Wal-Mart accused of consumer fraud

[Marilyn. 340]

Here’s the ultimate values vs. morals/ethics conundrum – I (I’m sure like many others) don’t agree with how the government spends my taxes, but it’s not exactly my choice not to pay them – unless I want to go to prison. But I (like… well almost everyone else) pays them – and that money is used for things I fundamentally disagree with. So what’s my choice there – take up a New Age lifestyle?

The point is that you can’t live and interact in society without participating in things you find distasteful. Are you really willing to give up for example, Designer Clothes, Fast Food, Consumer Electronics, Gasoline, what about medicines?

As I said - nothing wrong with personal stands and I can respect them on their own merits, but saying that a particular one gives you some basis of moral superiority really isn’t right. Your value judgement led you to defend MS (while condemning WM) – MS does and has done things I find disagreeable (the internet censorship, for one), as does WM.

I don't think the tax thing applies here because unless we could select where our tax dollars go (or pay none ) we'd never be happy. I pay my taxes and while I don't agree with everything that's done with them (not going to go into it here and further spin this thread out of control) I do agree that taxes are required for a reasonably safe and civil society.

As far as my stance, I pick out WalMart because they are by far the biggest retail chain. IMO they have become the biggest in ways I don't agree with and I think it's only getting worse. Keep in mind I wasn't defending Microsoft. I was pointing out the similar charges and different reaction (Walmart = helping families vs. Microsoft = evil). I don't consider Microsoft to be anywhere near a perfect or 'guilt free' company. Are they huge? Yes. Do they assimilate other companies and incorporate them into their products? Yes. Have the deliberately squashed competition? Yes. That said, the same can be said of Walmart. Why the difference in reaction? It's not as though Walmart is even being portrayed as a 'necessary evil' like Microsoft. That's my point in the Microsoft thread and that's been my point of this thread regarding Walmart.

maybe evil isn't the right word for Microsoft.... the quality of their product isn't the greatest.... and yeah I know I could go with another OS but I know my way around MS...

I am considering maybe buying a Mac sometime but we can't afford to buy a new computer right now...

Edited January 26, 2007 by MarilynP

[Robor007 0]

maybe evil isn't the right word for Microsoft.... the quality of their product isn't the greatest.... and yeah I know I could go with another OS but I know my way around MS...

I am considering maybe buying a Mac sometime but we can't afford to buy a new computer right now...

See I would disagree there. Windows XP is a very stable and flexible OS and the hardware/software compatibility is amazing. It's also the most popular OS in the world right now (big target) and isn't the most secure out of the box. However, a lot of the virus/malware problems so common with Windows these days can be 'fixed' by running under a non-administrator account, keeping antivirus & antimalware programs up to date, and common sense (don't click on 'Osama Bin Laden Hanged' Email attachments ). Sadly, last I heard Microsoft is going to leave the default user in Vista with administrator rights. I know this is for ease-of-use but it's one of the best practices the end user can do to protect their system.

[Marilyn. 340]

maybe evil isn't the right word for Microsoft.... the quality of their product isn't the greatest.... and yeah I know I could go with another OS but I know my way around MS...

I am considering maybe buying a Mac sometime but we can't afford to buy a new computer right now...

See I would disagree there. Windows XP is a very stable and flexible OS and the hardware/software compatibility is amazing. It's also the most popular OS in the world right now (big target) and isn't the most secure out of the box. However, a lot of the virus/malware problems so common with Windows these days can be 'fixed' by running under a non-administrator account, keeping antivirus & antimalware programs up to date, and common sense (don't click on 'Osama Bin Laden Hanged' Email attachments ). Sadly, last I heard Microsoft is going to leave the default user in Vista with administrator rights. I know this is for ease-of-use but it's one of the best practices the end user can do to protect their system.

yeah, it is a great product if you do a bunch of stuff first..... or use Firefox instead of Internet Explorer....

reminds me of those Mac commercials... a Mac is good to go right out of the box but with Microsoft you have to install everything first and then download all the darn security packs and on and on.....

Edited January 26, 2007 by MarilynP

[Robor007 0]

yeah, it is a great product if you do a bunch of stuff first..... or use Firefox instead of Internet Explorer....

reminds me of those Mac commercials... a Mac is good to go right out of the box but with Microsoft you have to install everything first and then download all the darn security packs and on and on.....

I use Firefox for everything except the very rare occasion where it doesn't work. I know some prefer Opera but Firefox + extensions/add-ons beats all in my opinion.

