A new UL type approval for social justice. - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2015, 01:20:08 pm
content: I have thought for a few years there needs to be a global register of approved manufacturers, which rates how the workers are treated well and paid, the pollution produced by the company, and that the products meet safety standards whether the manufacturers pay their fair share of taxes in the countries they do business. Sort of like UL approval with the extension of human rights and good corporate citizenship. The list should be published openly, so the human rights abuses by companies like Foxconn can be exposed much earlier... rather than treating their their employees like animals, they would have had to comply or be driven out of business.Would such an approved vendors system make consumers, manufacturers and governments more accountable? Could someone actually start such a system and make it profitable (like UL is)? Would YOU be happy to pay more for your electronics toy if you knew it was made by people who were treated well and paid well, the brand paid its fair share of taxes in your country, and the manufacturer took all care about the environment?

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2015, 01:42:02 pm
content: Quote from: VK3DRB on March 23, 2015, 01:20:08 pmNo.

author: rs20
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2015, 01:53:41 pm
content: In practice, if such a register were set up, Agilent and HP would all get their UL listing immediately and no-one on eBay would bother since it would necessarily be exorbitantly expensive if it weren't easy to fake. So, it wouldn't tell anyone anything new.Quote from: zapta on March 23, 2015, 01:42:02 pmWow. Questioning the practicality of the system is one thing; saying that you'd be perfectly happy to encourage the trashing of the environment and workers being mistreated is quite disturbing.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2015, 02:03:37 pm
content: Quote from: rs20 on March 23, 2015, 01:53:41 pmRead again.

author: rs20
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2015, 02:13:52 pm
content: I read it another couple of times; can't spot anything I missed. Unless you're just never happy.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2015, 02:23:01 pm
content: Quote from: rs20 on March 23, 2015, 02:13:52 pmWell, were did I say that I will be "perfectly happy to encourage the trashing of the environment and workers being" ?You are making things up and then complain about them.

author: AlfBaz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2015, 02:51:05 pm
content: Using Boolean logicNOT Happy to x = happy to NOT x

author: rs20
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2015, 03:00:03 pm
content: The OP's question was very clear, and it would take amazing pedantry to interpret it as anything other than a dichotomy between the two options below, but just for you I'll have to re-state it in a ridiculous form.Given a choice between:1. Paying more for your electronics toy if you knew it was made by people who were treated well and paid well, the brand paid its fair share of taxes in your country, and the manufacturer took all care about the environment2. Paying less for the electronics toy that you can make no such assurances,Would you,A. Prefer 1 to 2B. Prefer 2 to 1C. Indifferent (just as heinous as B).

author: aroby
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2015, 03:02:09 pm
content: Quote from: rs20 on March 23, 2015, 03:00:03 pmWhat's the point of anyone answering and sharing their views when, in your view, there is only one answer?

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 23, 2015, 04:07:43 pm
content: Is this a serious proposal or....?The proof is already out there that most people (not all - Dave pays more for 100% green energy) aren't willing to pay more for things like this. If that weren't true, there would be niche manufacturers earning PR wins with "socially responsible" manufacturing, and being successful at it.And who defines "social justice"? By what standard? Western standards? USA standards? And who decides what "fair share" of taxes is?And since each person's opinion on "social justice" is different, what prevents people now from purchasing goods only from companies whose practices match the individuals beliefs? Why do we need something else on top of what we have?

author: andersm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2015, 04:11:24 pm
content: In the pre-Internet bullshit days this was called "social responsibility." It's a popular investment strategy.

author: jolshefsky
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2015, 04:32:27 pm
content: I seek businesses that act ethically and responsibly. The hardest thing isfinding them. Most companies don't reveal where their stuff is made or under what conditions—both in cases of good and bad practices. Most recently I was looking at Cree's mains-powered LEDs: their package claims it is "assembled in USA" which is the only one at the orange big-box store I shopped at. However, as is the case when people make such claims, it's a whitewash simplification: the most I could find out is some of the core electronics are still assembled in China. In any case, their products were at or below competitors prices AND were (at least somewhat) made with ethical practices.In another case, I bought a Hameg scope because it was made in the Czech Republic. I didn't know much about the country, but the Wikipedia article andVerité(which documents labor practices) made it seem like it was an okay place. Since I couldn't find a manufacturer in anything but China, I went with them and paid a bit of a premium.Unfortunately, a "made ethically" sticker would be worse-than-useless. Only a few companies could legitimately use it, so it would either wallow in obscurity, or the meaning would be changed so more practices you think are unethical would be permitted.In summary, I'd say that I can only sleep at night if I do my best to ensure I haven't fucked someone over. The more qualifiers and justifications I need to make (e.g. Chinese workers aren't whips-and-chains enslaved, so they are free to work elsewhere, even if their country does not have their best interests in mind and ...) the less satisfying it is for me. Other people don't seem to have this constitutional defect and can happily let the invisible hand of Capitalism carry them along.

author: atferrari
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2015, 06:35:37 pm
content: Quote from: VK3DRB on March 23, 2015, 01:20:08 pmIf I understood correctly what I read last year about coffee, there is a "preferred" source where people (and maybe environment) was properly treated at all levels to produce such a comodity. Not sure if Starbucks was in that line of policy.Isn't it similar to choosing organic food for your consumption?

author: rollatorwieltje
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 23, 2015, 06:44:03 pm
content: Certificates / labels / markings are mostly marketing wank. Like Max Havelaar for example.The thing is, how do you check if the standards are maintained? And who sets the standards? Who would benefit from those standards? In case of Max Havelaar the prices for the end user were slightly higher, giving the impression that the price for the farmer would be better, but 2 separate researches by a newspaper and a consumer tv show have shown no significant benefits at all. Max Havelaar came up with their own research, performed by KPMG. Just for fun check the track record of KPMG, especially the last few years... Where the extra money goes? Well...Let's face it, manufacturers put independently verifiable markings on their products (TÜV, GS, CE etc), even when they damn well know that their products will never pass those tests (look at the endless stream of garbage USB chargers, multimeters etc). It basically never results in consequences. Maybe if you're lucky a product gets recalled if someone makes enough noise. Markings that require in-depth research and continuous monitoring? Forget it, nobody is going to verify that.

author: ajb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2015, 07:00:08 pm
content: Most companies don't have nearly the manpower required to actively manage their supply chains, so an independent registry would be the only way for this to work for anyone who isn't Apple. The problem is funding. You can't have the companies being assessed pay for the assessment, because that's a big conflict of interest, just like financial ratings. It's also an additional cost to those companies that are already spending more on compliance. If you have downstream companies pay for their suppliers to be assessed, the cost for a company to ensure full supply-chain compliance would be tremendous. And if those assessments are made public, I'm paying to give my competitors access to my vendors' assessments.The only way I see to universally ensure that companies operate responsibly is through regulation. Give the environmental and worker safety regulators bigger teeth and set them to work, publish compliance ratings the way some places require restaurants to display their health department ratings. Demand that parties to trade agreements do the same. Sadly, that sort of solution involves politics, so I'm not holding my breath. And of course there'll be the inevitable hysterical cry of socialism/tyranny from the Randian front.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2015, 07:48:29 pm
content: Quote from: AlfBaz on March 23, 2015, 02:51:05 pmThat's flawed logic.

author: rollatorwieltje
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 23, 2015, 08:38:07 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on March 23, 2015, 08:01:53 pmHe clearly states he doesn't want to pay more for "honest" products. He never said he doesn't want to see improved working conditions. And when it comes to buying behavior, it's the same opinion as the vast majority of people.In the Netherlands the market share for "organic" food is a massive 2.4 percent according to MilieuCentraal (a government funded platform). I'm pretty sure (I work for an agricultural equipment manufacturer) the market share won't grow significantly, as nobody makes real money on "organic" food, it only really exists because it's subsidized. You won't be able to produce enough "organically" anyway, yields are significantly lower.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 23, 2015, 08:48:32 pm
content: Quote from: rollatorwieltje on March 23, 2015, 08:38:07 pm+1 Everyone who orders cheap PCBs and parts from China and at the same time criticizes zapta is just a hypocrite.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 23, 2015, 08:56:16 pm
content: Quote from: AlfBaz on March 23, 2015, 02:51:05 pmYou are not with us = You are against us?Logic used by some country government.

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2015, 09:05:34 pm
content: Some companies pay $MMM more for utility power every year that is labeled as "green" even there is provably not enough "green" generation to cover the loads.It is "social responsibility" showmanship that has nothing to do with actually using "green energy".This is the kind of thread that goes way off track and gets locked. Let the countdown begin.......

author: SL4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2015, 09:08:51 pm
content: Recently, there has been a discussion aboutUL certification in the press...I'll let you read and figure that out, but consider another alternative:Would you respect China's UL equivalent, India's?Are any other standards valid? Paid, Govt funded?IMHO the ethics of all parties are well below thresholds of scrutiny!Sadly, everyone's in it for themselves with the least amount of effort appended.You can't take out more than is put in!

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2015, 09:59:08 pm
content: -social justice -The answer depends on how you define your social justice. Some people think for example that the racial profile of the prisoners differs from that of the general population is a form of social injustice. Others consider your making more money than they do is social injustice. Still others consider your being more pretty is social injustice.Personally, I consider the NBAs under representation of fat short guys who cannt jump to be social injustice. It unfairly took away my equal right to be an international super star.Well, you get the point, I hope.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2015, 10:07:15 pm
content: As to if I'm willing to pay more for goods produced under this social justice bs.No.Quite the contrary, I'm willing to pay more for goods produced in china because I know that behind everyone of my purchases, there is a guy who's working his ass off to make live better for his family and himself. I benefited from that animal spirit and I want other to as well.In contrast, I'm not going to drop a penny, at least voluntarily, on some -gentle giants- who sit on his ass demanding that I provide him with free foods, housing, education, childcare, contraception, healthcare, sneakers, the latest iPhones and cars.F6%(83 that.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2015, 10:13:54 pm
content: -Certificates / labels / markings are mostly marketing wank.-Bingo.The organic food industry for example is the biggest lobby against a federally defined standard for organic foods, precisely for that reason.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2015, 10:32:08 pm
content: One further example of regulation done poorly is the "Rainforest Alliance" thing (one could argue regulation done right to make the owner's money...); not sure how popular it is in other countries, but in the UK pretty much any product made using tea or coffee products has it excluding the very basic supermarket labels. Have worker standards and wages improved? Nope,but the CEO took $273,000 away last year!

