How I Can Tell If You're A Capitalist

[macr0]

What's your opinion of Walmart?

Is it wrong how they destroy all small businesses who stand in their way? Is it wrong that they get to pay their employees minimum wage with no benefits?

Should they be burned to the ground? Do you sing the praises of their realtime logistics system?

[Nemesis]

What's your opinion of Walmart?

Is it wrong how they destroy all small businesses who stand in their way? Is it wrong that they get to pay their employees minimum wage with no benefits?

Should they be burned to the ground? Do you sing the praises of their realtime logistics system?
Walmart is fucking gay.

[Hustler]

Should they be burned to the ground? Do you sing the praises of their realtime logistics system?

That all depends, see. If someone were paid to go around burning Wal-Marts to the ground, would it be wrong? That's just capitalism beating up on capitalism, isn't it?

[meshou]

Wal Mart is pretty much the kiss of death to small towns, and doesn't give a shit about enslaving people overseas to drop a couple pennies off their prices.

They actually do take decent care of many employees, and I believe they do get more benefits than any small buisness job doing the same thing. We just need to raise minimum wage, and can't really blame them for only paying what they can get away with domestically.

[Leftfield]

I disapprove of Wal Mart's practices... primarily compensation from the top down, how much the execs get paid vs. all this BS $6/hour they provide their workers.

I see it as uncapitalistic since such a large compensation is paid at the top. They only deserve such monies if they clearly outperform the market, post-wages. If not, I as an investor would never buy into them if they did (outperform), I would consider it.

They shouldn't be burned to the ground but I can see why people have this view, reminds me of both the South Park and Family guy episodes about Wal-Mart. Their logistics systems deserve praise as with Dell, but I hate Dell since they equip their computers so poorly.

In some cases, who cares about the small business if they themselves can't perform and in other cases why should they lose their job and then apply for where? Wal-Mart! I think the community in those cases should vote rather than Wal-Mart offer kickbacks, etc...

But then again politics and business are both the same game so who cares, everyone loses but the top 1% and the few philanthropists out there.

[macr0]

That all depends, see. If someone were paid to go around burning Wal-Marts to the ground, would it be wrong? That's just capitalism beating up on capitalism, isn't it?

How would you turn a profit burning down all of the walmarts?

[Leftfield]

How would you turn a profit burning down all of the walmarts?

Put Options baby!

[abathur]

Mmm. I'm a benevolent capitalist, I guess. Capitalism works (does what it is supposed to, make money)--it just does it a little too well. Capitalism needs to be checked, on the general principle that all business entities operating within a country should maintain a benevolent relationship with the people of that country.

I don't really like walmart much. There are a few times I'll still walk in one, but I do loathe what they're doing to business in general. IMHO they should be allowed to grow for a few more years, saturate all these large markets and then be split off into multiple competing chains, the number chosen so each can maintain at least one store in every market over some arbitrary number, like 100 or 200K population.

I do, however, admire the logistical operation.

[Hustler]

How would you turn a profit burning down all of the walmarts?

I would charge $500/hour for burning down Wal-Marts. I imagine there are people who will pay that.

[joft]

capitalism is all-encompassing, i view it as the very space in which economics exists (metaphorically). even in a "command economy," you could just say the government is a big ass firm.

in the same way, in scientific thought, everything is logical, things which seem illogical only seem so because of some failure to incorpore all the proper elements to make the equation equal.

[bclark619g]

Yes, legislating pay increases will solve all the problems. Another solution is to limit the starting salary of any college graduate to $15,000 per year for 10 years. This way the money saved could be paid by businesses to the hourly workers who really do all the work. 'Cause everyone knows it's the businesses that pay the salaries of the workers. The prices of goods and services will remain constant because business will gladly give up their profits.

'La-la, la-la-la-la' I'm saving the world.

We should bring back all the jobs from China, so those people can starve. Oh, no--they can just go back to farming.

We should also legislate that at least 10% of each graduating class of high school students must relocate to North Dakota and South Dakota because the small towns there are losing population to the big cities, all because people want to live somewhere they can get a job. What are they thinking?

Somebody should pay!

[Nemesis]

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/bluemohawk.jpg

..Wes? Is that you?

[meshou]

Yes, legislating pay increases will solve all the problems. Another solution is to limit the starting salary of any college graduate to $15,000 per year for 10 years. This way the money saved could be paid by businesses to the hourly workers who really do all the work. 'Cause everyone knows it's the businesses that pay the salaries of the workers. The prices of goods and services will remain constant because business will gladly give up their profits.

'La-la, la-la-la-la' I'm saving the world.

We should bring back all the jobs from China, so those people can starve. Oh, no--they can just go back to farming.

We should also legislate that at least 10% of each graduating class of high school students must relocate to North Dakota and South Dakota because the small towns there are losing population to the big cities, all because people want to live somewhere they can get a job. What are they thinking?

Somebody should pay!This isn't even a very GOOD strawman.

[INTrePid]

Target is better.

[htb]

Target is better.Agreed. I won't enter a Walmart by choice.

However, I've never found arguments against Walmart's practices persuasive. Macr0, what do you propose be done?

[macr0]

Agreed. I won't enter a Walmart by choice.

However, I've never found arguments against Walmart's practices persuasive. Macr0, what do you propose be done?

I think the root problem is the mixing of company money and the government.

The big problems that come up with Wal-mart occur because they have the monetary power to influence the local governments they affect. This bubbles up to federal governments as well.

If this problem was fixed by making such activities illegal and enforceable, then many of these problems would be resolved.

Anyone who'se had a 200-level economics class knows that pure capitalism is ultimately self-destructing.

The role of the government is to make the capitalist machine inefficient. When business can grease the wheels themselves, this system breaks down.

[abathur]

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/bluemohawk.jpg

..Wes? Is that you?

uhhh...

[rawr]

Walmarts arn't flamable enough...

[C.J.Woolf]

Wal-Mart doesn't know the value of good will -- or, to turn it around, the cost of ill will. When they use your size to extract every last penny they can from suppliers and employees alike, that's bullying. Nobody likes a bully. There are a lot of people who want to fuck over the company however and whenever they can. They're reaching the limits of their expansion as communities shut them out by political means.


I would charge $500/hour for burning down Wal-Marts. I imagine there are people who will pay that.
Plus expenses?

[nobarcode]

What's your opinion of Walmart? None...sort of. I don't shop there because it's too distracting -entering a Walmart.


Is it wrong how they destroy all small businesses who stand in their way? It's not currently 'illegal'....:mellow: [ok, there have been lawsuits, but given the current 'Laws'...] Walmart is doing just fine.

Is it wrong that they get to pay their employees minimum wage with no benefits?To me, it's not ethical. Are there people who give a shit/concern for ethics anymore? I wonder. I 'believe' so. Walmart would not be a decent example -imo. So there.

Should they be burned to the ground?
Then what? [...] -given the current options.

Do you sing the praises of their realtime logistics system?
No. There are plenty of threads within these forums pointing to what you seem to be getting at. I would surmise that most will agree with your overall sentiment. So, what does one do about it?

I'd be interested in that. Yes, I mean to change the direction of this thread because it seems to coincide with an overall ideal that, and I may be wrong, but, an ideal that 'ommnirook' {sp?-sorry} has been pointing out for a while now. I'm not that eloquent + I'm lazy in these sorts of affairs.

:reading:

[demagogic_schizoid]

In the name of competition, a capitalist can demand that limits be placed on multinationals to prevent a monopoly. Ensuring competition does not stop you being a capitalist.

Also, if you were not a capitalist in the first place, why would you care about protecting small businesses?

