Contact l Sitemap

home industries issues reasearch weblog press

Home  » Issues » Consumerism & Commercialism


Wal-Mart’s (Un)sustainability Index

Posted by Philip Mattera on July 24th, 2009

Originally posted on July 24 at http://dirtdiggersdigest.org/archives/703.

Wal-Mart has taken the latest in a long series of steps to make itself look good by imposing burdens on its suppliers. The mammoth retailer, which is thriving amid the recession, recently announced plans to require its more than 100,000 suppliers to provide information about their operations that would form the basis of a product sustainability index.

Rating products is a good idea. It’s already being done by various non-profit organizations that bring independence and legitimacy to the process. Wal-Mart, by contrast, brings a lot of negative baggage. In recent years, Wal-Mart has used a purported commitment to environmental responsibility to draw attention away from its abysmal record with regard to labor relations, wage and hour regulations, and employment discrimination laws. It also wants us to forget its scandalous tax avoidance policies and its disastrous impact on small competitors. The idea that a company with a business model based on automobile-dependent customers and exploitative supplier factories on the other side of the globe can be considered sustainable should be dismissed out of hand. Yet Wal-Mart is skilled at greenwashing and is, alas, being taken seriously by many observers who should know better.

On close examination, Wal-Mart’s latest plan is, like many of its previous social responsibility initiatives, rather thin. All the company is doing at first is to ask suppliers to answer 15 questions. Ten of these involve environmental issues such as greenhouse gas emissions, water use, waste generation and raw materials sourcing. The final five questions are listed under the heading of “People and Community: Ensuring Responsible and Ethical Production.”

Two of them involve “social compliance.” It is an amazing act of chutzpah for Wal-Mart, which probably keeps more sweatshops in business than any other company, to claim moral authority to ask suppliers about the treatment of workers in their supply chain.

The questions in this category seem to assume that suppliers don’t do their own manufacturing. This is a tacit acknowledgement of how Wal-Mart has forced U.S. manufacturers to shift production offshore, and often to outside contractors. Now Wal-Mart has to ask those companies to be sure they know the location of all the plants making their products and the quality of their output.

The point about quality was one that CEO Mike Duke (photo) emphasized when announcing the rating system. This is also highly disingenuous. For years, Wal-Mart was notorious for pressing suppliers to reduce the quality of their goods to keep down prices. Now the behemoth of Bentonville is suddenly a proponent of proponent of products that “are more efficient, that last longer and perform better.” Will Wal-Mart pay its suppliers higher prices to cover the costs of improving quality?

goodguideI can’t bring myself to jump on Wal-Mart’s bandwagon. If I want product ratings I will turn not to Mike Duke but rather to someone like Dara O’Rourke, who founded a website called Good Guide that rates consumer products and their producers using independently collected data from social investing firms such as KLD Research and non-profits such as the Environmental Working Group. It uses criteria such as labor rights, cancer risks and reproductive health hazards that are unlikely to ever find their way into the Wal-Mart index.

Good Guide also rates companies, including Wal-Mart, which receives a mediocre score of 5.3 (out of 10), and it reaches that level thanks to its marks on p.r.-related measures such as charitable contributions and some but not all environmental measures. In the category of Consumers it gets a 4.1, Corporate Ethics 3.9, and for Labor and Human Rights 4.1 (which is generous).

Maybe Wal-Mart should focus on improving its own scores before presuming to rate everyone else.

Dirt Diggers Digest is written by Philip Mattera, director of the Corporate Research Project, an affiliate of Good Jobs First.

The Financial Re-Regulatory Agenda

Posted by Robert Weissman on September 23rd, 2008

As the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department careen from one financial meltdown to another, desperately trying to hold together the financial system -- and with it, the U.S. and global economy -- there are few voices denying that Wall Street has suffered from "excesses" over the past several years.

