Apple and fraud

[Cybrweez]

Yea, I guess we should first prove there is some underhanded activity before adding regulation - much like the voter fraud issue.

[Rigel]

There is a belief, expressed by members here for instance, that regulation is inherently good,

That's a laugh. More like a necessary evil... of course, it's only necessary because people / companies are so willing to abuse their positions of power.

Of course, I'm strongly pragmatic, and feel the need to examine the effects of regulation. If something is causing more problems than it fixes, you have a problem.

The one thing I haven't seen here is a declaration from anyone who objects to Apple that they'll stop buying Apple products because of their actions.

Have you asked? I've been Apple-free since 2008.

[Zarathustra]

Yea, I guess we should first prove there is some underhanded activity before adding regulation - much like the voter fraud issue.

That would be better than a blanket, blind faith in regulation ("behind every regulation is a shady business"). But even in the cases where we can prove something underhanded, it doesn't follow logically that there needs to be a regulation (which effects everyone, including those who aren't underhanded). Maybe we only need a boycott, which targets the evildoer only.

That's a laugh. More like a necessary evil... of course, it's only necessary because people / companies are so willing to abuse their positions of power.

If my point doesn't apply to you, then I can see how you'd think it's laughable. I think it's laughable too ... but still true.

Yes, people are willing to abuse their positions of power. And some of those people are in government, writing the regulations, which is just another form of power. The politicians abuse it, and then companies make use of the regulations as a new form of power, and abuse that, too. Maybe this "evil" isn't so necessary as people think. Maybe there are better, more effective ways to deal with the problems before we go and give someone else more power to curb abuses of power.

For instance ... in Redbook--yes, freakin' Redbook (my wife has a subscription)--there was an article in this month's issue entitled, "You Can Save a Child from Slavery." There are websites popping up on the 'Net where you can check to see if the product you're about to buy is in any way connected to child slavery. There are even smartphone apps being created so that you can scan products before you buy them to learn this info [Free2Worksmartphone app]. Can't get much easier than that. And some of these websites help you to donate specifically to end this problem, to help these children get out of these situations. And there are reporting websites to help spread the word about such "shady" businesses.

We don't have the time or resources to police business ourselves? Right. We just don't have the will, because we buy into myth of our own helplessness, and the infinite benevolence of those who preach this myth.

slaveryfootprint.org
mercy29.or/lattesforlegacies.html
savethechildren.org/donate
polarisproject.or/report-a-tip

[aliantha]

You've gone pretty far afield from your post about the African hair braider, Z.

I take away something different from that story than you do. You, apparently, are blaming government for sticking its regulatory nose into a business where it doesn't belong. What I'd like to know is this: Whose idea was it to license hair braiders in the first place? I have to assume there was no groundswell of consumer desire. So where did it come from? Maybe from the cosmetology schools, whose enrollment (and tuition coffers) would be boosted thereby? Or maybe from the graduates of those schools, who wanted to limit their competition?

Government (which is not a monolith) doesn't create these things in a vacuum. Somebody schmoozes a lawmaker and convinces him/her to sponsor the bill.

I just looked up the makeup (no pun intended) of the Utah Cosmetology/Barbering Licensing Board. Four members are practicing (and, one must assume, licensed) barbers or cosmetologists (one barber, one esthetician -- what the hell does an esthetician do, anyhow? -- one nail technician and one electrologist); three are school reps; and two are members of the public. Looks to me like a classic case of state-sanctioned self-policing. In other words, the industry itself started it, and talked the legislature into going along with it.

(Granted, there are public health issues involved in some aspects of cosmetology. You can get a fungal infection from going to a nail salon, and barbers who don't disinfect their tools can spread disease from one customer to another.)

[wayfriend]

As I completely disbelieve the notion that mega-businesses can be effectively deterred from criminal and should-be-criminal activities purely on the basis of some sort of consumer-watchdog boycott and thereby obviate the need of regulation, I was wondering if someone could post an example of where this was in fact effective, and to what degree.

[DukkhaWaynhim]

As I completely disbelieve the notion that mega-businesses can be effectively deterred from criminal and should-be-criminal activities purely on the basis of some sort of consumer-watchdog boycott and thereby obviate the need of regulation, I was wondering if someone could post an example of where this was in fact effective, and to what degree.

