Danger time for America

[Anonymouse]

Re: Danger time for America

Page about Wal-Mart's presence in Washington. It does say WM started with the ambition not to get involved in politics. Well that changed pretty fast when word got out of Wal-Mart's monopolistic, narrow-minded vision of retail business. Profit first.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ets/lobby.html

I believe there are important talking points that are worth being noted about Wal-Mart. As mentioned earlier, companies should not look to the arm of the state and legislation to help them. However, there are those that do and some do so with malicious intents and others with not so malicious intents. I certainly decry Wal-Mart's lobbying just as much as the staunchest free-market supporter. You won't find anyone in the Cato Institute or the Mises Institute that will sympathize with that. However, that is where the line is drawn and the distinction is raised between companies that are like Enron or Halliburton, which are not only government created corporations, but government created monopolies as well. Even Google and Exxon are now being targeted by the government. It's not just popular to bash Wal-Mart these days, but any company that makes a profit. How dare they!

It appears that Wal-Mart has over the years tried to use the power of the government for it's own benefit, not to stifle competition as the media portrays it to be, but to avoid the trade regulations and labor laws which shouldn't exist in the first place, because anyone who is familiar with economics understands that these regulations, hurdles, and interventions harm business and productivity. Yet despite all that government terrorizing of the company, Wal-Mart has continued to rake in record profits, and keep prices low for its consumers, and remain successful, and with that it has still managed to be on the ever watchful eye of the state and a continued victim of the states policies. Just recently in Maryland, the government forced Wal-Mart to provide more money in health insurance for it's employees.So much for all that lobbying!

From what I gathered in your link, there is nothing about Wal-Mart that suggests it is a monopoly. Furthermore, your assertion of Wal-Mart's business tactics as "monopolistic" and "narrow-minded" are also unfounded. What makes then monopolistic and narrow-minded? And what, if not profit, is a company supposed to engage in? Hand out free lunches until it bankrupts itself and its shareholders? The purpose of any company is to make money, to make a profit, not just for the CEO but for the many shareholders who own a piece of that company. Of course it has to be profit first, and rightfully so. You don't have to like it, but in the business world, that is how it goes. There is nothing dishonest, or evil in that. They don't just make money out of thin air by robbing people, or forcing them to shop there. They provide a useful good and service that are supported by consumers. Who do you think made Wal-Mart so successful? That millions of people that shop there. Try telling them not to shop there anymore.

In the end, this piece by William Anderson titled "Does Wal-Mart Destroy Communities?" he brilliantly argues how contrary to popular wisdom, Wal-Mart does nothing but provide a useful good and service that is the choice of consumers, ironically, not those who constantly call for the companies sterilization.

[karoaper]

Re: Danger time for America

I believe there are important talking points that are worth being noted about Wal-Mart. As mentioned earlier, companies should not look to the arm of the state and legislation to help them. However, there are those that do and some do so with malicious intents and others with not so malicious intents. I certainly decry Wal-Mart's lobbying just as much as the staunchest free-market supporter. You won't find anyone in the Cato Institute or the Mises Institute that will sympathize with that. However, that is where the line is drawn and the distinction is raised between companies that are like Enron or Halliburton, which are not only government created corporations, but government created monopolies as well. Even Google and Exxon are now being targeted by the government. It's not just popular to bash Wal-Mart these days, but any company that makes a profit. How dare they!

Mouse, some of the most powerful and dirty lobbyists are some of the staunchiest free-market supporters. Not because they believe in the free market, not because they are taken with the philosophy of it. But exactly because of the opposite. Because they understand fully the multitude of opportunities inherent in free market dynamic for cheating your way to the top. Wal-Mart is not on top, because it sells good merchandize, treats their competitors and employees fairly, but the very opposite of these staples of a moral free market. Communists were overly pessimistic about the human nature, which is why they sought to control every aspec of human experience. Free-market thinkers are overly optimistic about the human nature. They think everyone will play nice. Well they don't.