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2015, 10:48:37 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on March 23, 2015, 08:01:53 pmReasoning for not spending my own money on yet another feel good scheme? Hmm, that's a tough one.

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 05:19:09 am
content: I would love to see such an approval, provided it was not regulated by the government, which in the end is regulated by mega corporations anyway. Kinda like the FCC, which is suppose to protect us but in the end ISPs just buy them anyway. If it could be done in such a way that you can really trust the rating, I'd be for it, and would try to make an effort to buy stuff with the rating even if it would maybe cost more.Though I'd be happy to just see more things that are made in Canada and the USA and from companies that don't outsource everything, but it seems hardly nothing is made here any more, or you really have to look hard.

author: Melt-O-Tronic
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 05:29:46 am
content: Quote from: AlfBaz on March 23, 2015, 02:51:05 pmThat is neither Boolean nor logic. 100% fail.On another note, it's amazing how much imaginary meaning people can extract from an answer as simple as "no".

author: Gribo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 09:29:03 am
content: No for the labeling system, yes for the concept.I rather pay more for my components and know they were manufactured in a decent factory, do not use questionable materials and the manufacturer stands behind the specifications.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 09:51:32 am
content: QuoteThat's probably not how the founding fathers envision the role of the government.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 10:27:17 am
content: QuoteThere actually is a political "fact-checking" industry if you believe it.Quoteethics is what I impose on myself, not something I impose on others. When you attempt to project your ethics onto others, something has gone wrong seriously.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 12:38:07 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on March 24, 2015, 10:32:59 amI don't think organic food is a good indicator. A lot of what drives sales is people's concern about chemicals or quality... actually I don't really know anyone who buys organic food based on the working conditions of the employees.A better indicator is what people actually buy and I think the data indisputably shows that people are generally not willing to pay much more for "socially produced" products.People always say the same things, either that they want to buy made-at-home products but can't find them (which is mostly bullshit), or that they are willing to pay "a little more", but the prices of made-at-home items are ridiculously high.Those are just things that people tell themselves to justify them going out to buy the cheap stuff. It absolves them of responsibility (in their mind) and makes it someone else's fault.I've been manufacturing parts in the USA for 15 years now and while there is a tiny minority that cares about where something is made, the vast majority don't, and even those who do still require better value to buy. In other words, they won't buy the same item for more simply because it is made here, they require it to be superior in some way that justifies their spend.

author: rollatorwieltje
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 12:41:35 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on March 24, 2015, 10:32:59 amWhat countries? In the Economics section I don't see any country where the majority of sales is organic food. I see large growth numbers, but that's to be expected if the base number is near zero. Denmark claims 7.8% total market share for organic food, the higest in the world...UTZ Certified has a 40% market share in coffee in the Netherlands. But look who the stakeholders are for that certification.... It's owned by Ahold (one of the largest retailers in the Netherlands) and a large coffee manufacturer. So the retailer and manufacturer claim that their own products are great. Also look at how UTZ works, it similar to green energy certificates. The fact that you bought a product with UTZ label does not mean that specific product was actually made using UTZ certified resources.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 01:08:51 pm
content: The whole discussion smells imperialism: we are trying to project what we think is good for the factory workers continents away onto them, regardless of what they want. We think we know better than they do what's good for them. That's no different from those Mullahs or religious nutjobs in certain parts of the world.Let people live their lives free of those restrictions you so eager to impose on them.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 01:28:16 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on March 24, 2015, 10:24:46 amIts very simple, it's because I am not a megalomaniac busy body that tries to enforce my notion of utopia on everybody else and telling them how to run their life.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 05:26:28 pm
content: It's a good idea - though not easy to implement.Quote from: zapta on March 24, 2015, 01:28:16 pmThis quote from Glen Greenwald seems appropriate:"When people makes accusations about other people, like "oh he couldn't be doing this for principled reasons, he must have some corrupt, nefarious reason" they are saying a lot more about themselves, than they are about the target of their accusations. Because, those people, those that make the accusations, they themselves never act for any reasons other than corrupt reasons. So they assume everybody else is plagued by the same disease of soullessness as they are."

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 05:34:50 pm
content: The truth is - if such a thing was done right - it would be about encouraging the best qualities of capitalism. It would be giving people choices and allowing them the freedom to make decisions based on their values. And it would give enlightened corporations a chance to to bring in line their ethics with their fiduciary responsibilities.Legendary trader and ardent capitalist, Paul Tudor Jones is trying to implement just such a system with his JUST Index.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 05:50:38 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on March 24, 2015, 05:26:28 pmWhere did I say corrupt, bad intentions or non principles reasons? Read again.I said 'I am not a megalomaniac busy body that tries to enforce my notion of utopia on everybody else and telling them how to run their life'.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 05:54:41 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on March 24, 2015, 05:26:28 pmI found it hard to imagine any time when such drivel would seem appropriate, then found the source of this mis-quote and that it was aimed at a few government officials making very specific accusations.This one is more appropriate...Quote from: C.S. Lewis

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 06:04:20 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on March 24, 2015, 05:50:38 pmCreating a way to rank companies by some metric of social justice is about giving consumers choices. It is about having the information available to allow freedom of choice.Accusing someone who proposes such a thing a "megalomaniac busybody trying to enforce a notion of utopia" is accusing someone of bad intentions.No one is proposing imposing anything on anybody. It's only about providing consumers information so they can make more informed choices.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 06:05:15 pm
content: QuoteA constant under all the "good intentioned" tyranny is that they always want US to live under THEIR standards. Why don't they go to an Animal Farm and live under THEIR own standards for a while?Just leave us alone. Is that really too much to ask of those "good intentioned" people?I guess so,

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 06:12:36 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on March 24, 2015, 05:34:50 pmIf you really, truly believe that such a system would provide consumers with actual value and provide companies with actual value and that nobody is serving that market today, then you have yourself a *phenomenal* business idea. You will be rich.So why not go out and create this ranking system or however you envision it, deliver the value you see to the customer and the corporation, and become a multi-millionaire in the process?I don't think the value is there, and I don't think you do either. It's easy to talk about what should be or what could be, but what actually is can be a different thing entirely.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 06:15:56 pm
content: Quote from: Richard Crowley on March 23, 2015, 09:16:48 pmSo the doctor starts charging more because his customers can afford it!

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 06:18:04 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on March 24, 2015, 06:12:36 pmI'm not the one proposing this - though I think it is a worthwhile idea.Why does it have to be about making money? Why is it that for some people nothing is worthwhile unless it is about making money?Did you watch the Paul Tudor Jones Video? He has set up a non-profit entity to create his Just Index.The fact that some are willing to make choices about things based on other factors than just money seems to bother some people. Why is that?

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 06:20:45 pm
content: I have a fairphone, not made by your usual company. The problem with this is that it needs genuine desire from manufacturers and their desires are based on the consumers desires who are usually pushed into a corner by the companies advertising playing to what the company wants and comsumers deepest desires: to have more for less particularly than your neighbour, be better than everyone else. Until consumers change companies won't. When people stop listening to the adverts and allowing themselves to be manipulated then the companies will have to listen to them.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 06:31:57 pm
content: QuoteTo the fairness advocates, that's whatever they deem it to be for you,

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 06:33:20 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on March 24, 2015, 06:04:20 pmWrong again, the goal is to promote a de facto boycott of companies that one doesn't appreciate.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 06:35:37 pm
content: QuoteYou don't sound convinced of your own ideas, just as you didn't sound convinced of your great green energy ideas.So typical. You want us to live under it but you don't.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 06:37:17 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on March 24, 2015, 06:33:20 pmAnd are you opposed to someone having a choice to boycott a company?Strange how someone who spends so much time professing to value freedom and liberty - would be opposed to providing consumers with information so that they can exercise their freedom and liberty.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 06:41:32 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on March 24, 2015, 06:35:37 pmMy ideas? Hardly.QuoteAnd you came to that conclusion how?Nowhere in this thread (which I just posted to today for the first time) do I see anyone proposing forcing anyone to live under anything. Just offering information and choices. Why are you so opposed to consumers having more information?