Consumers can in most cases choose where to shop for items, thus exerting some control over the process, at the individual level. The internet can sometimes be useful when researching things. I used it recently to look up brands and compare before I purchased a treadmill for home use. I steered clear of a Nordic Track model I was looking at because of bad reviews of being very expensive to service after their short warranty expired.
On the other hand, when businesses make 'sneaky' deals with other businesses, or engage in other practices which are seldom revealed to consumers, we often don't know until it's too late that we have patronized a 'bad' business.
Truly big businesses like Monsanto are nearly impossible to boycott, especially when they are so big and so broadly interposed in other companies that it is nearly impossible for consumers to boycott them, because often the consumer is entirely ignorant that the company is involved or crucial to the product they are buying. And if you are talking 'bad' companies that sell services, it becomes even easier to hide what you are doing behind other companies. Just trying to trace a single retail product and its components through the ownership quagmire to find out who really produced something can be impossible, let alone daunting to someone just trying to compare faucet fixtures at Lowe's.
So, if I vote my conscience and buy Product X because I know it to be slavery, lead, financial shenanigan and corporate chicanery-free, even though it costs quite a bit more than the other products, but everybody else just buys the least expensive product, who is to say the next time I need that product that it will even be available at the retailer? What if all the choices are bad? Do I then resort to the internet? What if I have an emergency that can't wait? It's never easy.
A single person boycotting in this way feels like a fool, and likely it makes no difference to the big business. Which is what this all comes to -- when a company has grown so big that it can afford to abuse good and bad customers alike, and/or tweak the laws to favor it over its competitors, that company is too big.


dw

[Cail]

As I completely disbelieve the notion that mega-businesses can be effectively deterred from criminal and should-be-criminal activities purely on the basis of some sort of consumer-watchdog boycott and thereby obviate the need of regulation, I was wondering if someone could post an example of where this was in fact effective, and to what degree.

Consumer Reports and Underwriter's Laboratories.

[wayfriend]

That's my impression as well, DW.

Cail, I was spefically requesting info on consumers preventing corporate malfeasance, not consumers being steered away from poor quality.

[ussusimiel]

The direction of this thread has reminded me of some of the theories of Michel Foucault that I studied in college. In re-acquainting myself with some of the things he proposed I came across his concept of Governmentality:

Foucault often defines governmentality as the "art of government" in a wide sense, i.e. with an idea of "government" that is not limited to state politics alone, that includes a wide range of control techniques, and that applies to a wide variety of objects

(From a different source but on the same concept:)

2.2. Economy and politics
The concept of governmentality also proves to be useful in correcting the diagnosis of neo-liberalism [libertarianism] as an expansion of economy in politics, that takes for granted the separation of state and market. The argument goes that there is some “pure” or “anarchic” economy that will be “regulated” or “civilised” by a political reaction of society....

In his work Foucault shows that the “art of government” is not limited to the field of politics as separated from the economy; instead the constitution of a conceptually and practically distinguished space, governed by autonomous laws and a proper rationality is itself an element of “economic” government.

[Italics: my addition. Libertarianism is called neo-liberalism in Europe, this explains why I was so confused by the term when I first came across it here ]

This concept helps explain, for me, the tug-of-war between regulation and deregulation. 'Government' is broader than the state and with the expansion of the free market, 'government' has become more and more connected with economics and business (See Technologies of the market (Governmentality)).

u.

[Avatar]

You're surely not expecting your false choice is the only one?

What false choice would that be?

I think it's wrong to assume that every regulation arises because of past abuses in the first place. Perhaps WF could be convinced to modify his statement from "every regulation" to "most regulation" or even "some regulation."

So you could simply have suggested that not all regulation comes from abuses.

And I understand how this blind trust in bureaucractic justice arises. We know human nature: people can be underhanded...Business can be bad...

So already we have a middle ground between all regulation being good, and all regulation being bad.

Businesses which screw their customers don't stay in business.

Unless there are no better alternatives. What do you do when everybody is screwing their customers?

--A

[Cail]

You're surely not expecting your false choice is the only one?

What false choice would that be?

The one that I quoted. I did that so you'd be able to see it. It's the same false choice that Wayfriend offered up.

Cail, I was spefically requesting info on consumers preventing corporate malfeasance, not consumers being steered away from poor quality.

Foisting poor quality or unsafe goods on consumers isn't malfeasance? What do you consider malfeasance then?

