Mike Rowe Supports Walmart In New Initiative And The Haters Go Wild

[steveh_131]

Do you really believe most individuals have millions of dollars and would be able to front the cost of proving that some large corporation broke the law? You must not be familiar with the legal system. It is not like a Judge Judy episode. The types of trials that you are talking about would take years to prepare for with likely millions of dollars spent in expert testimony and discovery. Depending on the level of damages to the individual, the cost of litigation might make it unfeasible to obtain a remedy.

Source?

I read about successful individual and class action lawsuits against huge corporations all the time. Law firms often front the money to try the case and subtract it from the settlement. If you think this system is flawed then we should discuss fixing the system, not inventing bloated worthless government agencies.

What happens when you are successful in prosecuting a claim and the corporation (or the negligent driver in your traffic scenario) just files bankruptcy? What good does that do? Who would pay for the clean-up costs, medical bills etc.?

The entire reason we came up with regulatory bodies in the first place was because what you proposed did not work. The people decided to act collectively through government to better protect themselves from the dangers of pollution (and reckless/drunken driving).

We are discussing two different issues. Let's examine them.

1. Deterrence. Which system better deters companies from causing damage and injury to others?

Civil litigation represents an enormous risk to any business. A single lawsuit can spell bankruptcy. One goal common in every company I've ever worked for: Avoid any risk of damaging another person or property.

Federal regulation represents an enormous annoyance to any business. This brings a different goal: Avoid fines that are greater than the profit margin.

The FDA is a great example. I designed the safety reports for a product of one of the largest food manufactures in the U.S. These reports were generated automatically and submitted to the FDA representatives for approval. Let me be clear on this: These reports were absolutely worthless. They are 600 pages of numbers that are meaningless to the human brain. The FDA then 'approves' them within 30 minutes and claims this product is safe for consumption. Through this, the company is able to protect themselves from any chance of litigation. Not by making their product safe, but by appeasing arbitrary rules created by a useless bureaucracy.

And, of course, plenty of business can simply purchase immunity from these regulatory bodies. Monsanto is a wonderful example.

This system does not work well as a deterrent. It may actually enable more abuse.

2. Compensation. Which system provides a more just form of compensation to the injured party?

This one is obvious. Who should be compensated for the dangerous food they consume or the damage to the air around them? The current regulatory bodies make sure that the government receives all of the compensation. Does this make sense?

At least with litigation the injured party has a chance at justice.

When these arguments are brought up, I wonder how much thought is given to the fact that ALL of us alive in the US today have grown up enjoying the safety and good health provided by those evil government agencies for all these years.

Like Jack Nicholson's character in A Few Good Men, all the people who have worked to provide you with that safety and good health, and now have to hear you question the manner in which they provided it, would probably prefer that you just said "Thank You".

Do you tell the TSA "Thank You" when they stick a finger up your pooper?

What makes you think any other agency provides you more safety than they do?

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Do you tell the TSA "Thank You" when they stick a finger up your pooper?

What makes you think any other agency provides you more safety than they do?

That hasn't happened...........YET, I'll have to let you know.

 

[Tsigos]

Source?

I read about successful individual and class action lawsuits against huge corporations all the time. Law firms often front the money to try the case and subtract it from the settlement. If you think this system is flawed then we should discuss fixing the system, not inventing bloated worthless government agencies.

Maybe law firms will front the cost in a few high-profile cases where the outcome will result in $millions of dollars with little risk of losing. But for the average person, such access will not be available. Good luck with changing the system though.

1. Deterrence. Which system better deters companies from causing damage and injury to others?

Civil litigation represents an enormous risk to any business. A single lawsuit can spell bankruptcy. One goal common in every company I've ever worked for: Avoid any risk of damaging another person or property.

Federal regulation represents an enormous annoyance to any business. This brings a different goal: Avoid fines that are greater than the profit margin.

The goal of regulation is prevention. Maybe you feel this does not work in practice but I respectfully disagree. Litigation by its nature is a remedy that only works after the fact. The problem is, many people and corporations will behave as if there will never be a problem and not spend the money to avoid the problem. Instead of a single minimum regulatory standard, your proposed system would rely on the judgment and decision-making of an infinite number of people and businesses. Think of the speeding driver who thinks they know how to driver better than anyone else on the road. They are putting everyone else at risk as a result of their poor judgment and decision-making.

Regarding the risk of bankruptcy - If a company goes bankruptcy, its not like the shareholders, directors and officers must return the profits that they made previously. They are free to start or join a new company with the profits that they made. Not a major deterrent if you ask me. Would a CEO be more likely to (i) risk of losing their position because quarterly profits were down after implementing needed safety measures or (ii) risk a lawsuit by failing to implement such safety measures in order to keep quarterly profits high?

2. Compensation. Which system provides a more just form of compensation to the injured party?

This one is obvious. Who should be compensated for the dangerous food they consume or the damage to the air around them? The current regulatory bodies make sure that the government receives all of the compensation. Does this make sense?

At least with litigation the injured party has a chance at justice.

The current regulatory system does not prevent individuals from suing for damages when companies violate the standards in question.

 

[jamil]

Do you really believe most individuals have millions of dollars and would be able to front the cost of proving that some large corporation broke the law? You must not be familiar with the legal system. It is not like a Judge Judy episode. The types of trials that you are talking about would take years to prepare for with likely millions of dollars spent in expert testimony and discovery. Depending on the level of damages to the individual, the cost of litigation might make it unfeasible to obtain a remedy.

