C'mon ................you lefties leave Super Walmart Mercado alone. Enough is enough ....we all get it ....soooooooo you are against capitalism ....!!

Lawmakers: Wal-Mart threatens US payment system

By Kristin Roberts

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A group of lawmakers on Friday said an industrial bank owned by Wal-Mart (WMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research), the world's largest retailer, could threaten the stability of the U.S. financial system and drive community banks out of business.

In a highly critical letter to the acting chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., obtained by Reuters, a group of more than 30 Congress members asked the bank regulator to reject Wal-Mart's application to open a bank in Utah.

"Wal-Mart's plan, to have its bank process hundreds of billions in transactions for its own stores, could threaten the stability of the nation's payments system," the lawmakers wrote.

"Given Wal-Mart's massive scope and international dealings, it is not possible to rule out a financial crisis within the company that could damage the bank and severely disrupt the flow of payments throughout the financial system."

The congressmen said the losses to the FDIC, which insures deposits at banks and thrift institutions, could be staggering if Wal-Mart begins to have financial troubles that bleed into its bank's business.

"Consider the consequences if Enron or WorldCom had owned a bank," the group said.

The group included Ohio Democrats Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones and Rep. Tim Ryan, Hawaii Democrat Rep. Neil Abercrombie and California Democrat Rep. Loretta Sanchez. A complete list of signatures was not immediately available.

Wal-Mart is trying to open an industrial bank to handle electronic payment processing.

Industrial banks are state-chartered and state-regulated, and fall under the supervision of the FDIC. Commercial companies may own them because federal laws that bar non-financial companies from engaging in banking activities do not classify them as banks.

But as "industrial loan companies" owned by non-financial companies, they escape a level of federal bank regulation.

Wal-Mart's application has attracted heightened attention in Washington from some members of Congress, consumer groups and banks that fear competing with the retail giant.

Some lobbyists and analysts, however, say the opposition is not surprising, given's Wal-Mart's size and the criticism it regularly receives from labor unions and other groups. Those sources say that if the FDIC follows statute, there is little reason why Wal-Mart's application should be denied when rival Target Corp. (TGT.N: Quote, Profile, Research) succeeded.

The Wal-Mart bid generated a record number of public comments and calls from Capitol Hill for the regulator to slow down its review. The FDIC, under Acting Chairman Martin Gruenberg, has agreed to hold public hearings on the application -- the agency's first formal public hearings on a bank application ever.

Wal-Mart has said it welcomes the public hearings.

Some groups, particularly banks, fear Wal-Mart will use its industrial bank as a base to offer a wider array of services in its branches.

Others who oppose Wal-Mart's application say the bank would violate the historic separation in the United States between banks and enterprises that do not engage primarily in finance. Still, other corporations have already set up industrial banks, such as General Electric (GE.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and General Motors (GM.N: Quote, Profile, Research).


Slim

Until you can argue away the concerns raised by opponents, leave the whole "Wal-Mart is a capitalist enterprise and should be left alone" bit out of it, okay?

Wal-Mart is far more of a socialist enterprise than a capitalist one, and this move is pushing it further and further towards a kind of feudal arrangement.

You don't even have the integrity ....to say it is political ...........*L*.


Slim

No, you don't possess the integrity to own up to your idealist yearnings, nor the critical thinking skills to adequately analyse all the bullshit you get handed that you happily repost here like you are exposing us to something that's magically insightful that we haven't heard before.

Originally posted by slim
You don't even have the integrity ....to say it is political ...

Good one, your rebuttal blew Nap out of the water.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Until you can argue away the concerns raised by opponents, leave the whole "Wal-Mart is a capitalist enterprise and should be left alone" bit out of it, okay?

What if the concerns raised by the opponents are stupid?

Given Wal-Mart's massive scope and international dealings, it is not possible to rule out a financial crisis within the company that could damage the bank and severely disrupt the flow of payments throughout the financial system.

True. But then again, the same problems could happen to Bank of America or Chase or Citibank.

The congressmen said the losses to the FDIC, which insures deposits at banks and thrift institutions, could be staggering if Wal-Mart begins to have financial troubles that bleed into its bank's business.

Does the FDIC insure strictly commercial savings? Regardless, the problems would be the same if any of the previously mentioned huge banks had problems.

banks that fear competing with the retail giant.

i.e. the banks are afraid this might cut into their profits.

Others who oppose Wal-Mart's application say the bank would violate the historic separation in the United States between banks and enterprises that do not engage primarily in finance. Still, other corporations have already set up industrial banks, such as General Electric (GE.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and General Motors (GM.N: Quote, Profile, Research).

Hmmm, not exactly small companies there. And unlike WalMart, GM is actually having huge financial issues.

True. But then again, the same problems could happen to Bank of America or Chase or Citibank.

