So I have a question:

Is there like a website or something cataloging which companies are evil and which one's aren't? Like, telling you who mistreats their workers or who uses unfair business practices? Anything to help me ease my guilt with the least amount of research effort required? Or should I just assume every mainstream company sucks and stick to the independent expensive things?

Hm, well if you are looking at it from the perspective of a job seeker trying to figure out how company X will actually treat you if you are hired, check out www.glassdoor.com

I know what business I'm going into (and am fully aware that I will be mistreated and underpaid). I'm looking at it from a consumer's perspective. It'd be great to know who's being fair with my dollar.

Here's a good place for you to poke around:  http://www.corporations.org/corplist.html

Also, there's a pretty amazing site called http://theyrule.net/ that shows how all the big multinationals are connected. 

Off the top of my head, here's a partial of companies I boycott:

BP - Gulf and Alaska oil spills, generally rotten business practices.  Brands include Castrol, Arco, Aral, am/pm, Amoco, and Wild Bean.

Nestle - killed African kids with tainted milk, don't give a rat's ass; stealing water from indigenous people.

WalMart - for destroying Main st. small businesses, driving down wages, demanding its suppliers only source products from slave labor countries, creating a model then forcing other mega sellers to follow suit.  All for the personal gain of the five or so Walton heirs, who own more wealth than a third of the US population. 

All Koch brothers companies - for manipulation of US politics, media, lawmaking, etc., for essentially being the "drink your milkshake" guy to poverty stricken Indian tribes, to being racist plutocrats, and bringing us Herman Cain:

Angel Soft
- Angel Soft Ultra
- Brawny paper towels
- Dixie cups (& napkins & plates)
- Insulair cups
- Perfect Touch cups, paper products
- Quilted Northern
- Sparkle paper towels
- Stainmaster
- Vanity Fair napkins & paper towels
- Mardis Gras napkins
- Zee Napkins
- Georgia Pacific products

Home/Office papers:
- Advantage
- Image Plus
- Spectrum

Other:
- Stainmaster
- Lycra
- Teflon

Building supplies:
- Georgia Pacific

Nike:  For using child/slave labor and providing the model for virtually all (except New Balance) athletic shoe makers to do the same

Gap: Same as above.

All big banks.

Kellogg's - Big Ag market manipulators. 

Johnson & Johnson / Proctor & Gamble - For executives engaged in political manipulation and horrible, cruel animal testing. 

Also found this:

Boycott Big 5 Corrupt Corporations

Tax master is on to something.  He doesn't have to be 100% right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tax Master 
. The only time Union's protest is if something or someone is threatening their wallet. 

I don't understand this as a criticism.  Of course labor organizations only protest issues affecting the economic well-being of their members and not unrelated social issues.  That's their entire rasion d'etre.

Two worthy articles to read:

NYPD cop brags about wanting to beat up Occupiers.

What has Occupy Wall Street achieved in 3 months? A whole fucking lot!

That;s pretty inspiring stuff for a jaded old cynic like me. Viva the fuckin revolution indeed.

The bizarre thing is I think the plurality of people get it but those programming the "news" and establishment Republicans, even some establishment Dems, don't.  The energy is going to (hopefully) get rid of Scott Walker.  It has already stopped far right ballot initiatives in a handful of states -- it may end up doing in California what's been blocked in Washington, taxing the 1%.  Viva la revolution! 

Brilliant.

http://gawker.com/5869660/the-rich-bastards-have-made-the-mistake-of-saying-what-they-really-think

What about Bill Gates? Is he an evil fucker too? Warren Buffet? Jeff Immelt, the CEO of GE (which is investing heavily in Green Technology even as it's Finance arm is still recovering from many bad bets in Mortgage backed Securities)?

How about Francis Ford Coppola, who's managed to earn then piss away several fortunes? George Lucas?

My point being that most of the people cited in that Bloomberg article are easy targets. EG Paulson runs a hedge Fund that profited from bets against Mortgage backed securities. The guys I list above directly or indirectly employ people and create new products and services that benefit consumers. And yeah I hand picked two people who are actively contributing billions to charities that may prove more effective than Governments. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater here.