The current crisis is the culmination of a quarter century's deregulation. Even as the Fed and Treasury scramble to contain the damage, there must be a simultaneous effort to reconstruct a regulatory system to prevent future disasters.

There is more urgency to such an effort than immediately apparent. If the Fed and Treasury succeed in controlling the situation and avoiding a collapse of the global financial system, then it is a near certainty that Big Finance -- albeit a financial sector that will look very different than it appeared a year ago -- will rally itself to oppose new regulatory standards. And the longer the lag between the end (or tailing off) of the financial crisis and the imposition of new legislative and regulatory rules, the harder it will be to impose meaningful rules on the financial titans.

The hyper-complexity of the existing financial system makes it hard to get a handle on how to reform the financial sector. (And, by the way, beware of generic calls for "reform" -- for Wall Street itself taken up this banner over the past couple years. For the financial mavens, "reform" still means removing the few regulatory and legal requirements they currently face.)

But the complexity of the system also itself suggests the most important reform efforts: require better disclosure about what's going on, make it harder to engage in complicated transactions, prohibit some financial innovations altogether, and require that financial institutions properly fulfill their core responsibilities of providing credit to individuals and communities.

(For more detailed discussion of these issues -- all in plain, easy-to-understand language, see these comments from Damon Silvers of the AFL-CIO, The American Prospect editor Robert Kuttner, author of the The Squandering of America and Obama's Challenge, and Richard Bookstaber, author of A Demon of Our Own Design: Markets, Hedge Funds, and the Perils of Financial Innovation.)

Here are a dozen steps to restrain and redirect Wall Street and Big Finance:

1. Expand the scope of financial regulation. Investment banks and hedge funds have been able to escape the minimal regulatory standards imposed on other financial institutions. Especially with the government safety net -- including access to Federal Reserve funds -- extended beyond the traditional banking sector, this regulatory black hole must be eliminated.

2. Impose much more robust standards for disclosure and transparency. Hedge funds, investment banks and the off-the-books affiliates of traditional banks have engaged in complicated and intertwined transactions, such that no one can track who owes what, to whom. Without this transparency, it is impossible to understand what is going on, and where intervention is necessary before things spin out of control.

3. Prohibit off-the-books transactions. What's the purpose of accounting standards, or banking controls, if you can evade them by simply by creating off-the-books entities?

4. Impose regulatory standards to limit the use of leverage (borrowed money) in investments. High flyers like leveraged investments because they offer the possibility of very high returns. But they also enable extremely risky investments -- since they can vastly exceed an investor's actual assets -- that can threaten not just the investor but, if replicated sufficiently, the entire financial system.

5. Prohibit entire categories of exotic new financial instruments. So-called financial "innovation" has vastly outstripped the ability of regulators or even market participants to track what is going on, let alone control it. Internal company controls routinely fail to take into account the possibility of overall system failure -- i.e., that other firms will suffer the same worst case scenario -- and thus do not recognize the extent of the risks inherent in new instruments.

6. Subject commodities trading to much more extensive regulation. Commodities trading has become progressively deregulated. As speculators have flooded into the commodities markets, the trading markets have become increasingly divorced from the movement of actual commodities, and from their proper role in helping farmers and other commodities producers hedge against future price fluctuations.

7. Tax rules should be changed so as to remove the benefits to corporate reliance on debt. "Payments on corporate debt are tax deductible, whereas payments to equity are not," explains Damon Silvers of the AFL-CIO. "This means that, once you take the tax effect into account, any given company can support much more debt than it can equity." This tax arrangement has fueled the growth of private equity firms that rely on borrowed money to buy corporations. Many are now going bankrupt.

8. Impose a financial transactions tax. A small financial transactions tax would curb the turbulence in the markets, and, generally, slow things down. It would give real-economy businesses more space to operate without worrying about how today's decisions will affect their stock price tomorrow, or the next hour. And it would be a steeply progressive tax that could raise substantial sums for useful public purposes.

