Tell Steve not to partner with Wal-Mart

I thought that linked page actually went pretty easy on both Apple and Wal-Mart. I lost my faith in Apple's social conscience when they did that deal with Nike. Wal-Mart’s shrewd business practices are not limited to local economies – they are encouraging other corporations to follow suit to remain competitive. In a country where corporations control politics, it is especially important that some of them keep their integrity. So many companies establish a system of quality standards or social values, and then abandon it once they earn the reputation. The impact of these decisions is not lessoned by other companies being worse offenders – it is increased.

You cannot trust companies and governments to lookout for your interests, that is your responsibility (which includes giving negative feedback to corporations). The small percentage of people rich enough to influence the government (usually big corporate players) does so in their own interests, and skews the law to suit their needs. This brings our “capitalist” society closer to fascism than anything else.

I think it’s interesting that there is so much concern about who’s liberal, who’s conservative. When you’re talking about companies or political leaders, those ideas can be seriously skewed by marketing aimed at supporting what they think will be more profitable. I think people are much more complex than those two terms can satisfy, and also share a lot of common ground.

It makes sense to me to voice your concerns through corporations, because they are really running the show anyway (just look at Diebold), although I don’t think they’re likely to listen unless it threatens their profits. I don’t mean to be negative, just serious. It saddens me that greed is becoming so acceptable. Capitalism could fail for the same reason as communism, people aren’t playing by the rules. I hope America can find a better balance among the interests of business, workers and consumers.

If Wal-Mart is sooooo evil than why are they so sucessful? Do you all really think only poor/uneducated people work and shop there???? I would guess most poster to this thread don't have to worry about high prices. What's the beef about capitalism??? If it wasn't for captialism none of us could post threads like this.

Different perspective here. Many "big-box" stores besides Wal*Mart operate in the U.S. Most of them sell decent-quality goods at low prices. However, most of them, although they will take returns, offer NO service and/or support for the products they sell.

Another big-box store in my neighborhood was selling very inexpensive musical instruments to beginning band students a year or so ago. Within a month, they were looking for a repair shop to fix their broken instruments. The quality of the items was poor, and some of those instruments were back for repairs multiple times.

As a rule, you don't see top-of-the-line quality at the big-box stores. They have good quality at low prices. Apple products (and other high-quality items) would be cheapened by being offered at a big-box outlet. I say Steve has a good thing going with the Apple stores and should stick to just a little exclusivity. You can get Apple products and Apple support at CompUSA as well, but that remains a little bit exclusive.

I shop at Wal*Mart all the time. They have really low prices, and that helps me, a member of the middle class, to remain in the middle class! However, although I love their jeans, I know I have to try them on before I buy, because the sizes are not consistent, even within the same brand. Their return policy is great, but "you get what you pay for"!

Apple products are worth what you pay for them. The "low, low prices" will decrease the perceived worth of Apple's products.

The 18th and 19th centuries (I think those were the ones you meant to write) were occassioned by the fastest rise in standard of living in human history. Yes factory work during the industrial revolution was dangerous and toilsome. But you have to remember that until the industrial revolution, throughout the millions of years of human existence, possibly imminent starvation was a daily fact of life for the overwhelming majority of the population. Furthermore, the 19th century, the most free-trade century ever, was one of the most peaceful in human history (if not THE most). It wasn't until around the turn of the century, when countries around the world slipped into protectionism, dirigisme, and nationalism that global politics turned ghastly. The 20th century was a bloodbath. Instead of being open and trading with each other, nations closed themselves off and killed each other. And anti-market and anti-trade government exercises like the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and the Great Leap Forward in China induced famines that painfully killed tens of millions of people.

Why doesn't Apple just sell their stuff at Target? Target is nearly as big, and no one would protest. Plus, the way Target pushes the brands it sells with GREAT PR (and I mean GREAT), Apple stands to only gain from the endeavor.

Dear Apple,
Please don't work with Wal*Mart. Regardless of whether or not Wal*Mart is a great corporation or not, public perception of Apple products will drop. There are many other retail establishments that will work with you, and be much better for Apple and retailers in the future. Wal*Mart is an entity unto itself, and when an entity is so massive, it overshadows anything it sells -- including things like Mac minis and iPods. Please, do yourselves a favor and sell somewhere else or don't even bother.