I do find it interesting that Bloomberg news has taken up a Populist tone recently. Bloomberg Markets did an expose on the Koch brothers a few months ago (a pretty weak one to be sure). Now this. Wonder if this isn't preparation for a 3rd party headed by Bloomberg.

To me, here's the difference:  Those who use their fortunes to change the laws to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else, and those who don't.  The hedge fund managers are the low hanging fruit because they are right up there with Big Oil in their efforts to turn a democracy into an oligarchy. 

As you point out, Bill Gates is using his money to try to wipe out diseases around the world.  He has given away almost $30 billion in the last 10 years--costing him the world's richest man title.

Warren Buffett has turned into one of the only billionaires willing to lift the curtain on the massive inequality when it comes to what the investment class pays in taxes and what everybody else pays.  Buffett has made the largest charitable donation in history ($10b).  Gates and Buffett have both pledged to give away half their fortunes. 

Neither guy is using those billions to shave off more tax liability or chip away at regulations put in place to protect everybody else.  That's the difference.  I don't think anyone begrudges anyone wealth in and of itself; they begrudge those who use their fortunes to rig our system in their favor at everyone else's expense.  And the fact that these guys quoted in the article think nobody realizes this is what's offensive.  They truly believe they're smarter than everybody else. 

Did you read that Financial Times piece I linked to a couple of days ago?  It clearly lays out how this strategy among the 1% has led to the destruction of our economy. 

I agree with you YT. But I'd go a bit further. Paulson doesn't do shit in terms of adding to the sum total of this nation's or the world's wealth. Gates created software (yeah yeah he bought DOS and Apple thought up the GUI first nowait they took it from Xerox blah blah) that literally transformed business, the economy, academia etc. Buffett has funded, protected and mentored hundreds of very successful businesses. Both men directly and indirectly employ thousands of people.

Paulson employs what? 40 people? He creates wealth through financial manipulation ( to your point). Dimon? At best he's an administrator. At worst he's been responsible for numerous layoffs over the years.

I think OWS is on the right track with who they target. What I'd like to see if a clear "line in the sand" between those who add to the sum total of the world's wealth, who actually benefit the planet, vs. those who leach off it. And the later do so primarily through corrupting and controlling the government at all levels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cylon Baby 

I agree with you YT. But I'd go a bit further. Paulson doesn't do shit in terms of adding to the sum total of this nation's or the world's wealth. Gates created software (yeah yeah he bought DOS and Apple thought up the GUI first nowait they took it from Xerox blah blah) that literally transformed business, the economy, academia etc. Buffett has funded, protected and mentored hundreds of very successful businesses. Both men directly and indirectly employ thousands of people.

 

Paulson employs what? 40 people? He creates wealth through financial manipulation ( to your point). Dimon? At best he's an administrator. At worst he's been responsible for numerous layoffs over the years.

 

I think OWS is on the right track with who they target. What I'd like to see if a clear "line in the sand" between those who add to the sum total of the world's wealth, who actually benefit the planet, vs. those who leach off it. And the later do so primarily through corrupting and controlling the government at all levels.

Agree completely.  I think OWS needs to really drill down and find the source of all the other stuff, because it is really very simple and it all comes from the same place.  I don't know the statistic off the top of my head but financial transactions as a share of GDP have skyrocketed with the shift in wealth and power from the broader country at large to the 1% and yet, as you correctly point out, they don't employ many and they don't create anything.  They don't do what they were originally touted as doing, pooling capital for investment in the economy.  There is no correlation.  When a company lays off workers and ships its operations to China or wherever, the stock price goes up.  When a company makes a modest profit by employing lots of people and paying them a living wage, their stock price goes down.  It's completely backwards.  The Reagan tax cuts and subsequent Bush tax cuts disincentivized reinvesting in a company and incentivized short term investment schemes and offshore tax dodging accounts.  That's not incidental -- it's entirely deliberate.  This is what these f***ers have spent half a century strategizing and pushing for. 

OWS did the impossible in getting this stuff out into the mainstream.  The next logical step is definitely to drill down.  I'd love to see them focus on the one thing that is at the root of all that's wrong:  a constitutional amendment to get money out of politics.