It appears that Wal-Mart has over the years tried to use the power of the government for it's own benefit, not to stifle competition as the media portrays it to be, but to avoid the trade regulations and labor laws which shouldn't exist in the first place, because anyone who is familiar with economics understands that these regulations, hurdles, and interventions harm business and productivity. Yet despite all that government terrorizing of the company, Wal-Mart has continued to rake in record profits, and keep prices low for its consumers, and remain successful, and with that it has still managed to be on the ever watchful eye of the state and a continued victim of the states policies. Just recently in Maryland, the government forced Wal-Mart to provide more money in health insurance for it's employees.So much for all that lobbying!

That just means they need to pay more for lobbying. Don't worry they will.

Well, of course it hurdles business productivity (a.k.a money making). No one is arguing that. But, and this is going to become a ideological discussion, which is pointless, is that necessarily wrong? Is a company free to do absolutely all it wants for the sake of competitive edge? Again, I'll repeat, this is at the heart of the corruption in Washington. In US at least, we are as far removed from the ideal of free market with close to uniform competition and fair trade, as the commies of Stalin were from Marx's ideals.
Right now, companies are shipping jobs abroad. It may not hurt you, but it does hurt many employees who need these jobs. Why are these companies allowed to do so? Because a simple economic principle dictates that they can save billions by doing so. So would the federal intervention be bad? You can say yes, but for me, it would be an absolute necessity to whip the greedy kings and queens of whatever industry they're dominating (like Wal-Mart dominating the retail business) back into shape. What of the example about the garment workers in Saipan, that I brought out.

From what I gathered in your link, there is nothing about Wal-Mart that suggests it is a monopoly. Furthermore, your assertion of Wal-Mart's business tactics as "monopolistic" and "narrow-minded" are also unfounded. What makes then monopolistic and narrow-minded? And what, if not profit, is a company supposed to engage in? Hand out free lunches until it bankrupts itself and its shareholders? The purpose of any company is to make money, to make a profit, not just for the CEO but for the many shareholders who own a piece of that company. Of course it has to be profit first, and rightfully so. You don't have to like it, but in the business world, that is how it goes. There is nothing dishonest, or evil in that. They don't just make money out of thin air by robbing people, or forcing them to shop there. They provide a useful good and service that are supported by consumers. Who do you think made Wal-Mart so successful? That millions of people that shop there. Try telling them not to shop there anymore.

Millions of people voted for Bush and millions of people thought the Iraqi war was a good idea. I know you know better than to bring such a poor argument. Free lunches is a travesty, because it sits on one extreme. To pay your employees dirt cheap wages, just because you can get away with it, since there are always those in dire need who will work for dirt cheap (look at the illegals working for slave wages), is also a travesty that sits on the other extreme. To cut out lunch brakes just because you can is also a travesty. To sanction slave-shops in third world countries until you get slapped for it, just because you can, is also a travesty. Now, is it just Wal-Mart doing xxxx like that. Of course not, the whole system if skewed. There is a pandemic of filthy rich tycoons getting away with xxxx they shouldn't get away with.

In the end, this piece by William Anderson titled "Does Wal-Mart Destroy Communities?" he brilliantly argues how contrary to popular wisdom, Wal-Mart does nothing but provide a useful good and service that is the choice of consumers, ironically, not those who constantly call for the companies sterilization.

I read the short and it's a feeble effort that is strewn with opinions rather than facts. I'll start from the top of the article.

He argues that paying the employees lower than what the unions specify is totally dandy, because it is a mutually agreaable exchange. Imagine that, wow, that's great, you mean Wal-Mart is not forcing people to work as slaves. How noble. As I mentioned before, there is an economic threshold, below which people will not work and then there is a fair trade threshold, which guarantees the company's profit and a gratification of a natianaly accepted standard on fair compensation. He even gives an example of how incredulous it would be for his company to pay him more. Well of course it would, they're already paying him over 100k. "People who choose to work there do so because they prefer employment to other circumstances". Exactly like starving. They prefer working in Wal-Mart to starving.

Then the empty point that Wal-Mart's cheap wages makes other stores look better and somehow uses it as an argument than Wal-Mart does not negatively affect other stores. What does making other stores look more attractive to employees have to do with the fact that by cutting corners in areas it shouldn't, Wal-Mart is able to offer xxxxy merchandize for low prices to people who know no better, which forces other stores to follow this trend. Simple rule of cause of effect.