[Pooja]

I'm against government interference in such matters. Suppose they DO find a way to reign in the monster that is Wal-mart... This is what will happen:

1. understand, that at 1 point in history, walmart was a little mom&pop shop...
2. without the looming evilness of walmart, small business (mom&pop store) "X" will grow and prosper
3. It'll grow and grow and grow and grow...
4. Until "X" grows a thousand tentacles (branches), invades the US, pays minimum wages, and is "the kiss of death to small towns", just as walmart is now.

*Walmart got to where it is today, b/c of the luck, intelligence, and hard work that the first mr. wal-whatever put into it. It deserves to be where it is today, at least until another corporation can do the same and overthrow walmart.

[libertarianjim]

Walmart rules. Where else can you buy steaks, lampshades, and shotgun shells in one fell swoop?

[Architectonic]

Lets start a new thread entitled 'How I Can Tell If You're A Troll'.


Walmarts arn't flamable enough...

I agree. I'd need at least $1000 an hour. :ph34r:

[Lee]

Walmart has been responsible for saving millions of lives around the world, a contribution to mankind that could rival and probably exceeds even the most impressive achievements of any charity you care to mention. A remarkable feat, all too unappreciated among those who would condemn it.

I am not a capitalist.

[sbw]

Put Options baby!

:lol:

Scott

[sbw]

This isn't even a very GOOD strawman.

raising the minimum wage is still a bad idea, though.

Scott

[dubbeltop]

Shopping is getting the same as television : a lot of channels but no interesting content. Walmart is a boring cost saving,declining market organisation in a higly competitive environment. Not a fun place to work and I hope that we can find some better examples for the 'beauty' of capitalism....

[ApeTheDog]

Yes, capitalism is wrong. But so is everything and everybody else.

Capitalism is especially wrong, though, because people still go around perceiving it as fair.

[htb]

Macr0, how does Walmart "influence local governments"? What "problems" are you referring to? What deserves to be relegated to illegality? Municipalities regularly offer large companies tax incentives and a workforce in exchange for employment and tax revenue; they may also re-zone or redevelop for the sake of the business. And businesses don't always meet obligations made in the negotiating stage. Why single out Walmart?


Anyone who's had a 200-level economics class knows that pure capitalism is ultimately self-destructing. The role of the government is to make the capitalist machine inefficient. When business can grease the wheels themselves, this system breaks down.These are figurative assertions. Capitalism reliably and dynamically creates wealth, notably at the individual level. How is it "self-destructing"? On what basis is it to be made inefficient? The role of the state as constitutionally mandated is to guarantee representative government and preserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the citizenry. The government can tax, and it can regulate commerce; it has done the latter, especially in terms of labor laws and antitrust, when specific legal rights, as defined by claimants, have been recognized and codified by legislatures. Where have you found the proscription of free markets?

[macr0]

Macr0, how does Walmart "influence local governments"? What "problems" are you referring to? What deserves to be relegated to illegality? Municipalities regularly offer large companies tax incentives and a workforce in exchange for employment and tax revenue; they may also re-zone or redevelop for the sake of the business. And businesses don't always meet obligations made in the negotiating stage. Why single out Walmart?


I haven't work with much of the commercial sector, but I have worked with numerous industrial development authorities and the nature of the tax incentives and the negotations are a good thing for the community.

In many of the cases where I have worked in these areas, the labor provided to the citizens:

- is skilled
- provides good wages and benefits
- offers specialized training for employees
- overall provides esteem for the community

Examples include automobile plants, tierd supply manufacturers and R&D outgrowths.

Development authorities fight for these businesses tooth and nail.

Now look at Walmart, which offers none of these things. I single out Walmart for socialist reasons.

Walmart strong arms people. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. However, when you have an advanced 21st century army going around crushing tribal villages, then you have to superimpose the lives of those who are affected.

Walk into a walmart. Look at the people in there. Look at the employees. Be a human, I know you can do it.



These are figurative assertions. Capitalism reliably and dynamically creates wealth, notably at the individual level. How is it "self-destructing"? On what basis is it to be made inefficient? The role of the state as constitutionally mandated is to guarantee representative government and preserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the citizenry. The government can tax, and it can regulate commerce; it has done the latter, especially in terms of labor laws and antitrust, when specific legal rights, as defined by claimants, have been recognized and codified by legislatures. Where have you found the proscription of free markets?

Yummy. Don't beat up on strawmen. I never said that I found proscription of free markets. I said "pure capitalism."

There's nothing figurative about it. It's the relationship between efficiency and fairness. The fairer you are, the more inefficient you are. The more efficient you are, the less fair you are. This applies to everything from economics to CPU time slices.

The end goal of capitalism is the highest level of efficiency possible. This is monopoly, which ultimately hurts consumers.

To show that unbridled capitalism is self defeating, think of the monopoly board game. You can't "win" monoply. You get everyone else to stop playing. When you own the whole board, no body else wants to play. The goal of capitalism is the same as the goal of the board game.

Capitalism, as a pure economic system must be primed with fairness. Sometimes we call this morality. Other times we call it "the social good."

As far as monopoly, think Ma'Bell or Microsoft.

You can even get into problems with oligarchy (think of the American automobile industry before the government opened it up to Asia).

The government has every right to stop merges and aquisitions of large corporations. This is one of their functions. By performing this role, efficiency is reduced.

In the midst of this don't confuse efficiency with innovation. They are opposite forces. By the time innovation becomes efficient, it is not innovation anymore. Part of the government's role is to keep the innovation machine running by adding non-capitalist constraints on the market.

Look at what happened to the telephone world after they broke apart Ma'Bell.

At this time Walmart is not statistically a monopoly.

[htb]

But again, Macr0, you've set Walmart to arbitrary standards -- surely, socialistic standards, but clarity of a purpose doesn't guarantee the validity of an argument. Why should a business pay unskilled workers more than they're worth? It shouldn't, because to do so is financially disastrous. What obligates a business to provide transferrable skills, or educational support, or medical coverage -- from a basic economic standpoint? Nothing, but for matching incentives of competitors. Of course, it's almost inconceivable that a business employing professionals would not offer benefits of all kinds; but what you've done is compare even General Motors, which employs the skilled and semi-skilled, to Walmart. Walmart, however expansive it might be, is retail, and staffed by the least valuable workers on the market. If Walmart were, say, an engineering firm that swallowed competitors and paid bachelors of science less than what they were worth, perhaps there would be some moral imperative to discrediting it.

Your other figuration, "tribal villages," creates a false dilemma. Proximate habitation makes for a community, and economic needs are usually provided for by a gradually established division of labor. No technocrats, no central planning; just entrepreneurs and proprietors meeting needs. Business are opened, businesses fail. As per the scenario, if Walmart comes in and, by diverting consumers from local competitors, drives those competitors out of business, how has the picture changed? A successful shopowner might just as well buy out the storefront row by the time he retires -- he hasn't changed his operation, simply enlarged it. He won't necessarily offer employees benefits unless competition forces him to. And, too, how does devoting a lot to Walmart preclude all other commercial or occupational possibilities? If it's a matter of land limitations, a city or county will need to set priorities regardless.

In my city, a Walmart eventuated a Target, which has led to a price and wage war.

What you seem to be suggesting about efficiency and innovation requires an alternate timeline wherein IBM stopped development after perfecting assembly of the 8086.

[macr0]

But again, Macr0, you've set Walmart to arbitrary standards -- surely, socialistic standards, but clarity of a purpose doesn't guarantee the validity of an argument. Why should a business pay unskilled workers more than they're worth? It shouldn't, because to do so is financially disastrous. What obligates a business to provide transferrable skills, or educational support, or medical coverage -- from a basic economic standpoint? Nothing, but for matching incentives of competitors. Of course, it's almost inconceivable that a business employing professionals would not offer benefits of all kinds; but what you've done is compare even General Motors, which employs the skilled and semi-skilled, to Walmart. Walmart, however expansive it might be, is retail, and staffed by the least valuable workers on the market. If Walmart were, say, an engineering firm that swallowed competitors and paid bachelors of science less than what they were worth, perhaps there would be some moral imperative to discrediting it.

