A belief in Capitalism?

Victor

Originally posted by Meh
The miniumum wage was only introduced in this country quite recently, why weren't all the workers starving before then?

(a) food was cheaper, but this has been eroded by monertary inflation (b) social expectation was lower, but this has been eroded by specification inflation.

Earthhorse

Originally posted by Meh
So if I'm perpetually making a loss in order to drive out competition, how do I avoid going bust myself?

But you aren't perpetually making a loss. You're only making a loss long enough to drive your competitor out of business. Then you put prices back up to profit making levels. If another competitor comes along you do the same thing. Moreover if another person does consider going into competition with you they will see what happened to the last guy and more than likely not bother with the venture.

With regard to the minimum wage argument. Most economists agree that in the long run an economy won't sustain full employment and full employment is largely regarded as approximately 95% of the workforce employed. So, and again this is in the long run, there's a surplus of employees over positions. This gives the employers a big bargaining chip especially when looking for unskilled labour. It is precisely those employees that a minimum wage is introduced to protect and not people in skilled positions where it really has little or no effect.

As for the original poster's question; a belief in capitalism? No. It's not a religion. I'm confident of it's superiority as means of distributing goods and services (capital I should say). Should this efficiency be untempered by a moral or legislative body? Absolutely not and the justification for the existence of such bodies has little or nothing to do with economics.

I agree that some posters on this thread could do with brushing up on first principles. Others might consider making that leap to the second year textbook now!

bonkey

Originally posted by Meh
So if I'm perpetually making a loss in order to drive out competition, how do I avoid going bust myself?

Nope. When you own most of the market, it takes a long, long time for competition to be anything more than a bug you can ignore, during which time you can make enormous profit. Only after a certain point is reached do you have to do anything, and then the pressure is on to do it as quickly as possible.

Look how the model for Starbucks works. Move into an area. Super-saturate the market to force all other players out of business because no store can make money. Then, when the competition goes, close some of your own stores, until those who remain are profitable.

Such tactics are the first most effective thing stopping a competitor starting up - they know that Starbucks will do the same to them if they open up and become more than a bit player, or if too many bit players arrive. Starbucks, on the other hand, know that their approach is profitable and that competition doesn't arrive often enough and significantly enough to cause them a problem.

The only way the cycle can realistically be broken without government intervention is when another giant comes in and is willing to go head-to-head. And what does this result in? Well, look at Pepsi and Coke and you'll get an idea. Wherever possible, they still set about being the only player (exclusivity deals), and where not possible, they charge a common price, so that whilst the consumer can choose, there is no competition.

Oh, I should mention that Wal Mart et al also employ similar tactics - lowering prices until the competition is gone, then raising them again.

If it doesn't work, then why have these companies been so succcessful? The latter of the two tops the Fortune500, unless I'm mistaken.

Also remember that a significant number of people are prepared to pay a premium for high-quality food

Err, completely untrue. A small number of people are prepared to pay a premium. Again, take the meat market in the US. Something like 6 packers produce around 90% of the meat in the entire country. Do they care about the other 10% of the market? Not at all - thats for those rich enough to import grass-fed steak from Argentina, or whatever they're in to. Tney've never had that demographic in their market, and never will. They don't care about it.

see the success of the organic market.

Success? What success? I don't see it taking more than a couple of percent of the market at most - a figure which is of no concern whatsoever to the major produce producers.

So it would actually be quite easy for a higher-priced upstart to grab a chunk of the market.

Until such times as the large companies decided to deal with it. If you can't fight on cost (which is the case with organic - its more expensive anyway), then you go with FUD. You go with informing retailers that they have to sign exclusivity deals. You go with head-hunting, or otherwise nullifying the staff. You exercise lobbying pressure on government to put more stringent controls on those weirdo's who don't use properly certified chemicals and industrial processes to ensure that what they sell is of a high enough quantity. In short, you fight dirty.

Your example is anything but a free market.

I've already posited that there is no such thing as a free market, but thats not the point here. Allow me to explain.....

These employees are illegal immigrants who are legally barred from employment. So it's no surprise that they have to take the worst jobs available, because the government has forbidden employers to hire them.

But if the government wasn't regulating the market - if the market as free - then these people would be eligible to work there, and there is no reason to believe the end result would be any different.

IN other words, the example I gave was of a market with regulation which is not being enforced. That is closer to a free market than one with regulation. In a free market, those employees would not be illegal.

I find it interesting, though, that you're now arguing that the flaw in my example is that the regulation isn't being adhered to, rather than that there is no need for regulation. Does this mean that you're now agreeing with the stance that allowing the market to find its own level is flawed, and that regulation is necessary???

If not, then what relevance that these people are illegal workers? They're only illegal because of regulation you are saying isn't needed. Remove the regulation, and what changes??? The only way it would change for the better is if there were more jobs - globally - than people. This is not the case, nor can it ever realistically be.

jc

Zombrex

Originally posted by Meh
Now you've changed your mind, in your original post you were talking about some sort of minimum wage level for each skillset/industry.

Apologies ... I miss read your post.

Yes their are certain "minimum wage" for different industry levels and skill levels. My point was exactly this, that employers will pay the very minimum necessary that they have to for the staff and not anything more. No company will pay more than necessary for an employee unless they are forced to, and forcing them too goes against the principles of "free market."

If Nike can pay workers in Asia or Mexico 50c per hour they aren't going to pay workers in the US $5.00 an hour to do the same job.

Ironically Sands idea that workers can bargain for better pay by threating to go to a rival company, wouldn't work because of the "Free Market". Free market economics harms workers because their will always be someone willing to work for less than you, some where in the world.

Originally posted by Meh
So why do the majority of workers get paid more than the minimum wage? The miniumum wage was only introduced in this country quite recently, why weren't all the workers starving before then?

They were, that is why minimum wage was introduced. People could not live on the wages they were being paid.

Meh, if what Sand said were true, minimum wage wouldn't need to exist. The very fact that it does exist shows that his idea does not hold true in the real world.

Originally posted by Meh
I really can't believe I'm having to explain this, this is absolutely basic economics. The labour market obeys the laws of supply and demand, like every other market. Employees sell labour to their employers.

If you were a company would you "buy" labour from someone selling it at 50c or would you "buy" the same labour from someone selling it at €6.50? No company in the world buys something, be it labour or goods, for more than they have to pay.

Now say you are a small shop selling milk at €2 a litre. You have to sell it at that price because it is the only price you can make a living on. And you have to live.

Now say a supermarket opens up selling milk at €1. Naturally people are going to go to the supermarket and buy the milk at a cheaper value.

