what?

This has nothing to do with anyones post, but one of my friends made a somewhat off color comment the other day about how Wal-Mart was promoting a subversive kind of communism.
He quoted Ronald Reagan in saying that we should never have to stand in line for bread, but then said,"But we do anyway, when we shop at Wal-Mart."
It's kind of like choosing your own communism, but in a way, that's kind of what we're coming to. Wal-Mart was only recently pushed out of being the most profitable company by Exxon-Mobile this last week. Wal-Mart carries everything everyone needs (not necessarily wanting.) and it has the corporate power to buy out all of its competitors as well as shutting down small businesses and turning rural townships into ghost towns with its practices.
I have known many people who have worked for Wal-Mart, and they have yet to recieve any sort of raise which is fair to what the living wage is. But this is also standard American corporate practice.

Wal-Mart has an incredible amount of power. Because they account for such a large share of revenue for suppliers, the suppliers are often forced to meet their demands or go under. One of which is to always lower prices, and of course to lower prices one must go overseas. Wal-Mart is not setting their overseas workers' wages, their suppliers are. All they tell their suppliers is to meet the prices they set.

If a corporation can gain that much power over the economy, potentially unlimited control, is that an ethical system? I don't see why government control is any more frightening than corporate control. Wal-Mart isn't just putting small-businesses out of business, they're moving business to China. By outsourcing American jobs to China, China gains more political pull. If China were to own the American economy, do you suppose doctrines on American capitalism will still be relevant? Giving power to those who might not grant us the same freedoms is dangerous.

I will simply concur with aprogeny79, seeing as he put it so eloquently already.

That's capitalism, pure and simple. Having the ability to offer products at a lower price than at those of competitors, and providing a convenient, accessible, and legal way for consumers to obtain these products, is simply good business practice, and the management behind such tactics deserves praise, not condemnation (other issues like health insurance aside).

While I'm not lumping anyone from this board into this category, negative attitudes towards companies like Wal-Mart seem to have no other foundation than the current trend of opposing anything profit-motivated or blatantly capitalistic. While there certainly exists corporate bullying and monopolization, not every successful company falls under this umbrella. It is the inevitable result of an unregulated capitalist society which, for the most part, works to our advantage as consumers, as much as many leftists like to damn it.

Take the ever-fluctuating fuel prices, for example - while we have witnessed them skyrocket appallingly, such economic trends also instigate things like price wars. Neighborhood gas stations systematically lower their prices to gain patronage and beat out the competition, a 'game' which is largely responsible for making fuel affordable to the average commuter.

This concept is universal, and an economic rule - in a capitalist economy, it is only logical that if two merchants are providing the same goods in comparable environments, but one is doing so in a manner more affordable to consumers, that merchant will gain more patronage than the other and, consequently, be in the position to overtake the other merchant. Simple logic, and simple math.

Sure, mom and pop establishments have character going for them, but that's life, folks - if you can't hack it in the business, you get out.

I don't like that fuckin smiley face in the commercials either, but laundry soap costs a bomb every place else, and until I decide to go bohemian and stop wearing clean undies, Wal-Mart's the place for me.

True, not every large company falls under that umbrella, but Wal Mart does.

I think the foundation is that Wal-Mart does fall under this umbrella. Wal-Mart has been known to literally take several suppliers into a room and force them to bid each other down. Much of my information comes from the Frontline documentary, so if there is any evidence to the contrary feel free to present it, but apparently when the price of resin went up, Rubbermaid could not meet Wal-Mart's demanded price. Wal-Mart refused to change their mind. Rubbermaid like many companies had become dependent on Wal-Mart, and was extremely damaged as a result, and I'm not talking about a little mom and pop shop. Wal-Mart gets suppliers dependent on them and then demands that they meet every whim. What exactly is your definition of bullying?

I certainly see your point, but I wonder where you draw the line on such issues. Does that not simply make Wal-Mart superior to Rubbermaid in a business sense, and in turn create a separate set of standards by which companies like Rubbermaid must operate in order to succeed within their own markets? While Rubbermaid may not be able to meet Wal-Mart's demands, one of its competitors will, which is simply perpetuating the cycle of capitalist competition.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be number-one advocate for big corporations. I'm just wondering myself how you differentiate between 'bullying' and simple superiority over your competition. Such distinctions are more easily made where pharmaceuticals, for example, are concerned, where actual prohibitions are placed on buying and selling based on both private and governmental interests; but in a 'free' economic society, for me personally, those lines tend to be more blurred.

Basically, I don't have an answer to that either.

