to uphold the principles of the Constitution during their term in office.

Now, it simply seems to be a mere formality, a minor and oft-ignored stepping-stone towards personal profit, much like corporate charters as well.
 

IH8 Money

Member
Jan 8, 2005
104
0
0
Don't hate the player, hate the game.

They are both in business to make as much $ as they can, obviously they are doing something right.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,548
10,171
126
If no-one cares about laws, ethics, morals, "social responsibility", anymore - then where are we headed? Are we headed straight for an "outlaw state"? Ruled by primarily economic "warlord factions", much like in Afghanistan and those parts of the world, in the absence of a strong civil gov't? Wouldn't that be a step backwards for society, a return to the likes of feudal Europe?

Don't be fooled, citizens, that's exactly the sort of state that a capitalist robber-baron would want to exist in, because they have no limits, and all the power within society that they can muster. I'm being convinced more than ever, that "pure capitalism", is simply a veiled synonym for "outlaw state".
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,515
16,237
146
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
If no-one cares about laws, ethics, morals, "social responsibility", anymore - then where are we headed? Are we headed straight for an "outlaw state"? Ruled by primarily economic "warlord factions", much like in Afghanistan and those parts of the world, in the absence of a strong civil gov't? Wouldn't that be a step backwards for society, a return to the likes of feudal Europe?

Don't be fooled, citizens, that's exactly the sort of state that a capitalist robber-baron would want to exist in, because they have no limits, and all the power within society that they can muster. I'm being convinced more than ever, that "pure capitalism", is simply a veiled synonym for "outlaw state".

Isn't it amazing how this country survived... nay, prospered, created the middle class and created non-static classes... all without instituting the socialist, nannystate, anti business regulations you would subject on the US?

Despite your best efforts, you cannot deny that the most free nations (with the most free trade) on earth have been the most prosperous.

And it's nice how you authoritarian socialists love to equate freedom and capitalism with anarchy, even though they have nothing to do with one another.
 

iversonyin

Diamond Member
Aug 12, 2004
3,303
0
76
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
If no-one cares about laws, ethics, morals, "social responsibility", anymore - then where are we headed? Are we headed straight for an "outlaw state"? Ruled by primarily economic "warlord factions", much like in Afghanistan and those parts of the world, in the absence of a strong civil gov't? Wouldn't that be a step backwards for society, a return to the likes of feudal Europe?

Don't be fooled, citizens, that's exactly the sort of state that a capitalist robber-baron would want to exist in, because they have no limits, and all the power within society that they can muster. I'm being convinced more than ever, that "pure capitalism", is simply a veiled synonym for "outlaw state".

Isn't it amazing how this country survived... nay, prospered, created the middle class and created non-static classes... all without instituting the socialist, nannystate, anti business regulations you would subject on the US?

Despite your best efforts, you cannot deny that the most free nations (with the most free trade) on earth have been the most prosperous.

And it's nice how you authoritarian socialists love to equate freedom and capitalism with anarchy, even though they have nothing to do with one another.


I couldn't agree more.
 

iversonyin

Diamond Member
Aug 12, 2004
3,303
0
76
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
LOL did you just say corporations are created for the public good and not greed?
perhaps you are trying to say that they exist to serve their stockholders? newsflash, they only serve their stockholders if they make money.
its ALL about the $$$


But the fact is that, yes, first and foremost, corporations are created and chartered, "for the public good", as a economic tool.


What country do you live in ?and when do poeple start a business to serve the public?

In a capitalists society, businesses are created to generate profit. And by paying the workers wages, the workers benefit as well as the company. By selling consumers what they want, the consumers benefit as well as the company.

I do not see why should corporations be socially responsible for the welfare of the people, isnt that the government and the individuals' job?
 

VirtualLarry > Amused.

Virtualarry: You might want to keep in mind that Amused owns some franchise(I'm fairly sure) businesses, his opinion will be skewed. His world is also very black and white, with very little room for grey. His arguments will eventually become very cyclical, as you have already seen. If your discussion goes beyond the most basic of dicussion, you will most likely lose him. ;)

Amused: I agree with many of your points on both sides, and weve been through a lot of arguments of this nature. Though you are missing many great points virtuallarry is making. And hes basically running circles around you in this thread.
One thing you keep mentioning is that no one is forced to use MS products, and you have the right not to use them. At this stage in the game that argument is incredibly simplified, it is no longer a black and white issue. MS products are shoved in your face in school, at work, at home, whereever you go. In todays society you cannot get by without consenting to MS' EULA, you essentiall HAVE to use MS products to do business or school. Eventually it gets to a point where you really have no choice on what products you need to use in order to get by in your life. The DOJ trial of MS was a complete joke, and referencing that is pointless.

