A belief in Capitalism?

Zombrex

Originally posted by bonkey
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.

Call me crazy, but I would imagine that if the college wasn't selling Coke, they would also remove the vending machines from the campus as well. AFAIK Coke own the vending machines, and would probably want them back, even if the college wanted to keep them around for some reason.

Originally posted by bonkey
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.

They are free, to make any decision. There is a difference to being co-erced and being told that a company that provides a product on campus is connected with unethical behavour. No one is forcing any one to do anything.

Bonkey, no one lives in a black box, where every decision they make is not effected by any outside situations. Every decission a university or student union takes will be depended on a large number of external factors. It would be unethical of the university to make a decision with a company without first discussing the track record of that company.

Originally posted by bonkey
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.

Who is forcing who to do anything?? Last time I looked it was the majority of the student union that was need to effect any change on student union policy. I only know about UL, but I would assume it would be the same in most colleges.

Originally posted by bonkey
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.

Look, the entire point of the original quote about government seemed to be designed to goat me into saying that Coke should be declared illegal, which is totally missing the point of campaigns such as the anti-coke and anti- Nestle campaigns. I am not going to get drawn into a pointless argument over wheither or not foreign nations sell Coke or Pepsi :rolleyes

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

You mean you can't buy a fully automatic assault rifle in Tescos ... there goes my brothers christmas list :rolleyes:

Originally posted by bonkey
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

The reason people don't try to get Coke declared illegal is that, unlike fully automatic assult weapons, Coke isn't something that is dangerous.

You are completely missing the point Bonkey. The Coke drink or the new Nestle ice cream isn't the issue, it is the unethical pratices of the multinational companies that make them. Multinational companies that break no Irish law, while still engaging in immoral attivities in other parts of the world.

The entire point of campaigns like the anti-Coke campaign is that Coca Cola are not breaking any Irish laws, so the only course of objection is to refuse to buy their product, and try and convince others to follow suit.

Originally posted by bonkey
Yes.....and how, exactly is activism leaving it up to the retailer.

It is completely up to the retailer. He can agree with the activits, or he can disagree with them. The onus is on the activists to convince the retailer. If they don't then he is totally free to continue selling the product, if he can find anyone to buy it.

You seem to think the activitist shouldn't express an opinion at all. Last time I checked we didn't live in a police state, where the Coca Cola SAS would cart you away if you publicly critised their product.

Originally posted by bonkey
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?

Sigh ....

Demonstrations are not to convince the retailer Bonkey, they are to convince the consumers. That is a different issue.

So are we talking about activist groups to convince groups such as universities student union members and retailers through information campaigns, or are we talking about demonstrations to convince consumers, by-passing the retailers all together.

They are not the same things, so which do you want to discuss?

Originally posted by bonkey
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.

I am talking about universities, student unions, retailers deciding, based on the information provided by anti-Nestle, anti-Nike, anti-Coke campaigners, that they agree with the campaigners and therefore they are not going to associate with said companies.

Now you have switched to talking about radical demonstrations that target end consumers not 3rd party providers.

The demonstrations out side McDonalds are not to convice the owner that he is associating with an unethical company. It is to convince the consumer not to eat at McDonalds, which in turn forces the owner to change business pratice through simple economics (give the consumer what they want)

This is a completely different kettle of fish

See above, and please try and stick to talking about the same thing.

Originally posted by bonkey
Would it be correct for them to co-erce him, boycott his store, engage in activism (rallies etc.) to impact his business

Different .... kettle .... of .... fish

Information campaigns = Retailer/University/Student Union

Demonstrations = Consumer != Retailer

See above.

Originally posted by bonkey
you will not be so "well, thats all fair and reasonable" about it.

If i made a product and I sold it to a student union, and someone on the student union pointed out that I let babies die in India to increase my profits, I would not be surprised if the student union then voted to stop selling my product.

And I probably wouldn't attack the member of the student union who originally point this out to the rest of the members, or say that she was forcing the student union to vote against me, even though they all liked my product (they bought my product before didn't they)

And I would not blame a shop owner who read the student union website and decided that he too would stop selling my product.

Actually if I was a corporation that let babies die, I probably would

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

I am a non-smoker who welcomed the ban on smoking because my grand mother died of second hand smoke lung cancer. Does this have relivence to the unethical business pratices of Nestle or the student unions of this country voting to stop supporting them?

Originally posted by bonkey
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.

Well the Student Union is the retailer. So is the university. SO is Tescos. There are actually real people behind these groups, people who can actually care about stuff, who when they see Indian child death rates, don't necessarilary put the profit of the Nestle corporation above the lives of children. These people are the ones that need to be told what is really going on.

Originally posted by bonkey
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.

I am. My i ask you where the confusing arose? I have never talked about consumer targetting activism/demonstrations (in this thread at least)

Originally posted by bonkey
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.

Well if it is a demonstration targetting consumers, not retailers, then it is not actually coercion, because they are not trying to change the minds of the retailers, they are trying to convince the consumers not to buy the product. By your logical rival businesses advertising their product is better, is coercion. Convincing a consumer not to by a product, is not the same as forcing a retailer to stop selling it.

I do not support in any form the actual method of coercion, such as arrsien, vandalism or threat of harm, that some of the extreme anti-globalistion crowd feel they are entitled to use.

Zombrex

Originally posted by bonkey
In other words....your objection to a single producer does not address this issue.

You are right addressing one producer doesn't address this issue. But that particular issue isn't the point of the anti-Coke lobby.

I probably shouldn't have have been talking about the issue of universities having corporate support in the same post about boycotting Coke, because the campaign to ban coke is not about that. In my defense I didn't actually bring this issue into the debate, someone else did.

This is my personal feelings, that no university should be depended on one company for financal support, be it Nestle or any other company (see below)

Originally posted by bonkey
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.

Neither do I, I don't agree with violent protest against companies such as McDonalds or Nike. Not because I worrry about the companies, but because it only alienates people from the anti-globalisation movement, and gives the corporations an excuse to dismiss them as violent hippies. The only way to stop this free market harmful globalisation is to convince the majority of people that it is harmful and dangerous. And one cannot do that while smashing in a window.

Originally posted by bonkey
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

As I have said before, they are different issues, even though they seem to involve the same immoral companies (eg Nestle in UL). I personally have no objection to vending machines. What I have an object to is the exclusive deals universities sign with companies such as Nestle, that not only act as a marketing tools, they also make the universities financally depended on one company.

But as I have said this is a slightly seperate issue than the moral objects to selling Coke or Nestle bars in Student Unions, my apologies for not clearly seperating the issuse out.