If Apple is to be a class act, it needs to have some class. Wal*Mart is the antithesis of classiness. Wal*Mart is the epitome of defacto segregation. Which do you want ot be associated with? Class or class?

Have a little class, Apple,
Signed someone who has bought tons of your stuff.

Trueliberal, And what if your wrong and you are leading this country to economic, and moral ruin? I believe the lessons of the 20th century prove I'm right. Further I believe the lessons of 17th and 18th century prove you wrong. Give me and economic example of the the last 2000 years that supports beating people down, keeping them uneducated, and poor. Raping the environment and moving manufacturing to the equivalent of the other side of the world. I defy you. The Fact is this argument is made by people that want to profit on the backs the poor and at the expense of the environment. If religion wasn't so dominant in the political landscape of the U.S. do you honestly believe most of these people would support the economics of the current administration? BTW I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you civilly. It's rather refreshing. Take Care --Mike

Mikek,
I don't "want to take society back to the few haves and the mostly have nots." And to grant you the benefit of the doubt you refused me, I don't think you do either. But I think your policies would. Look around the world. The most dirigiste countries are the ones plagued with the most poverty and inequality.

I see that you are greatly troubled by corporate America's use of third world labor. So what would you have us do? Shut down all our factories in the third world? That would be great right? Their working conditions were terrible, right? Dreadful business that. Better to fire them all. That will help. They will thank us for it.

You know, the plunging Chinese infant mortality rate should have been front page news each and every day for the past 30 years. It has been a humanitarian MIRACLE. And it has happened because of the very economic globalisation that you bewail.

You wrote, "people like you hold people down. Which is of course the way people like you want it." Don't belabor me with your childish Dickensian world view by trying to make me out as some plutocratic monster. I want people to rise out of poverty every bit as much as you do. But I truly believe your way of doing it, however well-intentioned, doesn't actually work, and in fact is counter-productive. Like it or not, the policies of you and other economic statists are impoverishing adults, sickening children, and starving infants the world over. But don't take my word for it. Most economists agree. Now look deep down into your bleeding heart and ask yourself, what if we're right? Your economic views might prompt sympathetic nods from fellow beneficient progressives at dinner parties. But what if they're actually making things much, much worse for the people you want to help?

trueliberal, Why do we frown on Monopolies in this country? Indeed why do we have any economic rules? Why does the fed control interest rates? Why do we police insider trading? Why do we have securities laws at all? The answer is the same across the board when you have that kind of power you do bad things and bad things bring everybody down. Wal-Mart routinely finds ways to wield to much power and its bad for everybody.

The problem here is that you equate Wal-Mart to progress. I don't, I see them as a step backwards from the labor saving machine. Indeed they are the anti-labor saving machine. They use more people and pay them less so they don't have to pay for the technological advancement or the education that it requires.

In my view you are the luddite. You want to take society back to the few haves and the mostly have nots. Somehow in your world having more poor, ignorant, helpless people is in some sick way better. People like you that want to turn the U.S. into a third world labor market make me sick. You talk like Wal-Mart helps people but in fact they, companies like them, and people like you hold people down. Which is of course the way people like you want it.

Mikek,
How is forcing Wal-Mart to raise prices on her everyday items going to help her get out of her "economic spot"?

What if a company, instead of shipping jobs overseas, invented a labor-saving machine which obviated the need for a great many workers. Would you, like the 19th century wool mill-smashing Luddites, insist on destroying the machine to save the jobs? I should think not. To the worker who loses his job, how is that cost-saving measure any different from the cost-saving measure of employing cheaper workers overseas? The only meaningful difference is that by cultivating an "us vs. them" mentality in the public, protectionists like yourself can block outsourcing more easily than you can block technological advances.

Trueliberal, you can take heart that she will stay in her economic spot and so will her kids and her kids kids because ignorant people like you make uninformed comments, create policy and are blind to economic realities. Either that or you are culpable to them.