You are now out of business. Or if it was your labour you were selling you are now unemployed, unless you want to work for money you cannot live on.

Now in this model Sands solution would be to sell your €2 milk to someone else, rather than the supermarket customers how will only pay €1. But who in the world would pay more for milk than they have to at the supermarket. It would make any sense. Likewise, what company is not going to take on staff that cost more to that they have to pay.

Sands idea only works in a closed system where their are a limited number of possible employees, less that the number of positions needing to be filled. There are very very very few industries where this is the case, and the freer the market gets, the more globisation takes place, the smaller the number of these industries.

We used to think IT was one such "safe" industry, until India came along with a work force 10 times ours that will work for half the wage. Suddenly there are 10 supermarkets charging only €1 per litre of milk, and the price of milk is dropping all the time.

Originally posted by Meh
Higher pay doesn't always have to be in the form of extra cash. Benefit-in-kind like you're describing counts too.

Hey I never said these weren't benefits. They are something the employees, including myself, look for in a company. And given the choice between two companies that pay the same wage I would go to the one that has the best benenfits (which is the whole point of them).

What I am saying is that companies compete with other companies for staff retention with group wide benefits, not with larger salaries, because it is a lot lot cheaper to invest in employee benefit schemes than it is to raise salaries.

Zombrex

Originally posted by Meh
.And its employees will constantly be seeking to increase their wages.

But it harms the employee to be unemployeed a lot more than it harms the company to be without the employee. If I leave a bank it is easier for them to replace me than it is for me to get another job.

The power is with the company, where as the staff, especially indivdually (and unions are a free market no-no) have little power, because, like I said, there is always someone else who could do your job. And the freer the market the more people who are waiting to take over your job, for less money.

Time Magazine

My two cents worth:

Steering from the current debate and focusing on the crux of the matter for a moment. Nobody in their right mind doubts capitalism is flawed. It does have problems. However it fundamentally works. With regard "free market", that's a very loose term changeable as we see fit. I think everyone here is against a total laissez-faire approach, that e.g. polluting companies should be fined/shut down etc. We all agree with that. I do think also that we agree that although the distribution of wealth in capitalism is un-even, it is more even than is socialism. It's a paradox before you reply promptly. We all know that the lads in Clongowes who know the secret hand-shake have an upper-hand in capitalism, however I'd rather that than someone with a first-class masters in economics earning the same wage as Jimmy the lazy bus-driver. To quote Churchill, if you're not a communist at 18 you have no heart, if you're still a communist at 30 you have no brain. A relaxed free-market system is better than the ridiculous alternatives history has shown us. I agree there is awful social problems in America enforced by its strong captialist system, but people start to assume that it's only due to capitalism. Capitalism with compassion would be far better imho.

With regard freedom of firms. Well, I agree they must be controlled. Food control is essential, hence we have HACCP. I think pollution control is essential. However I agree with no trade barriers and low corpo taxes. With regard enforcing fair employee rights and fearing about the future, look no further than the HUGE advances in labour rights in the last 100 years. Think of the situation before the Lock-out and compare them to today. Admittedly this is due in no small part to socialist groups but it all occured within the capitalist framework.

Now to the employees' wages decreasing etc. Well, I don't see this happening. There are a few reasons for this. Firstly, labour is employed because it is profitable to do so. Assuming employees accept wages that are reasonable they will continue to be employed as they remain profitable. There are strict rules governing lowering wages and redundancies so it is very difficult to do so. There is also economic theory behind the reason why this won't happen.

Do not think about a single firm but think nationally/internationally. If firms start dropping off employee wages their disposable income falls. As income falls so does demand. When applied on a large scale firms suffer from the fall in demand. Hence it will never happen that machines replace labour because, very simply, nobody will buy goods then. Far more economically achievable is the increase of employees' output to further profit than lowering wages. This can be achieved, for example, through education and training. Having capital work with labour helps too. As output increases, the entrepreneur gets more profit. He doesn't sit on a pile of money, he spends it. As he spends it more wealth is created and you have a multiplier effect.

With regard governments funding corporations, this is mostly done in line of Keynesian economic theory, as roughly outlined above - that as more wealth is produced/injected, an even greater amount of wealth is produced.

I know that socialism hasn't really been discussed here but it is an alternative to the admittedly bad failures of capitalism, and is enivitably going to arise in this debate. I agree capitalism has major problems. I agree there should be medium restrictions on firms. How and ever, history has shown that capitalism tends to improve the lot of the average worker. Socialism's history is not as positive (or perhaps less negative, depending on how you see it).

Zombrex

Originally posted by Angry Banana
I'd rather that than someone with a first-class masters in economics earning the same wage as Jimmy the lazy bus-driver.

There is an assumption, shared by many of the people I know who would hold a capitalist view, that those who have a high level of education (normally themselves), and as such are employed in higher paying jobs, deserve this higher wage because they have worked harder than others who have lesser qualifications and lower wages.

I feel this view point is not only flawed, I think it is inheriently dangerous.

The entire captialist ideal is founded on a moral justification that the system is fair and open to everyone. Everyone starts at the same point. Everyone can make money, and those who do make money deserve this because they are working harder than everyone else, or that they are smarter, more adventurous, more skilled that everyone else. Those who have low paying jobs, who do not have high incomes, who are unskilled and uneducated, are not in that position through bad luck or through fault of society, but rather through their own laziness and weakness.

This idea of "hard-working vs lazy" is used to justify the winner-takes-all attitude of capitalism, that idea that it is not "my" fault you don't have money, it is your fault because you do not work as hard as me.

In the real world this is a nonsense idea in the same way that the Communist ideal is nonsense idea. The most probably reason the person in the quote has a first class honours degree and the bus driver doesnt, is because his/her parents could afford good schooling while the bus drivers parents couldn't. And it is highly likely that the economics student will go on to a very highly paid job where he does a tenth of the actually work a bus driver does each day.

The "system" is not open to everyone. Enviormental factors, social factors and just plan luck, effect the system in millions of unknown ways. To assume the system is fair and open to all, when it is actually not, is a very dangerous assumption, as it leaves open the justification for refusal to help others in society. It justifies the idea that those less off than you do not deserve help from you as they could improve their lives (or had the chance too) but refused to through fault of their own.

Time Magazine

I never assumed that. Read the Clongowes bit again. And when I mentioned the Masters I was making reference to those who create more wealth, not necessarily those with a rich daddy. "Enviormental factors, social factors and just plan luck, effect the system in millions of unknown ways." Ditto to just about everything. And I never said those who are unemployed are unemployed due to laziness and thus they should suffer. I agree with what you are saying, it just appears to don't see it .

bonkey

Originally posted by Angry Banana
I do think also that we agree that although the distribution of wealth in capitalism is un-even, it is more even than is socialism.