Zombrex

Wow that is a whole lot of post

I really start my blog up again ... power to the people!!:p

Earthhorse

Fortunately, I don’t have the time in work to discuss the minutae of the recording or soft drinks industry with you. But let's assume for a moment that you're correct, that record companies are making a gross profit of €19.50 on every CD they sell and that they, and perhaps other corporations, have compromised the legislative process. What specific mechanisms would your socialist democracy have in place to prevent such bodies wrestling control away from the people again? If demonstrations and information campaigns are your preferred means of addressing ethical dilemnas what is it about the current capitalist systems that prevents you using them?

Zombrex

Nothing, but demonstrations don't raise money, and when you have large corporations funding political campaigns, having one side say "we are right here is $50,000" and the other side saying "we are right, but we actually can't give you anything" who do you think is going to influence the law making process.

There have been hundreds of demonstrations against things like the DMCA. While some have help slow down the setting of ridiculous copyright and patent laws (particlarly in the EU) they have not been successful in reversing any of the laws, because at the moment, especially in the USA, big business owns the government.

BTW Its "Social" democracy, not "Socialist" democracy. There is a difference. We actually live in a social democracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

Sand

Wicknight, you need to hire an editor.

Ive been out of the thread for ages, so this might be going back in time a bit.

Re: Free Market reducing wages in the long run.....

I dont see that as true. Henry Ford introduced higher wages than his competitors were paying. Why? To attract and motivate the best workers to his factories, to keep morale and quality high. If a firm enters a market where wages are low ( see multinationals in the 3rd world, whose jobs are highly sought by locals because of conditons and pay), by actually raising the wages they offer they can attract the best workers to outproduce their rivals, and provide a better quality of service. Seeing as competition will get so tight at slashing costs, an innovator ( which competion produces) will see the advantage of raising wages to become more competitive from another angle.

Re: If Free Markets have never existed why should we be moving towards them....

Two reasons, theory and practice. Theoretically free markets are the most efficient. Ah, you say, but in theory communism works....I dont know if it works even in theory, but we know it doesnt work in practice. Whereas when we move towards free markets in practicse in the real world were constantly increasing efficiency - we try high taxes and protectionism for decades and we get economic quagmire in ireland - we experiment with cutting taxes, encouraging inward investment and opening our markets to competion and we get the most significant and sustained economic development in the history of the state.

So far, moving towards a free market has been quite encouraging.

Funny to see it being used by you as an excuse as to why capitalism doesn't require government intervention, when I'm pretty sure you'll also quite happily point out that the non-existance of such a caring attitude is one of prime reasons why communism is such a non-starter as a realistic idea.

Youre getting confused there - its not caring that capitalism is dependant on, its self interest. Sure people care about their children, they value them above other people their age that theyre not related to. Theres a certain self interest in providing for them as it provides the parent with a certain satisfaction and happiness to see their kids doing well. Hence theyll be against child labour because education is better for the child in the long run.

And seeing as parents in the long run become dependant on their children theres a self interest in wanting to have a highly educated, well paid child looking out for you when youre retired than a poorly educated, badly paid child.

A communist might reach the same conclusion for different reasons, but to say, as the author in question did, that the abolition of child labour was in defiance of free market principles is wrong. If the people in question value education properly as opposed to the gains from hiring out their kids even a free marketeer will refuse to endanger their kids education.

The same for this coke, nike lark. If we assume people do not want to pay for the slavery of third world peasants in dank dungeons churning out our 1st world consumer products, then we can assume theyre willing to pay slightly more to ensure theyre not. If you have the 3rd party certification of their production standards then people are going to go for the certified good more often, and be willing to pay for peace of mind - I would. People are afterall more likely to go for a mercedes than a lada even though the cars in question provide equivalent performance. Its a question of brand perception. No brand wants to be associated with immoral business practices. No store chain wants to stock products that are widely viewed as being immoral.

If on the other hand, people arent willing to pay more, then what is the point of trying to regulate or demonstrate? Youll never get it passed if everyone disagrees with you when you claim its a problem.

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.

It doesnt need to. Its a political gimmick to impress the gullible, and pay off the unions at the exspense of the unemployed.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Henry Ford introduced higher wages than his competitors were paying. Why? To attract and motivate the best workers to his factories, to keep morale and quality high.

Yup. Indeed he did.

One owuld wonder, therefore, how Nike et al have managed to do the reverse - move to a less-educated area, pay less money, in worse conditions (up to and including Human Rights abuse), and increase profits.

See....if we accept the Ford model, and the Nike model as both being true, then a company can earn infinite profit by moving from one to the other (and increasing profits), then back (increasing profits), and forward again (increase again), and back again (another increase), and you get the idea...

Or we can face reality and accept that in some cases a motivated, happy workforce, ideally picked from amongst the cream of the crop is to ones advantage. Equally, in other cases, all you need are bodies, and it can be cheaper to have twice as many bodies at a quarter of the price, even.....

The existence of certain market areas where the market will not need interference in order to function acceptably does not imply in any way shape or form that no market area will need interference.

Conversely, a single area which shows that it does need interference proves that interference is sometimes necessary.

Re: If Free Markets have never existed why should we be moving towards them....

Two reasons, theory and practice.

You are slightly misstating that point, I think.

Theory, and practice, both show that free markets would be the ideal when there is a state of perfect information - where everyone has all the facts about everything pertinent. That is simply not the case. The less perfect the information, the more interference will be required in that market in order to prevent systematic abuses. (aside : practice shows this where market failings can be directly attributed to the lack of information which theory predicted would cause the failing that was seen).

Theoretically free markets are the most efficient.

In the impossible situation where there is perfect information.

Ah, you say, but in theory communism works....I dont know if it works even in theory, but we know it doesnt work in practice.

Well, thats because we're lacking an equally impossible ideal which would be the required cornerstone for communism to be built on.

So far, moving towards a free market has been quite encouraging.

Untrue Sand. So far some of the moves towards a free market have been encouraging. Others have been unmitigated disasters, and are typically explained away with the lovely adage of "growing pains" or some such.

Youre getting confused there - its not caring that capitalism is dependant on, its self interest.

No, self-interest is what drives capitalism. Caring is what limits it. It is dependant on both.

but to say, as the author in question did, that the abolition of child labour was in defiance of free market principles is wrong. If the people in question value education properly as opposed to the gains from hiring out their kids even a free marketeer will refuse to endanger their kids education.

Education?

Sand...where child labour exists, you will find no situation where there is free, state-paid education. Its not a choice of not valuing one over the other. Its typically a situation whereby people cannot afford to send their kids to school and so send them to work instead.

