Forums | MacLife

I only shop at wal mart because they sell cheap shotgun shells.

Actually, I don't buy all of my goods at Wal-Mart. Their produce is sorry, and I don't like their meats. I'm also not a big fan of a lot of the cheap crap that passes for furniture or computer gear there, either. I generally shop Publix or Target, depending on who has the lowest price, for fresh food. I generally shop online for electronics.

Box dinners, cans, and commodities, however; are cheap and identical to the box dinners, cans, and commodities sold elsewhere. Same with toiletry items, automotive supplies (excluding tires), and other items. Why pay more for the same thing? That's retarded.

I am willing to pay more for better quality, though; which was my point to begin with. Greenies want me to buy against my own interests for the sake of a marketing campaign. I'm apparently supposed to feel good about myself because I spent more on something with a logo on the side of it, not because it's better, or a better value.

I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way at my house. You want me to buy your product, make it worth my while. I'm amazed at the number of idiots who think that the commercial green movement is anything but a marketing slogan, and will actually pay more for less because of it. In most cases, it's bull, folks. It's all about the $$$. There are, of course, exceptions. I buy certain brands of baby foods that certify that their produce is organic - as in, no pesticides were used. In that case, I feel the higher price is (somewhat) justified. I also use CFL's where appropriate, like large chandeliers, where I don't want to have to replace them all the time. (it's a pain replacing the lights in my bathroom and dining room) I don't mind spending a bit more to get lights that will last substantially longer. THAT is in my interest.

IOW, quit telling me why I should feel guilty for not buying your crappy product, and tell me why your crappy product is a better deal for me than your competitors product. If you can't do that, well - there's always Europe.

Last edited by radarman (2009-11-09 10:41 pm)

Tallgeese wrote:

No, retarded is your inability to tell the difference between the "green agenda", corporate greenwashing, and responsible purchasing decisions.

I buy the products and services I feel best serve my family, at the most reasonable price I can obtain them. People have been doing that for years.

If you want to encourage people to buy products and services that are more environmentally friendly, make it in peoples best interest - short AND long term. Otherwise, don't get pissy when people shop their wallet, not their "environmental conscience"

I support many forms of environmentalism, but the crass "modern" environmentalism we have today - particularly when mixed with business, reminds me of this chart:

Last edited by radarman (2009-11-09 11:05 pm)

Tallgeese wrote:

radarman wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

No, retarded is your inability to tell the difference between the "green agenda", corporate greenwashing, and responsible purchasing decisions.

I buy the products and services I feel best serve my family, at the most reasonable price I can obtain them. People have been doing that for years.

If you want to encourage people to buy products and services that are more environmentally friendly, make it in peoples best interest - short AND long term. Otherwise, don't get pissy when people shop their wallet, not their "environmental conscience"

Let me guess: You also get pissy when the government taxes wasteful things to encourage environmentally friendly behavior.

I have no problem with government regulating businesses to protect the environment. I fully support (and wish they would enforce) the clean air and clean water acts. That protects us all from would-be polluters. I do, however; have a problem with ethanol requirements for gas, as I feel it's a pointless transfer of wealth to a few large agri-businesses.

In short, it depends on the tax and/or subsidy.

Chickenhawk wrote:

So what about government funding of emerging green technologies?

Again, it depends on the research being funded. There are several research projects, both public and private, into large solar collector stations that can store excess energy in various forms to allow generation at night. That is a significant improvement over current technology, and is probably worth putting money into.

On the other hand, the whole "clean diesel from coal" idea was dumb from the get-go, and served little purpose other than lining the pockets of coal mine operators.

who is "they"?
Be specific.

It's not profitable enough to be a marketing scam on the consumer as a whole. Too much suppression by Big Oil, Coal etc. and too many consumers who still haven't bought in.

Last edited by c_norris1 (2009-11-10 1:52 pm)

Cost is more than just the amount on the price tag. Wal-Mart costs more because they wind up being a drain on the local economy. They price other businesses out of competition and kill them off. They don't pay their workers a subsistence wage or benefits. They give no sick leave or vacation. So when a Wal-Mart employee gets sick, they don't stay home, they come to work and pass it on to you. If they get sick enough to warrant medical care, they have to wait until they wind up in the ED, driving up costs for everyone. They can afford only to shop at Wal-Mart and put little money back into the local economy. They don't source from local manufacturers or growers either. They do get their goods from China, where there are no "envirotards" to demand clean air and water. Or shorter workdays. Or a safe work environment. The price tag isn't enough to cover American (or European) labor to produce these items in a safe, clean manner, not to mention all the pollution from shipping them to your door from across the globe. So I'm sorry that you're too shortsighted to look beyond the label at the actual cost of what you're buying.