I'm pretty sure that this is most definately not something that everyone here is going to agree with.

IN fact, you continue on to show that apparently you don't agree with it, when you say that :

I'd rather that than someone with a first-class masters in economics earning the same wage as Jimmy the lazy bus-driver

OK - maybe you're thinking exclusively of communism, but a properly implemented socialist system would vastly reduce - if not entirely remove - this wage-difference as well.

A relaxed free-market system is better than the ridiculous alternatives history has shown us.

True, but does that mean that it is better than anything we are capable of producing, or that it is in any way an acceptable endpoint?

I could just as easily use that same logic to say that beacause the Toyota Prius is less pollutant than any alternative car that history has shown us, therefore it is not possible to have a less polluting car than the Prius.

Capitalism with compassion would be far better imho.

Yes, but therein lies the problem.

Under capitalism, not only should the Nike's of this world move their production lines to the scummiest, cheapest sweat-shops on the planet, but under the concept of due diligence that they are wrong not to do so if the option is the most profitable.

So, compassionate capitalism would seem to be an entirely different fish to capitalism. The compassion either requires an entirely seperate system to evolve, for those with a say (i.e. the shareholders) all to arrive at a higher set of common moral values (i.e. that they all won't fault a CEO / company owner for taking a less profitable but more humane option), or that we legislate to require that the compassion exists.

Child labour is illegal. Why is it illegal? Because child labour would otherwise be exercised by some (many?)companies. There are - I would imagine - very few people here who would suggest we shouldn't make child labour illegal and instead just trust in the moral goodness of all employers not to employ children.

Now to the employees' wages decreasing etc. Well, I don't see this happening.

Are you aware that in large swathes of industries across the United States this has been happening. I believe in DDN, Schlosser points out that in real terms, the service industry's wages have been decreasing steadily since (from memory) the 60s. I vaguely recall that this trend is actually quite prevalent in many industries in the US, as small business gets replaced by big global conglomerate, wages are steadily falling.

There are strict rules governing lowering wages and redundancies so it is very difficult to do so.

Aha! So you are saying that the reason it won't happen is because there are already controls in place to prevent it happening. The argument for a free employent market says that these rules aren't necessary.....so why do we have them?

There is also economic theory behind the reason why this won't happen.

And if that economic theory was sound, we'd have no need for protective legislation which we have. Did this legislation just get created because someone was bored on a Friday afternoon and decided that for a lark they'd create a legal system to cover a situation where there was no problem anyway????

Do not think about a single firm but think nationally/internationally.

Do indeed. Think internationally and the rules and regulations you say are in place start to disappear, as they are not implemented uniformly in every nation in the world. Also, the available worker pool vastly outstrips the available work, which means that there is always a pool of unemployed people who would dearly love a job, and of whom, some will be willing to work for less than a currently-employed person if it gets them a job.

If firms start dropping off employee wages their disposable income falls. As income falls so does demand.

Yup, but until that point is reached, there's no reason not to avail of the savings to be made. And we haven't quite reached that point....after all, we have families living in poverty who still feel obliged to go and spend €100+ on a pair of branded jeans or footwear for their kid. And with China's "one child" policy, is it no wonder that western economies are falling over themselves to get in there? You'll have an entire generation of children each with two parents and four grandparents who have only a single family member to lavish their attention on.....which leads to available finance for more expensive products than their incomes would notionally suggest.

When applied on a large scale firms suffer from the fall in demand.

Over a long enough period, yes. But until we get to that point, companies have two choices - to be the ones trying to hold off that day by accepting higher costs, or to be the ones trying to take advantage of those holding off that day by making use of the strategy to increase profit.

Not every company will necessarily be in teh latter group...just the ones with a competitive edge. And the rest of the industry (whatever industry it is) - the ones behaving more like we'd like them to - are simply going to help these abusers to continue in their unsustainable model for longer.

Socialism's history is not as positive (or perhaps less negative, depending on how you see it).

As a matter of interest...has a socialist / communist nation ever existed where its capitalist neighbours didn't strive to destroy it from day 1 because of its ideology?

This is what I can never understand. If socialism and communism are such bad ideas, why are they so feared?

jc

Earthhorse

I dunno bonkey what do you want us to do? Mount a defence of every act a capitalist nation has taken against a communist one? I don't know that any of us were privy to their motivations. Reagan, for one, genuinely seemed to believe that people suffered under communism and you know what, he wasn't too far wrong.

Under communist Russia, and indeed any communist state, control of the flow of capital is handed over to the government. They say, "Hey, you elected us right? So we'll take care of everything from here and if we don't you can vote us out in five years time." Only they don't because what was previously in the hands of the many is now in the hands of the few and they simply don't have the time or tenacity, even if they do have the will, to make the best decisions. The other classic mistake communist states seem to make is to focus on a symptom of inequality rather than the root problem. So they set wages equal for everyone across the board and imagine that this somehow creates an equal and even society. But it doesn't because they've taken away everyone's power.

The real beauty of capitalism is how well it's mechanisms seem to underpin democracy. I'd be lying if I said my vote every five years at the ballot box is, in my eyes, the greatest influence I have over the world around me. In between voting for largely similar and unintellectual parties I can exert influence in the way I employ my capital; it sounds crazy but it's true. I can shop in Body Shop rather than Brown Thomas, I can take a reduction in pay and work for a charity, I can do pro bono work (as many capitalist firms do even though they seemingly have no motivation to), I can rent out a room to a friend who's fallen on hard times, I can invest in firms with strong ethical policies. So even if I'm not earning big bucks I can make a difference whereas under communism no one's earning big bucks and even if they were they'd have to shop at The Big Fat Generic Government Food and Clothes Store thus dampening the power their money has.

I suppose the closest we have to socialist states are the Scandinavian countries but I am unaware of how significant the difference between a socialist and capitalist system are. The primary mechanism by which socialism seems to operate is control of capital by the workers. Sorry, but under capitalism isn't that exactly where control of capital is?

You'll note that I'm not defending a pure capitalist model (anyone who defends a pure model in practice is, in my opinion, a little naïve) but I will say that I doubt we've refined it in practice to it's best point and there may very well be an alternative out there that no one's thought of, though I can't even begin to imagine what it might be.

bonkey

Originally posted by Earthhorse
I dunno bonkey what do you want us to do? Mount a defence of every act a capitalist nation has taken against a communist one?