Now, I myself don't vilify Wal-Mart as something unique evil. I also conceed that the convenience of a super mart in the area is noteworthy. However, does that alone, justify our turning a blind eye to the kind of egregiously unfair business tacticts that Wal-Mart and many other companies readily employ.

Finally, his ridiculous exampel of the small shop owner. "First, no one forced the new shop owner to close". Not with arms, but does he expect the owner to go into debt just to stay open? If Wal-Mart beat other stores with fair trade, then of course, it would be ridiculous to complain. But if the lobbying is any indication, Wal-Mart is busy safeguarding the business habits that have made it the king of the retail business.

Anyways, I've gone on way to long. The problem with this discussion is that it has too many elements of a ideological discussion. As far as that goes, I doubt you or I can influence the other.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Danger time for America

Mouse, some of the most powerful and dirty lobbyists are some of the staunchiest free-market supporters. Not because they believe in the free market, not because they are taken with the philosophy of it. But exactly because of the opposite. Because they understand fully the multitude of opportunities inherent in free market dynamic for cheating your way to the top.

This is an unsubstantiated assertion. Furthermore, it makes no sense. To believe in the free market, means you must actually believe in and practice what you believe in. Most of the lobbyists that do lobby for a corporation (which are a fraction of lobbyists, lobbyists also generating around the cluster of political special interests such as AARP, or AIPAC, the two most powerful lobbying groups in Washington).

Trying to state that the most “powerful and dirty lobbyists” are the staunchest supporters of free-markets, does not make sense. When we factor in that Joe is lobbying for Enron or some other government created corporation or not, and if his goal is to get the government to stifle the competition and therefore leave the company Joe is representing as the sole company on the market, then that is not being a staunch supporter of the free market.

The opportunities inherent in the market are exactly what your “powerful and dirty lobbyists” loathe. It is precisely in the anarchic nature and complexity of the market where they do not have control. They are therefore subject to the random and complex winds and forces of the marketplace that are unpredictable, and will not always guarantee the company that they are lobbying for, a profit. Hence, that is why they are lobbying.

Wal-Mart is not on top, because it sells good merchandize, treats their competitors and employees fairly, but the very opposite of these staples of a moral free market.

That is untrue and again another unsubstantiated assertion by you. Just how is Wal-Mart on top then? Wal-Mart is a company and its goal is to make a profit. It came to the top way before it even began its petty lobbying. I have not seen how Wal-Mart used the government to stifle competition. It has lobbied to get the government off its back and to avoid all the regulations that it faces in its way as well as the many baseless accusations. Yet, in the end Wal-Mart recently fell victim again to the government in Maryland no matter how you look at it. When has Wal-mart treated its employees unfairly? By giving them, a wage that is lower than what the paternalistic “social critics” deem is a “fair” wage? In fact, contrary to unsubstantiated assertions, Wal-Mart is nothing more and nothing less than an example of the principles that the marketplace is based on. You do not have to like it, you do not have to shop there, but that is the way it is.

Communists were overly pessimistic about the human nature, which is why they sought to control every aspec of human experience. Free-market thinkers are overly optimistic about the human nature. They think everyone will play nice. Well they don't.

That is untrue. Day in and day out the relentless ‘human nature’ canard is always brought up in a variety of discussions. Yet, what is the point? Communists believed in the ‘goodness’ of ‘human nature’ because they believed man was corrupted by externalities, institutions, and ‘profit’. Human nature is neither “all good” nor “all bad”. It’s only human nature, which includes both good and bad. Every time someone tries to divide or quantify ‘human nature’ (whatever that is) into these Manichaean opposites, I ask, what is the point? It proves everything and it proves nothing.

Well, of course it hurdles business productivity (a.k.a money making). No one is arguing that. But, and this is going to become a ideological discussion, which is pointless, is that necessarily wrong? Is a company free to do absolutely all it wants for the sake of competitive edge?