Wasn't it Indonesia who recently allowed free education for girls as well as boys, because the trend had been that parents were sending the male kids to school and the female kids to work?

If we assume people do not want to pay for the slavery of third world peasants in dank dungeons churning out our 1st world consumer products, then we can assume theyre willing to pay slightly more to ensure theyre not.

Thats a reasonable assumption, until you realise that virtually every single product you buy would require a massive amount of research to determine whether or not it was "clean".

Not only who made it, but who made the components that went into it. Who are the parent companies of the companies who you've found so far...and so on and so forth....for every single product. Then you run into a problem that sometimes this information is simply not available. Then there's the problem that

If you have the 3rd party certification of their production standards then people are going to go for the certified good more often, and be willing to pay for peace of mind - I would.

What a nice concept. I can just see CompanyX agreeing to allow such a 3rd Party in explicitly to give them a WorstPossibleAbuser status.

Just look at how much FUD Nike went through when they were amongst the first targetted. The added layers and layers of obfuscation so that they could tenuously claim that they weren't producing the stuff at all, nor were they even responsible for the production...they had farmed all of that out to a middle-man. And that middle-man was hidden behind layers of confidentiality and wasn't doing anything illegal in his own country.

And if thats not enough of a convincing argument...ask yourself how many people read magazines like Consumer's Choice. Hell, how many are aware that it even exists?

The reality is that most people don't know about it. Of the remainder, most don't care, and of those who do care, many have given up trying to do anything about it because there are so few alternatives that are genuinely "clean".

Its a question of brand perception. No brand wants to be associated with immoral business practices. No store chain wants to stock products that are widely viewed as being immoral.

And we can see the effect that a decade of such pressure on Nike has brought about. Precious little.

If on the other hand, people arent willing to pay more, then what is the point of trying to regulate or demonstrate?

Because they don't have to pay more, Sand. What is needed is an end to the ridiculous situation we find ourselves in today where the markup made by the manufacturers is ridiculously high. And why is it so high? Because they need to spend a fortune in advertising. And why do they need to do that? Because their competitors do likewise.

Its not even about gaining market share. Not any more. Not until they find another way to cut costs or hike prices, which will make even more money available for advertising, which will generate more market share.

Youll never get it passed if everyone disagrees with you when you claim its a problem.

And does that mean that we shouldn't say anything about it? You have a very low opinion of many political "types" - you know...the frequent digs at students, lefties, anti-Bushies...whatever. They aren't gonna go away, even though you clearly think they're wrong.

Its a political gimmick to impress the gullible, and pay off the unions at the exspense of the unemployed.

So you believe that there wasn't a single person earning a wage below this limit prior to the introduction of a minimum wage, and if they were its their own fault ?

Or is it that there is no need to care about these people? We should all be more self-serving (that being your "basis of capitalism", after all.

Its funny....I have never heard a single person who's earnings were remotely close to the minimum wage say that it was a bad thing or an unnecessary thing.

jc

Zombrex

Originally posted by Sand
Wicknight, you need to hire an editor.

I need to see a doctor about RSI

Originally posted by Sand
I dont see that as true. Henry Ford introduced higher wages than his competitors were paying. Why? To attract and motivate the best workers to his factories, to keep morale and quality high.

Ironic you should mention Ford, as he is often held up by social democrates of what industry should be like. Ford put his employees first (as did people like Guinness). He is the exception to work towards, not the rule of free market. The rule of free market and capitalism is, as you say, efficency. Ford paid more than his rivals because he wanted to improve the lives of his staff, which in turn would improve America. That was not the most efficent action, it was is not true capitalism, that is social democracy. Fords social responsability over rode his captialist profit nature.

It is also important to remember Ford didn't operate in a free market system, and there is nothing in the free market system that would cause an act like Ford raising prices.

I would love every company to be like Ford in early last century. But they are not. Nike, Coke, Nestle, etc etc use the "free market" idea as an excuse not to be like Ford

Originally posted by Sand
It doesnt need to. Its a political gimmick to impress the gullible, and pay off the unions at the exspense of the unemployed.

It has long long been disproved that minimum wage increases unemployment

bonkey

Originally posted by Wicknight
Call me crazy, but I would imagine that if the college wasn't selling Coke, they would also remove the vending machines from the campus as well. AFAIK Coke own the vending machines, and would probably want them back, even if the college wanted to keep them around for some reason.

Let me see if I understand this.

Coke own the machines.
Coke own the cans inside the machines.
Coke are not the retailer.

Now I'm confused.

Look, the entire point of the original quote about government seemed to be designed to goat me into saying that Coke should be declared illegal, which is totally missing the point of campaigns such as the anti-coke and anti- Nestle campaigns. I am not going to get drawn into a pointless argument over wheither or not foreign nations sell Coke or Pepsi :rolleyes

Its not pointless. Your argument is that Coke's track-record is sufficiently bad that people should neither stock, nor buy their products. If thats the case, then why should their products not also be banned by law.

Governments can do this, and rather than affecting a single shop in a single university, you could affect a nation. I'm pretty sure in terms of making Coke sit up and notice, we're talking literally about orders of magnitude in the difference of effect.

The reason people don't try to get Coke declared illegal is that, unlike fully automatic assult weapons, Coke isn't something that is dangerous.

So the only reason out government is allowed to prevent the sale of something for is because it is deemed to be dangerous??? Are you sure about that?

You are completely missing the point Bonkey. The Coke drink or the new Nestle ice cream isn't the issue, it is the unethical pratices of the multinational companies that make them. Multinational companies that break no Irish law, while still engaging in immoral attivities in other parts of the world.

Nations all round hte world have trade embargo's because they disagree with ethical practices. Normally the embargo's are against other nations, but sometimes against specific companies.

What is to stop us doing the same?

The entire point of campaigns like the anti-Coke campaign is that Coca Cola are not breaking any Irish laws, so the only course of objection is to refuse to buy their product, and try and convince others to follow suit.

But now you've swapped again and you're talking about getting people not to buy it, as oppose to getting people not to sell it so that those who want it still can't buy it.

You seem to think the activitist shouldn't express an opinion at all.

Express an opinion, sure. Deliberately try and impact someone else's business in order to "encourage" that person to come around to their way of thinking....no - thats an opinion I don't believe they should ever express in any targetted form.

You want the activists to march up O'Connell Street in Dublin...I'll support you all the way. You want the activists to target their local Tesco's, or the SU shop on campus, or some specific retailer, then no...I do not support it.

Demonstrations are not to convince the retailer Bonkey, they are to convince the consumers. That is a different issue.