Your other figuration, "tribal villages," creates a false dilemma. Proximate habitation makes for a community, and economic needs are usually provided for by a gradually established division of labor. No technocrats, no central planning; just entrepreneurs and proprietors meeting needs. Business are opened, businesses fail. As per the scenario, if Walmart comes in and, by diverting consumers from local competitors, drives those competitors out of business, how has the picture changed? A successful shopowner might just as well buy out the storefront row by the time he retires -- he hasn't changed his operation, simply enlarged it. He won't necessarily offer employees benefits unless competition forces him to. And, too, how does devoting a lot to Walmart preclude all other commercial or occupational possibilities? If it's a matter of land limitations, a city or county will need to set priorities regardless.

In my city, a Walmart eventuated a Target, which has led to a price and wage war.

What you seem to be suggesting about efficiency and innovation requires an alternate timeline wherein IBM stopped development after perfecting assembly of the 8086.

You're right. I do set Walmart to arbitrary standards, and the comments about health care and other humanist concerns falls under this umbrella. It's a very socialist position. There is no denying it. However, I do not believe that polarization is an answer to anyone's problems. Socialism and capitalism live side by side in my country today (USA). It's not an either/or proposition.

If I have to back that up, then why should a doctor have to get a DEA number from the federal government to practice? Why do I only have one water utility entity to buy from?

I will say that Walmart is a massive force that enduces change. Those suitable for survival adapt and survive. The most common example I know of is specialization. It's how the little boys run from the big boys all the time.

I'm not trying to knit pick or anything but Intel actually developed the 8086. I've got this great book "Only the Paranoid Survive" by the founder of Intel, Andrews Grove. Intel had competition and plenty of it.

I think that the Ma'Bell example is more suitable for this exercise. Ma'Bell had no competition. Look at what happened to the telecommunication industry afterwards. It took 10-20 years to see any kind of results, but when they came..they came!

[Architectonic]

As far as monopoly, think Ma'Bell or Microsoft.

Believe it or not, in a totally capitalist environment, Microsoft, nor a certain telecommunications corporation, or even Walmart would not survive for very long at the size they are currently. They would be forced to compete for a smaller market share...

[Dman]

I haven't work with much of the commercial sector, but I have worked with numerous industrial development authorities and the nature of the tax incentives and the negotations are a good thing for the community.

In many of the cases where I have worked in these areas, the labor provided to the citizens:

- is skilled
- provides good wages and benefits
- offers specialized training for employees
- overall provides esteem for the community

Examples include automobile plants, tierd supply manufacturers and R&D outgrowths.

Development authorities fight for these businesses tooth and nail.

Now look at Walmart, which offers none of these things. I single out Walmart for socialist reasons.

Walmart strong arms people. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. However, when you have an advanced 21st century army going around crushing tribal villages, then you have to superimpose the lives of those who are affected.

Walk into a walmart. Look at the people in there. Look at the employees. Be a human, I know you can do it.



Yummy. Don't beat up on strawmen. I never said that I found proscription of free markets. I said "pure capitalism."

There's nothing figurative about it. It's the relationship between efficiency and fairness. The fairer you are, the more inefficient you are. The more efficient you are, the less fair you are. This applies to everything from economics to CPU time slices.

The end goal of capitalism is the highest level of efficiency possible. This is monopoly, which ultimately hurts consumers.

To show that unbridled capitalism is self defeating, think of the monopoly board game. You can't "win" monoply. You get everyone else to stop playing. When you own the whole board, no body else wants to play. The goal of capitalism is the same as the goal of the board game.

Capitalism, as a pure economic system must be primed with fairness. Sometimes we call this morality. Other times we call it "the social good."

As far as monopoly, think Ma'Bell or Microsoft.

You can even get into problems with oligarchy (think of the American automobile industry before the government opened it up to Asia).

The government has every right to stop merges and aquisitions of large corporations. This is one of their functions. By performing this role, efficiency is reduced.

In the midst of this don't confuse efficiency with innovation. They are opposite forces. By the time innovation becomes efficient, it is not innovation anymore. Part of the government's role is to keep the innovation machine running by adding non-capitalist constraints on the market.

Look at what happened to the telephone world after they broke apart Ma'Bell.

At this time Walmart is not statistically a monopoly.

You are either very stupid, or horribly young and naive. I expect a strong response from you based upon this response, and most likely I'll be gone and distracted by the time you respond, but trust me dude, you are fucking way off base. Ignore your pride and swallow your pride and do some real, serious research before making an ass of yourself publicly, even if it is anonymous. Apologies for the harshness, but honestly, I'm trying to do you a favor. You're coming off as a moron.

[macr0]

You are either very stupid, or horribly young and naive. I expect a strong response from you based upon this response, and most likely I'll be gone and distracted by the time you respond, but trust me dude, you are fucking way off base. Ignore your pride and swallow your pride and do some real, serious research before making an ass of yourself publicly, even if it is anonymous. Apologies for the harshness, but honestly, I'm trying to do you a favor. You're coming off as a moron.

I'm all 3. Thanks though. I always love constructive criticism, and I've made an ass out of myself in front of people I've been much more intimidated by than you.

[Dman]

I'm all 3. Thanks though. I always love constructive criticism.

That's not good enough. You're a fellow INTP, god damnit. Defend yourself.

[macr0]

That's not good enough. You're a fellow INTP, god damnit. Defend yourself.

Ok. I'm not a financial analysist. Most of my limited knowledge on this subject comes from a SINGLE micro economics course I took in college, which has been some time ago. I wish I was younger, then that would still be fresh in my mind.

I wish I still had that textbook with all of the curves and specifics, but I remember the concepts very well. Cost curves and price curves and all kinds of fun stuff.

The examples I gave, Ma'Bell and the automobile industry came directly from that class. The examples provided are not 100% conductive to the concepts I am portraying, but show watered-down, reality-based examples of what I am trying to convey. For example with the automobile industry, the government had a high tariff on imported steel. When they reduced this, it let Japanese steel move on it.

I do not respect much authority, but I did respect this professor even though he was even more of an ass than some people I see on this board.

I do not think I am "making an ass out of myself and "being retarded in public" or whatever I am charged with, because it ultimately makes sense to me from a logical point of view, given my personal frame of reference.

My general idea here is show one extreme and then bounce back to a reality-based center. The flooding of biased opinions produces valueable insight when compared as a whole.

That is just how I discuss topics, because the concepts can be fleshed out to derive a reasonable general knowledge.

You, obviously coming from a completely different point of reference than me and consider my weaving around to obliviously be stupid bunk and pandering. I can relate because just today I was going at it with someone on another thread who was spouting off opinions about certain computer technology, and I felt the need to set her straight.

I posted another thread a while back titled, "Why Should I Care About the Rain Forests?" I got a lot of responses similar to yours, but none quite as personal and venomous. Since your post was extremely venomous, I decided to offer at least some response, where as in the other thread I just ignored them.

However, by the time the rainforest thread was concluded I had felt satisfied that I induced a good discussion and I enjoyed learning new perspectives and reading people's responses.

At the same time, those who strongly opposed my original question and stayed around came back to an amiable agreement with me or an agreement to disagree.

Given the responses you have posted on this thread so far, I don't give such an outcome a very high probability with you. However, I have been wrong before.

Oh, and one more thing. I love fishbowl argument and many times I argue points that I do not personally agree with. As far as Walmart goes, I am honestly undecided.