Everything you have ranted about is directly connected to the regulation of business. Separate business and state just as we have religion and state and business loses all power.
ALL your arguments are weak. What's more, you implying that I am indirectly advocating socialism because Walmart doesn't offer benefits to your liking is so laughable, I only respond to point out it's absurdity.
I can't believe you honestly believe that. Look at how much power the church has over government. If business was separated from govt it would have as much power as it does not, if not more. You are under this false notion that you are actually free.

Either way I really don't care if a corporation is "evil". America as a whole has been going down the tubes for some 50 years now, and there isn't much that is goign to stop that.
So give me my cheap kitchenware, cheap bathroom products and whatever other random crappy goods I need to use in order to survive on a daily basis.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,548
10,171
126
Originally posted by: Amused
Isn't it amazing how this country survived... nay, prospered, created the middle class and created non-static classes... all without instituting the socialist, nannystate, anti business regulations you would subject on the US?
Where in the world did I suggest the creation of a "socialist nannystate"? Because I believe that there simply is a legitimate purpose for limited gov't? That one of those purposes is to uphold the rights of the citizens of the Republic? (Please note that I said "limited gov't", I'm not blindly and blanketedly saying that more "red tape" is good, quite the opposite.)

But yet, you feel that any laws which corporations are forced to be beholden to, even though they are intended to protect those rights of the citizens, are "anti-business" at their core, because you do not believe that corporations should be beholden to any laws at all - is that a correct assessment of your viewpoint?
Originally posted by: Amused
Despite your best efforts, you cannot deny that the most free nations (with the most free trade) on earth have been the most prosperous.
How are you possibly interpreting my belief that laws which protect (citizens and corporations alike) against fraud and coercion, are somehow "anti-free trade"? Do you believe that "free trade", has an inherent dependence on fraud and/or coercion?

Additionally, are you suggesting that big business is inherently criminal? (Well, if there were no laws restricting corporations, then none of their conduct could ever be considered "criminal" then, I guess. Perhaps that is also one of the reasons in which you advocate that corporations should be above the law.)
Originally posted by: Amused
And it's nice how you authoritarian socialists love to equate freedom and capitalism with anarchy, even though they have nothing to do with one another.
Well, if anarchy is the absence of a legal framework based on laws, essentially an absence of gov't, and you believe that corporations shouldn't have to follow or be restricted by any laws, nor should they have to pay any taxes, which are required to support a gov't, then it is not me who is suggesting it, but rather you, through a simple chain of logical deduction based on your expressed viewpoints. You believe in unfettered corporate anarchy, and do not believe in a society governed by law.

Btw, I also understand logic, and present a consistent and coherent arguement - which is more than I can say for you, apparently. You sound like a rhetorical script-bot, at this point, refusing to acknowledge and discuss the finer points, and instead simply repeat the same whithering diatribe, somehow equating a nation, a Republic, based upon the rule of written public law, to be equated in your mind with a "socialist nannystate" or communism. As an American, that does indeed believe strongly in basic constitutional-law principles - that sickens me.

Also, you keep throwing around "authoritarian socialist" - as if a belief in anything other than pure corporate-controlled anarchy automatically makes one a believer in an "authoritarian socialist" system. (Hint: it's the "will of the people" to make laws that govern the society in which they live, that does not make it what you seem to claim.) Simply because one believes in a legal framework govened by laws, and that those laws should apply to corporations and citizens alike, thus leads you to somehow feel that such a framework is "anti-business", "anti-capitalist", and thus "socialist" or "communist"?