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 06:44:56 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on March 24, 2015, 06:18:04 pmIt's got nothing to do with "nothing is worthwhile unless it's about making money", it's just a realistic and rational, grown up viewpoint about how things really happen in the real world. There are life insurance salesmen who think that *everyone* should have life insurance and anyone who objects just doesn't know what's good for them - and so pressuring people into buying policies isn't unethical because they are doing the right thing.This same mentality often permeates society and you have naive folks calling for regulations on industries they really don't understand.The difference between doing something with a rational and reasonable eye towards capitalism and a doe-eyed naive eye towards saving the world is the difference between Tesla and Honda's FCx Clarity.And I don't think anyone is bothered that people want to make choices on things other than money - I think everyone should be free to make those choices. But the simple reality is that the # of such people is so low as to make things like manufacturing cell phones in the USA impossible.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 06:47:30 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on March 24, 2015, 06:18:04 pmBecause they utopian busybodies often have that holier than thou attitude that you can see with certain type of religious and political groups, disrespect to other people choices, and when they can, they finance their utopian agenda with other people money (subsidies, taxing the competition, etc). This the the common theme in many posts here of certain people.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 06:50:12 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on March 24, 2015, 06:20:45 pmThis BS (sorry, but it is) is repeated often... it's not the consumers fault, it's the corporation's fault. I hear that all the time when it comes to buy American.... "I want to, but companies just don't tell made in the USA stuff". The fact is that people's income is a finite resource, and when given the choice between paying a fixed price of $X, and getting either <Y> or <10*Y>, people will almost always choose 10*Y.It would be a mistake to wait around for consumers to change. Sort of like waiting for consumers in the USA to develop environmental guilt and start buying 50mph diesel subcompact cars. It just doesn't work. On the other hand, if you can make it work capitalistically - like a 50mpg car that is fast and looks great, then you take the market by storm.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 06:57:07 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on March 24, 2015, 06:44:56 pmWeill, I disagree. I think there are many people (not necessarily you) who get all riled up and seem to feel threatened by the idea that some people make such choices.QuoteI agree with you that the vast majority of people cannot see past their own short term monetary interests. Getting that to change may be an impossible task. But why all the hate towards those who wish to try? Even if they don't succeed then at least they are giving those who do want to base their purchases on other factors the information they need.There are already several examples of enlightened corporations who make decisions based on more than the short term bottom line - and many of them are thriving. Patagonia is one example. The founder and CEO Yvonne Chouinard's bookLet My People Go Surfingis worth a read in that regard. It's now been made required reading by several business schools.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 07:04:43 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on March 24, 2015, 06:47:30 pmSo it's their attitude that bothers you? What I see here is a lot of disrespecting the choices of those who want to find a way to give consumers this information and disrespecting the choices those consumers might make if they have that information.QuoteExamples? I think you are seeing boogy-men everywhere even where they don't exist of if so they are a rare occurrence on this forum.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 07:10:47 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on March 24, 2015, 06:57:07 pmI don't think there are any posters on the forum who would be against a private agency that ranked companies by "ethics". I imagine there are already such companies out there.But the original suggestion was appending something to UL - which means that companies then have to pay for this idea. That creates barriers to entry and a lot of companies in the small to medium range already face barriers that are unconscionably high. Raising their costs even further in the name of "saving the planet" is unfair. I think that's what people object to - the idea of forcing it upon a society that doesn't particularly care about it. I say "does't care about it" because, IMO, the proof is in the pudding. If people cared, it would be like organic food where it is a selling point that companies work to advertise.QuoteI think you are betraying your real position on this and highlighting for me what people have a problem with. I never said "the majority of people can't see past their own short-term monetary interests", you put those words in my mouth, and it is most certainly not how I feel. So who are you to know how I "should" feel? That is the root of the problem... like the life insurance guy, anyone who doesn't want to buy life insurance just doesn't know what is good for them and needs to be "encouraged" to buy using whatever means necessary.QuotePatagonia - the company who makes most of their stuff in China and who locked horns with Greenpeace over their use of toxic chemicals in their clothing.One man's enlightened is another man's anti-consumer. But I think you have proven that we do not need any extra requirements or responsibilities placed on corporations, as Patagonia prides themselves on their pro-employee and pro-environment beliefs, and are doing quite well.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 07:13:12 pm
content: QuoteThat's why I don't own anything Patagonia - check out those guys environmental record.QuoteYuk. Personal cult and brain washing. No wonder today's business students are so dis-respected by everyone.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 07:34:16 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on March 24, 2015, 07:10:47 pmWho said they were perfect? no one or no corporation is. Perfect is the enemy the good. Patagonia is better than most. See theirCorporate Resposnibilityfor specifics.QuoteAgain - I've seen no one proposing "extra requirements or responsibilities" on corporations. Just providing information to consumers. The corporations and consumers are free to choose what they do with that information.QuoteYes, which was my point. Why all the fear that making the information available to consumers might allow other companies to benefit without having to "toot their own horn" as Patagonia does ?.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 07:45:10 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on March 24, 2015, 07:10:47 pmI might. I liken the proposal to that of labelling food products containing GM crops. I've heard the argument 'how can anyone disagree with the labelling food containing GM crops to allow people to make choices'.I will let my government decide if a particular GM crop is safe to eat or not, they are much better equipped and have much more time than I to come to a conclusion. If a particular GM crop is safe then it doesn't need to be labelled. If a particular GM crop is unsafe it shouldn't be in any food and doesn't need to be labelled.There is no justification for labelling GM crop containing foods other than to allow a proportion of people to indulge their ignorance and bigotry by not buying them. If that proportion is more than a few percent then the loss of market share wipes out the benefit of using the GM crops and they won't be produced meaning no one can buy them.Labelling GM foods does not allow people to make choices it allows a minority to impose their choice on everyone and this social justice type approval bullshit has the same problem.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 07:46:26 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on March 24, 2015, 07:10:47 pmGlad to know that is not how you feel. I did not say you said that - but that is what I took from your post. Here is exactly what you said:Quote from: Corporate666 on March 24, 2015, 06:12:36 pmI never claimed to know how you feel. I was only responding to your post. Anyone can read it and judge for themselves what it implies. It implied to me that you thought it had to be about money. If that is not correct then fine - just clarify.

author: economist
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 07:51:42 pm
content: The problem with providing information in this area is the arbitrary nature of the measurement and almost certain absence of transparency.This is not an engineering problem. In the realm of economics and business you have to start with the premise that any system will be manipulated. Take the basic finance problem of identifying bank assets and liabilities. Back before the big recession it was common to shove things off balance sheet to avoid regulatory oversight. This actually made things worse when the financial mess came to a head in 2008. One lesson to learn is that an attempt to measure or regulate some non-desirable component of business activity will provide incentive to hide that activity or to wrap in arbitrary complexity in order to undermine the measurement.Given this, the next thing to expect is the unintended consequence of greater than expected regulatory power. This happens for two reasons. First, the problem above creates an arms race where regulators seek to get at whatever underlying activity is being regulated while those under regulation are pushing back with ever evolving attempts to avoid scrutiny. Second, political power -- even that as simple as requiring some form of labelling -- will always seek to expand. This is a fundamental component of a bureaucratic process where power and funding are measures of effectiveness as well as means to further the careers of bureaucrats.Finally, it is fundamentally unclear what "social justice" truly is. For example, say I live in some awful backward part of the world and spend all of my waking hours trying to stay alive with some combination of subsistence farming, dangerous work, and whatever I can come up with to get through a day. Then some big first world conglomerate decides to open a "sweat shop" nearby. A day's work pays $5 and is miserable by first world standards. Yet, to me it might be an improvement in quality of life. This would be clear if I freely chose to take a job at that sweat shop (self evidently showing this choice to be preferable to the alternative of not working there). Is this social "injustice"?Similar issue arise in measuring just about anything. Pollution, however we dislike it, is an inevitable result of human existence. Is it bad if the pollution is concentrated in one place over another? Assume you could lower pollution in some sense by increasing production costs. Is that better if every buyer of a product has to pay more? Obviously the answer is yes in come cases and no in others.In sum, I would expect any "social justice" labelling to be flawed from the outset from lack of clear definition, to result in less transparency as firms seek to avoid revealing bad things, and to result in greater than expected bureaucratic involvement but without meaningful effect. This may be a well intentioned idea but it won't work.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 07:52:59 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on March 24, 2015, 07:04:43 pmExamples, sure, here for example the utopians used for years reusable shopping bags (which is just) but recently the used the power of the government to force it on everybody, supermarkets are banned from providing or selling plastic bags with handles. In another example, utopians here cherish electrical vehicles and now use government money and benefits to promote it (subsidies, HOV lane access, penalizing the competition, etc).Religious people and utopians are free to practice their values but when they knock on my door, my tax money or penalize me I don't appreciate it.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 07:57:09 pm
content: QuoteThat is precisely the goal of such "social injustice" movement: it is all about driving up the costs for foreign sourcing so that the "1st world" citizens can retain their jobs.Nothing more and nothing less. They cannot compete so they have to wreck the competition in their favor.QuoteHow about the externalities of low-yielding non-GM crops? There reduce land for food production, drives down food supplies for everyone and the less fortunate may become malnourished or even dye.Where is the externality accounting there?

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 08:09:50 pm
content: Quote from: Rufus on March 24, 2015, 07:45:10 pmTrust the gubmint huh? Because they have such a good track record of ensuring agricultural products are safe? Of course they are never influenced by corporate money are they?QuoteSo you feel the need to protect the public from their ignorance. Ok. I get it now...As far as GM foods go, there are well informed, scientifically sound reasons for being opposed to them (as well as in favor of them). It's a serious debate - not a matter of those who are ignorant or bigoted and those who are not. But that is not a rabbit hole we should go down here I think

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 08:17:59 pm
content: QuoteHere is your supposed "superiority".My experience has been that people who has an insecurity issue tend to be behave like that.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 08:20:44 pm
content: In some 4th world countries in europe, aren't the speeding fines income dependent?BTW, I heard that there is "shadow tax" in some 5th world countries too.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 11:11:53 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on March 24, 2015, 07:34:16 pmHow do you know they are better than most? Have you done an evaluation of all the companies out there to determine this? Or have you just decided that most companies are bad and thus something needs done?QuotePerhaps you didn't read the very first post which called for a UL-like requirement for such information. You don't think it would cost time or money for a corporation to prepare some sort of report on this stuff? And if so, you think they would all just do it voluntarily? Since consumers don't really care about this stuff, what do you think is going to effect this industry-wide change of heart, and who will be tasked with handling compliance if not the company?QuoteNobody at all has expressed any fear. It's just that not many people are foolish enough to believe the claim that such information can be gathered without any additional requirements or responsibilities upon the companies in question. And if you believe that this information can be gathered without any burden upon the company and it is valuable for consumers, then why aren't you doing it? A business as a middleman with a no-brainer sales pitch to both sides of the equation seems like a dream come true. Why the delay in acting?