[macr0]

Believe it or not, in a totally capitalist environment, Microsoft, nor a certain telecommunications corporation, or even Walmart would not survive for very long at the size they are currently. They would be forced to compete for a smaller market share...

How's that? I know people always talk about the sluggishness of large corporations and the agility of small ones, and I'm not sure that is what you are referring too, but I believe that even big companies can be structured in non-sluggish ways.

[Dman]

Ok. I'm not a financial analysist. Most of my limited knowledge on this subject comes from a SINGLE micro economics course I took in college, which has been some time ago. I wish I was younger, then that would still be fresh in my mind.

I wish I still had that textbook with all of the curves and specifics, but I remember the concepts very well. Cost curves and price curves and all kinds of fun stuff.

The examples I gave, Ma'Bell and the automobile industry came directly from that class. The examples provided are not 100% conductive to the concepts I am portraying, but show watered-down, reality-based examples of what I am trying to convey. For example with the automobile industry, the government had a high tariff on imported steel. When they reduced this, it let Japanese steel move on it.

I do not respect much authority, but I did respect this professor even though he was even more of an ass than some people I see on this board.

I do not think I am "making an ass out of myself and "being retarded in public" or whatever I am charged with, because it ultimately makes sense to me from a logical point of view, given my personal frame of reference.

My general idea here is show one extreme and then bounce back to a reality-based center. The flooding of biased opinions produces valueable insight when compared as a whole.

That is just how I discuss topics, because the concepts can be fleshed out to derive a reasonable general knowledge.

You, obviously coming from a completely different point of reference than me and consider my weaving around to obliviously be stupid bunk and pandering. I can relate because just today I was going at it with someone on another thread who was spouting off opinions about certain computer technology, and I felt the need to set her straight.

I posted another thread a while back titled, "Why Should I Care About the Rain Forests?" I got a lot of responses similar to yours, but none quite as personal and venomous. Since your post was extremely venomous, I decided to offer at least some response, where as in the other thread I just ignored them.

However, by the time the rainforest thread was concluded I had felt satisfied that I induced a good discussion and I enjoyed learning new perspectives and reading people's responses.

At the same time, those who strongly opposed my original question and stayed around came back to an amiable agreement with me or an agreement to disagree.

Given the responses you have posted on this thread so far, I don't give such an outcome a very high probability with you. However, I have been wrong before.

Oh, and one more thing. I love fishbowl argument and many times I argue points that I do not personally agree with. As far as Walmart goes, I am honestly undecided.

*Chuckles*

I'm not a financial analyst anymore either, and haven't been for quite a while ;)

As for coming off venemous, my apologies, but experience proves that is the way to catch people's attention. Which is what I am trying to do. My only agenda is to enlighten people, unlike many others on this board. Yeah, I'm a real freaking martyr!

Seriously, I have nothing to lose nor gain here. I just like the banter, and feel good if I've passed on some wisdom to some strangers that think like me.

Back to topic, first, you are making huge, unrealistic academic arguments. You obviously have never had first hand experience in the markets that you discuss, or if you have, are terribly naive (not meant to be offensive, we are all naive in some sense or another). That is terribly important. I've had Ivy league professors come and preach to me and my fellow pupils about shit they truly have no first hand knowledge about, yet behave as if they do because they have Ivy league degrees. We actually would call them on it, and say "Hey, have you ever actually worked for any of these companies, other than as a "consultant"? Of course they hadn't. Ever. That's Bullshit. Some people here know exactly what I'm talking about, others don't. Those fuckers don't have a god damn clue! And no, it isn't about envy, they truly have no idea how the real world works. They are so conceited and egotistical they think they do. But they are not the people who make the world go round. They are parasites upon those who do.

The best advice I can give here is to educate yourself and understand why the "walmart"'s of the world exist and who works for them and why. There is not nearly enough space here to even begin to "teach" someone. Figure it out yourself. Understand BOTH sides of the argument, thoroughly, and always. That is how you truly understand an issue. Don't be naive, don't fall subject to politics, or god forbid, mob mentality. Truly understand both sides of the issue, who is fighting for what. It's not black and white, no matter how badly we want it to be. There is no "evil" Walmart, no martyr union rep, no innocent senior citizen being preyed upon. It is all about human instinct, interaction, and dynamics at it's most fundamental. It is the very fabric of human society. It is about the haves and have-nots, just like every other facet of human society. And with very, very few exceptions, it is purely about choice.

[htb]

Macr0 -- yes, Intel, you're correct. I would say my point applies either way, not as strongly in the second case -- to wit, IBM's administration of the manufacture of an actual PC, which would, with a new CPU, not necessarily involve more labor but would require higher parts costs. If IBM were narrowly interested in profit, it might have tried providing the same product to similarly demographic markets.

Dman, while I strongly disagree with Macr0 and will defer to an NT's objectivity, your responses to him were flagrantly unfair and disrespectful. You should be able to attack his position without catching too much of his person in the blast radius.

[C.J.Woolf]

1. Economics has the "blind men and the elephant" problem -- your perception of it depends on which part of the elephant you're touching. Very few people have the time and resources to study economics in an academic and/or systematic way and also get down into the trenches in the real world. And there are lot of trenches between Wall Street, Main Street, and the Third World.

2. You can't fully separate economics from politics. Both are about people trying to get what they want. In the USA, just as the three branchs of government check and balance each other, it is fitting and proper for government to check and balance economic power.

[Leftfield]

I've had Ivy league professors come and preach to me and my fellow pupils about shit they truly have no first hand knowledge about, yet behave as if they do because they have Ivy league degrees. We actually would call them on it, and say "Hey, have you ever actually worked for any of these companies, other than as a "consultant"? Of course they hadn't. Ever. That's Bullshit. Some people here know exactly what I'm talking about, others don't. Those fuckers don't have a god damn clue! And no, it isn't about envy, they truly have no idea how the real world works. They are so conceited and egotistical they think they do. But they are not the people who make the world go round. They are parasites upon those who do.


This post is :offtopic:

This is interesting because I have come across very few professors that have working world experience and they do babble about the real world... most likely because their former MBA students tell them tidbits of how the real world works... the ones who actaully worked, like the one for P&G for 7 years, are actually very useful because they get the world.

Even though I haven't applied enough of my UG degree to the real world. On my co-ops alone, you learn enough to integrate both class and work material but they never match up perfectly, unless you are in Accounting.

Also, this is the very reason I passed up on direct graduate work from the bachelors. I want at least 5 years of corporate experience to not be a total bullshit lying professor who think he knows the real world. Think of it as matching the NT with the SP. Then later on, get my MBA or MS while working, and then maybe go straight to PhD since I'd have some equity and have paid off all the loans/liabilities to hopefully move on to the next step. If no PhD, keep working or start my own business.

[macr0]

Back to topic, first, you are making huge, unrealistic academic arguments. You obviously have never had first hand experience in the markets that you discuss, or if you have, are terribly naive (not meant to be offensive, we are all naive in some sense or another). That is terribly important.

Uhh huh.



I've had Ivy league professors come and preach to me and my fellow pupils about shit they truly have no first hand knowledge about, yet behave as if they do because they have Ivy league degrees. We actually would call them on it, and say "Hey, have you ever actually worked for any of these companies, other than as a "consultant"? Of course they hadn't. Ever. That's Bullshit. Some people here know exactly what I'm talking about, others don't. Those fuckers don't have a god damn clue! And no, it isn't about envy, they truly have no idea how the real world works. They are so conceited and egotistical they think they do. But they are not the people who make the world go round. They are parasites upon those who do.

Ok. I can't think of anyone I've ever delt with professionally that hasn't had at least 1 story saying the same thing.