9. Impose restraints on executive and top-level compensation. The top pay for financial impresarios is more than obscene. Executive pay and bonus schedules tied to short-term performance played an important role in driving the worst abuses on Wall Street.

10. Revive competition policy. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, separating traditional banks from investment banks, was the culmination of a progressive deregulation of the banking sector. In the current environment, banks are gobbling up the investment banks. But this arrangement is paving the way for future problems. When the investment banks return to high-risk activity at scale (and over time they will, unless prohibited by regulators), they will directly endanger the banks of which they are a part. Meanwhile, further financial conglomeration worsens the "too big to fail" problem -- with the possible failure of the largest institutions viewed as too dangerous to the financial system to be tolerated -- that Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson cannot now avoid despite his best efforts. In this time of crisis, it may not be obvious how to respect and extend competition principles. But it is a safe bet that concentration and conglomeration will pose new problems in the future.

11. Adopt a financial consumer protection agenda that cracks down on abusive lending practices. Macroeconomic conditions made banks interested in predatory subprime loans, but it was regulatory failures that permitted them to occur. And it's not just mortgage and home equity loans. Credit card and student loan companies have engaged in very similar practices -- pushing unsustainable debt on unreasonable terms, with crushing effect on individuals, and ticking timebomb effects on lenders.

12. Support governmental, nonprofit, and community institutions to provide basic financial services. The effective governmental takeover of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG means the U.S. government is going to have a massive, direct stake in the global financial system for some time to come. What needs to be emphasized as a policy measure, though, is a back-to-basics approach. There is a role for the government in helping families get mortgages on reasonable terms, and it should make sure Fannie and Freddie, and other agencies, serve this function. Government student loan services offer a much better deal than private lender alternatives. Credit unions can deliver the basic banking services that people need, but they need back-up institutional support to spread and flourish.

What is needed, in short, is to reverse the financial deregulatory wave of the last quarter century. As Big Finance mutated and escaped from the modest public controls to which it had been subjected, it demanded that the economy serve the financial sector. Now it's time to make sure the equation is reversed.

http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/editorsblog/

Robert Weissman is managing director of the Multinational Monitor.



The Commercial Games: How Commercialism is Overrunning the Olympics

Posted by Rob Weissman on August 17th, 2008

The 2008 Beijing Olympic Games have been referred to as the “People’s Games,” the “High Tech Games” and the “Green Games,” but they could be more aptly described as the Commercial Games.

Commercialism is overrunning the Olympics. It is undermining the professed ideals of the Olympic Games, and subverting the Olympics' veneration of sport with omnipresent commercial messaging and branding.

The Olympics have auctioned off virtually every aspect of the Games to the highest bidder. In addition to multimillion-dollar sponsorship deals between the International Olympic Committee and international companies, smaller firms are paying for designations from “official home and industrial flooring supplier” to the “frozen dumplings exclusive supplier” of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.

Corporate sponsors are showering money on each tier of the Olympic organizational committees: the International Olympic Committee, the Beijing Organizing Committee of the Olympic Games (BOCOG) and the International Federations governing each individual sport, to each country’s National Organizing Committees. Corporations are sponsoring many Olympic teams and national governing bodies for particular sports -- including virtually every national governing body in the United States -- and individual athletes themselves.

The scope of commercialism at the Olympics and the consequences of commercialization are detailed in "The Commercial Games," a new report from Multinational Monitor magazine and Commercial Alert (both of which I'm associated with).

To its credit, the Olympics do prohibit advertising in sports stadia or other venues. The Olympics also prohibit advertisements on uniforms (other than uniform maker logos).

Everywhere else, Olympic spectators, viewers and athletes, and the citizens of Beijing should expect to be overwhelmed with Olympics-related advertising.

A record 63 companies have become sponsors or partners of the Beijing Olympics, and Olympics-related advertising in China alone could reach $4 billion to $6 billion this year, according to CSM, a Beijing marketing research firm.