Not at all. I'm just curious as to why - when communism and socialism are systems which we're constantly told don't, won't and can't work has the capitalist world felt the need to assist the downfall of every single socialist and communist system from the moment of its inception.....and then point at the failure that they helped instigate as evidence that they were right in saying its not a viable model.

Hell, you could do the same to democracy / capitalism - undermine and corrupt it from the start, and then point at the efffects of this undermining and corruption and say that it proves that the system is fundamentally unworkable.

The real beauty of capitalism is how well it's mechanisms seem to underpin democracy.

You think so? You think its a beauty that big business, with its big money to throw around, carries a disproportionate influence on the government compared to the actual workers who make that company successful and theoretically vote for the individuals and parties who get into power?

I don't see that as a beauty at all - I see the underpinning of democracy with capitalism as one of the biggest flaws we have today.

I suppose the closest we have to socialist states are the Scandinavian countries but I am unaware of how significant the difference between a socialist and capitalist system are.

I would have said tha the Scandinavian nations represent a closer-to-my-ideal-than-most system, where my ideal is based on capitalism and democracy, but with a genuine social conscience enforced by government. Switzerland is another passable example. None are without their many faults, but in my experience they have gotten it more right than others.


The primary mechanism by which socialism seems to operate is control of capital by the workers. Sorry, but under capitalism isn't that exactly where control of capital is?

You'll note that I'm not defending a pure capitalist model (anyone who defends a pure model in practice is, in my opinion, a little naïve) but I will say that I doubt we've refined it in practice to it's best point and there may very well be an alternative out there that no one's thought of, though I can't even begin to imagine what it might be.

I agree with you....I'm not saying that I believe Communism or Socialism are any better as models. I was just curious (in passing) as to why we see so many people pointing to the history of socialism/communism as reasons why the ideology is flawed, when history never seems to have given the ideology a genuine chance. Ever. I'm not saying that every single Socialist/Communist state which was founded would have been a good thing....I'm saying that none of them were ever given the chance to become one, so saying that they failed is proof of their unviability seems a bit suspect.

jc

pork99

Originally posted by Angry Banana
My two cents worth:

Steering from the current debate and focusing on the crux of the matter for a moment. Nobody in their right mind doubts capitalism is flawed. It does have problems. However it fundamentally works. With regard "free market", that's a very loose term changeable as we see fit. I think everyone here is against a total laissez-faire approach, that e.g. polluting companies should be fined/shut down etc. We all agree with that. I do think also that we agree that although the distribution of wealth in capitalism is un-even, it is more even than is socialism.

I agree.

As I see it the fundamental flaw in theories of the free market is the fallacy of the "rational economic man" - the assumption that everyone makes economic decisions in their own self interest. People tend to but this assumes that people have pefect information about where their best interests lie and never make decision which actually harm them. Maybe the free market model makes more sense if we replace the rational economic man with the irrational economic man?


However Socialist economic ideas are based on a much bigger fallacy - the perfectly rational all-knowing state. The idea that the state knows exactly who should do what labour for what reward in pursuit of some pre-ordained destiny e.g. the emergence of the classless society. The anthropologist Alan Fiske catagorised 4 fundamental "intuitive" psychological models for economic activity:

1. Communal Sharing - all goods shared equally among all members of society. This is the aim of Communism but historically has only ever occured in the most basic hunter-gatherer societies. When attempted in the modern world it invariably leads to no. 2;
2. Authority Ranking - wealth is distributed based on social status e.g. the priests and kings in a Bronze Age society simply confiscate wealth from lower ranking members of society. The Soviet Union was an updated version of this, wealth was awarded not on the basis of ones participation in producing it but on one's rank in the political system.
3. Equality Matching - this is the most intuitive one. THe belief of each individual that they should receive an exact equivalent for what one inputs into the market. Barter would be the perfect example but in everyones mind there is the idea that no matter what they do they are worth generous recompense whether market conditions allow it or not.
4. Market Pricing - this is complicated and counter-intuitive involving a high level of abstraction with banking, currency and middle-men but the only way a modern sophisticated economy can work.
   

When people have different ideas about which of these four models of interacting applies to a current relationship, the result can range from blank incomprehension to acute discomfort or outright hostility... Misunderstandings in which one person thinks in terms of Equality Matching and another thinks in terms of Market Pricing are even more pervasive and can be even more dangerous. They tap into very different psychologies, one of them universal and intuitive, the other rarified and learned and clashes between them have been common in economic history.

"The Blank Slate" Stephen Pinker

As I see it this left v right argument is based the clash of 2 psychological models. It's also interesting that redistrivbutive socialist economics models are almost never espoused by people engaged in wealth creating activities but by academics, students and those who have lost out/are excluded. In the former caase I think it's the "ivory tower" syndrome. They can have time on their hands and can be a bit isolated from some hard economic truths. In the latter case there is probably a certain amount of envy - Socialism is a means of punishing the successful.

Personally I'm probably in that category - I have to struggle to find work and what little I find is badly paid. However I would not benefit in the slightest from a system which confiscated wealth and property - see the Authority Ranking model above. My freedom to work and make money is the same as Tony O'Reilly's or Michael Smurfit's.

The property which every man has in his own labour; as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable… To hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper without injury to his neighbour is a plain violation of this most sacred property.

Adam Smith

Marxist parties always put themselves forward as the champions of the poor and oppressed. Unfortunately this is always a mask, a tool to gain power and wield it over their fellow man and deprive you of your liberty. It's a very uncomfortable fact for Marxists that conditions for the poorest classes in developed Capitalist economies, which officialy do not give a flying feck about the lowest classes, are far better than in Socialist economies which are supposed to be organised for their benefit of those classes but which in fact are organised to benefit a political elite.

I'm not a Monetarist right-winger, I think the best economic system invented was Keynsianism - free markets but regulated - "Without Law there is no Liberty". I'm free to trade but must do so within a framework of law and regulation. I can understand people's anti-capitalism in the context of opposition to overbearing ammoral muti-national companies but the answer to this is not to overthrow Capitalism but to put in place international laws to regulate those companies's behaviour.

ionapaul

Great post, pork99

I would say that even if I didn't agree with almost everything you wrote!

Earthhorse

Historically speaking I think the reasons various capitalist states have hampered communist ones are too many and various to enumerate. But mostly they seem to have been paranoid of the concept just as communist governments seemed paranoid of their people. There doesn't seem to be any sound reasoning as to where this paranoia sprung from.