If you want to equate someone who is earning money spouting off their mouth in a professional context with someone that is expressing an ideological perspective for fun on a message board, then be my guest.



The best advice I can give here is to educate yourself and understand why the "walmart"'s of the world exist and who works for them and why. There is not nearly enough space here to even begin to "teach" someone. Figure it out yourself. Understand BOTH sides of the argument, thoroughly, and always. That is how you truly understand an issue. Don't be naive, don't fall subject to politics, or god forbid, mob mentality. Truly understand both sides of the issue, who is fighting for what. It's not black and white, no matter how badly we want it to be. There is no "evil" Walmart, no martyr union rep, no innocent senior citizen being preyed upon. It is all about human instinct, interaction, and dynamics at it's most fundamental. It is the very fabric of human society. It is about the haves and have-nots, just like every other facet of human society. And with very, very few exceptions, it is purely about choice.

What's a better way to understand another side of an issue than to present the opposing side of the issue?

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -- Aristotle

Why come at someone's person instead of the issue? Nothing fruitful can come of it. Pandering pretentious platitudes is equally pointless.

[Stoic]

Mmm. I'm a benevolent capitalist, I guess. Capitalism works (does what it is supposed to, make money)--it just does it a little too well. Capitalism needs to be checked, on the general principle that all business entities operating within a country should maintain a benevolent relationship with the people of that country.

Should this be enforced? (This I believe would make you a liberal and/or leftist)

Or should we just ask politely that business maintain a benevolent relationship with the people?

[pangolin]

Walmart is fucking gay.

No, for that would imply they had taste.

[meshou]

Believe it or not, in a totally capitalist environment, Microsoft, nor a certain telecommunications corporation, or even Walmart would not survive for very long at the size they are currently. They would be forced to compete for a smaller market share...This is not correct. The gilded age up to the collapse of the stock-market was as close to total capitalism as we've been, ever. Plenty of thriving monopolies.

Un-checked capitalism is a moody bitch. You have visible depressions followed by huge booms every ten years or so. Wages are usually sub-living, or just enough to live on, and people must take out loans to, say, buy a toaster.

And when it crashes voilently (which is will do once in a while), there is nothing in the system to check it.

America's mixed system comes from the idea that society as a whole should not be subject to death (both of individuals in it, and collapse of society itself) based on overwhelming economic forces we could have controlled.

So, we regulate banks, regulate production, provide childcare and health care for children and the dying, and close and reset the stock market if it falls a certain amount.

A mixed system is much more stable.

[Architectonic]

So you think microsoft would exist without intellectual property laws?

In terms of thriving monopolies in the last 30 years, consider why there were monopolies. Was it that those corporations happened to be much more efficient? Or was it that there were a number of barriers of entry into that market. Were any government (from local to federal) policies involved. For example, say a company decided to copy walmart, having much in common except having a different name (and supply chain and such). What would have happened?

Have you considered the effect of government actions on the boom/bust cycle? Wars are an obvious one, but often lagged effects of government spending/cuts exaggerate the boom/bust cycle.
Have you researched the history of the USA banking system? (or any other banking systems for that matter) There were a number of times where government policies/centralization actually made it less stable, causing money supply crises and resulting recessions/crashes.

[meshou]

So you think microsoft would exist without intellectual property laws?Probably not, although frankly, no rabidly capitalist soceity has ever been into making laws that hurt business.


In terms of thriving monopolies in the last 30 years, consider why there were monopolies. Was it that those corporations happened to be much more efficient? Or was it that there were a number of barriers of entry into that market.Yes.
Were any government (from local to federal) policies involved.Nowadays, most definately.
For example, say a company decided to copy walmart, having much in common except having a different name (and supply chain and such). What would have happened?Smacked down by some intellectual property laws, probably.

If you got rid of those laws, however, you will have debased the entire basis of our modern economy. We trade much more in ideas than goods.
Have you considered the effect of government actions on the boom/bust cycle? Wars are an obvious one, but often lagged effects of government spending/cuts exaggerate the boom/bust cycle.This is unavoidable, though.
Have you researched the history of the USA banking system? (or any other banking systems for that matter) There were a number of times where government policies/centralization actually made it less stable, causing money supply crises and resulting recessions/crashes.Sure. But we're still much more stable currently than we were before, at the very least in terms of quality of life.

[DevNull]

So you think microsoft would exist without intellectual property laws?


Ask any person who does data recovery for a living about how long it took to eke out rudimentary outsider solutions to the well-protected trade secrets of NTFS. The Microsoft corporation is not just a "big company" that deals in computer software. They are a juggernaut of innovative secret schemes. They design their software to last capitalistically (Is that a word?) on more than one front. The law is only one small part of their viability and profitability. There is a genius behind the design of their software that is probably a big part of the high prices they charge... although I admit they might be financially enjoying the monopoly a smidge.

Heck, just think about where their power to seek justice on intellectual property laws ends (China, etc) and take note on the schemes they have come up with to make things right in that part of the world. You ever try to bootleg a copy of XP? Try it beyond SP1. Let me know how it works out.

To restate clearly, if intellectual property laws were to cease to exist, Microsoft would not only adapt, but they would probably profit *more*. They have already handily adapted to areas of the market where intellectual property laws are ineffective. There is a reason they are a veritable monopoly.

[abathur]

Should this be enforced? (This I believe would make you a liberal and/or leftist)

Or should we just ask politely that business maintain a benevolent relationship with the people?

Mmmm. Not sure I appreciate the tone, but I'll bite.

I'm not one for deregulation, but at the same time, as little regulation as possible to have the desired effect. Capitalism works, for the reasons communism doesn't (human greed is a beautiful thing, no?) but, this greed still needs to be checked. I don't think I'm right wing/conservative, nor do I really claim the liberal moniker, so I don't get why, precisely, your statement is dripping contempt.

The point of the matter is, you can legislate regulations all damn day and it won't do nearly as much good as the businesses themselves choosing to be benevolent. I've wondered if an incentive/disencentive program based more on general evaluations of a businesses karma, so to speak, (though I'm cringing at the bureaucracy this would entail) might not encourage them to look for innovative ways to act in good faith.

Ideally, you'd be able to let the market control it all. That'd actually work for the most part, IF the consumer cared enough to find the dirt on every company they shop and go further to hold them responsible. The consumer, however, doesn't generally.

[Architectonic]

Probably not, although frankly, no rabidly capitalist soceity has ever been into making laws that hurt business.

It will hurt some businesses sure, but who's to say it will hurt business in general? The reason it has not been implemented is simply that besides brief periods of revolution, government tends to be rather conservative.


But we're still much more stable currently than we were before, at the very least in terms of quality of life.

Currently stable after a trend of liberalization in the last few decades. Bush doesn't seem to be continuing that trend though.
(and by liberalization, I mean less government involvement/spending)


Ideally, you'd be able to let the market control it all. That'd actually work for the most part, IF the consumer cared enough to find the dirt on every company they shop and go further to hold them responsible. The consumer, however, doesn't generally.

So how can we increase the transparency and awareness of the consumer?

Although I actually think that with the rise of the internet, consumers do seem to be more savvy and more in touch with the realities of businesses. Of course that only extends to those intelligent enough to use the internet regularly. ;)


To restate clearly, if intellectual property laws were to cease to exist, Microsoft would not only adapt, but they would probably profit *more*. They have already handily adapted to areas of the market where intellectual property laws are ineffective. There is a reason they are a veritable monopoly.

So why do we even need intellectual property laws then? ;)

[C.J.Woolf]

This is not correct. The gilded age up to the collapse of the stock-market was as close to total capitalism as we've been, ever. Plenty of thriving monopolies.