What happens when you are successful in prosecuting a claim and the corporation (or the negligent driver in your traffic scenario) just files bankruptcy? What good does that do? Who would pay for the clean-up costs, medical bills etc.?

The entire reason we came up with regulatory bodies in the first place was because what you proposed did not work. The people decided to act collectively through government to better protect themselves from the dangers of pollution (and reckless/drunken driving).

That's one way to put it. I suppose some of those regulatory bodies were created during my life. I don't recall that people really had much choice. Elections don't tend to be about creating agencies and bureaucracies or not. They're not really about solving specific problems, either. They're mostly about, particularly lately, which candidate can raise enough money to air the most negative adds.

As for solutions, I said before somewhere, using a sledge hammer to kill a fly **can** work. Do we really need an EPA large and powerful enough to eliminate entire industries? No. We don't.

 

[bluewraith]

Math time!
$250 Billion over a decade...
$250,000,000,000 / 10 years = 25,000,000,000 per year
25 Billion per year / 12 months = $2,083,333,333.33 per month
$2,083,333,333.33 / 4807 Total number of Walmart Supercenters/Sams Club/Neighborhood Markets etc in the U.S. = $433395.74 per month, per store.

Average dollar total of inventory in a Supercenter? Between 6 and 7 million at any given time. (Gonna have to trust me on that one. I spent 7 years auditing them)

So, Walmart is expecting to start throwing an extra $433,395.74 into each store of U.S. made product, each month? That only works out to between 6 and 7 percent of their dollar total per store.


Sorry, but to get me to actually start shopping there again its going to take a LOT more then just and additional 6 or 7% of their inventory to be U.S. made.


In reference to U.S. Sourced merchandise.. they consider it "sourced" from the U.S. if their contact buyer is based in the U.S. Origin of goods don't matter.


Oh, and in case you really care... average SKU count in a Super Center is between 28,000 and 35,000.

 

[steveh_131]

Maybe law firms will front the cost in a few high-profile cases where the outcome will result in $millions of dollars with little risk of losing. But for the average person, such access will not be available.

You're gonna need to provide a source for this. I know lawyers who take on small personal injury cases all the time.

The goal of regulation is prevention. Maybe you feel this does not work in practice but I respectfully disagree.

Like I said, I have firsthand professional knowledge of the way one of these agencies works (or doesn't work).

Litigation by its nature is a remedy that only works after the fact.

Let's apply your logic to a different topic.

Litigation after the fact can't prevent murder. We need regulations to prevent it. Regulations like gun control.

Right?

Think of the speeding driver who thinks they know how to driver better than anyone else on the road. They are putting everyone else at risk as a result of their poor judgment and decision-making.

Research suggests that you are wrong. Traffic regulations may seem like a no-brainer because we are so well conditioned to accept the nanny state. They actually appear to do more harm than good.

Regarding the risk of bankruptcy - If a company goes bankruptcy, its not like the shareholders, directors and officers must return the profits that they made previously.

Huh? Are you suggesting that shareholders don't mind if the company they own a portion of goes bust?

The current regulatory system does not prevent individuals from suing for damages when companies violate the standards in question.

I don't agree. The regulatory system creates an artificial and ineffective mechanism for guarding against dangers. The free market can and will provide better mechanisms in the absence of a useless government equivalent.

For example, Underwriter Laboratories (UL) is a great free market initiative. You should read up on it. Many industries rely on them to keep their products safe. Why, you ask? To avoid financial liability. You'll find their logo stamped on many of your electronic devices. UL is infinitely more effective than any government agency and doesn't squander trillions of our tax dollars.

As for solutions, I said before somewhere, using a sledge hammer to kill a fly **can** work. Do we really need an EPA large and powerful enough to eliminate entire industries? No. We don't.

This is unavoidable in a government agency. Once we give the government a say in how we live our lives, their interference will never shrink. It only grows. Exponentially. Stifling innovation and economic prosperity.

 

[mrjarrell]

It just keeps getting better. Now my favourite band has joined in and lent one of their hallmark songs to the effort.

[video=youtube_share;0LYI--n-tjE]http://youtu.be/0LYI--n-tjE[/video]

 

[Voodoo574]

Well.......... ahhh nevermind. Talking to some people is like teaching a bull to tap dance. You spend time and effort, but in the end you walk away and just feel dirty and your shoes have their bull**** on them.

 

[josh052084]

Hate Wal-Mart but hope it does add jobs

 

[AGarbers]

This isn't new. Twenty-five years ago Walmart made it a point to showcase US made products. I don't know how many of you remember that. Then times seemed to change. Anybody remember the Bob Hope and Brook Shields (I think) commericals trying to get people to buy US? "It matters to me!" I believe was the tagline.

 

[BigMatt]

.

 

[Dead Duck]

.

I have to agree with BigMatt's post here.

The way he explained the differences between the party and the corporations is dead on. Also if you look at his graphs, you'll see how there's no reason for us to even consider a compromise in this venture.

This discussion is over.

 

[Bunnykid68]

.

FTW

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

.

Brevity is the soul of wit.

 

[mrjarrell]

And Walmart is opening the doors to the manufacturers. Looks like they're keeping their word.

Do You Manufacture in the US? Walmart Wants to Talk to You | Expansion Management content from IndustryWeek