The Olympic Partners (TOP) program, run and managed by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) since 1985, includes 12 companies for the Beijing Olympics. These 12 companies -- among them, Coca-Cola, GE, Johnson & Johnson, Lenovo, Panasonic and Visa -- have paid $866 million to the International Olympic Committee.

The U.S. Olympic system is awash in corporate sponsor money. Well over 100 corporations are sponsoring the U.S. Olympic Committee or U.S. national teams.

Besides celebrating sport, there is an official ideology of the Olympics, called "Olympism." It aims to promote a pure blend of sport, culture and education.

Sports, of course, remain at the center of the Olympics, but commercialism has overwhelmed whatever other values the Olympics hope to embody. The overwhelming cultural influence at the Olympics is now commercial culture; and the overwhelming informational message is: buy, buy, buy.

Commercial relations interfere with proper functioning of the Olympics. In at least one notable case, commercial entanglements have called into question the integrity of a national sports governing body. A lawsuit and accusations around the activities of USA Swimming and the national team coach -- both sponsored by swimwear maker Speedo -- charge Speedo, the national team and the coach with antitrust violations. The lawsuit, filed by Tyr, a Speedo competitor, alleges the coach has trumpeted the benefits of LZR Racer, a new, high-profile Speedo suit, because of his financial ties to the company. Tyr says its Tracer Rise swimsuit, introduced weeks before the LZR Racer, is comparable to the Speedo product.

The Olympic race for corporate sponsors has also put the Olympics in unhealthy -- and sometimes quite unpleasant -- company.

+ The International Olympic Committee will not partner with hard liquor companies, but the IOC tolerates sponsorships by beer and wine companies. Anheuser-Busch says it is a sponsor of 25 national Olympic Committees, including those of China, Japan, Great Britain and the United States. A tequila maker, Jose Cuervo, is a sponsor of the U.S. Soccer Federation.

+ Notwithstanding the fundamental principles of "Olympism," which celebrate healthful living, two of the 12 Olympic TOP sponsors run businesses centered around the sales of unhealthy food: Coca-Cola and McDonald's. Snickers, the candy bar made by Mars, is an official BOCOG supplier. Hershey's is a sponsor of the USOC. Coca-Cola is a sponsor of FIFA, the international soccer federation. McDonald's and Sprite are sponsors of USA Basketball. McDonald's and Sierra Mist are sponsors of the U.S. Soccer Federation. Coca-Cola is a sponsor of USA Softball. Hershey's is a sponsor of USA Track & Field.

+ Many of the sports apparel and equipment makers partnered with the Olympics and official Olympic bodies -- among them Adidas, Nike and Speedo -- source their products from sweatshop factories. In a very disturbing development just before the start of the Olympics, Adidas reportedly announced it was transferring large amounts of its production out of China because wages set by the government were "too high" (!).

+ At least two major Olympic partners, the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) and Sinopec, have been linked to gross human rights violations in Sudan. Both companies are sponsors of the Beijing Organizing Committee of the Olympic Games.

There is no doubt that the horse is out of the barn on Olympic sponsorships, and the world is unlikely to see a commercial-free Games anytime soon.

Nonetheless, the most egregious problems with the Olympics' pervasive sponsorship arrangements can and should be addressed.

The IOC, National Olympic Committees, and international and national sports governing bodies can and should scale back the number of corporate sponsorships.

They can and should develop safeguards to ensure apparel and equipment sponsorships do not compromise sports governing bodies' decisions. Coaches of national teams should be prohibited from serving as paid spokespeople or consultants for apparel and equipment makers.

They can and should refuse to accept sponsorships from any alcohol company, including beer and wine companies. This recommendation does not reflect a prohibitionist impulse. It merely extends the insight in the present IOC ban on hard liquor sponsorships: promoting more alcohol consumption is unhealthful, and inappropriate for an event with enormous appeal to children.