Un-checked capitalism is a moody bitch. You have visible depressions followed by huge booms every ten years or so. Wages are usually sub-living, or just enough to live on, and people must take out loans to, say, buy a toaster.

And when it crashes voilently (which is will do once in a while), there is nothing in the system to check it.

America's mixed system comes from the idea that society as a whole should not be subject to death (both of individuals in it, and collapse of society itself) based on overwhelming economic forces we could have controlled.

So, we regulate banks, regulate production, provide childcare and health care for children and the dying, and close and reset the stock market if it falls a certain amount.

A mixed system is much more stable.
Yes. I believe that if capitalism had not been checked by political means, Marx would be remembered as a prophet.

[Leftfield]

Mmmm. Not sure I appreciate the tone, but I'll bite.

I'm not one for deregulation, but at the same time, as little regulation as possible to have the desired effect. Capitalism works, for the reasons communism doesn't (human greed is a beautiful thing, no?) but, this greed still needs to be checked. I don't think I'm right wing/conservative, nor do I really claim the liberal moniker, so I don't get why, precisely, your statement is dripping contempt.

The point of the matter is, you can legislate regulations all damn day and it won't do nearly as much good as the businesses themselves choosing to be benevolent. I've wondered if an incentive/disencentive program based more on general evaluations of a businesses karma, so to speak, (though I'm cringing at the bureaucracy this would entail) might not encourage them to look for innovative ways to act in good faith.

Ideally, you'd be able to let the market control it all. That'd actually work for the most part, IF the consumer cared enough to find the dirt on every company they shop and go further to hold them responsible. The consumer, however, doesn't generally.

I found this to be a very enlightening post.

The consumer does ultimately have the final say in B-2-C transactions true, but there is a reason why poorer people shop at Wal-Mart and richer people shop at Target or stores like Wild Oats.

I use Wal-Mart more in the sense/perception of business practices and inferior quality products vs. the organic/niche/healthier/superior products of Wild Oats. However, I buy the best products from any store for the cheapest price (or cost/benefit = value), regardless of class, regardless of business ethics. I tend to favor the market (or any non-corporate) due to the service and the people I've gotten to know there.

However, in the cases where I see more advertising of a product that I might buy, I actually see it as a less-quality product due to the cost of marketing used for such product. Perfect examples are purchasing Russell Athletic brand from Dick's (vs. Nike) or Champion C-9 from Target (vs. anything) is the most value since they are of all the same relative quality.

I am also slighlty anti-Nike due to their business practices in Asia and do my best to not purchase their products as much as possible, because what you wear is a billboard of advertising to every person that sees you and makes a perception/judgement about you, based on your clothing. These are the reasons I like to wear plain clothing with small or no logos.

Deregulation is mostly for the best if it is utilitarian (does more good than harm), and that is the way it is. Politics and governance does not belong in business, but will always be there.

[Stoic]

Mmmm. Not sure I appreciate the tone, but I'll bite.

I'm not one for deregulation, but at the same time, as little regulation as possible to have the desired effect. Capitalism works, for the reasons communism doesn't (human greed is a beautiful thing, no?) but, this greed still needs to be checked. I don't think I'm right wing/conservative, nor do I really claim the liberal moniker, so I don't get why, precisely, your statement is dripping contempt.

The point of the matter is, you can legislate regulations all damn day and it won't do nearly as much good as the businesses themselves choosing to be benevolent. I've wondered if an incentive/disencentive program based more on general evaluations of a businesses karma, so to speak, (though I'm cringing at the bureaucracy this would entail) might not encourage them to look for innovative ways to act in good faith.

Ideally, you'd be able to let the market control it all. That'd actually work for the most part, IF the consumer cared enough to find the dirt on every company they shop and go further to hold them responsible. The consumer, however, doesn't generally.


Okay. I was only trying to get a better stance of where you stood poltically. Typically when people call themselves 'capitalist' they are libertarians or conservatives.

But since you aren't one for deregulation, you sound more like a liberal than a libertarian, who favors having no consumer or environmental protection regulation.

[abathur]

"sound more like" is, perhaps, unfair. I want small government, I just realize there are areas where we need some intervention. I'd claim the liberal moniker more readily than I'd claim conservative by connotation alone, but, by connotation and philosophy I don't believe I'd really try to contain myself with either.

It's a little presumptive (and unfair) to say a libertarian favors having no consumer or environmental protection regulation, which sounds more like an anarchist point of view. Libertarianism espouses the basic principle that you and I are free to do what we wish until we are infringing on the freedom of, or bringing harm to the person or property of one another, at which point the job of the state would be to compensate the infringed upon party. Corporate citizens would be, in this respect, like another person. Perhaps my interpretation of "harm" is a little "liberal" but I don't see regulation as entirely antithetical to libertarian principles. The key, however, is that regulations outside of these circumstances wouldn't exist.

I'm probably more of a moderate of some sort, though I don't really claim any place on the spectrum as mine and my positions are still open to future evaluation. The religious right, for example, is really just socially conservative these days and has been pushing for more and more "liberal" governmental regulation sort of policies (monitoring what is on TV, increasing security regulation, wanting to force creationism into schools) which are not really small-government-stay-the-fuck-out-of-my-life conservative. Likewise, objecting to the patriot act is something that is socially perceived as "liberal" right now, but it is really a more traditionally "conservative" position.


So, in some ways I may be liberal, but I WOULD, for the most part, like the government to go fuck itself. I just agree that capitalism would also sell us down the river at the first chance (like our government?) and should be checked (both should.) In some ways I'm conservative, but I'm not your religious, male, wanna-be-cowboy, redneck "conservative."

I'm sure as fuck not worried about trying to squash my ideology into a box before I've even figured out exactly what it is.

Granted, I think our problem here may be the social and literal definitions of conservatism and liberalism. You may be using more correct definitions, while I'm assuming the culturally connotive version is what I'm working with. Regardless, I'll avoid either label simply because of these connotations.

[Architectonic]

Well said abathur.

[meshou]

Currently stable after a trend of liberalization in the last few decades. Bush doesn't seem to be continuing that trend though.
(and by liberalization, I mean less government involvement/spending)No, I would definately say any time from the forties on was more stable in terms of average quality of life than any time between 1880 and 1920, regardless of how "liberal" we've been. We're fuckin socialists compared to then, and I know I'd be screaming bloody murder if we got anywhere near that.

I like labor laws, I like building codes, and I like healthcare for the dying and small children.

I have moved away from the libs, but I do know economic concervatives tend to lie about wanting small government and staying out of big business. See, they make regulations that support big business and expand the military sector of the government (WHICH IS STILL THE FUCKIN GOVERNMENT, TWATS), all while letting the poor and the sick take it up the ass.

Is it unfair to say the libs don't support the enviroment? A good section of them don't, and I don't recall government regulation in the platforms. I'd laugh my ass off if one suggested they'd do it voluntarily.

[zhang_bob]

For Wal-Mart's largest overseas subsidiary this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5406200.stm) does not seem like bad public relations.

[A.B.]

Look for bastiat's candlestick's maker petition, you can find it on google or at
bastiat.org/en/petition.html

If tomorrow it started raining bananas from the sky, would you say we should stop it, it's going to destroy the economy of banana producers?

By bringing lower prices, Wal Mart makes a gift to the economy. Sure it will destroy some relatively unproductive business, but since people buy goods for a lower price, they also consume different things. Once you pay say 20% less for your basic needs, you may consider going more to the movies, to the ice-cream parlor, to dance lessons, thus more business are eventually created. You have to look at the overall effect on the economy which is positive, for the vast majority.

[NightCrawler]

I like affordable prices.

