Rate the Speech - Page 4 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

aklim · #46 02-25-2009, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonL

Yes, you are correct. I don't want to expand this discussion too much, but I have to say that in my opinion the problems of unhealthy lifestyles and pill-pushing doctors are related. I believe that they are largely the result of the rise of influence of corporations in today's society. Consumers are bombarded with carefully crafted (almost Orwellian) advertisements for basically unhealthy foods and medications. Restaurant portions and supermarket packaging encourages extreme overconsumption. Corporatized food supply emphasizes shelf life, transportability, and profit over consumer and environmental health. Life has gotten complicated. Most folks are working hard (if they're working!) We're all pressed for time, rushing here and there. Stressed. It is difficult to find the time to educate oneself and filter out the marketing BS and make healthy choices. Clearly that is what one must do, and it is clearly the individual's responsibility to do so. But there is a substantial role for effective regulation and oversight as well, and it seems to me that effective regulation and oversight has lagged behind corporate influence over our lives in recent years. And I am not suggesting that it is a republican or democratic problem, or a liberal or conservative problem. But it is a problem.

I think the problem is that people wanted it and the corporate entities gave it to them. People complain about the Wal*Mart Chinese goods that are lousy but Wal*Mart started with a "Buy American" policy but the public didn't support it. So, they changed their ideas. It was that or die off. Companies exist to make profit WITHIN the law for the most part. Consumer health is not one of their concerns, nor should it be.

Mistress · #47 02-25-2009, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

No it's not. It's more like a hostage situation mixed with extortion.

Priceless, that's great.

Skid Row Joe · #48 02-25-2009, 02:04 PM

Another day, another empty campaign speech from empty suit Obambi. Rate it? Trainwreck.

Republican Jindal did not seize the opportunity to rebut and shove it down Bambi's throat. Rate it? Pathetic.

JonL · #49 02-25-2009, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

I think the problem is that people wanted it and the corporate entities gave it to them. People complain about the Wal*Mart Chinese goods that are lousy but Wal*Mart started with a "Buy American" policy but the public didn't support it. So, they changed their ideas. It was that or die off. Companies exist to make profit WITHIN the law for the most part. Consumer health is not one of their concerns, nor should it be.

Right, I agree, consumer health should not be their concern... except in the case of pharmaceutical companies, health insurance companies, and to an extent food and beverage companies. And for all companies, whether or not consumer health is their focus, what balances the marketing power of the corporation?

I don't think that overall the corporations are responding to what people want. There's a lot of conditioning being done to guide us in what we want. And frequently the choice is simply removed. I'd love to be able to buy a "normal" size bottle of Coke to have with my lunch. 12 oz. I think they even used to have 10 oz bottles that would suit me even better. Can't buy anything smaller than 20oz. So that's what I have to buy and Coke sells more product to someone who doesn't want it. And if I'm not careful, I'll thoughtlessly drink the whole thing and get fat. Yes, it's my responsibility to put the cap on and set it aside, but I'd rather exercise my willpower earlier in the process by getting a smaller bottle. But I can't.

Finally, yes companies exist to make a profit within the law. Some even exist to make a profit within an ethical framework that is tighter than the law. Some don't. Peanut companies that sell tainted goods come to mind. Independent mortgage brokers who'll do anything to sell a bad loan to an inappropriate (and perhaps unsophisticated) consumer. Big banks that look the other way instead of saying the mortgage situation is getting out of hand.

aklim · #50 02-25-2009, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonL

what balances the marketing power of the corporation?

I don't think that overall the corporations are responding to what people want. There's a lot of conditioning being done to guide us in what we want. And frequently the choice is simply removed. I'd love to be able to buy a "normal" size bottle of Coke to have with my lunch. 12 oz. I think they even used to have 10 oz bottles that would suit me even better. Can't buy anything smaller than 20oz. So that's what I have to buy and Coke sells more product to someone who doesn't want it.

Finally, yes companies exist to make a profit within the law. Some even exist to make a profit within an ethical framework that is tighter than the law. Some don't.

Peanut companies that sell tainted goods come to mind. Independent mortgage brokers who'll do anything to sell a bad loan to an inappropriate (and perhaps unsophisticated) consumer. Big banks that look the other way instead of saying the mortgage situation is getting out of hand.

IMO, it is the client's free will. I haven't seen the marketing that can make a salad as tasty as a steak, for instance.

Actually, I think that is the reverse. If they only sold 10oz bottles and you are still thirsty, what do you do? You buy another. Ends up costing you more but they make more.