Savage Clone, I adore you. That had my sides aching.

hah, some dude followed AND whistled the mrs. today as she was coming back from the bakery (we're staying in queens, what a cool part of new york: no hipsters & no yuppies). she told me about it and we both laughed. i think this dude that followed my wife was no pervert, he just had damn good taste, but lacked the right tools to express himself.

its true laila, hating wal mart just because someone whistled at you is a shit reason to hate it. look harder, there are plenty of other reasons.

"Wal-Mart's original name, Satan's Five & Dimes."
-Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

Walmart has horrible design. I hate the colors.

i am.

Ayn Rand never had that problem I hear tell. Her panties were always bone-dry.

i like walmart

i bet youre all shocked!

haha!

I hate Wal-Mart. Stealing from Wal-Mart should be encouraged. I would, but I have too much to lose.

yeah, stealing from walmart will go a long way in helping its employees

good idea

haha

I just hate it for no other reason than it is terribly white trash and dirty.

Target all the way.

Walmart is still better than Kmart by leaps and bounds.

this thread must die NOW!! wal-mart is full of white trash and theives!! i shall never shop there again!

"Keeping prices down." At this point they have no competition.

And how did they get to this point, good ol' American know-how and hard work? Yeah......:cool: Corporations exist as agents for morally reprehensible acts - they displace responsibility. Wal-Mart fucks people and communities until they bleed to death.


That's how your version of capitalism works. I like capitalism, but it's important to remember that it isn't a religion and that without proper regulating, it creates a disaster. I won't elaborate.


yes.


Here's the gist: some A-Grade economics bullshit. It's these kind of core beliefs that get blown into ridiculous world-views, like Libertarianism.


I hope by "good", you don't mean "good." This is sickening. Am I the only one who finds this sickening? This is a measure of "good?" Shear lunacy.


Exactly, it's not it's brother's keeper. A corporation is legally a person. A person without moral obligations. If Wal-Mart has no moral obligation to me, I have no moral obligation to Wal-Mart. It's that simple.


Everything in the world doesn't boil down to a simple equation. If you really believe this, you're crazy. Many people work at Wal-Mart because they have to. If you'd quit bowing to the alter of "choice," you'd see this. Personal choice is an illusion. Wal-Mart treats it's employees badly.


Rand was a terrible writer, a poor philosopher, and a despicable human being.


No surprise here.


No, Enron was unbelievably corrupt. There's no argument here. Debate over. Enron should have been a lesson to us all.


This is what happens when you grasp on to an idea that seems to make common sense and then religiously apply that idea to every facet of life. The error comes when you can't see that the insanity of the results clues you in to the inherent problems within the original idea.



No, you sound like every other greedy prick I knew as an undergrad who read a couple books and went to a couple of classes and latched on to bad ideas that supported their fucked perspective.


You'll fit in in Law School. Sorry to be an asshole.....

noumenal, your entire reply employs the fallacy ad hominem. attack the viewpoint, not the holder of the vewpoint -- and when i say attack, i mean through rational debate rather than outright refutal in as harsh and vitriolic terms as you can muster. you're entitled to your opinion just as much as i am to mine, and you're entitled to argue for your opinion -- but you're not entitled to take out your apparent antipathy for my opinion on me.

Hey, you're right. I'm sorry qprogeny - I know sincerity doesn't come across on the internet, but, really I was being a dick.

You're right, it's only politics and I didn't mean to generalize, but I just flipped out. The attacks weren't addressed directly at you, because I don't know you at all, personally. I was attacking some of the views you expressed and using your internet persona as a punching bag. I realized my error at the end and that's why I typed the "sorry for being an asshole", which probably just came off as annoying.

I think there was some rational argument mixed in there a little bit, though. But, I'll understand if you don't want to discuss with me. I must've made a pretty terrible impression on you, but I won't edit my post. I need to have better manners and think before I post next time.

But I didn't really expect you to take it personally. I was sort of hoping you would have some biting comebacks. Again, I'm sorry about being mean.

no problem. i know i have political/religious opinions that might be deemed slightly . . . well, psychotic to some. (and yeah, i always miss out on the "biting comebacks" -- i tend not to be able to tell when things are to be taken in jest, or when a piss-fest will be taken all in good fun -- so i figure it's safer to assume people mean to be taken seriously than to give a tongue-in-cheek reply that would be deemed insulting if the comments really were serious.)

but yeah, i'm always up for argument (as opposed to mere altercation). give it your best shot.

Honestly, I was just venting and sort of deserve to be smacked down or put in my place.

Maybe this thread should be abandoned, but we should start a thread more generally about politics and see if we can get some civil debate going on...

I've got to go right now though.

what can be attained from reading this thread:

1. lailav is a half-wit.