[sbw]

Look for bastiat's candlestick's maker petition, you can find it on google or at
bastiat.org/en/petition.html

If tomorrow it started raining bananas from the sky, would you say we should stop it, it's going to destroy the economy of banana producers?

By bringing lower prices, Wal Mart makes a gift to the economy. Sure it will destroy some relatively unproductive business, but since people buy goods for a lower price, they also consume different things. Once you pay say 20% less for your basic needs, you may consider going more to the movies, to the ice-cream parlor, to dance lessons, thus more business are eventually created. You have to look at the overall effect on the economy which is positive, for the vast majority.

and in the contest of 'most potentially controversial first post'...we have a winner!

Scott

[meshou]

By bringing lower prices, Wal Mart makes a gift to the economy. Sure it will destroy some relatively unproductive business,...And keep the third world firmly in at #3.

The US ain't the world. It makes a gift to our economy by raping other's economies. The economy is global, not paying living wages does not help the world economy.

[drdolittle]

Wal mart is evil for so many reasons. Sure they're efficient.
They bully their employees and suppliers. When a monopoly exists (they're not but they're the closest outside of microsoft) they can unfairly enrich themselves off the public. I hate wal mart, lowes and HD. I would much rather support my local hardware store with similar prices and much more knowledgable staff.

Mom and Pop stores cost a little more but the money stays in your local municipality. Also, they don't get to bully your city for "tax free business zones" and some mom and pops have ethics and morals ie will not knowingly buy from sweatshops.

Who in their right mind thinks capitalism is an absolute evil?
Communism sucks because human nature is to work for yourself. The majority of people are only willing to bust their asses when it benefits them. The great famines in Russia and China happened during communist rule. People didn't want to work hard when it didn't benefit them. Capitalism is the fairest system. The smart and hard working can get their rewards. When it breaks down is when businesses control the governance of the people. ie America in the last 30 years.

Raising the minimum wage is idiotic. Think about why the minimum wage needs to be raised. If you've had an econ class you know prices move in simple supply demand dynamics. Prices have risen because the money supply has and continues to grow. Your money is a paper promise only. One mans dollar is another's debt. With interest rates still near historical lows it makes sense to borrow. Borrowing originates money. It's called the mandrake mechinism. Banks keep reserves on the order of 3% nowadays. In other words it takes 3 bucks to create a loan of 100 bucks. Sounds crazy? That's because it is. Don't raise the goddamn minimal wage, make money out of something of value. Ironically, the constitution legislates that money be made of gold or silver only! The early republic had some bad experiences with fiat currency and mandated that money be otherwise. Good thing the guys at the federal reserve have been able to usurp that.
Supply chains are more efficient, more cheap labor from asia, more mechanical efficiency, prices should be going down. How come the minimum wage has increased from $3.15 to over $5 and people still can't live on it?

[Krill]

*snip*

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20021223_05_mistake.gif
(Do you think you could edit in some paragraph breaks?)

[Lee]

If Wal-Mart is a monopoly, well I guess I'm for monopolies.

That reminds me of something I once read that seems especially true as I read INTPC at the moment: Most people seem to get their economic education by playing the board game Monopoly, a game which bears little to no resemblence to how real market economies work.

[zhang_bob]

That reminds me of something I once read that seems especially true as I read INTPC at the moment: Most people seem to get their economic education by playing the board game Monopoly, a game which bears little to no resemblence to how real market economies work.
If that was true everyone would paint their house orange as it is the easiest way to win monopoly ;)

Agreeing with you on economics is not the same as understanding economics, music is noise but noise is not necessarily music.


If Wal-Mart is a monopoly, well I guess I'm for monopolies. The only monopoly that is not a government-owned corporation is Micro$oft.

[Huston]

What's your opinion of Walmart?

I do not like it. They have horrible cloths for too much money. I prefer the Canadian equivalent (Not Zellers) Giant Tiger. Much cheaper cloths that I actually prefer.


Is it wrong how they destroy all small businesses who stand in their way?

I don't think the small businesses stand in the way. However, it is the fault of the community that allows a business into their local. People can stop such a business from entering a location. However, can a town as a counsel stop it.. well only if the people agree with the council. A town of significant size west of Toronto, Stratford has prohibited Walmart despite what the residents want. They want the Walmart.


Is it wrong that they get to pay their employees minimum wage with no benefits?

I am sure if I was working for a small time shop I would get the same, but seeing how the Waltons are the richest people in the US, yes I think it is wrong on the grounds of improper regulation. Walmart can afford to give people higher wages and benefits without having it affect the price on their wears or other products and items.


Should they be burned to the ground?

Yes, but my personal opinion means nothing.


Do you sing the praises of their realtime logistics system?

Hell Yes!

[Huston]

...And keep the third world firmly in at #3.

The US ain't the world. It makes a gift to our economy by raping other's economies. The economy is global, not paying living wages does not help the world economy.

Exactly, most of what make the US economy run is based off a false image of a detached single family home in the suburbs by feeding into a late 19th century desire of the original suburbs were the rich lived outside the smog and pollution of the city core. It is the most consumer based system. It feeds into the auto industry, big box stores, and the construction industry.

[Dman]

Think of it like evolution. Walmart is a fantastic product of the environment in which it was born and bred. It is an intelligent predator and survivalist; it thrives in an environment that it seems to be made to live in. Discontinue examining it as a stand-alone entity or an anomoly; it does not exist within a vacuum. If it were not Walmart, it would something else similar. It's like saying is a lion evil or good...it's a natural phenomena simply as a result of external systems.

The bigger question lies within examining the system that allows a Walmart or similar entity to exist and thrive, not to pick some result of that system and blame it or to empathize for the "poor deer" that is being destroyed as a result. It is simply easier to pick on something concrete and relatively easy to understand rather than something abstract and esoteric. But face it, Walmart is actually pretty impressive whether you agree with what created it or not, it is so "simple" yet so powerful, much like the predators at the top of any natural food chain.

The question is, how do you feel about the system that rewards a Walmart? It is not so easy as one may think...the more you know, the more difficult the answer becomes.

[Leftfield]

Think of it like evolution. Walmart is a fantastic product of the environment in which it was born and bred. It is an intelligent predator and survivalist; it thrives in an environment that it seems to be made to live in. Discontinue examining it as a stand-alone entity or an anomoly; it does not exist within a vacuum. If it were not Walmart, it would something else similar. It's like saying is a lion evil or good...it's a natural phenomena simply as a result of external systems.

The bigger question lies within examining the system that allows a Walmart or similar entity to exist and thrive, not to pick some result of that system and blame it or to empathize for the "poor deer" that is being destroyed as a result. It is simply easier to pick on something concrete and relatively easy to understand rather than something abstract and esoteric. But face it, Walmart is actually pretty impressive whether you agree with what created it or not, it is so "simple" yet so powerful, much like the predators at the top of any natural food chain.

The question is, how do you feel about the system that rewards a Walmart? It is not so easy as one may think...the more you know, the more difficult the answer becomes.

What I have been seeing more is, the bigger the company the more bad publicity it will receive and the more we SHOULD disdain it; despite who is right or wrong.

I wouldn't care if the system rewarded Walmart, but why should it?

Tax-breaks aren't enough or are you going on a different level with this?

To me no business should be rewarded or discoraged because capitalism is capitalism and is the reason why the USA is #1, period. Kudlow even said this today on CNBC and is so basic but so true.

However, Wal Mart is on grounds for monopoly in the discount retail sector, so others may be protected, but it is inevitably the consumers choice.

[Dman]

To me no business should be rewarded or discoraged because capitalism is capitalism and is the reason why the USA is #1, period. Kudlow even said this today on CNBC and is so basic but so true.