[Zarathustra]

As I completely disbelieve the notion that mega-businesses can be effectively deterred from criminal and should-be-criminal activities purely on the basis of some sort of consumer-watchdog boycott and thereby obviate the need of regulation, I was wondering if someone could post an example of where this was in fact effective, and to what degree.

Since only a tiny minority of regulations are actually aimed at preventing criminal behavior, there is no need to show how criminal activity can be effectively deterred by private sector means in order to obviate the need for most regulations. You are (again) equating regulation in general with the need to deter criminal activity or malfeasance, when the vast bulk of job-killing, economy-crushing regulation is not of this type.

If private sector pressures are so ineffective at swaying companies into more "ethical" behaviors such that we need regulations to fill this void, then why the hell do we need unions?? You can't argue for the ineffectual nature of non-governmental forces to regulate business on the one hand, and then claim any need whatsoever for unions on the other. In fact, pro-union types have argued for years that the government regulations which make safer, more pro-employee workplaces owe their existence to the trail-blazing efforts of unions in the first place. But now you're arguing that individual citizens banding together can't possibly affect corporations? WTF? The history of unions is all about private citizens banding together to force revolutionary change upon business, before the government ever lifted a finger to help. People have power. You seem to have forgotten this somehow in your zeal to prove us wrong.

However, that's merely an inconsistency in your argument, not a point in favor of mine, because I don't support unions (in their current form, especially in the public sector ... but I recognize the need for them in the past, including their effectiveness to bring about change in business).

It's difficult to come up with examples of public pressure keeping businesses from committing crimes, because you're asking for evidence of an absence of behavior. No deterring force can be 100% effective, which means there will always be malfeasance. If you're going to use the presence of malfeasance in the absence of regulation as proof of the ineffectual nature of private sector pressure, then why don't you also accept the presence of malfeasance in the presence of regulation as proof of the ineffectual nature of governmental pressure?

The data you're asking for is difficult to quantify. Who knows what extent to which a business is behaving ethically because they don't want an unethical reputation to affect their bottom line? Sure, you could always claim that they behave this way because there is a law, and that's the entire explanation. But that denies the fact that companies also want to make a profit. There are a few underhanded ways to make a profit, and some unethical people will take a chance (regardless of what regulation are passed), but crime doesn't pay as much as people assume. It's much more profitable to treat your customers fairly and not commit fraud or malfeasance.

Add the Better Business Bureau to the list of private sector watchdogs. This seal of approval means a lot to businesses, and they work hard to protect their reputations in order to stay in good standing with the BBB, down to individual cases of customer complaints, trying to resolve those instances where customers feel like they've been screwed, in order to remove the complaint from the BBB rating.

[Avatar]

You're surely not expecting your false choice is the only one?

What false choice would that be?

The one that I quoted. I did that so you'd be able to see it. It's the same false choice that Wayfriend offered up.

I'm trying to introduce middle ground into this, not eliminate it. Therefore not a false choice.

I'm suggesting the truth is somewhere between "all regulation is because of abuse" and "no regulation is because of abuse."

--A

[Cail]

What false choice would that be?

The one that I quoted. I did that so you'd be able to see it. It's the same false choice that Wayfriend offered up.

I'm trying to introduce middle ground into this, not eliminate it. Therefore not a false choice.

I'm suggesting the truth is somewhere between "all regulation is because of abuse" and "no regulation is because of abuse."

Nice retcon.

[Zarathustra]

I'm trying to introduce middle ground into this, not eliminate it. Therefore not a false choice.

I'm suggesting the truth is somewhere between "all regulation is because of abuse" and "no regulation is because of abuse."

--A

There really isn't any need to introduce that middle ground, because I don't believe anyone has claimed that no regulation has its origin in abuse. I personally believe that most regulation is busy-body, nanny-state impulse to control, and a very small minority based on actual abuses. But it doesn't really matter. Even the regulations which have as their basis some company in the past which abused their power, these regs still alter the rules for an entire society based on the actions of individual instances of shady behavior. Does it make individual instances of that behavior go away? No. Businesses still commit these acts. So focusing on the cause or the reasoning behind the creation of new rules isn't the point (especially when we're just going to assume the good intentions of every single regulation because we trust regulators, and blindly believe that the cause is a shady business practice).