2. qprogeny would let the whole world sink into the sea if he thought he could make a quick & non-illegal buck from it. and this probably means he is a half-wit too.

why do i hate wal-mart...?
rednecks and greeters.

I feel bad for old people that have to stand and say hello for probably just above minimum wage.


Also, their sales tactics bug me. They practically say that you save so much money you make money.

What I've learned:

Toilet and Bowels has everything figured out.

no, there are moral standards to the acquisition of wealth. just not yours. and i am not a half-wit.

hah hah hah this was hilarious

everything else you've said in this thread contradicts this. the message you've been conveying is that it's fine to do anything as long as it won't get in serious trouble with the authorities

What I've learned, HaydenAsche likes to suck up to people. & diss the people that are not liked by the people he sucks up to. (ha ha, I can do it to)

"Well, that's it then. I'm hanging myself, & Wal-Marts paying for it."
-George Carlin

no, i mean the legitimate, legal and moral acquisition of wealth. note that i said that CREATING something of value is to be extolled. bilking investors and screwing over employees is not creating something of value, it is taking away something of value. the only difference here is how you define "screwing over" -- you simply define it more liberally than myself.

I'm not sucking up. Just recognizing another person's own.

Whatever, kiss ass.

Fuck Yo Couch, Nigga.

It hurts when you're mean to me.

You know I was just kidding. Don't you? I Hope so.

I'm sorry, my love.

I hope you will accept this as my apology.

www.meatspin.com

...
 

Yet, what is proper regulation, as regulation often tends to create more problems? Who gets to decide what the proper amount of regulation should be?
The fact of the matter is that one person (or group) that has the power to regulate does not have the ability to comprehend all of the consequences of such regulation. Often said regulations can actually harm the intended beneficiaries in unforseen ways (A minimum wage increases unemployment among teenagers, one of the demographics it is supposed to help. The Endangered Species Act has actually given incentive for people who find an endangered species on their land to kill it before anyone finds out rather than face the financial burdens that come with government regulation. Zoning regulations make it so that only certain types of buildings may be permitted in certain areas, leading to what some people call "sprawl". I'll be happy to elaborate.)
Since those that are in charge of regulation are inherently self-interested (just as everyone else in the world) they will make decisions that serve themselves as well as the special interests that fund them. Regulation is corruption in the purest form. It is regulation that creates barriers to entry in industries, which reduces the competition and ultimately hurts consumers (which is everyone).
The argument that the market fails and thus intervention and regulation is required is a very tempting argument. However, further investigation often shows that the so-called failures of the market occured, not because the market was free, but because some aspect of it had been previously regulated.

I don't want to get in to personal attacks, but I do think that you need to elaborate...

And yet, as I am one of those "crazy" libertarians, I probably would not end all government regulation if I had the power to do so, but I would indeed curtail it.

Oh and the reason I dislike Wal-Mart is because they are dirty and the incredibly long lines, even at 3 in the morning. I would like to be able to afford not to shop there.

If you can essentially achieve unlimited superiority in a free enterprise system, why is that less troubling than the government doing the same? At a certain point if Wal-Mart ends up controlling all the means of production...they're not just beating out the competition in their own market, they're manipulating it in every other. Rubbermaid wasn't a Wal-Mart competitor, they were a Wal-Mart supplier... In essence, Wal-Mart begins deciding what will be produced. In a certain sense, the people are still getting what they want because Wal-Mart will go where the profit is...

But if people put the highest value on low cost, it means Wal-Mart can do pretty much whatever it wants towards that end. I realize that in some free enterprise circles sweatshops are considered a good thing, but most people don't feel that way and yet support them anyway. They fulfill their immediate needs or even wants first. It's true that people support what is of value to them, but generally only what is most immediately and obviously of value. Wal-Mart offers low prices, that's obvious to everyone. It's also obvious that you can put a direct value on Wal-Mart's low prices. But to believe this inherently means Wal-Mart is good for people, you almost have to start out with the belief that free enterprise is a divine, flawless system...that it will all work out fine in the end, and that we will always act in our best interest.

If Wal-Mart is the ideal of capitalism, then let me be the first to say in this thread that I am fundamentally opposed to capitalism. However, I've also heard the argument that Wal-Mart is a mutant of a comprised free enterprise system (the United States), and could not have existed unchecked in a pure free enterprise system. I'm not sure if I buy that, but any system that regards Wal-Mart as a standard-bearer is fairly horrifying. I'm awed by Wal-Mart's accomplishments, but I don't support them, or any institution with that much power, let alone one that has shown it's capability to abuse it.