That is their choice as to whether they toe the line or go with higher ethical standards. Either way, as long as they follow the law, I don't care if they are ethical or not.

Selling tainted goods is bad business. It gets you into trouble and makes your products have a bad name. That is why I am honest in my dealings with my customers. That way, if I ever make a mistake and I will at some point, they will give me the benefit of the doubt and not raise holy hell.

JonL · #51 02-25-2009, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

That is their choice as to whether they toe the line or go with higher ethical standards. Either way, as long as they follow the law, I don't care if they are ethical or not.

If ethics are unimportant, and only following the law is, what amount of regulation do you favor?

aklim · #52 02-25-2009, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonL

If ethics are unimportant, and only following the law is,

what amount of regulation do you favor?

It's hard to decide what is ethical and what is not. That is up to the individual. Some will consider abortion unethical and some have no issue with it. Some will consider revenge unethical, some will be ok with it. So, if you want to use ethics, whose do you use?

The minimum that is necessary so we are not at each other's throats. Enough so that society can function and not regulate each and every move.

JonL · #53 02-25-2009, 03:07 PM

I'm in agreement that ethics are not sufficient. Some companies make it clear through their statements and actions what their corporate ethics are, some do not. And human nature is such that ethics can sometimes fall by the wayside for many reasons. So I agree that regulations are required. I posed the question because I had surmised from your previous posts that you might be staunchly anti-regulation in an ideological way. Even if we might disagree on the particulars of regulation, I'm glad to see that you have a more pragmatic outlook.

MS Fowler · #54 02-25-2009, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonL

Right, I agree, consumer health should not be their concern... except in the case of pharmaceutical companies, health insurance companies, and to an extent food and beverage companies. And for all companies, whether or not consumer health is their focus, what balances the marketing power of the corporation?

I don't think that overall the corporations are responding to what people want. There's a lot of conditioning being done to guide us in what we want. And frequently the choice is simply removed. I'd love to be able to buy a "normal" size bottle of Coke to have with my lunch. 12 oz. I think they even used to have 10 oz bottles that would suit me even better. Can't buy anything smaller than 20oz. So that's what I have to buy and Coke sells more product to someone who doesn't want it. And if I'm not careful, I'll thoughtlessly drink the whole thing and get fat. Yes, it's my responsibility to put the cap on and set it aside, but I'd rather exercise my willpower earlier in the process by getting a smaller bottle. But I can't.

Finally, yes companies exist to make a profit within the law. Some even exist to make a profit within an ethical framework that is tighter than the law. Some don't. Peanut companies that sell tainted goods come to mind. Independent mortgage brokers who'll do anything to sell a bad loan to an inappropriate (and perhaps unsophisticated) consumer. Big banks that look the other way instead of saying the mortgage situation is getting out of hand.

This will show my age, but oh well.
When I was growing up, the "standard" bottle of Coke was 6 1/2 oz. I used to get one from a vending machine in the Service dept of the Ford dealer I passed on my way home from school.
Then the 12 oz bottle of both Coke and Pepsi came out. My mom, and my aunt simply thought that was too much. If you didn't have someone to share that much cola with, you had to cap it, and save it.
Then came 16 oz bottles, and then 7-11 did the Big Gulp 32 oz and a Super Big Gulp 44 oz.

I'd like to see the fast food chains come out w/ "sensible-sized" products rather than "Super-Sized".
( Any advertising execs reading this--- PM me for a snail mail address to send me that royalty check for using " Sensible-Sized")

aklim · #55 02-25-2009, 04:13 PM

I tend to think that if 44oz (small compared to some) wasn't selling well, why would they keep selling it? I mean, isn't it more profitable for me to sell you 2 20 oz drinks as opposed to 1 44oz?

Rock Chalk · #56 02-25-2009, 04:21 PM

He claimed the US invented the automobile... I believe it was Karl Benz who actually did that! When I heard that, everything else he said just went flat. I fear they are relying way too much on style, and not nearly enough on actual--correct--facts. That scares me because al Qaeda does not award style points.

A264172 · #57 02-25-2009, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rock Chalk

...al Qaeda does not award style points.

What's your source on that?

mwood · #58 02-25-2009, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 450slcguy

For many, even for well qualified educated people, those are the only jobs being created or avaialable.

Consider yourself one of the luckey few in the manufacturing sector. Perhaps someday in the future, when the R&D phase is completed, your job will also be outsourced to a cheaper manufacturing labor market.

Damn, you really are hopeful this guy will lose his job aren't you?

Tax the rich, feed the poor
till there are no rich on more

Real noble goal.