Look at how much pollution and damage we're trying to undo from the past. When people didn't think spewing toxins into the air and into the water was going to be an issue. Bear in mind that some of our resources are actually finite and need to be reused - some can't ever be replaced, when they're gone they're gone. Think about what happens to the item when you're through with it. Can it be recycled and used for something else? Will it be durable and something that will be in use for some time? Or will it be sitting in a landfill long after you and your children and their children have passed on?

I'm sorry if developing new ways of manufacturing, packaging, etc. doesn't come in at a lower cost than what you can get elsewhere. I'm sorry if treating animals somewhat humanely instead of factory farming inconveniences you. I'm sorry that producing products without polluting or wasting resources costs a little extra. As long as you can save money, that's the only thing that matters.

Pariah wrote:

I buy locally sourced, hormone free, meat and poultry. It costs about 20% more but tastes better and is better for me and my wife. My hamburgers taste better than the best steak you can find at a supper market.
I have always driven smaller cars because I prefer the handling and fuel economy of smaller cars.
I use compact florescent bulbs because I like the lower energy cost.

What I do can only be construed as altruistic if you believe that we are non-connected, independent units. I happen to believe that we live in an interconnected web where we are all  effected by the choices we make and others make.
I have children and a grand baby on the way. What I do effects their futures.
Something that has always pissed me off is the feeble, weak, bean counter logic of conservatives who cannot see beyond the next quarters profit and loss statement.

Thank you for not being an ass to the rest of the world.

robco wrote:

Cost is more than just the amount on the price tag. Wal-Mart costs more because they wind up being a drain on the local economy. They price other businesses out of competition and kill them off. They don't pay their workers a subsistence wage or benefits. They give no sick leave or vacation. So when a Wal-Mart employee gets sick, they don't stay home, they come to work and pass it on to you. If they get sick enough to warrant medical care, they have to wait until they wind up in the ED, driving up costs for everyone. They can afford only to shop at Wal-Mart and put little money back into the local economy. They don't source from local manufacturers or growers either. They do get their goods from China, where there are no "envirotards" to demand clean air and water. Or shorter workdays. Or a safe work environment. The price tag isn't enough to cover American (or European) labor to produce these items in a safe, clean manner, not to mention all the pollution from shipping them to your door from across the globe. So I'm sorry that you're too shortsighted to look beyond the label at the actual cost of what you're buying.

Look at how much pollution and damage we're trying to undo from the past. When people didn't think spewing toxins into the air and into the water was going to be an issue. Bear in mind that some of our resources are actually finite and need to be reused - some can't ever be replaced, when they're gone they're gone. Think about what happens to the item when you're through with it. Can it be recycled and used for something else? Will it be durable and something that will be in use for some time? Or will it be sitting in a landfill long after you and your children and their children have passed on?

I'm sorry if developing new ways of manufacturing, packaging, etc. doesn't come in at a lower cost than what you can get elsewhere. I'm sorry if treating animals somewhat humanely instead of factory farming inconveniences you. I'm sorry that producing products without polluting or wasting resources costs a little extra. As long as you can save money, that's the only thing that matters.

It's not quite so simple as your little dirge makes it out to be. Most of the stuff you are referring to is very low quality, in addition to being "cheap" It's a false economy, even in the short term.

I don't mind paying extra for quality, I do mind paying for marketing bull crap.

I was simply pointing out that choosing the most suitable goods for the lowest price is a perfectly rational thing to do.

radarman wrote:

I was simply pointing out that choosing the most suitable goods for the lowest price is a perfectly rational thing to do.

What do you mean 'most suitable'? For you? For WalMart? For the environment? For your wallet?
Rational? In the economic terms? Or rational, meaning least negative impact for everyone involved (and that means above and beyond your wallet)?

Be specific.

Last edited by danielb0101 (2009-11-10 8:20 pm)

robco wrote:

My point, that you've missed entirely, is that there are other costs that you're paying. You don't pay them at the point-of-sale, but you do pay them.

Unless those costs are fiscal, nobody is going to care, especially during a depression.  It's survival of the richest.

I agree with you, for the most part, but it's not going to prevent my wife from going to Wal-Mart to pick up formula and diapers for less.  I'd personally like to avoid Wal-Mart, but they've put themselves in a part of the market that makes them a necessary evil unless I want to flush upwards of $50 a month down the drain for getting the exact same product somewhere else.

Last edited by Jokotai (2009-11-10 11:55 pm)