As hard as it might be for some to believe, if something hurdles productivity for a privately held company, then it is wrong. A company should be free to do whatever it wishes as long as it is peaceful, and voluntary. No one is arguing here that a company should engage in immoral behavior, yet that is precisely this accusation around. Apparently, the whole concept of ‘live and let live’ is not en vogue anymore, and I can understand that. If you don’t like a certain company, then do not shop there, and do not engage in business with them. A company should and will do whatever it can, for the competitive edge, which leads to profit, and furthermore, innovation. It is precisely because of this competitiveness that America has arisen to its industrial and economic might, and which is why you and I are both here enjoying the fruits of the capitalist system.

Again, I'll repeat, this is at the heart of the corruption in Washington. In US at least, we are as far removed from the ideal of free market with close to uniform competition and fair trade, as the commies of Stalin were from Marx's ideals.

No one disagrees here. All governments are socialistic, to the degree they set up barriers to entry, regulations and interventions, wage laws, tariffs, and taxation. The only difference is, the free market does not predict nor prophecies any utopian visions of borderless bliss and equality where no one lives without a worry. On the contrary, it is the free market that takes into account the unfairness of life, as well as the inequalities of minds, characters, and capacities and the struggle to work, to save, and to live. Finally, the biggest difference is that in a market system, there is no such thing as a free lunch, whereas socialists or Marxian daydreaming makes people believe that one day, they can all live worry free. It is truly a philosophy for lazy people with no ambitions, goals, or work ethic.

Right now, companies are shipping jobs abroad. It may not hurt you, but it does hurt many employees who need these jobs. Why are these companies allowed to do so? Because a simple economic principle dictates that they can save billions by doing so. So would the federal intervention be bad? You can say yes, but for me, it would be an absolute necessity to whip the greedy kings and queens of whatever industry they're dominating (like Wal-Mart dominating the retail business) back into shape. What of the example about the garment workers in Saipan, that I brought out.

It is usually an insufficient grasping of economic principles by people and those “public servants”, that creates the protectionist policies that eventually harm companies, and the economy as a whole. It is no surprise that the above belief has many adherents in the halls of Congress. It used to be America would welcome competition from anywhere in the world, but now it is afraid. It is afraid of rising economic giants like India and particularly China. If it cannot compete, it is no one’s fault but America’s. And hence why, the scream of protectionism rings ever more loudly.

You do not like jobs being outsourced. Neither do I. However, do you know the reason why companies outsource? You hit it partially on the head. To save money. But why would they want to save money? It means that for some reason or other, they are incurring increasing costs in America where they operate. What do you suppose increases costs? Interventionism creates high prices, and therefore a problem for companies. In other words, it is precisely because of interventionism, wage laws, unions, licensing fees, discrimination laws, etc., that all create added costs to a company. On top of that, you argue and call for yet more intervention? Woe to us all.

If the companies stayed with ‘tax incentives’, ‘tariffs’, other protectionist measures and other such illusory notions of ‘saving jobs’, then these companies would be inefficient, underperforming against companies from outside, and on top of that, the endpoint of all production, which is consumption, would be severely expensive. In addition, you brush aside what economists call comparative advantage, which ensures that each person engages in pursuits where that person is most efficient. All the products that we enjoy and the low prices that come with it, in this current state of the market can be attributed to outsourcing. It helps keep prices low, whether many anti-free-marketers like it, agree with it, or not. For years, the government provided protectionist help to American companies, not least in the auto industry. Moreover, what is the current state of that industry? It is in shambles with foreign competitors clearly having the comparative advantage. Obviously, at some point, it became too difficult and too much of a cost for a company here to make the best cars at the cheapest prices and innovation stifled. Here is a bit more insight from the Austrian publication, strangely enough titled The Free Market :

“ Let us first take a look at myriad laws directly or indirectly affecting wages and salaries in the US. The government can impact wages directly through minimum wage laws, or indirectly through mandated benefits like paid vacation, health care, unemployment insurance, and many other programs. These interventions are sometimes justified by "class warfare" claims that higher wages would come from the excessive profits of the capitalists, and at other times by the Keynesian macroeconomic policies of providing market "stimulus."

