4 ms·

I agree. I think, today's Otto Group is not morally superior to Amazon's business at all, at least judged by their Hermes business. At least, I can not see any

I agree. I think, today's Otto Group is not morally superior to Amazon's business at all, at least judged by their Hermes business. At least, I can not see any viable differences. What totally pisses me off is, the aura of "charity" that Otto is surrounding around himself. He also got a high German medal (the so called "Große Verdienstkreuz mit Stern") for his charities. With examples like these, German high medals become the same value as the "Nobel Peace Prize" that is given to some of the worst persons that have lived. I now understand, why some people strictly refuse to be dishonored by such prizes.

jmngomes 13y ago
> What totally pisses me off is, the aura of "charity" that Otto is surrounding around himself. Agreed; we need an equivalent to "greenwashing" to describe this behaviour...
- mxfh 13y ago
  It's right there with the "trickle-down" myth. The whole idea that that CSR[1] somehow frees companies from paying their share in social taxes and exempts them from regulations[2]; that the government controlled social sector and welfare could be privatized (at least in Germany there's something left) and social taxes and regulations could be replaced by voluntary CSR measures. It might work for a few PR-exploitable areas, but not everything yields a ROI high enough to please the investors. If a company want's to do something good they should show it first through their products, trough the resources they are made with and how well they treat their employees.[3] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility#Criticisms_and_concerns http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/21/business/media/comcasts-web-of-lobbying-and-philanthropy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/21/business/media/comcasts-we... [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7176028 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7176028
  - PythonicAlpha 13y ago
    I do not know, who ever came up with the idea, that voluntary CSR could replace social taxes and regulations, but in my opinion, that is nothing else as neo-capitalistic bullshit, again! Those that believe in it should go to the worst areas of England and into the slums of the US and see what the results are. England once was one of the wealthiest and best to live in countries of the world. Now, after Thatcher, it is just a hollow carcass, cankered by neo-capitalism. What is left is the reign of the bankers, leaving some tips on the desk for the underdogs.
    - refurb 13y ago
      Hmmm... that doesn't make much sense. The UK was in terrible economic shape before Thatcher.
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        That was my recollection, but looking at plots of real GDP per capita and debt/GDP, I'm not seeing any substantive changes associated with the Thatcher years. Is there any metric where it pops?
        refurb 13y ago
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/08/a-look-back-at-margaret-thatchers-economic-record/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/08/a... It looks like under Thatcher got inflation under control, unemployment rose, then fell (similar to the US during the same time period) and the economy had a run of growth from '81 to '90 that peaked near 5%. Not too shabby when you look at the 10 years prior when inflation was 25% and the economy shrank from '74-76. Britain was regarded as a "sick man of Europe" before Thatcher took office.
        PythonicAlpha 13y ago
        I don't think, that such figures as economic growth and inflation rate are the only and best methods to evaluate the results of a specific politic. What is the impact on the people and the state in general? Which factors are also important in this time. The thing is, that economic bad times change with better times -- even with no change at all in politics. To consider every time a success of the leading party is often times just statistical brainwashing. The Germans also had a bigger raise in economy with the opposite politics. Also look how the long term results are, since the Thatcherian politics are still followed by the successors. The privatization of many areas like railway and water services resulted in worse quality of service. Also the UK today has nearly killed of all its industry base. Instead they have only left their banks, so they are largely susceptible now to blackmail of this sector, that is the reason why the banking sector can not be reorganized in Europe, since it is blocked by the veto of the British. What is left is a poor leftover of capitalism. Of course it is white-washed by statistical figures that always skip the negatives, since the advocates of unregulated capitalism want to prove their point.
oijaf888 13y ago
What winners of the Nobel Peace Prize have been the "worst persons that have lived"?
- fmela 13y ago
  Yasser Arafat and Henry Kissinger come to mind.
- jacobolus 13y ago
  Henry Kissenger, for one, was a straight-up war criminal. “Worst persons who have lived” doesn’t have a very precise definition though, so I’ll pass on judging that one.
- Phlarp 13y ago
  Perhaps not in the "worst person that have lived" category; but many have said Obama was awarded the prize almost entirely on the merit of campaign promises he has since failed to enact.
- levosmetalo 13y ago
  All of the leaders of countries involved in any kind of war during their ruling would certainly meet the criteria. If Yaser Arafat and Barack Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, I guess now it's time for Vladimir Putin to make the list complete?
  - oijaf888 13y ago
    Really? That's all the criteria for "worst persons to have ever lived"? That's a pretty low bar and seems like it would qualify pretty much every head of state ever.