Those Mac commercials are comical but true to a degree. Even with a WinXP SP2 install CD there's *a lot* of patches/udpates and even more if you install Office. The one thing the Mac guy forgets to mention is if you want to play computer games you're pretty much screwed (in both hardware & software availability). Also, many programs are written for Windows first and then are ported to Mac but lack features. Does the Mac YahooIM client have video support yet? My wife has a Mac and she loves it. I used it quite a bit for the time I was there and it was okay but I don't think I'd like it as my main OS on a daily basis. I prefer (in order): Linux > Windows > Mac.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

For one, I don't think boycotting a particular company is the end-all way to address its unethical practices, but it can be an effective way to put pressure on that company to make changes. There are a lot of companies that I won't buy from based on their business practices (Nike and Nestle, to name a few). I understand that I'm probably purchasing products that are made by companies that also engage in unethical business practices (sweat shops in Third World countries, etc), but I'm not going to be a defeatist and throw my arms up because it's nearly impossible not to. It's about consumer choice and I try, however imperfectly to avoid buying products from companies that I object to.

Its just like voting in this country - I only have one vote and it may not seem much and the choices of candidates may not be all that great, but I still try to do what I can with my vote. Perhaps you're more a realist and I an idealist, but I want to believe that each one of us can make a difference, no matter how small or imperfect that difference may be.

You perfectly summed up my position in a way I am apparently not articulate enough to do!

Fundamentally we’re in agreement. I don’t have a problem with consumer choice when it comes to taking a stand against unethical practices by particular companies – just that people generally do so within their means (of course it goes without saying that there are a lot of others who don’t care to begin with). Still for many people that decision is a luxury – hence I mentioned the Amazon vs. Independent bookstores. Similarly, if you live in a household that makes $40K a year – are you really going to spend your weekly food budget down at Trader Joes rather than WM?

Essentially it comes down to self-interest - charity obviously begins at home. Speaking of which, as much as I’d like to donate more for charity, I’m not going to do so if my living expenses prohibit it. Similarly, if I have a WM budget, it follows that I’m not going to be shopping for clothes at Bloomingdales or buying free-range/organic meat if I can only afford the battery farmed/processed stuff.

[Peikko 1,575]

buying free-range/organic meat if I can only afford the battery farmed/processed stuff.

Fair enough, except sometimes perceptions of what is affordable prove misleading. For example, is it really cheaper to buy some processed chicken nuggets rather than say organic pinto beans? It can be prudent to choose beans as a mainstay protein especially if the alternative is something that we are being warned isn't a good for our health.

This probably sounds preachy, which is not how I intend, I just think it's sad that marketing dictates that something that is almost certainly bad for our health is deemed preferable over something that is better for us, but is unfamiliar or seems somehow part of an alternatively lifestyle culture that is unacceptable.

It was proved recently in the UK that tasty and affordable food could be provided for children in primary schools if children were educated to accepting that processed foods like chicken nuggets etc were anything but the nice meat products they are portrayed as.

It is also perhaps worth noting that some of these seemingly 'high' priced stores carry stock that is cheaper than the so called 'cheaper' stores, at least in my experience this is so.

Regarding clothing, it is possible to get clothing in second hand stores that is good quality and cheap, but again this is often deemed 'unacceptable' or 'dirty' somehow, which I find odd.

Edited January 26, 2007 by Purple_Hibiscus

[Thingee 0]

I mentioned 2nd hand clothing earlier. Waste of money to buy brand new for children when they outgrow it immediately. We also do a lot of hand-me-downs when possible. Second hand clothes for me as well. Yep, I'm frugal. So frugal I squeeze a penny until it's the size of a quarter. Frugal sounds so much nicer than cheap.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Fair enough, except sometimes perceptions of what is affordable prove misleading. For example, is it really cheaper to buy some processed chicken nuggets rather than say organic pinto beans? It can be prudent to choose beans as a mainstay protein especially if the alternative is something that we are being warned isn't a good for our health.

This probably sounds preachy, which is not how I intend, I just think it's sad that marketing dictates that something that is almost certainly bad for our health is deemed preferable over something that is better for us, but is unfamiliar or seems somehow part of an alternatively lifestyle culture that is unacceptable.

Pinto beans? Are you kidding? Those would never, ever be an acceptable substitute for a bloody steak or a juicy burger. I mean, healthy stuff all good and well but somethimes, folks, you gotta live a little. As I type this, let me take a zip of my single malt...

[Peikko 1,575]

Steak or beans were't the alternatives

I realise that for some, if it sounds like meat (chicken nuggets) it's gotta be better than a bean (pulses), beans just don't taste as good, right? Well, they are different. There are many cultures that have made pulses into quite delicious foods. A steak will never be a bean though, of course.

Enjoy your drink

Edited January 27, 2007 by Purple_Hibiscus

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Steak or beans were't the alternatives

I realise that for some, if it sounds like meat (chicken nuggets) it's gotta be better than a bean (pulses), beans just don't taste as good, right? Well, they are different. There are many cultures that have made pulses into quite delicious foods. A steak will never be a bean though, of course.

Chicken nuggets aren't food. Those are processed garbage and leftovers. Quite literally. I can't help folks who shove that ####### down their throats thinking their getting something good. Same goes for hot dogs and bologna. Just the thought...

[ChristinaM 0]

I buy all my popcorn at Walmart. Hanging out on VJ requires lots of popcorn.

Oh. My. Goodness.

I read that and nearly died laughing.