One way or another, politicians expect that the ultimate consequence of these interventions would be an increased standard of living for the American people. What they fail to understand is that they can only raise nominal wages and salaries, i.e., the amount of money that a person receives for the work done. The real pay, consisting of the actual purchasing power, is mostly beyond their control.

To better understand the relationship between nominal and real wages consider 1920s Germany and early 1990s Yugoslavia, where rampant hyperinflation (defined as extremely high rates of inflation or general rise in prices) resulted in some people being paid in billions, but able to purchase very little for their money. Hyperinflation, always and everywhere the result of the governmental monetary policies, in both cases created poor—very poor—billionaires. The reason for this is simple: every time prices rise faster than wages, people get poorer...

…The other major reason for the recent job loss in America is regulations. Today the cost of regulation is approaching $1 trillion, and still most of us continue to go on with our daily jobs unperturbed. Very few Americans understand how much $1 trillion is. Here is a good way to think about it: counting $1 a second, it would take more than 32,000 years to count $1 trillion.

To understand this gigantic cost of regulations, we need only to take a look at the Federal Registry, a book which lists all the federal laws and regulations. In 1950, it consisted of 9,500 pages; in 1970 it grew to 20,000 pages; in 1990 it went up to 50,000; and finally, in 2003 it contained a stunning 75,000 pages.

Regulations incur several different types of costs: the cost of creating the regulations (a political process in the case of laws, and an administrative process in the case of regulations), the cost of publishing the books that contain them (hundreds of thousands of copies so that we all may be able to access it, since ignoratio iuris non nocet [in English, "the ignorance of the law is no excuse"]), and finally, in enforcing the laws and regulations (thousands of government agencies employ hundreds of thousands of people whose jobs consist of seeing to it that we live by those regulations).
And let’s not forget the costs incurred by firms in complying with regulations: hiring lawyers that can read and make sense of the regulations and explaining them to those in charge, the labor costs of filling out thousands of forms and ensuring that forms are filed in proper ways with appropriate agencies, etc. And, of course, in addition to the federal regulations, businesses are also subject to state and municipal regulations, which add significantly to the total cost of regulations. ”

Millions of people voted for Bush and millions of people thought the Iraqi war was a good idea. I know you know better than to bring such a poor argument.

I did not bring such an argument. You did, when you inserted into the reply a position I did not make nor subscribe to. Creating such a faulty analogy between politics and government, with that of the marketplace is the worst proposition in my opinion. Do not forget that in the marketplace, exchange and business take place in an atmosphere that must be voluntary, and non-coercive. In other words, mutual parties agree to a given exchange, and to the goods /services provided. Furthermore, there are options and choices. The government is a monopoly of force and power. You do not have a choice in the strict sense. A choice between two parties that both advocated war is not much choice. Furthermore, there is no way to determine whether or not the ‘goods and services’ the government provides are worth it, as there is no cost-accounting and cost benefit analysis.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Danger time for America

Free lunches is a travesty, because it sits on one extreme. To pay your employees dirt cheap wages, just because you can get away with it, since there are always those in dire need who will work for dirt cheap (look at the illegals working for slave wages), is also a travesty that sits on the other extreme. To cut out lunch brakes just because you can is also a travesty. To sanction slave-shops in third world countries until you get slapped for it, just because you can, is also a travesty. Now, is it just Wal-Mart doing xxxx like that. Of course not, the whole system if skewed. There is a pandemic of filthy rich tycoons getting away with xxxx they shouldn't get away with.

Who cares? It is the right of the company to decide what it will pay for those who work for that company. This is the same fallacy that Marxists committed, namely, that the final and end-all purpose of production is not consumption, but rather production itself. For those that want to make it illegal to outsource you must first demonstrate why it is that an economy benefits from higher costs of production versus lower costs. Until then there is no argument at all.