Quite frankly, you're daft.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,548
10,171
126
Originally posted by: SampSon
Virtualarry: You might want to keep in mind that Amused owns some franchise(I'm fairly sure) businesses, his opinion will be skewed.
Well, good for him. I'm quite a supporter of small businesses, both in principle, as well as patronage. Granted I can understand how he might be strongly anti-regulation, given all of the gov't red-tape that, quite frankly, does seem rather constrictive for someone looking to start their own business. I've contemplated it several times myself, but the legal issues and overhead put me off.
Originally posted by: SampSon
His world is also very black and white, with very little room for grey. His arguments will eventually become very cyclical, as you have already seen. If your discussion goes beyond the most basic of dicussion, you will most likely lose him. ;)
I noticed. :)
Originally posted by: SampSon
If business was separated from govt it would have as much power as it does not, if not more. You are under this false notion that you are actually free.
That's what I feel. In order to ensure "freedom" in a lawful society, then all parties involved have to be held to the standards in the law, and if corporations were allowed to be "above the law", then where do your rights and freedom as a citizen go? If they cannot or will not be protected, they will disappear and blow up and dry away. We are starting to see that now, with EULAs and contract law, and that's one of my big concerns.
Originally posted by: SampSon
Either way I really don't care if a corporation is "evil". America as a whole has been going down the tubes for some 50 years now, and there isn't much that is goign to stop that.
So give me my cheap kitchenware, cheap bathroom products and whatever other random crappy goods I need to use in order to survive on a daily basis.
The sad thing is, that's exactly the same sort of "bread and butter politics" that got a certain someone into power in Germany in the 1940's, and we had to have a world war to kick him out. The reason that it happened in the first place, is that the citizens were too focused on simply living, surviving, and providing, that they felt that they didn't have any time to spend on their civic duties and politics. Not to mention power-grabs by the politicos too.
 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
29,540
24,358
146
Actually Hitler took power in the early 30's, and it wasn't that the citizens were focused on day-to-day survival either. It was that he gave them something tangible to vilify, upon which to concentrate the finger of blame on for all lifes' problems. He used hate to unite the German people, he appealed to their base emotions and used the lynch mob mentality it generated to serve his designs. Once enough were indoctrinated, fear drove the remaining sensible people to either flee or submit.

Honestly, I see all this vilification of big corporations as being similar in many respects. The Industrial Revolution made this nation great, and we have big business to thank for the standard of living we enjoy today. A very high standard it is too, wether spoiled Americans grasp that simple truth or not. MS and Wal-Mart are the GM and IBM of days past. There will always be problems with how big corps are run, there will always be workers suffering under conditions that inspire our pity and concern, always.

I live in the real world under the bright yellow sun some of us call Sol, and idealistic crusades against big corporations are the McCarthy witch Hunt of the 21st century IMO. Just instead of communists, we are trying to persecute and prosecute capitalists. Neither of these corporations is the cause of all our problems in life, the enemy we must unite against. Both conduct their affairs much as massive corporations always have. That is, if you aren't used to big biz enagaging in amoral, unethical, and even illegal activities to further their goals and increase their profits by now, then you are just young and still a world beater ;) Just give it time and acceptance of it as one of the unsavory realities of life will follow :)

If you think you can change it you are sadly mistaken. Take for example most of the hippies of the 60's who became what they loathed. They sold out for a good corporate job and a lifestyle even better than what their parents enjoyed ;)

Scream that the "walmartization" of America is the end of our way of life, our own mass consumption driven doom all you want people, but all I hear is "Noesssss!!!!The sky is falling!!!"
 

Pciber

Senior member
Feb 17, 2004
977
1
0
well... lets see here..

walmart screws their employees, but is good to the general public
Microsoft screws the general public, but is good to its employees...

i'd say microsoft, because they screw more people :)
 

neonerd

Diamond Member
Apr 24, 2003
8,746
1
0
who cares? all i have to say is Microsoft is :thumbsup: and you are :thumbsdown:
 

neonerd

Diamond Member
Apr 24, 2003
8,746
1
0
Originally posted by: Pciber
well... lets see here..

walmart screws their employees, but is good to the general public
Microsoft screws the general public, but is good to its employees...

i'd say microsoft, because they screw more people :)

Without Microsoft and Bill Gates, this world that you live in would not be nearly the same. Computers would be in the shithole, and you can't even possibly imagine how much money Gates donates to various charities around the world to save people from diseases, to provide vaccinations, to save children, etc.
 

Detayned1447

Member
Mar 2, 2005
127
0
0
I think they both are amazing, Microsoft is brilliant, and Wal-Mart, besides that it will soon rule the world, is awesome, they have really inexpensive items, which helps college kids like me