For the record I don’t think it's beautiful that big corporations have a disproportionate influence on government. I do think it's beautiful (or at least less ugly) that you can do more about it under capitalism by withdrawing your labour, your custom or your capital from said corporations. It doesn't work perfectly in practice but it's the clincher for capitalism every time.

The Scandinavian nations do seem to have a very communal attitude. I don't know that such an attitude can be reproduced systemically.

bonkey

Originally posted by pork99
Authority Ranking - wealth is distributed based on social status e.g. the priests and kings in a Bronze Age society simply confiscate wealth from lower ranking members of society. The Soviet Union was an updated version of this, wealth was awarded not on the basis of ones participation in producing it but on one's rank in the political system.

I'm curious as to how people see this as significantly different to how our current system of capitalism works, where the vast majority of the wealth is owned by a tiny minority, and as wealth changes hands, it typically (when viewed at a macro scale) flows towards the rich.

We hear, for example, about "trickle-down" economics which espouses keeping the poor poor and making the rich richer because sooner or later the richness will "trickle down" and make the poor better off, but itsn't that just a Authority Ranking wolf in a capitalist sheep's clothing?

Our entire system seems to be designed to benefit the rich more than the poor - just like the socialist and communist systems tried to date have turned out to be. The only difference is the mechanism we have behind the inequality which sustains it. We have capitalism keeping the rich rich. The Chinese have communism. In both, there is an unfair system designed to favour those at the top far more than anyone else.

Again, it would seem that we have something that is portrayed as a critical flaw in Socialism/Communism but which doesn't seem as simple as that when you look at it closer. Capitalism would seem to have the same flaw, but apparently it is not worth being condemned for...but the other systems are.

jc

Earthhorse

Capitalism has the same flaw but not to the same extent. There's a far larger proportion in the middle class in capitalist as opposed to communist countries. As has been pointed out elsewhere on this thread the poorest in capitalist nations are generally better off than those in communist nations as well. So it could be a critical flaw under communism and a non critical flaw, but still a flaw, under capitalism.

Zombrex

Originally posted by Earthhorse
As has been pointed out elsewhere on this thread the poorest in capitalist nations are generally better off than those in communist nations as well.

That is not true at all (unless when you say "poor" you are speaking only in exact capital income). The poorest people in Cuba are far far better off than the poorest people in the U.S.A. They are provided with world class health care and world class education.

Originally posted by Earthhorse
I do think it's beautiful (or at least less ugly) that you can do more about it under capitalism by withdrawing your labour, your custom or your capital from said corporations.

But that doesn't work in the real world, because all the corporations are doing the same thing. That is why you are having this discussion with people who feel the entire system has failed. If it was as simple as just buying a different more "nice" product, then you wouldn't need the protests, the demonstrations, the riots that we have seen in the last 10 years. The capitalist system is failing the people, and the problem is their is very very little they can do about it.

Look how hard it is to get the universities to stop selling Coke or Nestle. Look how long it took to get McDonalds to introduce Salads (which as still unhealthy). Have Nike stopped using sweat shops? Has Microsoft stopped abusing its Monopoly?

The captialist safe guards that you seem to think protect us from bad corporations (ie consumer choice) don't really exist in the modern world, and where they do exist they work far to slowly and the companies fight them every step of the way.

The consumer told the record companies that they wanted to power to share music, for free, over the internet. Instead of this having an effect, the companies simple went to their politicions and made this even more illegal. I can't choose to by my REM CDs from another more friendly corporation, I am forced to use Time Warner.

Zombrex

Originally posted by pork99
In the latter case there is probably a certain amount of envy - Socialism is a means of punishing the successful.

:rolleyes:

And capitalism is a means of punishing the less fortunate

Originally posted by pork99
free markets but regulated

There is no such thing as a free regulated market. That is an oxymoron.

A regulated market is a socialist idea not a capitalist one. In capitalism there is no notion of anti-free market laws that still help society, so regulating the markets for the good of society is a bad thing in capitalism.

What you are talking about is actually social democracy, not capitalism (ie you are free to do what you want, but laws and regulations will protect society as a whole).

Earthhorse

Well Wicknight you've refuted my generalisation with a specific example. I could equally say the poorest in Ireland are better off than the poorest in China. It doesn't prove anything. The general case is that the poorer in capitalist countries are better off.

I specifically said that diversion of capital to influence corporate behaviour didn't work perfectly in the real world so you don't really need to tell me again. I simply said it was preferable to no influence whatsoever.

I don't especially want universities to stop selling Coke or Nestle. I want you, if you have a problem with the corporation, to stop buying their produce. You'll forgive me if the existence of McDonalds and Microsoft's monopoly doesn't keep me awake at night either. There are bigger things to worry about in my opinion.

I'm also interested in how the record companies made an already illegal act, "even more illegal"! I do appreciate what you're saying but I regard the ownership of a musical recording as a luxury and the consumer's wish to make this product free carries little currency with me.

Zombrex

Originally posted by Earthhorse
Well Wicknight you've refuted my generalisation with a specific example. I could equally say the poorest in Ireland are better off than the poorest in China. It doesn't prove anything.

My point exactly. There are about 5 communist countries in the world. Saying poor people in 3 of these countries are worse off than poor people than some random country in the rest of the world, proves nothing about the nature of communism or the nature of captialism. As I have pointed out, poor people can be better off in a communist country than in a capitalist country, and there isn't enough communist countries to enable you to make a generalisation about the nature of communism.

Originally posted by Earthhorse
I don't especially want universities to stop selling Coke or Nestle. I want you, if you have a problem with the corporation, to stop buying their produce.

And what exactly would me stopping buying Coke force Coke to change? The only way to force companies to change is to convince large groups such as universities, to stop supporting the companies. Microsoft only started taking notice of Open Source when governments and large corportations started switching. Are you against this type of thing?

Originally posted by Earthhorse
You'll forgive me if the existence of McDonalds and Microsoft's monopoly doesn't keep me awake at night either. There are bigger things to worry about in my opinion.

Well you live in a well off western country with health care and social security, so what else do you have to worry about? Al Queda :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Earthhorse
I'm also interested in how the record companies made an already illegal act, "even more illegal"!

Through the DMCA and the equivilent EU acts, which limit even fair use activities. It actually wasn't illegal until it was made illegal (have a guess by whom).

Originally posted by Earthhorse
I do appreciate what you're saying but I regard the ownership of a musical recording as a luxury and the consumer's wish to make this product free carries little currency with me.

Why? It the ownship of culture. Why does everything have to be owned. You now have to pay to experience culture. And you cannot share that culture with anyone else unless they too pay.