Furthermore, you do not have to like the way the market operates, but who are any of us and the government to tell what a company should pay it’s employees? Obviously, if these people are working there, it is so voluntarily. It is so, much to our dismay, because they actually agree to the wages given. Imagine that! The horror! In this world, there is actually something called a voluntary and mutually beneficial exchange! It’s similar to the battle cry against “sweat shop labor”. How dare these companies pay “low wages”, never mind what defines “low”. In poor and developing third world countries that are just beginning to slowly industrialize, these companies provide an opportunity despite the rants and raves of the crypto-socialists. In societies where children have not many options aside from joining criminal gangs, corruption or young girls becoming prostitutes, what’s wrong with working for a wage? Obviously, the fact that they actually make a choice (you cannot argue that they did not make a choice) to work at these companies shows they prefer that over other things, for otherwise, they would not have made the choice.

I read the short and it's a feeble effort that is strewn with opinions rather than facts. I'll start from the top of the article.He argues that paying the employees lower than what the unions specify is totally dandy, because it is a mutually agreaable exchange. Imagine that, wow, that's great, you mean Wal-Mart is not forcing people to work as slaves. How noble. As I mentioned before, there is an economic threshold, below which people will not work and then there is a fair trade threshold, which guarantees the company's profit and a gratification of a natianaly accepted standard on fair compensation. He even gives an example of how incredulous it would be for his company to pay him more. Well of course it would, they're already paying him over 100k. "People who choose to work there do so because they prefer employment to other circumstances". Exactly like starving. They prefer working in Wal-Mart to starving.

How is Wal-Mart forcing people to work as slaves? That is patently false and an exaggeration. You made a blanket assertion without actually having to prove your statement. The author of the article made a good case using sound logic, on how Wal-Mart operates. No one is forcing them to work. By taking the job, they are agreeing to the wages given and providing labor in return. What minimum wage laws do is create rampant unemployment, because they set up a barrier to entry. So all those people who are willing to work below the government decreed wage, are now unable to work, because the government says so. And so in third world countries, establishing this sort of economic insanity will only push these children engaging in ‘child labor’ back into the cesspool of corruption, and prostitution. That is the way it goes despite emotional appeals to the contrary. To quote Ludwig von Mises:

“ The labor market fixes wage rates at the height at which all those intent upon hiring workers can hire as many as they want and all those anxious to find a job can find one. If wage rates, either by government decree or by union pressure and compulsion, are raised above this height, there are two alternatives. Either prices are raised concomitantly, so both demand and sales drop, production must be curtailed and a part of the previously employed workers must be discharged. Or prices remain unchanged, although the cost of production is increased, so that firms that are producing under the least favorable conditions and, therefore, with the highest costs will suffer losses and be forced to go out of business or at least to restrict the quantity of their production. Again workers will have to be discharged. Thus, whatever is done to impose wage rates higher than those the free unhampered market would have determined results in unemployment of a part of the potential labor force.

If a union succeeds in forcing the employers to pay higher wage rates than those they were prepared to pay under the prevailing state of market conditions, this is not a victory for "labor," i.e., for all those who are anxious to earn wages. It is a boon only for those workers who will be employed at the new rates. It is a calamity for all those whom it condemns to lasting unemployment.

The effect of raising wage rates above the potential market rates, i.e., unemployment for some, is not denied by any economist. Even Lord Keynes did not question it. He realized very well that there is no other means to fight unemployment than to adjust wage rates to the height consonant with the state of the unhampered market. The characteristic mark of the Keynesian approach to the problem of unemployment is that, for practical and tactical reasons, he suggested bringing about this adjustment by inflation and its inevitable consequence, a rise in commodity prices. He thought that "a movement by employers to revise money-wage bargains downward will be much more strongly resisted than a gradual and automatic lowering of real wages as a result of rising prices."[1] As everybody knows today it is impossible to delude the unions and their members in this way. People are nowadays index conscious.