Hang on a minute. Either you want it off the shelves, or you want it on the shelves and not being bought.

For the past number of posts, you've been talking about getting it off the shelves, and I've been saying that this is the typical approach taken by a minority in trying to deny it from those who want it to be bought.

Now you're back to saying thats not what you're trying to do, but you're trying to leave it on the shelves and encourage people not to buy it.

Which is it?

by-passing the retailers all together.

Remember this comment. It will be important in a sec....

They are not the same things, so which do you want to discuss?

Up to now, I have clearly been taking issue with yoru comments about getting it off the shelves, so I think its pretty clear which I want to discuss. You're the one hopping back in this post to start saying that its the consumers you've been talking about targetting all along.

I am talking about universities, student unions, retailers deciding, based on the information provided by anti-Nestle, anti-Nike, anti-Coke campaigners, that they agree with the campaigners and therefore they are not going to associate with said companies.

Woah.
Hang on.
Whats that? You're talking about retailers????
What happened to "bypassing the retailers altogether" which you said only a couple of lines back??? Jeez - and you're trying to say that I'm the one jumping back and forth?

Lets just look at one of those claims....

Now you have switched to talking about radical demonstrations that target end consumers not 3rd party providers.

I've talked about no such thing. Go back and look at the line of mine you quoted above this....where I said that I was talking about the free choice of the retailer, as opposed to the co-erced choice of same. Where in that sentence did you figure out that I wasn't talking about the retailer, but rather about someone else?

The demonstrations out side McDonalds are not to convice the owner that he is associating with an unethical company.

No - and thats my problem.
Because they're not about convincing the consumer either.

They're like picket lines. THey're designed to cause as much intimidation as possible, to prevent consumers entering the building regardless of what they believe. They're designed to cause an impact to the business in order to cause the retailer to change their posiiton for reasons other than what they think about the issue at hand.

Thats co-ercion, pure and simple.

If you want to demonstrate the evils of Coke and convert people to that, then do it away from somewhe who sells Coke so that your demonstration is not also causing a deliberate disruption to their business.

Otherwise, any moral high ground about ethical behaviour simply leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. You are of course, free to differ.

See above, and please try and stick to talking about the same thing.

Excuse me? I've been addressing the "get it off the shelves" line from the start. You're the one jumping back and forward trying to decide what it is you're talking about, and telling me I'm changing from talking about the retailer when quoting a sentence that mentions the retailer and no-one else.

Well the Student Union is the retailer. So is the university.

Im lost. Coke own the cans. Coke own the machine. THe University is the retailer.

Does that mean that if I own the building that Joe Bloggs has his shop in, I am actually the retailer and not him???

There are actually real people behind these groups, people who can actually care about stuff, who when they see Indian child death rates, don't necessarilary put the profit of the Nestle corporation above the lives of children. These people are the ones that need to be told what is really going on.

So you think that they don't know whats going on?

I thought you said earlier that it would be remiss of any company not to be aware of the track-record of the people they are doing business with. Are you now saying that all these people are simply inept at their jobs?

Wow...lot of inept people out there. In fact, given that I'd say the number of people who don't stock Coke oon moral grounds makes maybe 1 in a thousand, it would seem that almost our entire retail industry would appear to be inept.

I have never talked about consumer targetting activism/demonstrations (in this thread at least)

Nor have I, despite your apparent belief that I have. YOu've talked about "convincing" retailers to take things off their shelves.

The one case you gave was the SU shop in Limerick...where the choice was made by a Student body vote, not by an individual. Its not unreasonable to assume that :

a) You didn't just sit down with thousands of students and give them the "Coke is a Bad Company, m'kay" (or if you did, UL has changed beyond recognition since I left a decade ago)

All I have done is try and interepret what you meant by "convincing" retailers.

Well if it is a demonstration targetting consumers, not retailers, then it is not actually coercion, because they are not trying to change the minds of the retailers,

There you go on again about the stuff you said you weren't talking about.

By your logical rival businesses advertising their product is better, is coercion.

Rival businesses, trying to put pressure on a retailer to stock their product over someone elses is coercion. Sending them advertising, or putting

I've already clarified that if all you are doing is sitting down and having a chat with the retailer and then leaving it up to him, or sending him the info and leaving it at that, then I'm fully in agreement.

If you are hassling the retailer, or attempting to impact his existing business directly, then its coercion.

Convincing a consumer not to by a product, is not the same as forcing a retailer to stop selling it.

Yes, but you're not talking about that, remember?

I do not support in any form the actual method of coercion, such as arrsien, vandalism or threat of harm, that some of the extreme anti-globalistion crowd feel they are entitled to use.

What about demonstrations outside the shop? Picket lines?

jc

Batbat

So the only reason out government is allowed to [revent the sale of something for is because it is deemed to be dangerous??? Are you sure about that?

I think the government should ban everything, then we will all be safe

Zombrex

Originally posted by bonkey
Coke own the machines.
Coke own the cans inside the machines.
Coke are not the retailer.

Now I'm confused.

Well you shouldn't be ... Tescos don't own the fridges in the supermarkets that you buy Coke from, are you saying Tescos aren't a retailer?

Originally posted by bonkey
If thats the case, then why should their products not also be banned by law.

Under what grounds? Coke haven't broken any Irish law, have they? What legal method would you use to make Coke illegal?

Originally posted by bonkey
Nations all round hte world have trade embargo's because they disagree with ethical practices.

What is to stop us doing the same?

Nothing, if you think you can convince the government to make it illegal to import Coke into this country, be my quest. Sure why don't we just get the UN to declare Coke a terrorist organisation while we are at it :rolleyes:

Originally posted by bonkey
But now you've swapped again and you're talking about getting people not to buy it, as oppose to getting people not to sell it so that those who want it still can't buy it.

"refuse to buy their product, and try and convince others to follow suit"

Please read my posts properly. Retailers "buy" the product just like consumers, and the sell it on. If I convince the retailer that it is unethical to do business with Coke, who are you to force them to do business with them just because you want Coke.

Originally posted by bonkey
Deliberately try and impact someone else's business in order to "encourage" that person to come around to their way of thinking....no - thats an opinion I don't believe they should ever express in any targetted form.

Bonkey, have you ever bought a product because you though the advertising was better than a rivals? Have you ever bought Heniken instead of Bud? Have you ever said to a friend, "nah I like Walkers instead of Tayto?" Have you ever though "I want a free CD" so I am going to buy Pepsi instead of Coke. And can you sleep at night knowing that you are distrupting the poor poor Coca Cola company profits, and possible influencing others to do the same?