author: Evil Lurker
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 11:16:37 pm
content: I think it is a wonderful idea but where it falls apart though is in the details.Who is going to watch the watchers? How would they be funded? How are they to monitor companies in various countries across the globe? Will companies actually voluntarily show proprietary information about their business operates? Which companies would be monitored?It's all just too much and at the end of the day anyone can print a damned sticker and slap it on their product and 99% of the population would be none the wiser.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 24, 2015, 11:20:30 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on March 24, 2015, 07:46:26 pmI have no earthly idea how you got "people can't see past their short term monetary interests" from my post. I was challenging YOU to make this happen since you feel that it offers value to companies, value to consumers, places no burden upon companies and is valuable information and is currently not available. If I truly believed there was a market that was currently unserved but with willing and wanting consumers, and suppliers who would give my my product for free - I'd be all over it like white on rice. Yet you don't do so... why?Your words about "people can't see past their short term monetary interests" implies that you have a more enlightened and superior viewpoint that other people just aren't smart enough or mature enough to hold themselves. I find such people terrifying.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2015, 12:38:29 am
content: I think you phrased it badly. You should have asked, something likeWould you be interested in a way you could query a database as to a company's relationship with local and global communities and its employees before making a purchase?Companies query all sorts of databases before hiring, since purchasing (or in some cases not purchasing) is one of the only choices left to people which is guaranteed to actually work, people should have th opportunity to not buy if they find out they don't want to for some reason.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2015, 01:00:03 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on March 24, 2015, 11:11:53 pmBased on what they have done. I don't see many companies donating the amount they do or making the effort they do to ensure their corporate values are upheld along their supply chain. There are some for sure but you're not seriously arguing that most companies do are you?QuoteWell now you're just arguing for argument's sake. Who is the one putting words in other's mouths? I do not believe most companies are bad. Quite the opposite. That's why I think Paul Tudor Jones's proposal is a good one. Give companies and the consumer a way to express their values.QuoteNo where in the OP does it say anything about requiring companies to do this. It's a choice. If no one payed attention to the rating and it did not impact consumer choices then companies would likely not make the effort. It's about information and choice. Nothing more.QuoteSee above.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2015, 01:13:11 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on March 24, 2015, 11:20:30 pmFrom the previous post where you stated:QuoteBTW - I don't think looking at short term monetary factors is "evil" or "bad". It's human nature and most, including myself do it much of the time. It takes effort for most to think about the broader impact of their purchase decisions. I see this proposal as a way to raise awareness of those impacts and offering people and companies an easier way to use that awareness in a positive way.QuoteSo you believe it's not ok for someone to agree with an idea unless they are willing to implement it themselves???I'm very satisfied with what I do and no desire to change professions.QuoteOf course, but that is not what this is about.QuoteSee above.QuoteSee above. I am often guilty of making choices based on short term monetary interests. Isn't everyone? But I would like to have more information easily available about companies so that I can do better. If that rubs you the wrong way then it's your issue, not mine.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2015, 01:57:29 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on March 25, 2015, 01:13:11 amGuilt, the driver of many feel good schemes.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2015, 02:04:43 am
content: Quote from: zapta on March 25, 2015, 01:57:29 amYep, I think the Glen Greenwald quote nails it.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2015, 03:59:13 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on March 25, 2015, 02:04:43 amYes, and you are rubber and I am glue.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2015, 04:52:11 am
content: If you want social justice, you need to prevent the FTAs which frame everything in a radically different way. Everything is backwards, and literally all those social justicy things would trigger a lawsuit against a country by "investors' for example for raising the minimum wage or trying to prevent or clean up pollution. Countries will have to pay the injured corporations for "taking" their "property".mark my words, almost nobody has the foggiest idea of the incredible changes they are cooking up for us, globally. It will be a race to the bottom that eclipses all the previous ones.For example, imagine a world where helping poor people is THEFT. its coming.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2015, 04:55:38 am
content: Ha!Sometimes in threads like these, it feels like I'm among the Ferengi and theirrules of acquisition.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2015, 04:59:38 am
content: Quote from: cdev on March 25, 2015, 04:52:11 amYep. TheTrans-Pacific Partnershipis their latest project.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2015, 05:03:16 am
content: Trade deals might prohibit any kind of mention on labels of this database if everybody could not use it, because that might be seen as discriminatory against the companies which employed people in trading partner countries that used child or slave labor.Especially, all the changes in environmental, safety, labor laws would need to be done *before the signing* or they would expose the country to lawsuits for "indirect expropriation" and a suit to recover investorslost expected future profits.See "Trojan Horse Clauses: Investor-State Dispute Settlement" by Matthew Rimmerhttp://works.bepress.com/matthew_rimmer/178/andhttp://works.bepress.com/matthew_rimmer/201/(Australian author and presentation but it probably applies to all of us as this issue is global)

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2015, 05:31:57 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on March 25, 2015, 04:55:38 amAs I observed earlier, holier than thou.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 25, 2015, 05:37:02 am
content: Quote from: VK3DRB on March 23, 2015, 01:20:08 pmMost definitely.I like the idea

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2015, 05:59:06 am
content: Quote from: zapta on March 25, 2015, 05:31:57 amNo sense of humor I guess.So first you accuse me of feeling guilty, now of feeling holier than though. Make up your mind dammit!I guess when you run out of arguments against an idea, it's easier to attack those who support it...

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 25, 2015, 06:07:21 am
content: Quote from: Evil Lurker on March 24, 2015, 11:16:37 pmIt could be as simple as that actually.Someone provides a mechanism (online of course) that allows companies to voluntarily show they mean business in certain areas, be it sustainability, wages, working conditions etc by voluntarily providing such information and prove they are doing the right thing. Perhaps photos of working conditions etc, and then let the community vet that information and possibly rate it, kind of like what Glass Door does for wages and working conditions at companies already.

author: Wytnucls
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2015, 06:07:58 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 25, 2015, 05:37:02 amI am already:

author: Lightages
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 25, 2015, 06:17:20 am
content: I once asked a friend if he had two products in front of him which he would buy.Product #1:Made in an ethical way made with proper safety standards for the workers and with proper protection for the environment.Product #2:Made in a country where there are no rigorous safety standards for the workers, no environmental protection, and no expectation that the product would not contain anything dangerous to the consumer and the environment of end use. People would die during production and people would acquire health problems from the environmental contamination, both guaranteed from the production.Product $2 cost less than 70% of product #1 and both are equal in any other comparison of quality and capability.The first thing he told me is that product #2 was a ridiculous proposition and secondly even if it was real it wasn't his concern because he didn't care as long as he got what he wanted at less cost to him.I asked this question in 2004? I believe that his answer was and still is the opinion and attitude of 95% of the world. Asking this question here is asking 5% of the world IMHO as here I believe we have the 5%'ers, those who actually want to think and have a consciences because they do care to think. (Those who believe that science cannot provide morals can go somewhere else.)In the end, my assertions were proven true. Whole factories of people have died in fire trying to make clothes at $1 per month for brands that sell at $100 for a shirt, people working 18 hours a day and committing suicide by jumping off the factories so "westerners" can have their once a year latest cell phones which then end up in the garbage the next year, or dog food that is really cheap but kills your dog, or the local population dying because their water is full of chemical wastes from the factories.The ironic thing? We here see the follies, for the most part. The other 4 billion people in the world clamoring to get better stuff and higher status than everyone else don't give a shit. The billions of litres of pollution dumped into the rivers in China seem so far away, But where do those rivers flow? We all get affected eventually. Who gives a shit? Not the corporations telling people that their 3 month old phone is absolute junk needs to be replaced immediately with the latest soon to be junk. You get the idea.What about the other 2 billion or more people? They are too busy burning children en mass because they dare to go to school. Or worrying about what sacred book tells them they need to do because this world and life don't matter because the next "life" is what really counts. Or people shouldn't love each other unless they meet a specification in a book written by iron age sheep herders who didn't know the earth orbits the sun.... blah blah blahI think that Douglas Adams had the right idea. Gather all the people I have referenced above and send them off in a space ark to another planet and telling them they were the ones need to go first to set things up because they were the important people and the rest would be along soon.I would gladly pay more for three things:#1: Ethical practices#2: Environmental responsibility#3: QualityI can be relatively sure of #3. The other two are indeterminable because if someone has the opportunity to make money, they usually will lie about #1 and #2. Humans are generally assholes.OK, now having said that, read my signature

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2015, 06:20:56 am
content: What I like about the Just Index that Paul Tudor Jones has set up a nonprofit to develop, is that they are polling the public to determine which factors people find most important - wages, working conditions, environmental impacts,etc and then will use thise to create the index. . Then it wil be regularly revised based on periodic polling.Having a rating from this index, if a company chooses to participate, would then give the consumer a quick, easy way to compare and factor that in to their purchase decisions.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2015, 06:43:25 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on March 25, 2015, 05:59:06 amCheck your post above, you said that you are guilty. Don't throw it on me, own it, or throw money at it, or do whatever you want.As for the being holier than thou, the utopian crowd is very intolerant with people that don't share their pet cause and this is reflected in a few posts in this thread.Wish you well.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2015, 07:21:53 am
content: Quote from: zapta on March 25, 2015, 06:43:25 amI said i was guilty of making purchase decisions based on price. I did not say I felt guilty which you did by claiming that I supported this idea due to feelings of guilt.I am also guilty of sometimes (ok often) driving over the speed limit. Are you? do you feel guilty about it? I don't.QuoteIt appears that in your mind anyone who attempts to do something they feel will make the world a better place (or supports them) is a "utopian". What an easy and useless way to discount someone. One could just as easily label any idea or belief utopian. Libertarians have their own utopia. So did the founding fathers of the USA, so does anyone who gives a shit about the world around them.Similalry labelling an idea you disagree with as a "pet cause" and those who argue for the merits of that idea "intolerant" or a "megalomaniac busy body" is just not very effective.There's nothing wrong with not liking an idea, pointing out it's flaws and making your case against it. But why the need to repeat the same old political talking points and buzzwords - "utopian crowd", "pet cause", "feel good scheme"' etc? And why accuse others of being "intolerant" just because they refute your arguments?Personally, I'd find it pretty boring if there was no disagreement - that is what i would have trouble tolerating.

author: SL4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2015, 07:44:39 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 25, 2015, 06:07:21 amThat was the premise behind patents and copyright... it went off track when trolls could lock down innovation with no intention of releasing it for fair market exploitation... or innovators that use patents to defend their 2000% margins above their development component.it's just broken, and no-one wants to be the first to open the door. They simply don't trust the other guys!

author: Galenbo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2015, 08:24:28 am
content: Quote from: VK3DRB on March 23, 2015, 01:20:08 pmThere comes the new scam, a new logo, a new expensive media and marketing campaign, a new board of directors.They can write some documents now what exacly is meant by "treated well", "fair share",... in a way it suits the company that offers most.Of course companies will be forced to be approved to this new label if they want to keep their customers, and have to pay themselves for the review and approval. Byebye startup, Bybye self-employed. Hello multimillion international.Just another step towards communism and the distruction of the middle class.