Re: Offshoring: I think the problem is more subtle and thus hard to address. I think it derives from two sources:

1) the Economic dogma that the sole responsibility of the CEO of any corporation is to maximize shareholder value. It's what's led to the short term thinking that pushes company's to close plants in the US and ship the work to India, China etc. All to get a pop in the stock price. It really is a shell game.

To take one example. Cisco recently "laid off" 5,000 workers in a plant in Mexico. What they really did was in effect sell that plant and the workers to a foreign company, which then behaved as before. On paper Cisco "saved" X dollars, and Wall Street analysts applaud. The workers get their pay from a different entity, (maybe poorer benefits: don't know)m but to my knowledge they are still doing the exact same thing. That is a benign example: we're all familiar with uglier cases. Point is, these are not rational economic decisions. They are the result of ideology.

2) Globalization. As much as people vilify it, it has raised the living standards in a lot of countries: South Korea, China, Taiwan etc. Compare life in those counties (on average) to life in a country that's rejected Globalization, like, say, North Korea.

Trouble is, whenever a job can be done for orders of magnitude in Country X vs the US, it will go to Country X. That IS a rational economic decision. And in the 90's 2000's many US companies took advantage of that disparity. But, a funny thing is happening now. The wage gap is decreasing between the US and these countries. And, questions about quality of product/service, concerns about foreign county's lack of respect for intellectual property rights (and Human Rights), etc has led many company's to return to the US.

One example: Dell tried moving all Customer Service to India. The complaints were such that they have moved at least some Tech Support back to Texas (for the high paying Elite customers of course ).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cylon Baby 

Re: Offshoring: I think the problem is more subtle and thus hard to address. I think it derives from two sources:

 

1) the Economic dogma that the sole responsibility of the CEO of any corporation is to maximize shareholder value. It's what's led to the short term thinking that pushes company's to close plants in the US and ship the work to India, China etc. All to get a pop in the stock price. It really is a shell game.

 

To take one example. Cisco recently "laid off" 5,000 workers in a plant in Mexico. What they really did was in effect sell that plant and the workers to a foreign company, which then behaved as before. On paper Cisco "saved" X dollars, and Wall Street analysts applaud. The workers get their pay from a different entity, (maybe poorer benefits: don't know)m but to my knowledge they are still doing the exact same thing. That is a benign example: we're all familiar with uglier cases. Point is, these are not rational economic decisions. They are the result of ideology.

 

2) Globalization. As much as people vilify it, it has raised the living standards in a lot of countries: South Korea, China, Taiwan etc. Compare life in those counties (on average) to life in a country that's rejected Globalization, like, say, North Korea.

 

Trouble is, whenever a job can be done for orders of magnitude in Country X vs the US, it will go to Country X. That IS a rational economic decision. And in the 90's 2000's many US companies took advantage of that disparity. But, a funny thing is happening now. The wage gap is decreasing between the US and these countries. And, questions about quality of product/service, concerns about foreign county's lack of respect for intellectual property rights (and Human Rights), etc has led many company's to return to the US.

 

One example: Dell tried moving all Customer Service to India. The complaints were such that they have moved at least some Tech Support back to Texas (for the high paying Elite customers of course ).

 

 

Offshoring - this economic dogma is the problem.  In the beginning there were no corporations.  Then there were corporations but they only lived as long as their owner and the first item on their charter, by law, had to be "to serve the public good."  They chipped away at these restrictions, eventually attaining personhood through a hat-trick delivered by a clerk of the court who had a vested interest.  Then they could do whatever they wanted and further chip away at restrictions, including getting rid of that burdensome "public good" thing.  There was also the matter of paying their executives in shares, which they attained.  And then after a few boom & busts cycles and FDR enacted the high top marginal tax rate, they managed to get rid of that through Reagan.  With low marginal tax rates, the goal becomes not what's good for the country, not even the company--it's what's good for the CEO and shareholders, and that's it.  We live in a democracy, which means we make the laws.  It should follow that we make laws that benefit the millions of people that live in the country, not the handful of people that use the opportunity, the infrastructure, the freedom our great country affords to make themselves rich at the country's expense.  And that's not even going into what disgusting vulture capitalists are doing with the dept of poor nations vis a vis their corrupt officials. 