They can and should end partnerships and sponsorship arrangements with junk food, soda and fast food companies. These companies' operations are incompatible with Olympic ideals of promoting fitness and healthful living, and the companies use the association with the Olympics to remove some of the tarnish of their unhealthy products.

They can and should insist that official, sponsoring apparel and equipment makers disclose where their products are manufactured, and ensure that their products are manufactured in a fashion that respects core labor standards.

They can and should refuse to enter into sponsorship arrangements with companies connected to gross human rights abuses. This is a simple ethical standard, and one required by the Olympic commitment to demonstrate "respect for universal fundamental ethical principles."

Will the IOC and other committees move in these directions? They refused to respond to repeated requests for comment. It may be, however, that it will be the corporate sector driving reduced commercialization of the Olympics. The opportunity to project a high-profile in China's fast-growing market has made the Beijing Olympics uniquely attractive; but already leading sponsors have indicated they do not intend to continue paying for the right to besiege the planet with Olympics-related marketing in connection with future Games.

Original post at:

http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/editorsblog/ 

Multinational Monitor Editor Robert Weissman is managing director of Commercial Alert, which opposes excessive commercialism in society.

Bye, American

Posted by Mark Floegel on March 19th, 2008


You might have heard the story about General Motors Vice Chairman Bob Lutz. At a recent closed-door meeting with reporters, the 76-year-old, who’s in charge of product development said he thinks global warming theory is “a total crock of sh*t” and that hybrid cars “make no economic sense.”

As you might expect, the people who cover both the auto industry and the environment went nuts. Mr. Lutz eventually responded to the uproar with a post on GM’s blog site (or at least a 26-year-old administrative assistant posted a response for him).

In the blog, Mr. Lutz called his remarks “an offhand comment.” “But I think that the people making a big deal out of it are missing the real point,” he wrote. “My beliefs are mine and I have a right to them, just as you have a right to yours.”

I don’t think anyone’s questioning Mr. Lutz’s right to have an opinion. I think, instead, when Mr. Lutz was kind enough to treat the world to his unvarnished thoughts, we all had an “Aha!” moment explaining why Toyota is overtaking GM as the world’s largest automaker.

Hybrid vehicles “make no economic sense” to Mr. Lutz, who undoubtedly basks in a bloated bath of cash thanks to his salary ($8 million per year), bonus and perks, but the for rest of us poor schmucks, trying to pony up what will soon be four dollars per gallon at the pump, hybrid cars make a world of economic sense and again, explains why Toyota is eating Mr. Lutz’s lunch.

“Instead of simply assailing me for expressing what I think, they should be looking at the big picture,” Mr. Lutz wrote. “What they should be doing, in earnest, is forming opinions not about me but about GM, and what this company is doing that is — and will continue to be — hugely beneficial to the very causes they so enthusiastically claim to support.”

Really? As fate would have it, I’ve driven three rental cars in the past week. One was a Hyundai Sonata, one a Dodge Avenger and one a Chevrolet Cobalt, from Mr. Lutz’s beloved GM.

The Cobalt was – to paraphrase Bob Lutz – a total piece of sh*t. It was cramped, handled poorly; the interior was made of such cheap plastic that I was afraid I’d a) die from off-gas fumes or b) snap off the handle when I went to open the door. The icing on this cake of deficiency was the fact that the little monster sucked down gas like a fleet of overloaded semis. Yet another wonderful product from GM, polluting the atmosphere and making people poor and miserable while it careens toward an early grave in the junkyard. Thanks, Bob.

My favorite – by far – was the Hyundai. It was comfortable, roomy, responsive and got decent gas mileage. The Dodge fell somewhere in between.

Mr. Lutz wrote, “My opinions on the subject [of global warming] — like anyone’s — are immaterial. Really.”

Really? GM pays you eight million dollars a year and doesn’t give a sh*t (I hate to keep using this word, but you brought it up, Bob) what you think?