You seem to think Coke have a divine right to sell there product and no one must attempt to disrupt that, not activist, not rival companies. Maybe we should ban Pepsi advertising while we are at it.

Originally posted by bonkey
Y You want the activists to target their local Tesco's, or the SU shop on campus, or some specific retailer, then no...I do not support it.

You don't work for Coca Cola do you??

You don't think activists should have the right to talk to member of a student union?

Originally posted by bonkey
For the past number of posts, you've been talking about getting it off the shelves, and I've been saying that this is the typical approach taken by a minority in trying to deny it from those who want it to be bought.

What are you talking about??

I have been talking about information campaigns and activisim to convince universities, student unions retailer, etc. not to stock the product.

You then started talking about consumer demonstrations that attempt to convince people not to buy the product, demonstrations you don't seem to support because you think they hurt the retailers business (no more than a Pepsi ad campaign I might add, do you want to stop them aswell).

I then spend a good time showing you the difference between the two and now you are turning around and saying I am swapping what I am talking about.

Originally posted by bonkey
Up to now, I have clearly been taking issue with yoru comments about getting it off the shelves, so I think its pretty clear which I want to discuss.

Then why are you continously talking about mass demonstrations, as these demonstrations target consumers to encourge them not to buy the product.

Originally posted by bonkey
You're talking about retailers????
What happened to "bypassing the retailers altogether"

The comment "by passing the retailer all together" was taken from -

"So are we talking about activist groups to convince groups such as universities student union members and retailers through information campaigns, or are we talking about demonstrations to convince consumers, by-passing the retailers all together".

I am not talking about demonstrations to target consumers, you are and I am wasting time showing you the difference between the two, while being miss quoted by you.

Originally posted by bonkey
where I said that I was talking about the free choice of the retailer, as opposed to the co-erced choice of same. Where in that sentence did you figure out that I wasn't talking about the retailer, but rather about someone else?

I am going to say this as clearly as possible -

I am talking about convincing retailers, student unions, universites etc etc, through information, that Coke are an unethical company that they should not do business with. This has to do with changing the personal feelings of the retailer, student union members, etc etc.

You are talking about co-ercing retailers into changing the products they sell by convincing consumers not to by that product, by boycotting the store, holding consumer demonstrations outside the store (like they do with McDonalds), etc etc. The point of these demonstrations are to make selling product unprofitable for the retailer. They have nothing to do with changing his personal feeling about the product.

Originally posted by bonkey
No - and thats my problem.
Because they're not about convincing the consumer either.

Sweet jesus Bonkey. I am not talking about these forms of demonstrations. You brought them up first!! I have only every discussed them to show you the difference, to point out that I am not talking about them. I have asked you about a hundred times "Do you want to talk about them instead?" and you have said no. So would you please cop on and stop baiting me into talking about a different topic and them critising me for swapping what I am talking about!!!!! >:(

Originally posted by bonkey
Excuse me? I've been addressing the "get it off the shelves" line from the start.

Bang head against wall ...

Massive demonstrations out side shops etc (the co-ercion and intimidation you talk about), boycots etc have nothing to do with convincing retailers to not do business with Coke. They have to do with convincing consumers not to buy Coke. So why are you talking about demonstrations!!

Originally posted by bonkey

Im lost. Coke own the cans. Coke own the machine. THe University is the retailer.

The university takes a share of the money Coke makes selling the cans in the university. Exactly like Tescos. See top quote.

Originally posted by bonkey
it would seem that almost our entire retail industry would appear to be inept.

Well if people like you succeed in shutting up anyone who critise Coca Cola company because they are putting too much "pressure" on people, how exactly do you think they are going to find out about the unethical practices of multinational companies in countries thousands of miles away.

Originally posted by bonkey
All I have done is try and interepret what you meant by "convincing" retailers.

It was actually Nestle and the activits lead a week long information campaign with articles and information about the unethical practices of Nestle in India. Stalls were put up, flyers were handed out, speeches were given. And then the Student Union voted. What exactly is your problem with that?? How is that any different than say an election, or say what companies do with advertising all the time

Originally posted by bonkey
There you go on again about the stuff you said you weren't talking about.

My apologies for letting you bait me into talking about another topic you introduced ... it won't happen again .. see below, last quote.... :rolleyes:

Originally posted by bonkey

Rival businesses, trying to put pressure on a retailer to stock their product over someone elses is coercion. Sending them advertising, or putting

What you think this is the mafia?? The only pressure customer aimed demonstrations (that I am not supposed to be talking about) but on business is economic (no one wants your product so you stop selling it). Retailer aimed ethical information campaigns but no "pressure" on retailers at all.

Originally posted by bonkey
I've already clarified that if all you are doing is sitting down and having a chat with the retailer and then leaving it up to him, or sending him the info and leaving it at that, then I'm fully in agreement.

Who isn't do that? What campaign has caused you so much offence where you think people were being phsycailly forced, mafia style, to stop selling coke?

Originally posted by bonkey
Yes, but you're not talking about that, remember?

What about demonstrations outside the shop? Picket lines?

Jesus christ ... I am not allowed talk about it and then you ask me a direct question about it!

I support demonstrations outside shops, but they target consumers not retailers and we are not talking about that, you don't want to talk about that.

bonkey

Originally posted by Wicknight
Please read my posts properly. Retailers "buy" the product just like consumers, and the sell it on. If I convince the retailer that it is unethical to do business with Coke, who are you to force them to do business with them just because you want Coke.

As I've been saying from the start, its how you "convince" them that matters.

Convincing them by attempting to negatively effect their business because of their own stance is wrong. Convincing them by presenting the information and allowing them to make up their own mind is absolutely fine.

Demonstrations, pickets, and anything more extreme are not appealing to the moral standards of the businessman. They are appealing to his bottom line - they are not trying to convince him it is unethical, they are trying to convince him it is not going to be worth the hassle.

Bonkey, have you ever bought a product because you though the advertising was better than a rivals?

No, actually.

I have been convinced by advertising that a product may be worth trying, after which I have made my own judgement as to whether or not I wish to continue with that product.

Have you ever though "I want a free CD" so I am going to buy Pepsi instead of Coke.

Not that I can recall, but if I did I would do so for as long as it took to get the free CD and only if I was willing to put up with the difference in taste/quality/price/acceptability of manufacturer, and then I would revert to my usual preference.

You seem to think Coke have a divine right to sell there product and no one must attempt to disrupt that, not activist, not rival companies.

See...this is the thing. Coke are a company with a license to do so in this country, and - by your own admission - have broken no laws that should be used to prevent them from doing so. So yes, they have as close to a "divine right" to sell their product as is possible to have.