It used to be that patrons paid artist to produce art because they wanted the art to exist, not because they wanted to make even more money after the art had been produced. The idea that every single individual has to pay for every single piece of art they view is a relatively new idea, going back less than a 100 years. You should read up on some of the pre 20th century ideas of copyright, you will find them very different that what we currently have.

bonkey

Originally posted by Wicknight
And what exactly would me stopping buying Coke force Coke to change?

But you think that preventing those who want to buy Coke from doing so is a fairer approach?

jc

Zombrex

It is not about stopping people buying Coke, it is about convincing organisations, such as Universities, or shops, that supporting Coke, through selling their product, is unethical. It is these organisations that ultimilatly control what is available to the consumer, even in total free market systems. If either Trinity College or Tescos decide that they will not stock Coke anymore, that causes a large enough shock to Coke that may force them to act.

There is nothing that says a shop, or a college, or a business has to provide every item to end user consumers. Universities regualarly sign exclusive deals with sweat companies, such as Coke or Nestle. In fact Nestle actively target university kids through exclusive distribution deals, percisely because of the growing ethical worries expressed by student groups. Which is even more reason why universities stopping selling Nestle has an impact

Earthhorse

Well, I'd love if there were a bigger pool of data from which I could draw conclusions about the efficacy of communism but there ain't. The available evidence indicates that it leaves the poorer in society worse off and frankly I'm free to generalise based on that if I wish.

I'm not against organisations making decisions that benefit them provided such decisions reside within the rule of law. I'm not too sure what you're point about where I live is exactly. My point was that I haven't considered the behaviour of the McDonalds and Microsoft corporations to be so abhorrent as to be unacceptable.

So the restrictions on fair use you talk about, these were introduced by the EU, under pressure from corporate bodies, as a result of what? Consumer behaviour? If only those consumers would use their power for good!

With regard to ownership the fact is that listeners don't own that music under the law. The artists have signed a deal with a recording and distribution company, like it or not, and it cost them money to produce these goods. You can share your music with other people without making them pay. Plenty of bands are now distributing music through the internet. Capitalism sez, "Distribute your capital whatever way you like within the law." So people have the choice to share art if they wish. They don't have the right to flaunt existing laws simply because record companies have been slow to adopt a new distribution tool.

bonkey

Originally posted by Wicknight
It is not about stopping people buying Coke, it is about convincing organisations, such as Universities, or shops, that supporting Coke, through selling their product, is unethical.

But thats flawed reasoning.

Only a minority seem to think its unethical. The majority disagree, or couldn't care either way.

Secondly, the university are not supporting Coke by allowing it to be sold on the premises. If anything, allowing it to be sold would cost more than banning it if you could only get people to stop buying it.

And thats the thing...you can't get people to stop buying it, so you seek instead to remove their ability to do so, and justify the imposition of your morals on them as being "ethical".

Now if only you had a majority.....but if you had that, then you wouldn't need to take the approach you advocate.

If either Trinity College or Tescos decide that they will not stock Coke anymore, that causes a large enough shock to Coke that may force them to act.

No, it wouldn't. Maybe an organisation the size of WalMart might, but not an indiviudual Uni or even an individual nation the size of Ireland would have such an impact.

And thats the thing....why think small? Why go after the Uni when you could go after the govt? Why not? Because you'd never get the popular support (and if you could, then you wouldn't need to go after the govt anyway).

[
There is nothing that says a shop, or a college, or a business has to provide every item to end user consumers.

No, there isn't....but it should be the free choice of hte retailer to decide what they are willing to sell - it should not be a decision co-erced upon them by some vocal minority who don't want them selling something to the majority.

Wouldn't you have a problem, for example, if the Jewish community of Ireland started insisting that only Kosher meat should be sold, and started putting undue pressure on all butchers in their area to do so, on the grounds that anything less would be immoral, unethical, and just plain wrong.

Wouldn't you step up and tell them that if they don't want to buy non-kosher meat, then fine, but imposing their world-view on you is not acceptable, and you like your ham sandwich thank you very much.

Why is this any different? Your seeking to impose your ethics - as a minority group holding them - on others, rather than simply just trying to convince others that yoru ethical stance is the correct one to take and allowing them to choose themselves to stand with or against you?

Universities regualarly sign exclusive deals with sweat companies, such as Coke or Nestle. In fact Nestle actively target university kids through exclusive distribution deals, percisely because of the growing ethical worries expressed by student groups. Which is even more reason why universities stopping selling Nestle has an impact

Actually, I fully agree that educational bodies should be discouraged by their attendees from signing commercial deals like that. I have no problem with that type of discouragement whatsoever, as said commercialism has a direct impact on the nature of the so-called educational services which are being offered.

Allowing coke to be stocked in the vending machine in the corridor, or stocking it in the SU shop, however, does not impact the educational services of the university, and is a completely seperate issue to the whole educational one.

Zombrex

Originally posted by Earthhorse
Well, I'd love if there were a bigger pool of data from which I could draw conclusions about the efficacy of communism but there ain't. The available evidence indicates that it leaves the poorer in society worse off and frankly I'm free to generalise based on that if I wish.

You are free to generalise anything you like, and I am free to point out that you are wrong

Originally posted by Earthhorse
My point was that I haven't considered the behaviour of the McDonalds and Microsoft corporations to be so abhorrent as to be unacceptable.

Well you are in the minority. Microsoft is in multiple breach of US law, and McDonalds have lied to the public on numerous occations. How do they get away with it? Because they are based in the eutopia of free market capitalism, the USA, where little things like laws and government don't get in the way of profit.

Originally posted by Earthhorse
So the restrictions on fair use you talk about, these were introduced by the EU, under pressure from corporate bodies, as a result of what? Consumer behaviour? If only those consumers would use their power for good!

As a result of the corportations having the power and money to effect government policy. In essence they have betrayed the consumers who made them powerful, by taking their money for years until they became a huge corporation, then using this money and power to turn on the consumers, when it is now almost impossible for the consumers to do anything about it.

When culture is owned, the only way to participate in culture is to pay the licence fee.

Originally posted by Earthhorse
With regard to ownership the fact is that listeners don't own that music under the law.

And who wrote the law? Who benefits from the law?

And before you say the people wrote the law, think; how did a law that is against the wishes of the people get passed by the people. It makes no sense until you realise that it wasn't the people, it got passed by those funded by big business.

Originally posted by Earthhorse
The artists have signed a deal with a recording and distribution company, like it or not, and it cost them money to produce these goods.

Yes it does. About 50 cent per €20 CD.

Originally posted by Earthhorse
You can share your music with other people without making them pay.