Of course. But BoA, Chase, and Citibank's primary business is managing money. It stands to reason that they would be less likely to make such mistakes. It's bad enough to keep the public eye off of corporate accounting. What if we start letting them do their own banking too? We'll have three Enrons a year!

Regardless, the problems would be the same if any of the previously mentioned huge banks had problems.

Again, huge banks are in the business of managing money. Wal-Mart is not.

Hmmm, not exactly small companies there. And unlike WalMart, GM is actually having huge financial issues.

Nobody needs to be doing this. When you are working with the amount of money that Wal-Mart does, you can't just expect that the corporation can be trusted to run their own transactions. They can't even be trusted to keep their own books!

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Of course. But BoA, Chase, and Citibank's primary business is managing money. It stands to reason that they would be less likely to make such mistakes. It's bad enough to keep the public eye off of corporate accounting. What if we start letting them do their own banking too? We'll have three Enrons a year!

WalMart doesn't have any experience managing money? Please. And I have no idea how you come to the conclusion that letting them to their own banking would make them more prone to lie to shareholders. You're either a crooked company or you're not. There's no evidence that WalMart has or is lying to shareholders.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Again, huge banks are in the business of managing money. Wal-Mart is not.

See above.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Nobody needs to be doing this. When you are working with the amount of money that Wal-Mart does, you can't just expect that the corporation can be trusted to run their own transactions. They can't even be trusted to keep their own books!

Of the thousands of very, very large corporations in this country, there have been what, maybe five doing criminal level accounting? So we just assume the rest are crooked too? Regardless, if you let one company do it, you have to let the others do it. Or ban it altogether. But you can't make decisions based on whether a company is popular or not.

Five that got caught...

Ban it altogether. I never said that we needed to discriminate.

It's a very simple conflict of interest issue. Why should we allow this?

You're either a crooked company or you're not.

Why do you equate corporations with people? If we were talking about a person, then yes, criminals are criminals, and honest men are honest men. But with a large corporation, managers and workers change, in Wal-Mart's case, quite frequently. Five years can see a 30% turnover, and it doesn't take long for corruption to overtake an organisation.

Let the napping masturbator ......(and his socialista's Democratic congressmen) ........choose ......who is and should manage theirs or anyone elses money) .....*L*.

You choose people ...........let them make decisions for you if you want ........I will not.


Slim

Make sense much, slim?

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Ban it altogether. I never said that we needed to discriminate.

It's a very simple conflict of interest issue. Why should we allow this?

I'm not arguing whether or not we need to allow it. I don't know that we do. I'm just pointing out that this particular attack on WalMart is stricly motivated by politics.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Why do you equate corporations with people? If we were talking about a person, then yes, criminals are criminals, and honest men are honest men. But with a large corporation, managers and workers change, in Wal-Mart's case, quite frequently. Five years can see a 30% turnover, and it doesn't take long for corruption to overtake an organisation.

True, but then we might as well just throw up our hands and surrender, because we can never guarantee that corporations will ever be honest. All you can do is look at the corporation as it currently exists and keep an eye on it thereafter.

I'm just pointing out that this particular attack on WalMart is stricly motivated by politics.

How do you figure? When one company becomes an ergregious offender but just happens to be a former media darling, all of a sudden all attacks against it are politically motivated? So Wal-Mart gets the lion's share of negative press these days. It isn't like they don't deserve it. What, is denouncing Enron a political maneuver now?

All you can do is look at the corporation as it currently exists and keep an eye on it thereafter.

What we can do is stop pretending corporations are people and stop granting human rights to corporations. They do not deserve the right to free speech, they do not deserve any rights at all, because as soon as a person decides to defer personal liability by vesting his business into a corporation, that entity should no longer exist as a "citizen".

I'm not saying we should automatically judge guilt and prove innocence, I am saying there is no reason not to enact laws designed to avoid having such blatant conflicts of interest as this one here.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
How do you figure? When one company becomes an ergregious offender but just happens to be a former media darling, all of a sudden all attacks against it are politically motivated?

What's the motivation then? They haven't done anything illegal.

So Wal-Mart gets the lion's share of negative press these days. It isn't like they don't deserve it. What, is denouncing Enron a political maneuver now?[/B][/QUOTE]

Segments of the population deciding that they "deserve it" isn't how we decide such things in this country.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
What we can do is stop pretending corporations are people and stop granting human rights to corporations.

I don't think anyone is under the impression that the personhood granted to corporations is the same as that granted a human. It's a legal term of art, not some sort of self-fulfiling prophecy.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
They do not deserve the right to free speech, they do not deserve any rights at all, because as soon as a person decides to defer personal liability by vesting his business into a corporation, that entity should no longer exist as a "citizen".