author: rollatorwieltje
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 25, 2015, 11:02:20 am
content: Don't you think it's up to the governments of countries that allow exploitation of their own people to step up and do something about it? Blaming the consumer for allowing poor working standards in another country is just the wrong end of the chain. If I were to open a sweatshop here in the Netherlands a silly Fairtrade mark would be the least of my concerns.Also consider that sweatshops are already road to improvement, just look at how western countries developed. In the 19th century sweatshops were all over the USA and other western countries.Several years ago the US actually outright banned buying from sweatshops in Bangladesh, this resulted in about 100.000 workers being suddenly unemployed. Note that the wages in sweatshops are generally several times modal. You can probably guess what this does with an already fragile economy.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2015, 11:03:36 am
content: QuoteWould you?Why limit it to just electronics toys? Look around at all the things you have around you: your house was built by immigrant workers who were paid a substandard wage; your iPhone was built in a country with questionable human rights record; your BMW was built on parts sourced from China; your Patagonia outfit was from a sewing line staffed by under-age women workers;the list goes on.Practically speaking, you have to be as corrupt as the world to live in the modern times.Yes, I would love to see you go ahead and apply that standard to yourself before you impose it on us.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2015, 11:06:47 am
content: QuoteThat really is the goal if the fairtrade movement: eliminate foreign competition and drive up domestic labor rates. They cannot care less about what happened to the poor workers overseas.

author: rs20
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2015, 11:52:02 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on March 25, 2015, 11:03:36 amIf I may paraphrase, "You're not able to effect the change you want to see all by yourself, therefore you're not entitled to suggest what we should all do as a group." Lovely.

author: Gribo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2015, 12:41:13 pm
content: Ethics cannot be regulated.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 25, 2015, 12:56:45 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on March 24, 2015, 06:50:12 pmI'm not sure what your on about, yes my phone was made in china but by people paid appropriately to make that phone. It's a step in the right direction. I'm sorry but I go through life hearing everyone around me trying to buy bigger and better for less and feel good if they get a "better" deal than someone else. The fact of the matter is we humans are a nasty vicious animal and for our "civilization" we have still not trained out the nastiest side of us, it just bleeds into things like the well known unpleasant "office culture" and backstabbing and showing off and trying to put people down based on a manufactured and artificial idea. Companies are very aware of the nasty and unneccessarily competitive society we live in and strive to take advantage of peoples worse instincs.I haven't forgotten classic FM in the UK broadcasting an advert for amazon (UK tax dodger and poor worker conditions employer) for their new tablet. The advert was a smug man telling you how cheaply you could buy this really powerful device, give it as a present and look really good and come out on top for giving the biggest and best present and feel even better about yourself because you paid far less than they'd think you have for it! or course many people will have suffered for you to get this ego trip but fact is most people don't give a shit about anyone about themselves!

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2015, 01:30:48 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on March 25, 2015, 11:03:36 amMy house was not built by immigrants. The builder of this house was an Oz, who was born here.My iphone you say? I don't own one. I don't own any Apple products because they only acted on the Foxconn employee abuseafterthey got bad press over it. Furthermore they are massive tax avoiders. The company tax rate in Australia is 30% FLAT. So why are the pricks from Apple only paying 0.9% in tax? It is legal, but immoral. It is unrestrained greed.http://www.smh.com.au/business/apples-803-million-australian-tax-bill-revealed-20150127-12yrqq.htmlBMW? You got to be kidding. Australians who were born here in general don't have to to drive overpriced BMW's or Mercedes to save face or buy respect. For the most part we are down to earth. Like with the Swedes and the French, in Australia it is considered quite distasteful to flaunt wealth. We don't need to save face using shallow props. I drive an old Civic only because it is reliable and Honda has ethics. Before that it was a second hand Magna, then a VB Commodore and before that it was a HQ Holden. No BMW to be found.Patagonia outfit? Never heard of it. I shop at Target, hoping that they have enough honesty and integrity to ensure the workers who made the clothes are treated well. I have never shopped at Rivers since they were exposed as having garments made by a Bangladesh sweatshop.So you got 0 out of 4 so far. No, let's make it 0 out of 6. I am not corrupt and not imposing anything on anyone.If I have the choice of "Made In Australia" food and "Made in China" food, the former wins hands down every time irrespective of the cost. But even here there are home grown rogues. Companies conceal the "Made in China" labels with sneaky marketing or vague labels. One company here, Patties Foods, imported mixed berries which has been recalled because 20 people here have reported to have gotten hepatitis A from eating the Made in China berries. Most people could assume their Nanna's Mixed Berries came from Grannie's old orchard, but no, they came from some place in China where a worker probably didn't wash their hands after taking a crap. The labelling laws are about to change here to properly highlight the origin of our food. Long overdue.I have two French friends who were staying with us and they backpacked around Australia. There are farmers out there exploiting backpackers who are required to work on a farm for an extension of their visa. One farmer paid them ONE AUSTRALIAN CENT for every strawberry plant they planted, over a few weeks. So exploitation does not only exist in third world countries like China. It even happens here.

author: DJ
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 25, 2015, 01:54:18 pm
content: If you want some subjective rating service, keep it the hell out of UL, or other science-based approvals organizations.Any company who wishes to voluntarily adopt same is fine.Making it a requirement is forcing YOUR opinion on others.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2015, 10:33:02 pm
content: QuoteThere is a little dictator in everyone of us, more so in our equality / social justice advocates.To them, we are all equal, except that they are apparently more equal to us,

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2015, 10:40:06 pm
content: If you really care about "social justice", I have a proposal for you.The best equalizer for anyone of us is a quality education. It provides upward mobility for those desperately seeking it.Unfortunately, it is too often the case that kids in low income areas have some of the worst schools dominated by power teachers' unions and politicians who provide their union bosses. The same situation exists in higher ed: close to 90% of the black students in the Ivies come from upper class black families.For every low-income kid languishing in those terrible schools, black, white, purple, or red, there is an engineer, artist, painter, writer, dancer, etc. that we are not going to see.What are YOU going to do about this tremendous social injustice?

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 02:31:04 am
content: >If you really care about "social justice", I have a proposal for you.>The best equalizer for anyone of us is a quality education. It provides upward mobility for those desperately seeking it.>Unfortunately, it is too often the case that kids in low income areas have some of the worst schools dominated by power teachers' unions and politicians who provide their union bosses. The same situation exists in higher ed: close to 90% of the black students in the Ivies come from upper class black families.>For every low-income kid languishing in those terrible schools, black, white, purple, or red, there is an engineer, artist, painter, writer, dancer, etc. that we are not going to see.>What are YOU going to do about this tremendous social injustice?------That is exactly what I have been trying to say too.. But, we've all screwed up, we didn't see what was happening, at least most of us didnt, and now danger is imminent to the value system that says everybody should be able to get an education, and afford to have healthcare or minimum wages or truly anything good from our governments- basically the whole 20th century- they want to reverse it. this very real danger is imminent.Whatever it was we did, it wasn't fast enough because it seems that around 1995 decisions were made in high places to begin a process to quietly force privatizations of public services of all kinds globally. People are only just now beginning to realize whats been going on.The scope of this mandated services privatization is very broad.Quote

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 02:35:01 am
content: mtdoc, that's a long one but I will try to answer a few key points.Quote from: mtdoc on March 25, 2015, 07:21:53 amApples and mangos. One is an external legal criteria set by strangers that one may or may not agree with (legal speeding can still be a safe and reasonable speed) and the other is a guilt criteria that you defined for yourself.Quote from: mtdoc on March 25, 2015, 07:21:53 amThe founding fathers were actually very restrained in their solution. The created a minimal system to protect our freedom, made sure to include check and balances, understood the risk of unintended consequences (such as bureaucracy running amok) and didn't micro manage the solution. Compare this for example with the Russian or Chinese revolutions.I call those people utopians and busybody because they have the continious urge to fix anything that they don't feel good about, often without understanding the unintended consequences (check Feakonomist I and II) and with disregard to other people liberties and personal choices.Quote from: mtdoc on March 25, 2015, 07:21:53 am"pet cause" - that's because it's just one aspect out of a complex reality, often it's not even the most important one, it's just one of many other causes that people try to pitch me, and each tries to sell his pet cause the the most important one, ignoring the fact that it was their subjective decision to elevate it to such perceived importance."intolerant" - see posts posts #2, and #17 here."megalomaniac" - it the delusion that they can understand the unintended consequences, know better than other people how they should live their lives and use whatever power they can gain to enforce it."busy bodies" - that's for consistently interfering with other people lives and business.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 02:41:36 am
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on March 25, 2015, 09:00:31 amIf think that Somalia is a free country you completely missed the concept of personal liberty.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 03:44:35 am
content: Quote from: zapta on March 26, 2015, 02:35:01 amYou're missing the point which is that using the word guilty in a sentence to state you did something is an entirely different usage than using it to express feelings of guilt about something. I am guilty of misspelling a word != I feel guilty about misspelling a word.QuoteIn other words that was their utopia which they then successfully promoted (and imposed on the minority of colonists who were loyalists). Not a bad thing but utopian nevertheless.QuoteThat is your judgment and you projecting your biases onto them. One could just as easily say " I call libertarians utopians and busybody because they have the continuous urge to tell everyone that they are infringing on their liberty and have the need to impose their definition of liberty on them without understanding the differences between how they view a society with more liberty"See how that works. Constantly assuming that others don't equally value liberty and freedom because they aren't constantly declaring it is not productive. It reminds me of the old joke: How do you know someone is a vegan? Just wait 5 minutes and they'll tell you. Substitute libertarian and you get the idea...Assuming that others who want to do something good also want to force you do it is erroneous thinking. This thread is a perfect example. There have been several proclamations, by those who don't like the idea, that others are imposing it on them. I have yet to see anyone say that. Quite the opposite - many have explicitly stated that their idea is that this would be a voluntary system.QuoteNo one in this thread has been pitching anything to you or trying to sell you anything. They are simply discussing and agreeing with an idea that many people think is a good one. You don't - fine. One could just as easily dismissively label your libertarianism a "pet cause". How would that be useful or relevant to an examination of its merits?QuoteI just did. All I see in those posts is disagreement with your views. Strictly speaking I guess the word intolerance can be used to describe an unwillingness to accept someones viewpoint. By that definition you are equally intolerant. But of course you are not using that way - you are using in a derogatory, personal sense.QuoteJust as above the same rational could be used to label someone constantly promoting libertarianism (or any political ideology) a megalomaniac. I fail to see how that kind of name calling contributes to any discussion of the pros and cons of an idea.QuoteNo one is proposing forcing anything on anyone. By your definition anyone trying to do anything that some people might not agree with is a busy body.I respect your different viewpoints - i just wish you would express them as they pertain to the topic and not assume that anyone who has an idea you don't like is trying to force it on you, "intolerant", a busybody, megalomaniac and revert to the usual political speak. Everyone here likely values freedom and liberty just as much as you - even if they don't have the same view as you as to how best to promote more of it.Now I'm sure we'll need to agree to disagree on most of this and I'm not trying to impose my views on you - I'm just expressing them.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 04:55:58 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on March 26, 2015, 03:44:35 amIn this case not on me but on Chinese and other manufacturers hence the busybody label.'Ignore zapta, he doesn't think like us' (paraphrasing) is a clear sign of intolerance.I say that I am a vegan when somebody try to force me to eat meat.It's not that I don't find a specific pet causes important but there are so many of them, each one claiming to be more important than the other. Just like religions, it's personal and subjective.The megalomanic assessment, it was based on a history of posts, not just this one, and I didn't have you in mind when writing it.I will not let you forcing me spending all day in front of the terminal so I will cut it short. ;-)