The outstanding fact is that it is impossible to raise wage rates by coercive measures, be it a direct government minimum wage decree, or labor union violence or threat of such violence, without bringing about lasting unemployment of a part of those looking for jobs. The exceptional powers the governments granted to the unions do not benefit all those anxious to earn wages, but only a part of them. The others are victimized. Experience with labor union policies and governmental minimum wage rates has confirmed what economic theory teaches: There is no other method of improving the well-being of the whole class of wage earners than by accelerating saving and the accumulation of new capital.”

http://www.mises.org/efandi/ch13.asp

Then the empty point that Wal-Mart's cheap wages makes other stores look better and somehow uses it as an argument than Wal-Mart does not negatively affect other stores. What does making other stores look more attractive to employees have to do with the fact that by cutting corners in areas it shouldn't, Wal-Mart is able to offer xxxxy merchandize for low prices to people who know no better, which forces other stores to follow this trend. Simple rule of cause of effect.

Whether or not Wal-Mart offers “sh*tty” merchandize is not the issue. The point is, it is called consumer preference and consumers demand it. Supply and demand. Wal-Mart is able to get these products at a much more economically viable price than it’s competitors, and the “mom and pop” stores. You cannot determine or quantify an objective criteria for the subjective value individuals – human actors – place in what they pursue. And yet again, what “corners’ is Wal-Mart cutting?

Now, I myself don't vilify Wal-Mart as something unique evil. I also conceed that the convenience of a super mart in the area is noteworthy. However, does that alone, justify our turning a blind eye to the kind of egregiously unfair business tacticts that Wal-Mart and many other companies readily employ.

Just what is unfair? If it is a voluntary exchange, that means both parties agreed to the exchange, since both parties obviously believe that they must somehow benefit from the exchange. Wal-Mart offers to pay a certain wage, and if some people take it, that means that they see some benefit in that, for otherwise they would not have taken the job. It’s called the subjective theory of value in economics.

Finally, his ridiculous exampel of the small shop owner. "First, no one forced the new shop owner to close". Not with arms, but does he expect the owner to go into debt just to stay open? If Wal-Mart beat other stores with fair trade, then of course, it would be ridiculous to complain. But if the lobbying is any indication, Wal-Mart is busy safeguarding the business habits that have made it the king of the retail business.

Anyways, I've gone on way to long. The problem with this discussion is that it has too many elements of a ideological discussion. As far as that goes, I doubt you or I can influence the other.

Wal-Mart was already a major company before it began it’s lobbying crusade, so you cannot rightfully argue that somehow it was responsible to make it “king of retail”. What Wal-Mart’s lobbying does is try to keep it away from the government regulations. I do condemn Wal-Mart’s lobbying, as any business, however, the root of the problem is the system itself. You must ask yourself, why is it lobbying to begin with? Because of the regulations imposed upon companies, which were put into law by other lobbying groups. Lobbying is not confined to companies, but other special interests as well, and most of them engage in the politics of envy.

[bookmaker]

Re: Danger time for America

[QUOTE=Inthemood]And what are your predictions for Mr. Bernanke?

your motto is awful.......

[Կարմիր Բ]

Re: Danger time for America

Capitalism is the crap coined by Marx. We are talking about free markets which you clearly know nothing of. It is precisely socialistic policies that have contributed to these crises, as opposed to free market ones.

I am afraid that you are completely illiterate of economics.

We are talking about free markets

That is capitalism nimrod.

Either way i am not really interested to make a serious discussion with Nazi sympathisers. Live in your pseudo-ideological prism of Kabbalah and tell to those 6.000.000 kids who each year die out of malnutrition that there is no capitalism.

A fool you were, a fool you shall remain.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Danger time for America

I am afraid that you are completely illiterate of economics.

Please show me how I am ignorant.

That is capitalism nimrod.

No it is not "nimrod". Capitalism is what was coined by Marx. It was Marx' attempt to try to discredit both the idea of capital and private property. That does not necessarily, and in fact, at all, translate into free markets. While capital and private property are part of the free market, capitalism is not the free market, as capitalism again, is what was coined by Marx to denote the idea of capital accumulation. You again show you know nothing about economics. Just stick to reading Marxist.org.

Either way i am not really interested to make a serious discussion with Nazi sympathisers. Live in your pseudo-ideological prism of Kabbalah and tell to those 6.000.000 kids who each year die out of malnutrition that there is no capitalism.

A fool you were, a fool you shall remain.

Yet another valiant but empty effort on your behalf.