So what you're telling me is that if some politician decides to pass a law that would put a company out of business, it would be wrong for that company to complain? And you're also saying that the right of a corporation to sue and be sued in court is also a bad thing? Because that's really going to mess up the ability to create and enforce contracts in this country.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
I'm not saying we should automatically judge guilt and prove innocence, I am saying there is no reason not to enact laws designed to avoid having such blatant conflicts of interest as this one here.

And what exactly is the blatant conflict of interest? How does processing your own electronic payments lead a company inexorably down the path to no-good-ness?

What's the motivation then? They haven't done anything illegal.

Unethical does not always constitute, illegal. Legality isn't the only measure of an entity's value to society.

Many people would also disagree with you factually on this part. I believe Wal-Mart has done many things that would be considered illegal, if anybody else were doing it. But I don't care to defend that argument at this point. Maybe someone else will pick up the torch.

Segments of the population deciding that they "deserve it" isn't how we decide such things in this country.

Yes, they are. In fact, that is the very basis for how our political system works. Interest groups decide to take a certain part of how society works and make efforts to make changes in that area. That is exactly how we decide things. Love it or hate it, that's how it is.

I don't think anyone is under the impression that the personhood granted to corporations is the same as that granted a human.

Again, that is flat out wrong. The idea is enshrined in no less than the Supreme Court. This article should be helpful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

So what you're telling me is that if some politician decides to pass a law that would put a company out of business, it would be wrong for that company to complain?

No, I am saying they do not deserve the same free speech rights that we do.

And you're also saying that the right of a corporation to sue and be sued in court is also a bad thing? Because that's really going to mess up the ability to create and enforce contracts in this country.

No. I am saying that the individual should be considered higher than the corporation. That is all.

And what exactly is the blatant conflict of interest? How does processing your own electronic payments lead a company inexorably down the path to no-good-ness?

Conflicts of interest do not always lead into abuses. They can, which is why we should take pains to eliminate them. In this case, a company who was keeping funny books would find it much easier to hide such activities by having this kind of unmonitored control over their cash flow. It, in fact, almost invites abuse.

Conflict of interest ....to do what you want to with your own receivables .......*L*.

Too funny.


Slim

When that interest conflicts with the interest of millions of Americans, we can get understandibly anxious about what they are really doing with their money. There is absolutely no reason to allow this.

Wake up and smell the assfuck, slim.

You don't get it pinhead ....when the customer hands over the money ....it is Super Mercado Walmart's money.

They should be able to do what they want with their receivables.


Slim

Of course it is. Nobody is arguing that, dumbfuck.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Again, that is flat out wrong. The idea is enshrined in no less than the Supreme Court. This article should be helpful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood



Sigh. I didn't say corporations weren't considered persons. What I said was that few people are under the impression that corporate personhood is the same as human personhood, legally speaking. Because they're not. And lo and behold, from the opening line of your link:

Corporate personhood is a term used to describe the legal fiction used within United States law that a corporation has a limited number or subset of the same constitutional rights as a human being.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Conflicts of interest do not always lead into abuses. They can, which is why we should take pains to eliminate them. In this case, a company who was keeping funny books would find it much easier to hide such activities by having this kind of unmonitored control over their cash flow. It, in fact, almost invites abuse.

You still haven't told me what the conflict of interest is. Someone uses a credit card at WalMart. Instead of paying a bank a few cents per transaction to process that credit card, WalMart is going to do it themselves. What's the conflict?

A lightbulb goes on in Napping Masturbators head ................(ahhh ...he is correct ......Super Walmart Mercado ......would actually own the money that customers willingly hand over to them .........yes ..........they would be receivables ...... actual property of Super Walmart Mercado).

If you are not arguing this point pinhead ............then what don't you understand ......about people being able to do with their own property .....what they will ........??


Slim

What I said was that few people are under the impression that corporate personhood is the same as human personhood, legally speaking.

People like slim seem to think that large corporations deserve rights like privacy.

There are many people who consider the legal corporation as some kind of American ideal, and attach the sort of significance to them as they would a local record store. That is what I am arguing against.

Edit: significantly edited to remove statements that, upon rereading of the thread, were deemed unneccesary.

If you are not arguing this point pinhead ............then what don't you understand ......about people being able to do with their own property .....what they will ........??

They can do whatever they want with their property, slim. What they cannot do is count it themselves. The amounts of money involved demand that they be required to hire an outside party to ensure that the transactions are on the up and up. Same reason they have to hire CPAs to do the accounting, same reason we have to buy auto insurance. To defer the public risk.

*looks at slim like he's stupid*

Try to think a little, next time, before insulting the other.

The pinhead says ......they shouldn't be able to count their own money. This is how stupid his argument is.


Slim

There we go. *runs down the list*

Reduced other to lame insults... check,
Made other look like a fool... check,
Exposed political agenda... check,

Okay, what does it say next... look at first three, and if all checked, check box four...

Totally 0wnz0rd discussion... check.

Better luck next time, slim.