Wednesday, July 12, 2017

Wal-Mart to Fine Suppliers for Being A Day Early

The Wal-Mart supplier squeeze reaches a new high (or low depending on perspective).

6 Comments:

Blogger Advihhhh said...

Mark, I think the Walmart discussion reflects interestingly on your debate with Dan Greenberg. Do you have a conflict of interest regarding Walmart simply because you shop there? Of course, the answer is no, but you don't seem to extend the same analysis regarding Greenberg. Much like you say (in criticizing Greenberg) that every difference doesn't make for a relevant distinction, every connection or interaction doesn't make for a conflict of interest. Just something to consider.

11:22 AM, July 16, 2017  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Who said I shopped there? Seriously though, for your analogy to make any sense Wal-Mart (or anti-Walmart forces) would have to be PAYING me serious coin for me to have a need to disclose the relationship. Like the nursing home interests have paid and are paying the Greenbergs. But your post reminds me, facebook can show my post on that matter to several thousand more Arkansans for eight or ten bucks. Slipped my mind like water under the bridge but I guess I should go ahead with that if it is a story that can hold people's interest like this.

7:20 PM, July 16, 2017  
Blogger Advihhhh said...

Neither the fact that one is paid by Walmart nor whether it's a "serious" amount alone determines whether there's a conflict of interest. So that's just wrong. There can be a conflict without either. (I don't understand your point regarding FB. You pay to write on your FB account? And you have more followers on FB than readers of your political blog? Maybe you just started blogging.)

7:25 AM, July 17, 2017  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Sure, its possible. But in your case (if you are Greenburg or minion of same) it was probable. Wherever that line is drawn where reasonable people would think one should disclose a potential conflict of interest on issue advocacy, you were way over it. Comparing this article I wrote where I really just passed on a link rather than advocated for a position to your situation just confirms everything I wrote before about your double-standards. Comparing a situation in which I may occasionally shop at Wal-Mart as a "conflict of interest" in passing on a link about Wal-Mart to your situation (where your household has made and is making a large amount of money off of the side you are advocating for) also confirms everything I wrote. Your inability to let it go and move on does too. So thanks for that.

9:23 AM, July 17, 2017  
Blogger Advihhhh said...

Huh? I'm not a Greenberg. I just don't think you made your case. Greenberg has been quite vocal on tort reform for years. I don't even agree with all his views, but his position is clear. And your feigned shock that he's worked for that cause is silly. Conduit's roll out of its scorecard was lacking. You and Greenberg actually did a service of filling in some, but not all, of the gaps. If you and Conduit can't take the legitimate criticism on the substance (not the personal attacks, sorry), then don't put out a scorecard and the like.

6:07 PM, July 17, 2017  
Blogger Daniel Greenberg said...

Mark, once again, you’ve missed the point: your understanding of ‘conflict of interest’ is so broad as to take in anything. The implication of your position is that, for instance, Donald Trump had a conflict of interest when he criticized Hillary Clinton (after all, they’re both competing for votes!) and that Coke has a conflict of interest when it criticizes Pepsi (after all, they’re both pursuing market share!). It’s not so much that you do not understand ‘conflict of interest’ – it’s more that you don’t understand what a ‘conflict’ is or what an ‘interest’ is. Advihh just highlighted your flawed logic, much more concisely than I was able to do. (But, if you want to play that game, fine: when you mentioned Walmart, Governor Hutchinson, and Conduit, why didn’t you disclose your conflicts? Lots of glaring conflicts of interests there, apparently!) The rest of us live in the real world, though, where receiving a paycheck in exchange for our labor is the norm; I would surmise that your lack of acquaintance with this world has caused you to have some very odd ideas about it.

I do love that you immediately leapt to the conclusion that it must be me criticizing you (for the record, it wasn’t). Spoken like a man with a single-digit readership! Maybe you should go more into detail about how, when people disagree with you, that just “confirms everything you wrote”! Warning: others will not find this line of argument quite so persuasive.

7:45 PM, July 17, 2017  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home