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 12:09:21 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on March 25, 2015, 01:00:03 amAnd again, you have checked out other companies and know that Patagonia is superior in their giving or corporate citizenship? Or is that just what you "feel" (and are ready to impose new burdens on companies based on)It seems to me that you are buying into the Patagonia marketing/PR hype. Reality is, Patagonia is nowhere to be found on the top-150 most benevolent companies in the USA list, and I'll bet some of the biggest names on the list are ones who you feel are significantly worse than Patagonia. We have enough feel-good legislation as it is without pushing for more from folks who understand nothing about business.QuoteNot at all - it is you who are proposing new burdens for me and other companies out there, and you better be ready to back it up with something concrete. And again, if you think this is such a good idea, why aren't YOU out there doing it?QuoteThen you do not understand what UL is and what compliance with it means.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 12:14:09 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on March 25, 2015, 01:13:11 amSo you have extrapolated that someone choosing greater value is "thinking only about their short term monetary interests"? More "feel good" without any substance. I disagree with your belief - and I think the facts back up my viewpoint. We have advanced immensely as a society by outsourcing "crap" jobs and focusing on the high end. That brings a level of pain (just like I'm sure it did to the horse shoeing industry when steam power became prevalent), but I don't think we would be better off if trinkets and widgets being made in China were made here instead.QuoteI think it is hypocritical for people to call upon others to do things they are unwilling to do themselves. And "very satisfied with what I do" is a euphemism for "I don't really believe there is the value I say there is in this idea".

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 12:17:39 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on March 25, 2015, 01:57:29 amIt goes back to what I said before.On another forum, someone said they would like to buy American, but they can't because the corporations have made it so they can't, by removing those choices. I asked what products, specifically, they can't find that are USA made. For the answers given, I quickly found numerous suppliers who were manufacturing in the USA. Clothing, hardware, tools, electronics, virtually anything you can imagine.The follow-up objection was "yes but those items are just too expensive or too inconvenient to buy".People always have excuses why *they* don't personally do the things they want others to do - and those excuses always make it not their fault."I want to know more about the products I buy, but that information just isn't available". Aka "I don't really want to do the legwork, can't someone else just do it for me? I wish they would... can't we legislate that they must?".

author: owiecc
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 12:28:08 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on March 25, 2015, 10:40:06 pmI completely agree. This is why kids are not allowed to work and are required to learn in most countries.In the context of this question I think a fair wage would be at least one that allows the working person to send their kids to school. When this objective is met we eliminate child labour (because it is not necessary).

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 12:28:49 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on March 25, 2015, 12:56:45 pmMy point is...It is not the corporations that make people this way by "telling them" they need the latest phone. The corporations are merely reacting to the desires of people who want to buy. Apple doesn't say "the iPhone 5 is shit! You're nobody unless you have the iPhone 6!". It's people's desires to own the latest and greatest and drive Apple to create it. I believe that blaming the corporations is an easy scape goat that is far too often used these days.I am sorry that you feel people are evil nasty creatures. We have high highs and low lows. On the one hand you see some religious freak cutting someone's head off because someone told him a book written hundreds of years ago told him to. On the other hand, you have a team of perfect strangers who rush into harm's way to lift a burning car to save a helpless victim who is burning alive. All you can do is live your life correctly and try not to get too cynical. But when it comes to the consumerism, I'd say it has done as many great things as bad things. Society has indisputably progressed ethically and morally over the past 50 years, let alone the past 500. And that will continue. Because of consumerism? Not exactly... but not having to work the fields 12 hours a day just to survive allows us to progress to bigger and better things. And I hope to see that trend continue.

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 12:29:17 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on March 25, 2015, 10:40:06 pmYou make rash assumptions.When I was 11, I watched my father die in front of me form a heart attack. He was only 38. Low income? My widowed mum had to bring up three kids on her own with only a pension. She was too ill to work having been affected by tuberculosis and severe respiratory problems. She died when my sister was still in high school. I attended a terrible high school with 1200 kids in a poorer suburb where nearby there was an elite private school for the rich kids that I had no hope of ever attending. I worked part time and paid board as I attended high school. To steal a phrase for The Who, I worn born with a plastic spoon in my mouth. What I have stated here is only the tip of the iceberg. I can blame no-one. Didn't matter if I was black, white, yellow, red or purple, it is just how the dice rolled and I had to make the best of it.Our government at the time provided had free tertiary education. Education gave me a path to a new life. I make no apologies to anyone for what I have earned. I don't want to blow my trumpet, but for your statement about whatIam doing for social justice, without going into specifics, we provide financial assistance to some specific families in need, not only here in this city but in two other countries.I don't know what the USA does to help poorer kids get a free tertiary education. Australia is down the money path with tertiary education where rich kids have a distinct advantage over the poorer kids. In contrast in France, all education is FREE to everyone and you don't even need to be a citizen or have permanent residency. France also has possibly the best socialised medical system in the world where rich or poor, you get excellent medical care. In the USA, sadly it is one of the worst in the developed world, where money talks louder than the right to medical care. The very poor are often better off in jail where they can get medical care.Now, if you really want to know about social injustice, do some research about The Innocence Project. Some states in the USA treat exonerees worse than ex-cons. Imagine being in jail for 20 years for rape, and when DNA proves you were in fact innocent you are set free with absolutely nothing except a half arsed apology by a judge. No compensation, no support, no training in life skills, no girlfriend, no wife, no kids, no education and little hope of ever getting a job. States like Lousiana are third world in regards to their treatment of exonerees. On the other hand some better states provide "reasonable" compensation. The USA needs to unify the huge gap of injustice between states with regards to exoneration.Maybe the UL idea of listing companies for their social justice should also extend to governments... federal, state and local.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 12:44:12 pm
content: Quote from: VK3DRB on March 26, 2015, 12:29:17 pmNothing is free, including tertiary education in France. Not unless the gov't doesn't charge land taxes, and the professors work at zero cost. It is, of course, supported by the taxpayers. I do not believe there are many people in the USA who are unable to go to college purely based on cost. There are so many grants and programs available for low income people that I believe everyone has the choice if they wish to go. The problem here is cultural... too many people are happy to jump into the generational welfare system that their parents, grandparents and their kids and grandkids will also live on. There is little incentive to strive for more.QuoteYou don't understand our medical system, I think. We have the best care and outcomes in the world. However, it is expensive. But it is illegal for providers to refuse necessary service on the basis of money or ability to pay. You could be an Australian citizen and fly to the USA and go from the airport to the Mount Sinai emergency room, loudly proclaim that you do not intend to ever pay a penny, and you will get exactly the same critical treatment as Bill Gates would get in the same situation.The problem in the USA is access to lower level care - like your kid has a fever or your hand hurts. Those visits cost a lot if you don't have insurance, but again - anyone is free to walk into any emergency room and they *must* be treated by law regardless of their ability or intention to pay. And again, for serious problems, the USA has the best outcomes in the world, because most of the best hospitals and doctors are here (thanks, capitalism).

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 12:54:07 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on March 26, 2015, 12:44:12 pmWhat about dental treatment? Are to poor looked after with dentistry? Here they are not. The urgency queue to too long.Here, dentistry is hideously expensive for most of us and people are getting work done overseas. A colleague was quoted $35,000 to get some extensive dental work done here. He flew to Manilla and went the best clinic in the city. $6,000 all up including airfare and quality accommodation. Top quality work independently verified by a dentist here... crowns, root canals etc. and the best porcelain from Germany.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 01:12:50 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on March 26, 2015, 12:09:21 pmYes, i have.QuoteOnce again i see no one here imposing anything on anyone or proposing legislation - i cretainly am not. That's your straw-man.I never stated Patagonia was the best, i only gave it as an example. And yes, i have direct knowledge of their corporate practices. You are just being argumentative.Quotewhat is it about voluntary that you don't understand?QuoteSeeking UL listing is voluntary. The fact that some juristictions make that a legal requirement is a seperate issue. The OP was using UL as an general example. The PTJ proposal I touted is nothing like UL

author: Stonent
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 01:13:21 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on March 23, 2015, 04:07:43 pmSocial Justice along with many feel good terms tend to have a constantly changing meaning. Therefore one tends to have a hard time supporting something that isn't clearly defined even if the basic premise seems like a noble idea.It's not enough to pay for good or great ideas, some want to pay for proven results.

author: Stonent
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 01:17:28 pm
content: Quote from: VK3DRB on March 26, 2015, 12:54:07 pmAs long as there's scarcity or controls of a product within a confined system, there will be opportunity outside that system.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 01:29:30 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on March 26, 2015, 12:44:12 pmFactually incorrect. Several extensive studies (easily found with a search btw) over several years show that we rank near the bottom of developed countries.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 01:44:47 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on March 26, 2015, 12:17:39 pmSo then you never make a purchase decision based on price? And always do the "legwork" before every purchase you make?It's quite a narrow hole that's been created:If someone admits to not researching the background of every company before making a purchase then they are "making excuses". If they claimed they did they'd be "holier than thou" .No one here has said not having information more easily available is some one elses fault ( straw man #1) and when they propose a way to make that info more readily available you accuse them of trying to impose it on you and "legislate that you must" ( staw man # 2).In the real world we all know that it is impossible, no matter how much " legwork" one does, to find out the specific practices of most companies.Since you seem to be all about "walking the walk" where can one find the details of your company's practices.?