Not without the copyright holders permission. It is kinda like having to ask Toyota if your friend can drive your car.

Originally posted by Earthhorse
They don't have the right to flaunt existing laws simply because record companies have been slow to adopt a new distribution tool.

But Earthhorse, the laws are written by the record companies. The laws don't represent the wishes of the majority of people, they represent the interests of the record companies, and their interest is in owning culture.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Earthhorse
The general case is that the poorer in capitalist countries are better off.

Arguable.

The vast majority of the world's poor live in market economies. There are hundreds of millions of people living in extreme poverty in capitalist societies in a capitalist world.

Zombrex

Originally posted by bonkey
Only a minority seem to think its unethical. The majority disagree, or couldn't care either way.

The majority as a whole (ie everyone) or the majority in the university? Because Nestle was only banned from the UL Student Union shop after the majority voted to allow the ban. (AFAIK)

Originally posted by bonkey
Secondly, the university are not supporting Coke by allowing it to be sold on the premises. If anything, allowing it to be sold would cost more than banning it if you could only get people to stop buying it.

Yes they are supporting Coke, or Nestle. The the money from the cans sold by the university goes straight to Coke. Don't really follow the last sentence.

Originally posted by bonkey
And thats the thing...you can't get people to stop buying it, so you seek instead to remove their ability to do so, and justify the imposition of your morals on them as being "ethical".

But bonkey, no one buys straight from Coke. The university or Tescos or any distrubuter, can sell what they like.

If you convince them that it is unethical, do you think that they should then be forced to sell a product they don't want to, just so you can buy it? Where is the sense in that? Just like you can't force Tescos to stop selling Coke, you can't force the university to continue selling Coke when they don't want too.

Originally posted by bonkey
No, it wouldn't. Maybe an organisation the size of WalMart might, but not an indiviudual Uni or even an individual nation the size of Ireland would have such an impact.

It does actually. It produces awareness, and effects long term profits. If you look at the effect Open Source is having against Microsoft you can see that even though OS still only has a tiny market share, it has already got Microsoft running scared.

Originally posted by bonkey
And thats the thing....why think small? Why go after the Uni when you could go after the govt? Why not?

Because the government don't sell Coke, do they?

Originally posted by bonkey
No, there isn't....but it should be the free choice of hte retailer to decide what they are willing to sell - it should not be a decision co-erced upon them by some vocal minority who don't want them selling something to the majority.

Exactly ... it is up tothe retailer. And if you convince the retailer (be it a university or a local shop) to stop selling the product, should they then still have to sell it because you want to buy it?

Originally posted by bonkey
Wouldn't you have a problem, for example, if the Jewish community of Ireland started insisting that only Kosher meat should be sold, and started putting undue pressure on all butchers in their area to do so, on the grounds that anything less would be immoral, unethical, and just plain wrong.

If it is the belief of the butcher than selling pork was immoral, do you think they should be force to sell pork because the majority don't believe it?

Originally posted by bonkey
Wouldn't you step up and tell them that if they don't want to buy non-kosher meat, then fine, but imposing their world-view on you is not acceptable, and you like your ham sandwich thank you very much.

But they aren't imposing anything on me They are attempting to convince the butcher that it is immoral. If the butcher agrees who are you to say he should still sell pork.

Originally posted by bonkey
Why is this any different? Your seeking to impose your ethics - as a minority group holding them - on others, rather than simply just trying to convince others that yoru ethical stance is the correct one to take and allowing them to choose themselves to stand with or against you?

Again, you do not buy Coke straight from the Coke company. You buy it through a 3rd party. If that 3rd party is convinced that selling Coke is immoral, they he should not be forced to sell you Coke, just because you want it.

Originally posted by bonkey
Allowing coke to be stocked in the vending machine in the corridor, or stocking it in the SU shop, however, does not impact the educational services of the university, and is a completely seperate issue to the whole educational one.

Actually it does. The vending machines are as much about marketing and branding as they are about selling a product. An educational body limiting the sale of products to those of a certain company is partisipating in said companies marketing scheme, and can been seen as an endorsment of the companies ethical pratices. In essence the university is "selling out", literally.

You should read the story in No-Logo about the kid suspended from high-school for wearing a Pepsi T-shirt on the Coke sponsered "Coke Day."

article6

Originally posted by Wicknight
Because the government don't sell Coke, do they?

Shops on a campus can be banned from selling Coke by university rules, and shops in a state can be banned from selling Coke by law (just like heroin, etc.).

Originally posted by Wicknight
Exactly ... it is up tothe retailer. And if you convince the retailer (be it a university or a local shop) to stop selling the product, should they then still have to sell it because you want to buy it?

No, they should not. It should be the choice of the individual retailer to stock a non-controlled product, and the decision of the customer to buy it. Equally, if the retailer is not convinced, should they then have to stop selling it because you want them to do so?

Originally posted by Wicknight
If it is the belief of the butcher than selling pork was immoral, do you think they should be force to sell pork because the majority don't believe it?

Again, see my point above.

Originally posted by Wicknight
But they aren't imposing anything on me They are attempting to convince the butcher that it is immoral. If the butcher agrees who are you to say he should still sell pork.

Again, this point has nothing to do with banning a retailer from selling a product.

Originally posted by Wicknight
[Again, you do not buy Coke straight from the Coke company. You buy it through a 3rd party. If that 3rd party is convinced that selling Coke is immoral, they he should not be forced to sell you Coke, just because you want it.

Again... If the 3rd party is not convinced that selling Coke is immoral, they should not be forced to [not] sell Coke, just because you don't want it there.

Originally posted by Wicknight
Actually it does. The vending machines are as much about marketing and branding as they are about selling a product. An educational body limiting the sale of products to those of a certain company is partisipating in said companies marketing scheme, and can been seen as an endorsment of the companies ethical pratices. In essence the university is "selling out", literally.

But how exactly does it affect the education of the average student on the street? Apart from providing more money for the university to teach students, of course. Could it be that a major corporation commited a... slightly good act? And it's not literally selling out. (But that's just my being a vocabulary stickler.)

Originally posted by Wicknight
You should read the story in No-Logo about the kid suspended from high-school for wearing a Pepsi T-shirt on the Coke sponsered "Coke Day."

I read it myself - Klein doesn't impress me much as a writer - but what does it have to do with individual retailers choosing whether or not to sell one brand of soft drink?

bonkey

Originally posted by Wicknight
Yes they are supporting Coke, or Nestle. The the money from the cans sold by the university goes straight to Coke. Don't really follow the last sentence.