And I've no problem with people trying to disrupt that. Hell, I've clarified as often as possible exactly what I have no problem with people doing to try and disrupt that and what I do have a problem with....despite your continued pretence that I'm one-sided pro-Coke.

Maybe we should ban Pepsi advertising while we are at it.

Given that they typically engage in the same loathsome practices as Coke do (regarding "sponsorship" in education, etc.), I'm wondering why you don't actually sound serious on this point.

I'm also curious as to whether or not Coke or all products which are handled by the various Cocoa-Cola Ireland bodies are what you are seeking to get banned. I mean...would you object to a store carrying River Rock? Or Lilt? Fanta? Sprite? They're all bottled by CocaCola Bottlers Ireland, so are you set against them as well? Were they all also banned from the SU in Limerick? Wouldnt' that have a bigger impact, if its not what you've done?

You don't work for Coca Cola do you??

Why? Because I've challenged the manner in which you think things should be done? Because I don't subscribe to the same world-view as you, or believe (for example) that if you want to make the world a better place, you cannot adopt techniques that you would find objectionable were your "opponents" to use them to their advantage?

You don't think activists should have the right to talk to member of a student union?

If you bothered to leave that quote in context, it would be clear that this is not what I'm saying.

What are you talking about??

I have been talking about information campaigns and activisim to convince universities, student unions retailer, etc. not to stock the product.

You then started talking about consumer demonstrations that attempt to convince people not to buy the product, demonstrations you don't seem to support because you think they hurt the retailers business (no more than a Pepsi ad campaign I might add, do you want to stop them aswell).

I think you need to go and read my posts. I'd say re-read, except that given that I can't find a single reference to consumer-targetted demonstrations its clear that you're simply reading what you want into what I'm saying.

And in case you take me up on that (looking for where to prove me wrong, even), let me explain clearly what I have been talking about, lest you start misinterpreting to suit your own wants again, or again concluding that because I don't agree with you I must work for Coke.

I talked about co-ercing the shopkeeper. You construed this as consumer-targetted activism. I clarified and said that I was referring to actions which are targetting the store and the business man's bottom line rather than his ethical beliefs. I have consistently been talking about activism which seeks to impact business, not through convincing people that it is wrong to buy the product but by intimidating, embarrassing, or whatever, or by harassing the shopkeeper. I have also said that if these are in no way the activities that you and your fellow campaigners have been at - and that all you have done is offer them the information, make yourself available to them should they wish to talk to you, and otherwise leave them alone to make their own decision - then the stuff I am objecting to is not what you have been doing.

Sweet jesus Bonkey. I am not talking about these forms of demonstrations. You brought them up first!!

Your last post was the absolute first one where you have clarified to any extent what it is you have been doing to achieve your aims, so up until then I've been forced into guessing what it is you were up to. You'll also notice that whenever I've brought up these various things, I've been saying that I disagree with such methods if that is what you're doing....I haven't once said that you are engaged in them....thats something you've been (again) reading into what I wrote.

You've spent post after post using rolleyes, sighs, and every other emotive expression you can think of to denigrate my stance without once bothering to tell me exactly how you have done things so that I don't have to guess. Instead, you've been letting me guess and then sighing etc. that my guess (which I have always tried to express in the conditional) is not only not what you're talking about but often nonsensical as well.

I have only every discussed them to show you the difference, to point out that I am not talking about them.

Next time you want to avoid confusion about what you're not talking about....just explain clearly what you are talking about at the start instead. Its much easier.

So would you please cop on and stop baiting me into talking about a different topic and them critising me for swapping what I am talking about!!!!!

I'm not baiting you about anything. I'm trying to get you to explain clearly what you've done and why you've done it, whilst at the same time trying to address my feelings on the issue in general seeing as this thread's topic isn't "how I got Coke out of the SU in Limerick".

Just because you decided that every single comment I made was an assumption of what you did and a judgement of how you did it isn't my fault.

Well if people like you succeed in shutting up anyone who critise Coca Cola company because they are putting too much "pressure" on people, how exactly do you think they are going to find out about the unethical practices of multinational companies in countries thousands of miles away.

Again with the misrepresentation. I have clarified what I see as acceptable and unacceptable practices of achieving this goal. The fact that you are only seeing the unacceptable ones convinces me even more that you're simply reading what you want into what I've written because I don't fully agree with you.

What exactly is your problem with that??

How exactly could I have told you prior to this whether or not I had a problem with it when you never bothered to explain what had been done before, forcing me to guess.

Now you're already convinced I have something against what you did before I've actually had a chance to know the details.

And as I said before.....as long as this wasn't done somewhere that it was also trying to have a direct impact on the shops business (e.g. at the entrance to the shop...which you haven't clarified, so I still don't know, and I am still stating it in the conditional), then I fully suppport it.

How hard would it have been to read the comment I made about not having protests outside McDonalds but instead off in Stephens Green or somewhere and simply clarify that this is what you did???

...

bonkey

...

Who isn't do that? What campaign has caused you so much offence where you think people were being phsycailly forced, mafia style, to stop selling coke?

Again, I will point out that this thread is not about you stopping Coke being sold in the SU, nor about Coke in general. I apparently made the mistake of assuming you were using your experience as an example, rather than as the only theme to be discussed. My mistake.

Jesus christ ... I am not allowed talk about it and then you ask me a direct question about it!

Where have I said you weren't allowed to talk about anything? You get all hot and bothered because you think that I'm talking about something that you say is completely a seperate issue, and then you ask me about that self-same issue and now I'm at fault for not asnwering?

I support demonstrations outside shops, but they target consumers not retailers

They target consumers only in order to prevent them shopping there. They don't care why the consumer doesn't shop there...they just don't want them shopping there. Or, if its against a specific product, they don't care why the consumer doesn't buy it...they just don't want them to buy it.

When you don't care why the consumer has done what you want, then its reasonable to conclude that its not the consumer who you are targetting - they're simply a tool you are using.

The consumer who doesn't buy out of embarrassment, fear, the hassle involved, or whatever will go get it in another shop, but the shopkeeper has suffered a measurable fiscal loss that they probably cannot replace.

Thus, when you look at the mechanics behind whats happening, it is not the consumer who is being targetted, even though it may appear that way from a shallow perspective. The consumer is simply being used to get at the retailer.


jc

Zombrex

Ok I think I need to clear the air about. Bonkey, I think you and me agree on the same things most of the time, and this discussion has got blown away out of proportion.

I agree with you that strong arm tactics, such as forcably stopping people entering shops, cat calling at them, thowing things at them, is not an acceptable way to demonstrate. The vast majority of demonstrations against places like McDonalds are not like that, they normally consist of people, across the road, handing out fliers and talking to people about the business practices of said company.