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 02:07:29 pm
content: Quote from: Stonent on March 26, 2015, 01:13:21 pmI agree. Clear definitions are important.One of the things i like best about the Paul Tudor Jones proposal is that the criteria are defined by polling a large number of people. That makes it more likely that the defined criteria will match the values of the most people. Then let the market decide whether the index has value and becomes widely adopted.

author: Stonent
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 02:12:07 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on March 26, 2015, 02:07:29 pmSomewhat related, Drew Curtis (owner of Fark.com) is running for governor of Kentucky as an independent non-partisan candidate. He says as governor he would only support legislation that is based on sound principles that have been proven to work in other states and would not allow any laws through that were testing ideas.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 02:25:07 pm
content: Quote from: VK3DRB on March 26, 2015, 12:54:07 pmDental treatment here is, IMO bad.. well, the quality of care is excellent, but it is extremely expensive and it is not covered by many insurances or employers. On the other hand, most people here take quite good care of their teeth (but it's likely a society thing). Dentists are in a good position because they do not have to provide service and most of the time their rates aren't pressed down by gov't interference.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 02:32:43 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on March 26, 2015, 01:12:50 pmPlease go ahead and post your research then - you made a specific claim that they were "better than most". I'm curious how you arrived at this conclusion, other than "shiny happy feelings" based on what they tell you.QuoteThen you still haven't read the first post. He called for UL-like. UL is a requirement, not something you are free to abide by or not. By definition, that is an imposition.QuoteYou said voluntary and it will impose no burden upon the corporation - yet you have failed to explain how this magical situation will come to pass, other than you would like it to be so and are therefore calling for it to be so. The definition of the type of "feel good politics" that are most harmful.QuoteAs I thought, you do not understand UL listings.They are not voluntary, unless you are claiming that choosing between getting UL listed and stopping selling your product is how you define "voluntary". Just as voluntary as needing to be licensed to drive, or needing to submit to airline security. So the truth is starting to come out... it's voluntary in the same way that eating is, or putting gas in your car is.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 02:34:16 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on March 26, 2015, 01:29:30 pmWhat I said is absolutely true. We are bad in access to care, but in terms of outcomes for serious illnesses, we are at or near the top in virtually all categories. But why worry about facts when you have feelings to rely on?

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 02:43:16 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on March 26, 2015, 01:44:47 pmYou seem to have a hard time keeping your story straight.I am the one saying people generally choose based on value, you are the one challenging this. You are the one who should be doing "the legwork" to figure out the practices of all the companies you buy from - after all, isn't that what you did when you researched Patagonia and determined them to be better than "most" companies in the USA? And aren't you the one calling for a ranking system (completely voluntary - like UL is completely voluntary) for everyone to rely on? (just as long as someone else does the legwork)?Where did I say someone that does the legwork is "holier than thou"? I didn't. That is the definition of a strawman. People are free to make whatever purchase decisions they like. If they choose to do research and buy from specific companies at a higher price, I applaud them. The reality, however, is that the vast majority of people do NOT shop this way, therefore your calling for a system that makes this easier is inefficient and offers no value. You seem to disagree, but don't want to step up and take advantage of this clearly wide-open opportunity. Your excuses thus far are that it's not about money and that you don't want to change your job. Who said you need to change jobs? And if it's not about money, do it as a service if you really believe in it.And your last paragraph doesn't make sense - YOU are the one calling for transparency and information about products and their manufacturing, not me - so why would I be the one to be disclosing that information when my whole point is that your position doesn't reflect the reality of purchasing? You complain about straw men but toss out tu quoque logical fallacies? Priceless!

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 02:50:26 pm
content: QuoteThat's not a good position to have, in my view.However, I would enhance the accountability further:Any legislator proposing a new legislation will have him/her, his/her familties (3 generations removed) and people from his / her district subject to the said legislation mandatory and anyone outside of that circle optionally for 10 years. Upon the expiration of the 10th anniversary, if the said legislation is still considered a good ideal by those having subject to it for 10 years, the legislation is passed and the legislator's pension is increased by 50%. Otherwise, the legislator's pension is reduced by 50%.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 03:11:42 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on March 26, 2015, 02:32:43 pmI dated a woman for several years who was the softgoods buyer for a major outdoor retailer. As such she (and sometimes I along with her) had first hand exposure to Patagonias corporate practices. I also have a friend who worked at Patagonias corporate offices in Ventura, CA for several years.Patagonia's corporate responsibility is well known and documented. A simple Google search can provide you plenty of documentation.Here's a WSJ articleAnother examplehereJust google Patagonia corporate responsibility.QuoteI gave you a specific example of a specific proposal (see earlier PTJ TED talk). All I said is that I thought it was a good idea. If you can't understand how such a index would succeed or fail strictly on market forces then you are not much of a businessperson.QuoteMany companies make the choice not to get their product UL listed and still sell them in a market where others do. It is true that for some products in some juristictions UL listing may be legally mandated but that is not the doing of UL - that is the public and lawmakers who decided there was a good reason to do that.You know darn well that UL listing where legally required is for safety reasons. Just like building codes. Are you opposed to UL listing and building codes?A " social justice" index is completely different and you are being disengenous to imply otherwise. It has nothing to do with product safety and in the real world would never be legally required.The OP never said he wanted something exactly like UL only similar - as in a independent body doing ratings.In any case the proposal I'm in favor of (not the one you keep projecting on to me) is nothing at all like UL and I've stated that several times and given a specific reference to it -yet you continue to create straw-men.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 03:49:57 pm
content: It would not work. People will still want cheap and the others that pay more will still buy from the likes of Apple who sell high and buy cheap, trash the environment and the workforce in order to keep the shareholders happy. The only way out would to change the law such that the shareholders returns were less important and come after needs of the workforce and environment. You might get such regulations through in Europe and Australia but not in the US.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 04:00:08 pm
content: QuoteAnd far better marketed.QuoteEssentially robbing peter for paul.You know, you are the shareholder of You Corporation. You Corporation's revenue is your wages / salaries. You Corporation's market cap is your net worth. You Corporation's sourcing is done through your purchases of other people's goods and services.What you are proposing is equivalent to slashing your salary, shopping off your back accounts / brokerage accounts, taking away your house and BMW, and forcing you to pay more for burgers, meats, and landscaping services.... so that Joe the douchebag next door can have a better touch to sit on to watch day time TV.Do that to yourself and your friends and families for 10 years and if you / they still think it is such a great ideal then, we may implement your ideal.The only thing consistent about those advocates of equality / do-gooders is that they always want to impose their ways on us, not on themselves.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 04:36:41 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on March 26, 2015, 02:43:16 pmAnd I never said thatyoudid. Read my post again.QuoteNo logical fallacy except yours.You criticized others for not being willing to do the "legwork" to find out about the companies they purchase from. You implied that the information was readily available already. But you are unwilling to provide it for your company. Why is that? One could easily come to the conclusion based on your response to this idea that you have something to hide and that if the idea gained traction, you'd lose customers.Is it possible to have a discussion about the pros and cons of the idea itself without attacking those who support it (or oppose it)?

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 09:43:52 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on March 26, 2015, 03:11:42 pmI didn't realize that dating a woman with experience in one business gives one a personal and objective understanding of ALL companies, not only in that line of business but in the whole country. Who knew I was an expert on dermatology all along. Let me go head over to the Accutane thread and hand out some medical advice based on such lofty qualifications.QuoteYou made a specific claim that this would not burden businesses. Either the information is out there now or it isn't. If it isn't, then it is - by definition - going to burden businesses by having to compile or provide or produce that information. If it is out there now, then we don't need something more. And since "corporate responsibility" is not a major selling point for most corporations, it seems the market has already spoken about how relevant this idea is. That doesn't dissuade the "feel gooders" though, who are just sure those who don't "feel" the way they do aren't getting it.I hope you are better at medicine than you are at business because I fear for your patients if not. Hey, I can take shots at your professional career too.QuoteAs I said, you don't understand how UL works. I never said UL mandates their standards be followed, I said their standards are not voluntary. You claimed they were. Thank you for admitting your misrepresentation. Let me clarify further - it's not that their standards "may be legally mandated", they *are* legally mandated for electrical devices in new construction or renovation by the NEC which is pretty much the law everywhere. UL listing is voluntary just like airport security is voluntary.QuoteOk... so... when he said "like UL" he actually meant completely not like UL - not required, no cost/burden/obligation. A compelling point indeed.QuoteYou mean like the one below?QuoteDoctor, heal thyself.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 09:50:31 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on March 26, 2015, 04:36:41 pmNope, it was a textbook tu quoque fallacy. Repeated below, I might add. "Oh no it isn't!" works about as well as it did for the black knight in Monty Python.QuoteIsn't the truth more likely that by mandating companies submit to ethical scrutiny, those who feel they need to operate unethically will be compelled to behave in a more moral manner? It sounds to me that perhaps you have a side business selling Oxycodone to patients without prescriptions. Why else would you be so paranoid about such things? How many people have you harmed, doc?QuoteYour posts are full of them - but I'm willing to bet you bristle when they come back your way.Doctor, heal thyself.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 11:20:25 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on March 26, 2015, 09:50:31 pm.As does saying "oh yes it is" Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. You specifically criticized others for not doing something that you are unwilling to do your self and because you said they can easily do it. But your lack of transparency just shows it is not easy.Pointing that out is nottu quoque fallacy. That fallacy applies when someone accuses someone of hypocrisy for not doing something consistently that they expect others to do. In fact looking at your previous post in this thread that is exactly what you've done by trying to discredit someone if favor of this topics idea because they are not doing it themselves.QuoteI'm not sure how many times I have to sayI am not in favor of mandating anythingfor you to stop fighting with your straw man.QuoteSo I guess when you run out of arguments , it's straw men and ad hominen attacks.QuoteA reading of this thread for anyone interested will show that the majority of my posts here are (sadly) defending against personal attacks of others and correcting the repeated attempts to misrepresent what I and others have said we favor. (Not mandates, not legislation, not forcing anything on anyone, etc). I am not one to let bullying attacks go unanswered.Of course I don't claim perfection in that regard but the history of this thread speaks for itself.Why can't you make an cogent argument against the actual proposed ideas instead of attacking those who favor them or repeatedly making up stuff that they never proposed and repeatedly say they are against?Many people are opposed to government regulations. Many times justifiably, IMO. But many are oppposed to almost any regulation and consistently say "government should not try to fix it, private individuals and the marketplace will do it" Then when a private individual actually proposes such a solution they are slandered and called "megalomaniacs" 'Busybodies", trying to "mandate" or "Force"others to do something when they have proposed no such thing.I think that kind of slanderous attack against those who try to do something decent speaks volumes about those doing the attacking.Once again here is the specific proposal that I am in favor of. Note that it is a private individual proposing a market based approach to a societal problem that historically has resolved itself in less desirous ways.If you do not favor it, fine. If you don't think there is anything wrong with the issues he raises, fine - just admit to that. If not, do you have an alternative idea? If not, why the need to attack those who do? Why not just move on.QuoteEvery day my devilish corporate friend, every day.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 03:55:44 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on March 26, 2015, 11:20:25 pmFrom this vantage point, this 'social justice' based boycott is just as vindictive, pity and small as those lists that are intended to boycott atheist business. Would you like a public lists that publishes information about you so your customers can make an educate decision, for example does your religion matches theirs or does your life style, or stance on family, or the politicians that you support do match their values?Instead of creating barriers between people and minding other people business, focus on yours, respect others' and live and let live.http://www.examiner.com/article/religious-group-calls-for-boycott-of-pepsi-and-campbell-s-for-supporting-homosexuality