jmngomes 13y ago

> What totally pisses me off is, the aura of "charity" that Otto is surrounding around himself. Agreed; we need an equivalent to "greenwashing" to describe this behaviour...

mxfh 13y ago
It's right there with the "trickle-down" myth. The whole idea that that CSR[1] somehow frees companies from paying their share in social taxes and exempts them from regulations[2]; that the government controlled social sector and welfare could be privatized (at least in Germany there's something left) and social taxes and regulations could be replaced by voluntary CSR measures. It might work for a few PR-exploitable areas, but not everything yields a ROI high enough to please the investors. If a company want's to do something good they should show it first through their products, trough the resources they are made with and how well they treat their employees.[3] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility#Criticisms_and_concerns http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/21/business/media/comcasts-web-of-lobbying-and-philanthropy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/21/business/media/comcasts-we... [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7176028 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7176028
- PythonicAlpha 13y ago
  I do not know, who ever came up with the idea, that voluntary CSR could replace social taxes and regulations, but in my opinion, that is nothing else as neo-capitalistic bullshit, again! Those that believe in it should go to the worst areas of England and into the slums of the US and see what the results are. England once was one of the wealthiest and best to live in countries of the world. Now, after Thatcher, it is just a hollow carcass, cankered by neo-capitalism. What is left is the reign of the bankers, leaving some tips on the desk for the underdogs.
  - refurb 13y ago
    Hmmm... that doesn't make much sense. The UK was in terrible economic shape before Thatcher.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      That was my recollection, but looking at plots of real GDP per capita and debt/GDP, I'm not seeing any substantive changes associated with the Thatcher years. Is there any metric where it pops?
      - refurb 13y ago
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/08/a-look-back-at-margaret-thatchers-economic-record/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/08/a... It looks like under Thatcher got inflation under control, unemployment rose, then fell (similar to the US during the same time period) and the economy had a run of growth from '81 to '90 that peaked near 5%. Not too shabby when you look at the 10 years prior when inflation was 25% and the economy shrank from '74-76. Britain was regarded as a "sick man of Europe" before Thatcher took office.
        PythonicAlpha 13y ago
        I don't think, that such figures as economic growth and inflation rate are the only and best methods to evaluate the results of a specific politic. What is the impact on the people and the state in general? Which factors are also important in this time. The thing is, that economic bad times change with better times -- even with no change at all in politics. To consider every time a success of the leading party is often times just statistical brainwashing. The Germans also had a bigger raise in economy with the opposite politics. Also look how the long term results are, since the Thatcherian politics are still followed by the successors. The privatization of many areas like railway and water services resulted in worse quality of service. Also the UK today has nearly killed of all its industry base. Instead they have only left their banks, so they are largely susceptible now to blackmail of this sector, that is the reason why the banking sector can not be reorganized in Europe, since it is blocked by the veto of the British. What is left is a poor leftover of capitalism. Of course it is white-washed by statistical figures that always skip the negatives, since the advocates of unregulated capitalism want to prove their point.

oijaf888 13y ago

What winners of the Nobel Peace Prize have been the "worst persons that have lived"?

fmela 13y ago
Yasser Arafat and Henry Kissinger come to mind.
jacobolus 13y ago
Henry Kissenger, for one, was a straight-up war criminal. “Worst persons who have lived” doesn’t have a very precise definition though, so I’ll pass on judging that one.
Phlarp 13y ago
Perhaps not in the "worst person that have lived" category; but many have said Obama was awarded the prize almost entirely on the merit of campaign promises he has since failed to enact.
levosmetalo 13y ago
All of the leaders of countries involved in any kind of war during their ruling would certainly meet the criteria. If Yaser Arafat and Barack Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, I guess now it's time for Vladimir Putin to make the list complete?
- oijaf888 13y ago
  Really? That's all the criteria for "worst persons to have ever lived"? That's a pretty low bar and seems like it would qualify pretty much every head of state ever.