So, when Cisco turns a plant over to a contractor to push up its bottom line and remove itself from the horrors that contractor wreaks, that should be illegal.  Everything they're doing would be illegal if we had a sane trade policy.

Globalization - I no longer buy the buoying of the wealth of the people as a good argument.  Half these countries we have free trade agreements and favored nation status with are dictatorships.  We're helping the elite of those countries, and selling out the underclass.  Multinationals are stateless.  They don't give two $%#!s about the country that happens to be hosting them at the moment.  If workers in, say, Singapore did what workers in this country did to try to claim any fair labor practices at all, these f***ers would pack up and ship their operation to Sri Lanka, or wherever.  It's like getting a decent living in the mob--one wrong move and you're done.  And further, they're looking at consumer bases in these growing economies and what they see in the US is the future of cheap labor.

On your last point, I don't think it is a rational economic decision to go to Country X in almost every case.  For one thing, the US will start to look more like Country X, and that's not a good thing for any of us.  For another, computer chips for our defense systems are made in China.  And for a third, as you said, the wage disparity will even out -- undoing what people fought and died for in this country because CEO A has to buy that second island.  In the immortal words of Spock, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.  If the people of a democracy are weighing their options, they would be wise to err on the side of the many, not the few or the one. 

Lastly, the view from here does not allow for what other countries are doing to protect themselves from the very thing that's happening to us.  Germany, which has no shortage of millionaires, has tariffs and broad unionization, with half of boards of directors comprised of workers.  China has strict ownership rules that prevents western companies from fully owning operations in their country, and India only recently said it would start allowing more than one operation of a western company in its country. 

We had it right for fifty years--the fastest growth period this country has ever seen.  What we're seeing now are the results of the dismantling of the American way that began with Reagan and has not let up.  Monopoly capitalism eats its host, and since some people still have a few dollars to rub together, they're not finished with us. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by yt 
 Monopoly capitalism eats its host, and since some people still have a few dollars to rub together, they're not finished with us. 

good post YT
<clap>

if I may, just look to the game "Monopoly" as an example...at the end of the game, one person has "won" everything and everyone else is broke.

Too many people seem to have taken this 'game' literally and are using it as the modus operandi for their lives.

Exactly. In fact, I understand that the game of Monopoly was invented after the Depression exactly for that reason--to show people on a large scale (and in a fun way) how it happens. 

I feel like this study is old news, but it's interesting. 

Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2011/12/21/got-money-then-you-might-lack-compassion/#ixzz1hCaZC6NC

Matt Taibbi has written an analysis of Max Abelson's Bloomberg piece and outdone himself yet again. 

This is a must-read.  The whole thing is here:

Or to re-state the case: people hate them not because they are rich, but because of how they got their money.

So here is the impact of OWS on Oakland....from the WSJ

Mr. Donelan  (VP of the Oakland Police Union and a 10 year Police veteran) says things went downhill for the police when the Occupy Oakland movement began in late October. The Oakland Police Department devoted a third of its 645 officers to policing the demonstrators, leaving only two-thirds of the force to respond to emergency calls beyond the protest area, he says.

Mr. Donelan says this meant weeks of 12-to-14-hour shifts for many officers and numerous emergency calls going unanswered for lack of available police officers. Police officers have received overtime pay for this extra work.

The Oakland Police Department confirms the stretched force hasn't been able to respond to all emergency calls.

The rest is here http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203430404577094572259248412.html?mod=djemSFBA_h

But them eggs has gots to be cracked to make that tasty Freedom Omelet amiright?

I don't understand how this OWS' fault. The city overreacted. It was their choice to use that much police force against mostly peaceful protestors. A third of it's force to stop citizens from pursuing their constitutional right to free speech? That's what is crazy.

You know, the police would probably have more manpower if their budget was raised.  You know, through higher taxes?

The Oakland thing really highlights my ambivalence about the OMS movement. I broadly agree with the issues they are highlighting, I'm happy they've ignited a real debate (that the Media and politicians have ignored), and the promotion of Credit Unions over big Banks was great.