Secondly, I have never been involved in, or heard of, a campaign in Ireland to forcably stop a retailer or student union from being able to sell a product that they wished to sell. I have only ever been part of activisim that attempts to educate people about unethical practices of companies in other countries. This has always been done peacefully, and required a majority vote to be passed. I don't know what the Coke campaign was like in Dublin, but if it was violent, and used intimidaton such as above, then I would never support it.

When I say "convince" I mean educate through information, not the mafia definition (put a horse's head in the bed). Sorry if that wasn't clear.:(

Sand

Back again

Re: The Ford vs Nike experience.

Ford paid a higher wage, and not just because he was a really nice guy Wicknight, but because it meant he could pick and choose the best workers from those attracted to his higher wages, and also because his employees would worker harder and more diligently to keep their high paying jobs because they knew there wasnt anything better going and because they also knew there was a host of guys outside who would take their job in a second if they slacked off.

Are Nike that different? Theyve moved to poor regions and theyre paying wages and providing conditions which are actually in excess of the local rates and conditions. Their pay and conditions sound dreadful to us but by their standards theyre Fordesque. Not that different to my mind.

Re: Desirability of Free Market being dependant on perfect information

Yeah, to an extent you have to be able to put a good value on a course of action that mightnt pay off for a decade or longer. There are something people cant reasonably be expected to know but at the same time they can be expected to recognise that not too many bad packers at their local tescos have degrees in non-arts courses, whereas not too many IFSC employees lack them.

And on the other hand the government is just as in the dark about perfect information as anyone, with its information sources often obfuscated by a bureacracy and politicial influences as well as they practical considerations such as whilst *you* might know whether you prefer Coke or Pepsi, they must only guess at it. If lack of perfect information is a flaw then surely a government heavy model is more a victim of it.

Sand...where child labour exists, you will find no situation where there is free, state-paid education. Its not a choice of not valuing one over the other. Its typically a situation whereby people cannot afford to send their kids to school and so send them to work instead.

Bonkey youve got to be careful about absolutes. As I recall in China not so long ago many school children children were killed in a exsplosion at a fireworks factory. What were schoolchildren doing in a fireworks factory? Their school had them working at making fireworks - the schools in China are free and state paid by most reasonable definitions arent they?

My point is, it depends on highly the parents value education, regardless of the state systems built in.

Thats a reasonable assumption, until you realise that virtually every single product you buy would require a massive amount of research to determine whether or not it was "clean".

No more than a government body would have to, and probably less as producers would ideally be volunteering information and access to *earn* the mark of approval, rather than attemtping to obfuscate to prevent a government bureacracy from being able to prove they are in breach of regulations.

And a private "brand of approval" would only be worthwhile ( i.e. people will only pay for it ) if the public held them in esteem as being honest and thourough. Whereas with a bureacracy....what do they care if people on the street think theyre corrupt? They still get paid.

And does that mean that we shouldn't say anything about it? You have a very low opinion of many political "types" - you know...the frequent digs at students, lefties, anti-Bushies...whatever. They aren't gonna go away, even though you clearly think they're wrong.

No say what you like about it. Youre coming at it from the wrong angle though. Im just giving my two cents on how things can be done more effectively and on a more individualistic basis. I do have a low opinion of the anti bush lefty arts students but mostly because theyre so well intentioned and so pointless. All that potential wasted on failed theories and clapped out dogma. Their route relies on using demos and protests to convince the political elite they rail against so much to enforce a solution to their liking, mine relies on widespread sentiment against abuses and goold old fashioned corporate greed. Whose relying more on people power?

So you believe that there wasn't a single person earning a wage below this limit prior to the introduction of a minimum wage, and if they were its their own fault ?

Oh I do. I was earning less than the minimum wage for one, stacking shelves and taking crap from customers at Tescos whilst I was going through college, and before. Mind you I was happy enough with what I got all things considered. A friend of mine is trying to get a job now to tide him over, he tried at Tescos and cant get anything despite working there for years. Theyre crying out for staff so much so that the Manager ( who was a gimp btw ) actuall runs an aisle these days - but with the minimum wage and their budget they cant afford to take on staff.

So you got a guy who wants to work but cant be hired because the budget wont allow any more staff at the minimum wage. Still, at least the unions got their bit.

Or is it that there is no need to care about these people? We should all be more self-serving (that being your "basis of capitalism", after all.

Those people should care more about themselves. I worked there for years and they were practically 100% lousy workers who spent most of their school life asleep. Should we be surprised they end up in lousy jobs? Theyre just reaping what theyve sown.

It has long long been disproved that minimum wage increases unemployment

Ill pass the word to my friend.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
And on the other hand the government is just as in the dark about perfect information as anyone, with its information sources often obfuscated by a bureacracy and politicial influences as well as they practical considerations such as whilst *you* might know whether you prefer Coke or Pepsi, they must only guess at it. If lack of perfect information is a flaw then surely a government heavy model is more a victim of it.

Governments are simply better suited than individuals to solving some economic problems, such as providing education or monitoring food safety. It comes down to the complexity and other characterstics of a problem and the resources and knowledge needed to tackle them. Pretending otherwise is simply blinkered ideology.

No more than a government body would have to

No, more than a government would have to, since no individual has the time, capability, knowledge and expertise that a dedicated bureacracy has to tackle a problem requiring real investigative powers and constant detailed vigilance.

and probably less as producers would ideally be volunteering information and access to *earn* the mark of approval, rather than attemtping to obfuscate to prevent a government bureacracy from being able to prove they are in breach of regulations.

Er, what? Apart from being a Sand-style government-hater, why would a company try to fool a government regulator when it knows that as soon as anything goes wrong it'll be exposed on a massive scale? Something that you can't guarantee if everybody's starting up their own little monitoring organisations, incidentally. There's just as much incentive to *earn* the mark of approval, and probably more.

Theyre crying out for staff so much so that the Manager ( who was a gimp btw ) actuall runs an aisle these days - but with the minimum wage and their budget they cant afford to take on staff.

They're 'crying out' for staff but they can't afford to hire one guy at the minimum wage? If that's even true, it sounds like they're just going down the tubes.

Zombrex

Originally posted by Sand
Ford paid a higher wage, and not just because he was a really nice guy Wicknight, but because it meant he could pick and choose the best workers from those attracted to his higher wages, and also because his employees would worker harder and more diligently to keep their high paying jobs because they knew there wasnt anything better going and because they also knew there was a host of guys outside who would take their job in a second if they slacked off.