So, aside from the ostensible cause--which is being used here to dismiss any amount of negative, unintended consequences--we should be having a discussion of the effects. I'm not saying that we should get rid of every law simply becuase people break laws. I'm saying we should have a rational discussion about whether the negative consequences of the assumed, unspecified "malfeasance" are worse than the attempt to regulate ourselves into Utopia. Just like the drug war: perhaps the attempt to control human behavior with a violent top-down solution is worse than people getting high. Regulations create a "black market" of lobbyists trying to sway the reguations in their favor, create loopholes for themselves, which hurt their competition, in addition to a "black market" of accountants, bureaucrats, lawyers, etc. who profit from exacting this toll upon the entire economy in the form of compliance. The powerful are still enriched, and the little guys who are the people we're supposedly trying to protect are hurt the most.

Given the negative consequences of over-regulation, it's worthwhile to contemplate whether there are private sector, market forces which can accomplish the intended goals better.

Given the skepticism levied against my suggestion, I'd still like to hear an explanation from Wayfriend, or anyone else who thinks the idea is unworkable, and yet has faith in the power of unions to affect change in corporations. If citizens banding together to exert pressure on coroporations to treat people more ethically is a central tenet of liberal philosophy in this instance, why is it so ridiculous to consider in other instances?

[DukkhaWaynhim]

Given the skepticism levied against my suggestion, I'd still like to hear an explanation from Wayfriend, or anyone else who thinks the idea is unworkable, and yet has faith in the power of unions to affect change in corporations. If citizens banding together to exert pressure on coroporations to treat people more ethically is a central tenet of liberal philosophy in this instance, why is it so ridiculous to consider in other instances?

I'm not convinced that unions are the answer in modern times, but the union does have an advantage -- being a coherent, focused force with the official purpose of leveraging group influence to positively impact the lives of workers. Individual consumers are just that, individuals. Unless a majority of consumers individually boycott a product at the retail level, a business doesn't need to change it's practices to respond to that influence, because there is no directed influence.
If the 'malfeasance' that occurs happens so far behind the scenes, or perhaps in another country, that consumers remain blissfully unaware (Apple seems a fair example to use here) at the retail level, then the business is being financially rewarded for its 'malfeasance'. Apple is an interesting example, since it tends to carry a premium price when compared to market alternatives, even though it is apparently manufactured under questionable working conditions. This is more often the hallmark of the retail store off-brand, that has an uber-discounted price, and often fuels the stereotype that "you get what you pay for". Except, these days, you sometimes don't even get that.

dw

[wayfriend]

Since only a tiny minority of regulations are actually aimed at preventing criminal behavior, there is no need to show how criminal activity can be effectively deterred by private sector means in order to obviate the need for most regulations. You are (again) equating regulation in general with the need to deter criminal activity or malfeasance, when the vast bulk of job-killing, economy-crushing regulation is not of this type.

Then what are the vast bulk? I disbelieve your statement completely. Is it based on a belief that nothing a business does can be bad? If so, then we have different premises.

Corporate regulation, as any small business franchisee knows, is imposed by an imbalance of power between seller and consumer, by deception and crime, and by an absence of realistic competition.

While it's true that corporations create jobs, wealth and benefits, they also present challenges to democratic governments. For example, corporations are powerful sources of political money and influence. Also, when restraints and obligations have not been imposed upon them, corporations have too often endangered the lives, liberties, and well-being of citizens. The intention of regulating corporations is not to be “anti-corporate”. The intention is to be “pro-community”, whether at the local, state, national or international level. For, just as there must be “checks and balances” in the political system to maintain a democracy, there must also be “checks and balances” in the economic system to maintain a democracy.

[Avatar]

I think it's more than a tiny minority that are there to prevent corporate abuse. But I certainly agree that some of it is pointless/corrupt in itself too.

Seems like each of you is saying "yes, there is some of what the other side thinks the reason is, but they think it's all like that."

--A

[wayfriend]

When will workers share in Apple's wealth?

[...] if Apple genuinely "cared about every worker," it would pay every worker a living wage -- enough for workers to achieve a minimally decent standard of living, support their families and even save a bit toward a better future. Today, barely 1% of the retail price of an Ipad goes to the workers who make it; 33% goes to Apple's profits. Apple's profits are so high, and its global labor costs so low, that it could triple the wages of its 700,000 manufacturing workers and help them achieve a living wage (just a few dollars an hour in China), and still make $40 billion a year. [...] [link]

The article also discusses the fraud Apple is perpetrating when it claims it is using independent auditors to review its working conditions.