But.  Oakland is nowhere near any 1%ers. Shutting down the Port of Oakland showed People Power, but had zero effect on the Financiers who are responsible for so many abuses.

As for how the Mayor handled the situation: no question she did a horrible job. She waffled, saying OMS could stay, then ordering them evicted and back and forth several times. You also have to understand that Oakland has serious issues with crime and with homelessness. Also a violent element which latches onto all protests, like the one for Oscar Grant, and uses it to indulge in destruction. Those elements were attracted to the OMS encampment (I think the only death reported in any OMS location was in Oakland) and at some point the police had to move in.

I guess what I'd like to have seen was more concentration in San Francisco, where you actually have a Financial District, instead of a poor city which really can't handle this type of disruption.

Quote:

Originally Posted by neoolong 

You know, the police would probably have more manpower if their budget was raised.  You know, through higher taxes?

Do you have any idea what it costs to run a business in Oakland? Taxes, permits, etc? If you try to even run a business from your home, there is a "small business run from your home" tax. They even charge a tax to Massage Therapists, (the state also makes Masseurs join some hokey organization, and submit their fingerprints, so the State Government can have them).

Also, who are they gonna tax? Most people who earn a lot of money do not live in Oakland (apart from the Oakland Hills), so you'd be hitting the poor and lower Middle Class. (The upper Middle class and rich have cleverly redistricted themselves into different "towns" like Piedmont and Richmond, to avoid the stigma of Oakland and also to avoid the taxes.

Yeah, but even you live elsewhere, if you're doing business in Oakland, you're supposed to be paying business related taxes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by neoolong 

You know, the police would probably have more manpower if their budget was raised.  You know, through higher taxes?

<sarcasm on>    ....but if the police are able to do their job, that wouldn't allow the GOP/TeaParty to push their idea that "government doesn't work well so we should let the free market handle it"...all the while investing in Blackwater/Xe (or whatever they're called now) and insisting that 'privatized' police should take over law enforcement duties because, of course, they could do it much cheaper.....

The answer was and always is Robocop.

Or Bonkers! God that little cartoon feline thing was barrel full of delight! And a good crime stopper!

Not Renee Montoya?  For shame.

She's just one person though goddamnit! And I'm not counting that whole "She's totally learned a bunch of lethal martial arts and has become a costumed hero because we have absolutely no fucking idea what to do with her after Gotham Central" bullshit either.

A few days late but funny nonetheless:

That actually doesn't make any sense.

Although, boy am I glad he made sure to label the pepper spray "pepper." Would have been even more confusing otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whiteboy Jones 

That actually doesn't make any sense.

 

Although, boy am I glad he made sure to label the pepper spray "pepper." Would have been even more confusing otherwise.

Ziggy cartoons actually don't make any sense.

Although, boy am I glad he'd made sure to label the clerk's window "Complaint Dept." Would have been even more confusing otherwise.

"Wild Old Women" shut down SF bank!  Love it!

Quote:

 

SAN FRANCISCO (KCBS) – It was a slow-moving Occupy Wall Street protest, but it was an effective one. A dozen senior citizens calling themselves “the wild old women” succeeded in closing a Bank of America branch in Bernal Heights Thursday.

 

The women, aged 69 to 82, who live at the senior home up Mission street from the Bernal Heights Bank of America branch, decided to hold their own protest by doing what they called a “run on the bank.”

 

Tita Caldwell, 80, who led the charge of women with walkers and wheelchairs, said that they’re demanding the bank lower fees, pay higher taxes, and stop foreclosing on, and evicting, homeowners.

 

”We’re upset about what the banks are doing, particularly in our neighborhood and neighboring areas, in evicting people and foreclosing on their homes,” said Caldwell. “We’re upset because the banks are raising their rates because it really affects seniors who are on a fixed income.”

 

As they arrived, Bank of America closed and locked its doors, to the surprise and delight of the elderly protestors, who said that they had no intention of storming the bank.

 

The women waved signs, but didn’t march or chant, with one woman on supplemental oxygen adding that the group was too old for that.

Just as people don't understand why protestors want to Occupy Wall Street, people didn't understand why MLK demonstrated via marches. His answer:

Took this screen shot of the enhanced SOTU address and if anyone doubted that OWS changed the political narrative, this should clear that right up! Obama going after the Top 1%!