All that is true. Ford believed his method was good for the economy, good for his workers, and good for his company. My point is thatFords model was not a product of capitalism, it is a product of social responability and a responce to the industry at the time, and it was certainly not free market ecomonics. There is nothing in the capitalist model that makes companies do what Ford did. As I have said before, he was an exception to be admirred, not a justification for capitalism.

To assume that every company would follow suit, the freer the market gets, is ludicrious. For a start you are using an example from 70 years ago.

Originally posted by Sand
Are Nike that different? Theyve moved to poor regions and theyre paying wages and providing conditions which are actually in excess of the local rates and conditions. Their pay and conditions sound dreadful to us but by their standards theyre Fordesque. Not that different to my mind.

They are paying excess of "nothing at all" That part isn't hard. What they don't do is paid enough for the workers to live on, unless they take long overtime and put up with terrible conditions. And Nike know this. They use the fact that they don't pay enough to live on to force the workers to work long hours, because it is cheaper than getting more staff.

Nike is nothing like Ford.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand

Are Nike that different? Theyve moved to poor regions and theyre paying wages and providing conditions which are actually in excess of the local rates and conditions. Their pay and conditions sound dreadful to us but by their standards theyre Fordesque. Not that different to my mind.

From what I've read, the rates and conditions that they provide are above the local average now that they've been pressured into making improvements.

Maybe I'm wrong, and the average in those countries is below (or just on) the subsistence level, but in the early days, all Nike did was stay as marginally above the subsistence level as they could manage.

And on the other hand the government is just as in the dark about perfect information as anyone,

Thats not the point I'm making.

I agree that the free market principle is the ideal to which we should aim. I'm simply pointing out that this ideal cannot be reached, and where it cannot be reached, there is scope - and often downright need - to improve the market through regulation.

The trick is to figure out what regulation is required, of course, but I was simply taking a stance that the whole idea of "we should make a market as free as possible" is usually interpreted incorrectly to mean "if a freeing of the market is suggested, it should be supported because freer is always better".

You can't look at a regulation and say its bad simply because it restricts a market from being totally free - well, you can, but you shouldn't. That was all I was trying to say.

If lack of perfect information is a flaw then surely a government heavy model is more a victim of it.

Absolutely. I'm not suggesting a govt-heavy model is a good idea at all....just that the government have an integral role to play in the markets, and the idea should not be to try and get rid of them, but rather to try and figure out how little intervention is really needed.

One could say, for example, that our telecoms market needs more intervention, especially considering the area of the local loop or final mile. On the other hand, one could argue that our taxi market was too regulated, and that opening it up (as was done some years ago) was the correct step as it allows the market to find a natural balance.

(For the record, I have no interest or inclination into turning this into a taxi-discussion. If thats your cup of bovril, take it to another thread).

Bonkey youve got to be careful about absolutes.

You're right...I should know better...but I hope you see the point I was making?

I hardly think the example you gave is a case where the children are working because the parents don't value their education. After all, if the parents valued education higher, exactly what could they do? Elect a party which places a higher value on education? Petition their local and oh-so-caring representative to have the system changed? Do parents even have a choice which of the state-run schools they get to send their children to?

And a private "brand of approval" would only be worthwhile ( i.e. people will only pay for it ) if the public held them in esteem as being honest and thourough.

Which is exactly what the opponents of such a system would seek to undermine. Cast doubts on its lack of bias. Seek to confuse the consumer about what its really saying. And so on.

So you got a guy who wants to work but cant be hired because the budget wont allow any more staff at the minimum wage.

Well yes, if you look at the impact it had on a single branch of a single company, you will see that type of impact in the short run. However, fighting poverty costs money, and it either comes from teh employer or from the state.

In theory (and in practice, I believe), a minimum wage can (but won't necessarily) promote growth, and increase the numbers of employed people in the medium to long term. I'm sorry for your mate if the only job available to him disappeared in the short term, or if the overall plan doesn't work as planned but very few gains come without some pain and some risk. Fundamentally, I still think a minimum wage is a good idea that was - and still is - needed.

jc

Earthhorse

Actually Wicknight, everything about the capitalist model says Ford should have behaved the way he did. He increased wages and bettered conditions, the result of which was a more productive workforce. It would be different if these things had no impact on productivity, then you could argue he was doing it out of the goodness of his heart, but you can't simply take into account one cost in the capitalist model. It is the overall impact on efficiency that counts.

For the record though I still believe the minimum wage is a good idea for reasons I've given already.

bonkey

Originally posted by Earthhorse
He increased wages and bettered conditions, the result of which was a more productive workforce.

Whats more relevant, surely, is whether or not the increased productivity generated more revenue than the cost of achieving said increase.

Doubling your costs to get a 10% increase in productivity would be nonsensical. Similarly, halving your costs to lose 10% productivity could make a lot of sense.

In Ford's case he believed (I think) that he was getting a better overall deal by paying more. I honestly don't know if anyone has worked out whether or not he was right, using the lower-paying manufacturers as a model to estimate what the impact to Ford would be.....but if not, then its not automatically a given that his increased costs paid off just because his company was successful.

It would be different if these things had no impact on productivity,

More important is the question of how the implementation of these things affects profitability. OK...profitability and/or other factors which may have an artificial value placed upon them (e.g. increasing market share) as being a short-term goal preferential to profit.

jc

Earthhorse

Well, yeah, okay, impact on profitability, I guess I should have spelled that out but I was kinda hoping people would pick up on the implication.

In fact, we could get even more pedantic and say that the bottom line with capitalism is self interest, so if you're a benign kinda guy and can't sleep at night if your employees don't have creches, canteens and massages, then it may be in your self interest to provide these things, even if there is a neutral or adverse effect on profitablility. Capitalism is morally and ethically indifferent so people are free to behave in a way they believe is responsible. Obviously this is tempered by legislation in a democracy.

Regardless, Ford's behaviour was not in contravention of any capitalist doctrine I've come across.

bonkey

Originally posted by Earthhorse
Regardless, Ford's behaviour was not in contravention of any capitalist doctrine I've come across.

true....but there is nothing in capitalist doctrine to say that because it worked for Ford we should assume that this is a definitive "always best approach" model.

In other words, just because Ford did it and it worked for him has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether or not it would be a useful approach for the likes of Nike or any other company.

jc

Earthhorse

We've come full circle now though. In my original post I was arguing that Ford, because of his concern for bottom line, had behaved as a result of capitalism. Wicknight didn't seem to believe that. He thought Ford was being benign.

In my other example I'm simply stating that benign acts aren't disallowed under capitalism. I never said they were inevitable.