And, really? Everyone’s opinion on global warming is immaterial? Perhaps that’s true. No one’s opinion counts except that of the decider, George W. Bush and he’s decided we need to keep pumping oil and mining coal.

Bob Lutz is a walking embodiment of what’s wrong with America’s industrial policy. He’s got his head so far up his own ass that everything looks like a crock of sh*t to him. Someone find this bozo a gold watch and let’s get on with trying to save ourselves from the internal combustion engine.

http://markfloegel.org/2008/03/06/bye-american/ 

McDonald's gets F grade in Florida

Posted by Pratap Chatterjee on January 18th, 2008

Fast food giant McDonald's was just forced to withdraw a controversial program to sponsor report cards in Seminole County, central Florida, in exchange for a Happy Meal coupon on the cover that features an image of Ronald McDonald. (Children with A and B grades, with two or fewer absences or who exhibit good behavior were entitled to pick up a free Happy Meal at their local McDonald's, as long as they presented their report cards. The company paid the $1,600 cost of printing the report cards.)

The promotional campaign by the Illinois-based company was defeated by a small, but feisty, activist coalition named the Campaign For A Commercial-Free Childhood, which is based out of the Judge Baker Children's Center in Boston.

In early December last year, CCFC launched a campaign against McDonald's when outraged parents contacted them. "My daughter worked so hard to get good grades this term and now she believes she is entitled to a prize from McDonald's," Susan Pagan, an Orlando parent, told CCFC. "And now I'm the "bad guy" because I had to explain that our family does not eat at fast food chains. I'm outraged that McDonald's is trying to exploit my daughter's achievement -- and that the Seminole County School Board would help facilitate this exploitation."

It's not the first time that McDonald's has tried to directly influence the eating habits of young children (nor, probably the last, unfortunately). Three years ago the company dropped a national campaign in the UK of providing educational material and teaching assistants to primary schools after a public backlash against the program by groups like McLibel.

And in the 1990s there was a hue and cry by groups like UNPLUG! of Oakland, California, after McDonald's and other companies provided "sponsored educational materials" on subjects like nutrition to teachers to supplement or take the place of approved curriculum in the U.S. The company was also protested for sponsoring McTeacher's Night in southern California, which involved teachers working at local McDonald's restaurants to raise funds for schools by selling burgers to their own students!

Yet perhaps the most devastating blow to McDonald's advertising to school-children was done by documentarian Morgan Spurlock with his film: SuperSize Me (the entire film can be watched for free online at http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=98 ). In the film, Spurlock documents the impact of dining exclusively on McDonald's products for a 30-day time period. The film also explores the fast food industry's corporate influence, including how it encourages poor nutrition for its own profit. (An edited DVD version of the film designed to be integrated into a high school health curriculum is available from Arts Allliance America.)

NB: Full disclosure: This writer is a former fast food food industry employee with almost two years experience working fulltime in the business including stints at Burger King, McDonald's and Pizza Hut which allowed him to finance a diploma course in journalism school.

Is Wal-Mart Good for You?

Posted by Brooke Shelby Biggs on June 27th, 2006

"Progressive" economist Jason Furman and Barbara Ehrenreich are currently engaged in an eye-opening dialogue over at Slate. He presents the old red-herring argument that boils down to "What do you elitist liberals have against saving working people money?"

He makes some points I'll concede that I think critics should internalize: it isn't the low prices we object to, it's the way Wal-Mart treats people. If anything, the efficiencies that allow Wal-Mart to have such low prices do not require that the company abuse its employees, fail to provide a living wage or the most basic benefits, or to source product from factories that abuse people oversees. Wal-Mart's low prices, and its low regard for its own employees has been proven to depress wages in the communities where it operates. If Wal-Mart is so clever, why doesn't it innovate when it comes to how it treats human beings? Why doesn't it spend as much money actually improving communities as it does telling us about how it improves communities?