Awesome. I wonder if there will be any fallout from the GOP continue to protect and defend Romney's 13% tax rate?

So last night OWS Oakland decided to tear some shit up....

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/29/MNSI1N00ER.DTL

It's easy to dismiss these people as being the same assholes who cause trouble at any Oakland protest. Trouble  is, these same types of people have been embedded in the various OWS groups around the country.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cylon Baby 

So last night OWS Oakland decided to tear some shit up....

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/29/MNSI1N00ER.DTL

 

It's easy to dismiss these people as being the same assholes who cause trouble at any Oakland protest. Trouble  is, these same types of people have been embedded in the various OWS groups around the country.

So, is it easier to just label them all negatively because some have caused trouble? Honestly, it seems just as easy either way. Kind of a judgement call, depending on your point of view.

Question is, are they peripheral or core to OWS? That's not just a matter of opinion. It is hard to determine given the amorphous nature of the movement, but it is known that a lot of the people who put OWS together originally are traditional Marxist-Leninist types.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cylon Baby 

Question is, are they peripheral or core to OWS? That's not just a matter of opinion. It is hard to determine given the amorphous nature of the movement, but it is known that a lot of the people who put OWS together originally are traditional Marxist-Leninist types.

I'm not 100% sure but from what little I've read, it seems like the recent violence and vandalism is being perpetrated by anarchists who are using the OWS movement as a stepping stone for their own goals (whatever that may be ??)

This small faction of individuals could very well be doing serious damage to the legitimate concerns/goals of the OWS movement. As a result of these childish, anarchistic acts, I could easily see other city governments begin using increasingly violent means to stop, what has been for the most part, a pretty peaceful series of protests.

I really hate to think it, but I wouldn't be surprised if we see another "Kent State" incident in the near future....

It's a complicated question, because in Oakland there is also a long history of undercover cops acting as provocateurs. There is also a criminal element, both semi-organized (gangs) and unorganized (stupid kids who think it's fun to break and steal shit), and a widespread resentment of the police in the Oakland community. There is a potential for something even more ugly happening here.

Huh so apparently there were "sympathy" protests in NYC, LA and elsewhere on Saturday in response to the events in Oakland. Listening to "Forum" on NPR: a reporter is describing a protest that started out tense and quickly turned violent.

It's Oakland's fault for this happening the mass crackdown by the city government and police caused this to occur plus you only hear of this happening mostly there so that obviously states there is something rotten in the city of Oakland.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arturo RJ 

It's Oakland's fault for this happening the mass crackdown by the city government and police caused this to occur plus you only hear of this happening mostly there so that obviously states there is something rotten in the city of Oakland.

The Oakland Police certainly DO have a reputation, but there are other  factors at work:

1) It is well documented that a lot of, perhaps even most of the protesters are coming to Oakland from elsewhere, places like Marin (which is super Ironic considering that Marin is the home of the Trust Fund Baby).

2) Oakland has seen an influx of Gang members from SoCal in the last few years

3) Oakland is also the site of a Halfway house for people transitioning from San Quentin and I'm sure other jails

4) There is a large population of homeless people, many of whom are unstable.

5) The Oakland PD is woefully understaffed (by about 100 officers), and you can bet the people they do have are not exactly the cream of the Cop Crop.

Add all of this together and you have a real (and I hate to use this term since its so overused) "Perfect Storm".

EDITED TO ADD: The reports I've read/heard are that the protesters initiated violence, throwing bottles at the Police, busting store windows etc. One Protester called in to KQED's Forum to say "well they were throwing plastic bottles man, and the System is defunding programs for people in wheelchairs WHOSE VIOLENCE IS WORSE MAN?!"

If Oakland becomes the face of OWS the movement is screwed.

So now there is a splinter group called "The 99%ers" who disavow violence even while others think it's great!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/31/MN7E1N0JU1.DTL

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/goodbye--middle-class.html

Just saw this....haven't read it all yet

The 1% just can't stop themselves from acting like victims:

http://gawker.com/5885705/the-top-1-must-stop-insisting-theyre-not-rich-right-this-instant