The last sentence was pointing out that if people weren't buying Coke, it would cost money to keep machines in the Uni (or wherever you want to look at) which no-one was paying money into. It would cost money to provide something which no-one wanted.

If you convince them that it is unethical, do you think that they should then be forced to sell a product they don't want to, just so you can buy it?

If you convince them of anything, then you are not really addressing the point I addressed which is that they should be free to make that decision themselves, as opposed to being co-erced and pressured into it by a vocal minority.

Where is the sense in that? Just like you can't force Tescos to stop selling Coke, you can't force the university to continue selling Coke when they don't want too.

Apparently you don't see a problem in forcing them to stop selling something when they do want to, so I fail to see how you can argue the reverse...that it is wrong to force them to sell something they don't want to.

Because the government don't sell Coke, do they?

You seem to be unaware that there are several nations in the world where only one of Coke or Pepsi can be sold, because the firm in point has established a monopoly deal with the government.

You also seem to be unaware that you can't - for example - legally buy fully automatic assault rifles in this country.

Just because a government isn't the retailer doesn't mean that they have no part in the equation. The reason people don't want to deal with the issue at that level is because they would never get teh popular support.

Exactly ... it is up to the retailer.

Yes.....and how, exactly is activism leaving it up to the retailer.

And if you convince the retailer

Convince? How, exactly? Sit down and have a rational discussion with them about the evils of the Coke corporation, or organise a vocal demonstration which disrupts their business and co-erces them into siding with your point of view because they fear the impact to their business may be greater than if they don't?

You keep missing that I refer to the free choice of the retailer. You refer to the decision made subsequent to activism and pressure being brought to bear.

If it is the belief of the butcher than selling pork was immoral, do you think they should be force to sell pork because the majority don't believe it?

You're dodging the question. Would it be correct for the Jewish community to put pressure on your butcher to stop selling you meat? Would it be correct for them to co-erce him, boycott his store, engage in activism (rallies etc.) to impact his business, or engage in any of the practices which you see as perfectly acceptable as a means of "convincing" someone not to sell Coke?

If so, then fair enough....but I'm pretty willing to believe that if and when it happens to you - that someone is trying to restrict something you believe is fine for you because of their moral stance - you will not be so "well, thats all fair and reasonable" about it.

I can't remember - you're not a smoker who was outraged by the ban on smoking perchance?

But they aren't imposing anything on me They are attempting to convince the butcher that it is immoral. If the butcher agrees who are you to say he should still sell pork.

If he freely agrees that its immoral, then I've no problem. If he caves in to activist pressure, I do have a problem. I fail to see what rallies, SU votes, and all the rest of it actually have to do with convincing the retailer - they are about coercement.

Now, if all you and your fellow anti-Coke people are doing is sitting down with the retailer, rationally ddiscussing it, allowing them access to the necessary information to make up their own minds and then respecting that decision, then I apologise profusely that I have so mischaracterised you.

If thats not what you're doing, then please cease with the fiction that it is a free choice on the part of the retailer, because it isn't - it is a choice made as a result of coercion.

An educational body limiting the sale of products to those of a certain company is partisipating in said companies marketing scheme, and can been seen as an endorsment of the companies ethical pratices. In essence the university is "selling out", literally.

Ah...but getting rid of Coke doesn't address that problem. It doesn't prevent a more morally acceptable producer from having their machines replacing the Coke ones, and still engaging in branding and marketing.

In other words....your objection to a single producer does not address this issue.

You should read the story in No-Logo about the kid suspended from high-school for wearing a Pepsi T-shirt on the Coke sponsered "Coke Day."

I have read it, thanks. You'd probably be surprised to learn that I generally don't support globalisation at all....but that doesn't mean I support all of hte actions taken against it either.

Given that the case you refer to talks of exactly the type of corporate sponsorship I have already said I believe plays no part in education, I fail to see what you're trying to say here though.

It has nothing to do with the existence of not-owned-by-Coke-by-your-own-admission machines which happen to contain cans produced by Coke which are available for purchase by those who want them and not forced on those who don't.

If you really care about the whole marketing issue, then either campaign for the machines not to act as an ad for a product (regardless of the product), or for the machines to be removed altogether - every single last one of them. Picking on one manufacturer and saying that you want its products removed fails to address the issue of branding entirely.

jc

Zombrex

Originally posted by article6
Shops on a campus can be banned from selling Coke by university rules, and shops in a state can be banned from selling Coke by law (just like heroin, etc.).

When there is a big big difference from stopping selling a product because you disagree with the ethics of the producing company, and attempting to get the actually product declared illegal. There is nothing "illegal" about selling Coke.

Originally posted by article6
No, they should not. It should be the choice of the individual retailer to stock a non-controlled product, and the decision of the customer to buy it. Equally, if the retailer is not convinced, should they then have to stop selling it because you want them to do so?.

No they shouldn't. See above

Originally posted by article6
Again, this point has nothing to do with banning a retailer from selling a product.

Declaring Coke illegal or a banned product has never been discussed, at least in afaik. Again see responce to first quote.

Originally posted by article6
Again... If the 3rd party is not convinced that selling Coke is immoral, they should not be forced to [not] sell Coke, just because you don't want it there.

I agree whole heartly. I think it is the responsability of the campaigners to convince the person or persons responsible. They cannot force them to do anything. There is no legal reason to stop the selling of Coke.

But if the 3rd party is convinced that supporting the company is immoral, then there is no legal reason to force them to sell Coke, just because the majority want to buy it.

Originally posted by article6
But how exactly does it affect the education of the average student on the street? Apart from providing more money for the university to teach students, of course. Could it be that a major corporation commited a... slightly good act? And it's not literally selling out. (But that's just my being a vocabulary stickler.)

Trust me it was not a "good act" Nestle only started targeting colleges and other youth target areas after they started getting a bad rap from their poor record in developing countries such as India and Asia. It is a marketing/PR excersise.

Imagine a business student in some University (not necessarly UL) is being taught an business ethics class about the appauling actions of Nestle in India. Then he/she sees that his college has signed an exclusive deal with Nestle to target, through vending machines, the entire college campus (happens here, happens in the States, happens all over). The entire campus, if they want chocolate or sweets, have no choice by to buy Nestle. Now imagine that the college actually requires that money to function (the "good deed" on the part of if Nestle you will). To survive the college is depended on supporting Nestle's investment in the college.

Originally posted by article6
I read it myself - Klein doesn't impress me much as a writer - but what does it have to do with individual retailers choosing whether or not to sell one brand of soft drink?

It has to do with big business getting involved with the funding of schools and colleges. See responce to previous quotation.