Clay Feet

Posted by Brooke Shelby Biggs on April 4th, 2006

I was reading this article about Wal-Mart tricking its customers into signing up for a stealth PR campaign to burnish the retailer's image, when this stopped me cold:

Thousands of area Wal-Mart shoppers have been asked in recent weeks to join Working Families for Wal-Mart, a group headed by former Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young. Those who did so may not have realized that they had become the newest recruits in a fierce public relations war between Wal-Mart and national labor unions.

Andrew Young?! Former program director of the SCLC? Friend and confidant of Martin Luther King, Jr.?!

Oh, how the mighty have fallen.

The Wal-Mart Image War

Posted by CorpWatch on January 18th, 2006

http://www.walmartworkersrights.orgIn this morning's email was a press release from an organization called American Rights at Work. Normally, we don't pimp for activists - we're an investigative journalism outfit. But dammit, they made us laugh.

They've launched a new Wal-Mart-bashing site (Yes, they're a dime a dozen; the form is the Google maps mash-up of 2006). This one features Garth Brooks - the spokes-singer who recently agreed to make his latest album available only through Wal-Mart - thereby pissing off and financially screwing many an independent and even chain record store. In a smirky flash movie, the grotesquely caricaturized Brooks prances about inside a Wal-Mart, singing a knock off of his old hit "Friends in Low Places"; here he warbles "I've got friends with low wages, their health care plan fits on two pages ...". The message, the form, the content are not new, but this is a clever execution that deserves a look. It evokes (one might say steals directly from) Jib Jab's monumental viral "This Land" during the 2004 presidential election. But it does touch on some legitimate issues.

Meanwhile, of course, Wal-Mart has been stocking its arsenal against the growing chorus of such loud-mouth critics who would question its angelic, altruisitc ways. A few months back it was revealed that the company had hired former campaign consultants from the Bush and Kerry campaigns to burnish its image in the halls of power and among the public at large. Things being what they are, what with Maryland's decision last week, perhaps these consultants are sleeping on the job (Kerry's image consultants certainly proved given to fits of narcolepsy).

Then of course, there was the dust-up earlier this month in which a San Diego blogger discovered that Wal-Mart's website featured pages where one could by the DVDs of "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" and "Planet of the Apes" which also recommended similar items - except that the "similar items" on these pages were all films about African-American history. Wal-Mart claimed a malfunction and denied racial malevolence. You goatta think that made those high-priced consultants shotgun the Kaopectate.

So I checked out Wal-Mart's charitable arm - the Wal-Mart Foundation to see how wrong these snarky yahoos - including the entire Old Line State - are. The website desribes how the store improves every community in which it operates, from educating kids to saving the environment. But what stumps us, is the site's downright peculiar slogan: "Wal-Mart Good. Works." Someone either has a severe verb deficiency, or Wal-Mart is tailoring its message for the caveman constituency (not sure this is a departure from usual). "Wal-Mart Good. Union Bad!" Wal-Mart say get your club, aisle 11. Always low-brow.

Wal-Mart critics 1, Wal-Mart 0.

Is Wal-Mart Good for You?

Posted by Brooke Shelby Biggs on June 27th, 2005

"Progressive" economist Jason Furman and Barbara Ehrenreich are currently engaged in an eye-opening dialogue over at Slate. He presents the old red-herring argument that boild down to "What do you elitist liberals have against saving working people money?"

He makes some points I'll concede that I think critics should internalize: it isn't the low prices we object to, it's the way Wal-Mart treats people. If anything, the efficiencies that allow Wal-Mart to have such low prices do not require that the company abuse its employees, fail to provide a living wage or the most basic benefits, or to source product from factories that abuse people oversees. Wal-Maerts low prices, and its low regard for its own employees has been proven to depress wages in the communities where it operates. If Wal-Mart is so clever, why doesn't it innovate when it comes to how it treats human beings? Why doesn't it spend as much money actually improving communities as it does telling us about how it improves communities?