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 04:16:56 am
content: Quote from: zapta on March 27, 2015, 03:55:44 amCould you elaborate please? Did you watch the PTJ video? How does his proposal have anything to do with what you state? It is in no way a boycott. You don't seem to be responding to anything I or anyone else has proposed.If you can't take 10 minutes to watch the video, the idea is very simple:1) A private, non profit corporation that is polling large numbers of people to see which aspects of corporate responsibility they value most. Periodically re-poll.2) Develop a list of these criteria and use it to give a rating to the top 1000 companies in the U.S.3) Publicize this "Just List" and allow the marketplace to decide whether or not it becomes useful and encourages companies to act more responsibly.That's it. No boycotts. No mandates. No forcing anyone to do anything.What part of that are you opposed to and why? Are you opposed to a private businessman developing such a project?As far as I can tell you and others continue to argue against some imaginary idea that no one here has proposed.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 07:20:32 am
content: Well, you want to shift purchase money from companies that practice X to companies that practice not X (which matches your group choice), just the same the fundamentalists want to shift purchase money from atheists to christians, or want to avoid family doctors that support same sex marriage or contribute to certain politicians or promote certain values.It's the same deep need to control others.

author: AlfBaz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 09:12:19 am
content: Quote from: zapta on March 27, 2015, 07:20:32 amDoes this ring a bell?Quote from: zapta on March 23, 2015, 07:48:29 pm

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 12:43:21 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on March 26, 2015, 11:20:25 pmA tu quoque fallacy is answering criticism with criticism, in other words, turning it around on the other person. Look back at the thread... when I suggested that if you like this idea and feel it has value, you should do it, you responded with "why don't you want to do it? What do you have to hide?". Textbook tu quoque. Period, end of story. You also put forth strawman arguments - for example stating that I said people do not act in their own best interests. As well as anecdotal fallacies -> "my girlfriend bought stuff from Patagonia so I can speak on this authoritatively". You also have a string of ad-hominem attacks... "what do you have to hide by trying to stop such a listing?" (that's also a strawman as I never said I want to ban our prevent such a listing, I even encouraged you to be the one to step up and make it happen). And there's another strawman in your post above... "your lack of transparency". And here you are complaining about strawmen?QuoteReally, you are the victim of misrepresentation? Like when you stated that I said people only think about their short term financial interests, or personal attacks like suggesting I have something to hide, or saying I don't want such a service (another misrepresentation)? Re-read your posts and you will see that you came into the thread with a position that was challenged, and instead of supporting it with any evidence or data, you immediately launched into a series of attacks and misrepresentations of others' positions. If your position is sound, you should be able to defend it without all that nonsense, yet it seems to be a pattern with you, and not only in this thread.QuoteYet again - doctor, heal thyself.QuoteNow you are talking about regulation and government intervention and arguing that those against it rush to judgement - but you previously said you aren't suggesting such - except it appears you are.QuoteAnd what does "why are you against transparency? What do you have to hide? I think you are worried about losing customers" say about you, doc?QuoteOh, on to the actual issue? That took a while to get to it.Here it is in a nutshell. I have never said I am against some kind of rating system - but there are already lots of groups out there who do exactly this. What *specific* value does another one bring? Furthermore, it cannot be true that such a system places no burden upon the manufacturer. Companies currently do not disclose most of the information that would be required in order to grade their "social friendliness". So someone, somewhere has to discover, compile and collate that data. If not me, then my suppliers - which ultimately ends up as my burden because it costs me. And what do I get for my investment? My direct experience in manufacturing and selling hundreds of thousands of widgets in just about every country in this world over a period of 15 years in numerous different markets from automotive to police/fire to consumer goods to medical devices is that people generally don't give a rat's ass about whether I am sourcing parts from Bangladesh or from Bangor - if the price is significantly higher, they won't buy. The exception is in specific niche markets when used as a marketing tool, and even then - it is a burden (which is why companies like Patagonia still manufacture in China despite having a socially-just corporate ethos claim.QuoteWell doc, it is hard to consider you much of a friend when you previously attacked my ethics and morals. This message board caters to the business and industry I am in. Imagine if we were on a medical board and I was participating as an interested observer, and I made a claim that you had something to hide in not wanting a paper trail on prescriptions, and mused about how many unjustified prescriptions you might have sold for Oxycodone. Would you find that offensive if someone stated that among your peers? I tend to think so.I manufacture in the USA. I employ Americans that I am proud to see use their salaries to buy cars, put their kids through college and buy homes. We machine metal, assemble circuit boards, warehouse/pack/ship right here in my factory. I spend more to buy Kaiser aluminum because it's made in Virginia, as I also spend more to buy Polycast acrylic because it's made down in Jersey. And out tooling is all made in the USA as well. But you didn't know that did you? And you didn't ask before slandering me and my company in a forum related to my line of business and making a claim that I have something to hide.Think about that before you reply, my "friend".

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 12:53:50 pm
content: bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blaghblagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh daahhh.......................Yet another inane dannyf/zapta/666/chan/doc freak-show.

author: BradC
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 02:17:22 pm
content: Quote from: GK on March 27, 2015, 12:53:50 pmOh no you don't. Don't you _dare_ take the Swedish Chef in vain...

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 02:54:50 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on March 27, 2015, 07:20:32 amThanks for clarifying. Seems like freedom of choice to me.QuoteI have no idea how you reach that conclusion. Information is a cornerstone of a free society, is it not?I'm not a fundamentalist Christian and am offended when they attempt to legislate some of their ideas into laws. But I see no problem if they or any other religious group wants to evaluate companies based on their Christian, (or Buddhist, or Hindu, or Islamic, or whatever)value and publish a ranking based on that, even if I disagree with it. I'd be surprised if that is not already being done.Of course the PTJ proposal is evaluating companies based on what a large sampling of what the public think it important. Thankfully nothing to do with religion.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 03:19:15 pm
content: Quote from: AlfBaz on March 27, 2015, 09:12:19 amYou keep pushing that flawed logic. Yawning doesn't make me happy and so is not yawning.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 03:31:02 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on March 27, 2015, 02:54:50 pmYep, of course you are free to do that, or pick your nose in public, and I don't think I ever said otherwise.Quote from: mtdoc on March 27, 2015, 02:54:50 pmIt's information with a bias and agenda behind it.Live long and let live.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 03:33:30 pm
content: Quote from: GK on March 27, 2015, 12:53:50 pmIt's a duty call

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 05:17:24 pm
content: Corporate666,I'm not going to get into anymore tit for tat. I think the previous posts speak for themselves since I think I already responded what you claim.I don't really know you so can only try to base my responses on your posts. But we both know that internet exchanges can escalate into personal attacks for no good reason. So for my part in that I apologize.Quote from: Corporate666 on March 27, 2015, 12:43:21 pmThat's great! You place value on "made in the USA". So do I. I assume you are in favor of people having ready access that information. Others have additional values and want to easily access that information.QuoteAgain no point in tit for tat. Obviously I see things differently. I asked for information that would allow me to do for your company what you challenged me to do myself for all companies. The fact that you didn't provide it and then personally attacked me for asking led me to respond. I apologize for also doing so in an equally personal way.Peace.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 05:37:23 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on March 27, 2015, 03:31:02 pmWell in my view information is information and as long as it is accurate, has no bias.But it is true that information can be presented in a very biased manner.My initial response to the OP's question was that I thought it was a good idea but difficult to do properly. I do support those who try. Obviously for the Paul Tudor Jones proposal to be worthwhile and unbiased there would need to be absolute transparency in the process of developing his "Just" list.QuoteAmen to that.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 06:00:09 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on March 27, 2015, 03:33:30 pmPainfull I know. But occasionally some useful exchange of ideas and information occurs... I think.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 09:46:06 pm
content: you sounded like in urgent need of anger management.Quote from: GK on March 27, 2015, 12:53:50 pm

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 10:45:43 pm
content: Quote from: BradC on March 27, 2015, 02:17:22 pmLol. OK, I admit that was inappropriate, sorry.