Yes. To attack results of capitalism is futile and, really, pointless. To use a, *ahem* bad analogy, it's like attacking SUV owners for global warming. Or maybe a better analogy is like sending drug users to prison in an effort to fight "the war on drugs". None of these things addresses the root issue.

by the way, note the clever use of capitalist examples in my analogies

[Leftfield]

Yes. To attack results of capitalism is futile and, really, pointless. To use a, *ahem* bad analogy, it's like attacking SUV owners for global warming. Or maybe a better analogy is like sending drug users to prison in an effort to fight "the war on drugs". None of these things addresses the root issue.

by the way, note the clever use of capitalist examples in my analogies

I noticed such things... we are on the same mindset :)

This is a little :offtopic:

What is wierd is since being unemployeed I have watched a lot of different CNBC shows during the dry run... and with all these perspectives of the financial markets and the way economics plays a role, the more and more it makes sense when I apply it to what I learned in the classroom.

What is crazy is how much it builds every day, like today watching Jim Cramer's Mad Money for the first time in its entirety and his perspective as a pro-fundamenalist was enough for me to learn where I didn't think I would. The dude is hilarous in a dark and crazy way and I always laugh at the lightning round music... if I ever saw the guy in real life I would laugh in his face for who he is, but his "bit" sells in its own sense.

I guess it's all about that INT-systems building.

[Jacque]

Walmart has been responsible for saving millions of lives around the world, a contribution to mankind that could rival and probably exceeds even the most impressive achievements of any charity you care to mention.

Conquista-Stores
http://www.ufcw.org/images/rocha.jpg

[If the conquistadores put churches upon pyramids. Why not let Wal-Mart put up a super one?]

[sbw]

I hate larry kudlow.

Scott

[Rhu]

I hate larry kudlow.

Scott

Is it the pin-striped suits, the ultrapatriotic ultracapitalism, the fact that he converted to Catholicism and it "cured him of drug addiction", or his apparent idea that the rest of humankind is an underclass who deserves no protection from their rightful exploitation?

[sbw]

Is it the pin-striped suits, the ultrapatriotic ultracapitalism, the fact that he converted to Catholicism and it "cured him of drug addiction", or his apparent idea that the rest of humankind is an underclass who deserves no protection from their rightful exploitation?

definitely the pin-striped suits.

Scott

[Rhu]

definitely the pin-striped suits.

Scott

I figured.

[sbw]

I figured.

:lol:

seriously tho, he--cnbc in general--seems to be part of a larger effort, along with sam whatsizname from law and order on the commercials, to sell stocks. no matter what oil does its bullish for the larger economy.

I'm not a fan of pinstripes in general.

Scott

[venerationOFrabbits]

Not a fan of Walmart. It's a super efficient machine fueled by slobs. Big fat, boobs down to their waist, potato chip stuffing slobs who don't give a shit about the implications of their inactions.

The people who work there deserve their fate.

[In...TP]

Wal-Mart is the big tit, one day it will run dry.

[Huston]

Wal-Mart is the big tit, one day it will run dry.

And people will move onto the next.

[Leftfield]

Wal-Mart is the big tit, one day it will run dry.

I think Wal-Mart will still exist, or be bought out or merged with someone else by the time we all die. A lot of the major corporations have been around for 150 years, and they still churn it out, day in century out.

[In...TP]

Ask K-Mart, hahaha

[sbw]

Not a fan of Walmart. It's a super efficient machine fueled by slobs. Big fat, boobs down to their waist, potato chip stuffing slobs who don't give a shit about the implications of their inactions.

The people who work there deserve their fate.

who are the slobs--the customers or the employees? its unclear above.

also, "deserve their fate" is an interesting word choice, although I don't entirely disagree; separating the employees into homogenous groups might be helpful:

a) immigrants, both legal and illegal;

b) factory workers in chindia who make all the plastic shit that walmart sells--I bought a toaster recently for SIX DOLLARS;

c) unskilled american citizens

I would argue that both groups a) and b) have improved their lot; group c) represents a sector of society which has always existed and will always exist. sucks for them, but its totally independent of the existence of walmart.

Scott

[Leftfield]

who are the slobs--the customers or the employees? its unclear above.

This depends on the demogrpahics/geography. I would argue half of the customers and employees are slobs and would guess that most aren't by choice... unless they eat all that processed shit that loads the calories, like cheese in a can topped onto a Town House cracker with a slab of butter mix with "real bacon bits". Fuck those people... fat/ignorant slobs piss me off, but Wal-mart loves them... $6.13/hr to move 5 feet/hr stocking massive-high shelves with their massive billion dollars of inventory (in US Dollars, of course).


b) factory workers in chindia who make all the plastic shit that walmart sells--I bought a toaster recently for SIX DOLLARS;


:lol: That accurately describes Wal-Mart...

We here at Wal-Mart value the need to exploit the second-to-third world, produce inferior products (plastic shit), and sell it for $6 to the lower or middle class consumer (99% of the population). While Fuckhat Walton family earns 20-50% of the profit margin (meaning own 10% of the remaining 1% of the upper class).

Chindia is fantastic, may I use this (i.p.)? Or Chindian Kong?

[sbw]

:lol: That accurately describes Wal-Mart...

We here at Wal-Mart value the need to exploit the second-to-third world, produce inferior products (plastic shit), and sell it for $6 to the lower or middle class consumer (99% of the population). While Fuckhat Walton family earns 20-50% of the profit margin (meaning own 10% of the remaining 1% of the upper class).

Chindia is fantastic, may I use this (i.p.)? Or Chindian Kong?

well my point above was that it is extremely debateable whether the walmart factories in chindia (I got that from the economist, btw) "exploit" those labor markets or are rather a net benefit, as walmart factory might pay more than other employers in the region...and, getting paid "X" in the walmart factory is "X" more $ than not having a job. people probly measure this stuff but I don't have a reference at hand. I don't actually know the correct mathematical answer.

also, poor people in america have MORE money if they can buy all their shit cheaper, at walmart...and if they work there, re-read the employee stratification in my prior post. if somebody went to my high school in the suburbs and graduated yet works at walmart 8 years later...well, those people are gonna be fuckups, and they're gonna represent a certain percentage of the population, till the end of time.

Scott

[venerationOFrabbits]

well my point above was that it is extremely debateable whether the walmart factories in chindia (I got that from the economist, btw) "exploit" those labor markets or are rather a net benefit, as walmart factory might pay more than other employers in the region...and, getting paid "X" in the walmart factory is "X" more $ than not having a job. people probly measure this stuff but I don't have a reference at hand. I don't actually know the correct mathematical answer.

also, poor people in america have MORE money if they can buy all their shit cheaper, at walmart...and if they work there, re-read the employee stratification in my prior post. if somebody went to my high school in the suburbs and graduated yet works at walmart 8 years later...well, those people are gonna be fuckups, and they're gonna represent a certain percentage of the population, till the end of time.

Scott

Good for Chindia and the Waltons. Go Chindia, Go Waltons!

What about keeping better opportunities right here in America? Rather than increasing the mediocrity in this country further than it already has to be. I'm sure you've heard all the other terrible ways Walmart exploits the people right here in the U.S. so no further comments needed. I think Walmart inadvertently plays a dirty hand by making it harder for ordinary folks to make something of it on their own. It squashes the American dream to some extent.

Plus I hate Walmart crap, I buy stuff like shampoo there but won't buy anything I'll need to rely on later. Same goes for Home Depot. I recently bought a trailer for my ATV, being squeezed for money it was tempting to buy the Home Depot variety, but I knew better, it was obvious the trailer was of poor quality and would have just rusted and fell apart in no time flat.

[MasterMerk]

If Wal-Mart is a monopoly, well I guess I'm for monopolies.


For corporatism (not in the classical sense) would be more accurate, I think.