The Democratic leftards hate Wal-Mart because they hate America and everything it stands for. The Democratic party is the home of the socialists, who will stop at nothing to destroy a sucess of capitalism like Wal-Mart.
Remember that the next you're in a voting booth and considering voting for a Democrat.
42 comments
I don't know that the anti-Walmart crowd hates America. They don't trust the idea of free trade and comparative advantage.
Now the idea that the Democrat platform is demonstrably anti-corporate and anti-capitalist is one I can get behind. I tried not to believe that, but I've had too many Democrat friends who believed that wealthy = evil.
As a former small business owner, I know how hard it is to try and stay afloat when the major corporations come into town. We owned a small printing company. We did pretty well until they opened a Staples just down the road. All of a sudden, people started taking their simple print jobs over to Staples. It has been proven that in a town where a Wal-Mart opens, three small businesses will close their doors within the year. I value small business. Sure, small privately owned Mom and Pop businesses may not be open 24/7 and their prices may be a bit higher, but they are an asset to any town. This is especially true in my small town which has become some sort of haven for yuppies and a total gridlock nightmare. We now have both a Lowe's and a Home Depot. We have two Wal-Marts. We have a Super Target, a Circuit City, PetCo, Ross, Office Max, Staples and we're about to get a Best Buy and PetSmart. Alot of smaller businesses in town are suffering. It's sad.
If the consumers agree that the smaller stores are an asset, or if the smaller stores can convince the consumers that they are an asset, then they will survive. If the consumers aren't convinced, the small stores will fail. That's capitalism, and in the long run it's inefficient for a city to single out Wal-Mart for zoning ordinances. Yeah, it sucks that long-standing business owners have to close shop because they can no longer turn a profit, but risk is the name of the game.
When the government tries to limit competition through meddling, I think the general public loses.
Mister Spak -- Exactly. These conservatards are myopic. Their transfixed by low prices to the point that they are willing to ignore that facts that it's Wal-Mart like buying practices that are driving jobs over seas and killing businesses which actually offer services with their products.
They hate the Chinese, but for a 12 cent savings they're willing to support them over their fellow Americans.
Gene, try putting your eight year old kid to work from dawn till dusk in a 19th century cotton mill, collecting (and breathing) dirt and fluff underneath unguarded heavy machinery whilst rapidly going deaf because of the noise, then tell me that unfettered Capitalism has no problems.
I'm going to stick my neck out on this one as a staunch pro-free-trade, pro-WTO kinda guy.
I don't think there's anything myopic about supporting free trade practices. If free trade and the theory of comparative advantage are to be believed (and they've got most economists and a load of empirical evidence supporting them), free trade (or even unilateral reduction of trade barriers) increases the wealth of both nations involved in the trade, whereas protectionist trade policy ruins markets and was arguably responsible for the Great Depresssion.
Do some people get harmed by the shifting of labor forces? Yes, the same way brickmakers suffered when steel construction began, or stables lost out with the invention of the automobile. But the nation as a whole benefits economically, even after money is expended to retrain workers for industries in which the US has a comparative advantage.
Protectionism is a recipe for economic disaster. Free trade fosters economic well-being and relative peace (look at how the EU, originally a customs union, has transformed a historically war-torn continent).
The problem, Wow, is that Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage, a theory which has not been very much adapted since its development in the early 1800s, was created under certain assumptions. One key assumption that is no longer true today is that capital is not going to leave a country. That makes sense in the 1800s when the most important capital was land, it doesn't make sense in today's international financial markets. We gain price advantages from free trade, there is no doubt, and I certainly wouldn't advocate any form of protectionism, that's like amputating a leg to cure a stubbed toe. Nevertheless, when both capital and labor can be shifted overseas then you don't have old economic sectors failing and new economic sectors emerging, instead you have a general economic slump. Of course, this hasn't happened extensively as of yet, but I also don't see much discussion over the problem.
In any case, this isn't only about free trade but also about free markets giving way to noncompetative monopolistic or oligopic markets. Oh sure, Walmart beat out the competition due to merit, but why should the reward be market control and the power to set prices? More importantly, why should we wait for a monopoly to form when we can see one is on the brink of formation? Can't we curtail the formation of monopolies before they destroy their respective free markets?
I welcome a responce but I don't like extensive discussions in Comments. If you'd like we can take this to the FSTDT boards.
Wow #71987
<< I'm going to stick my neck out on this one as a staunch pro-free-trade, pro-WTO kinda guy.
I don't think there's anything myopic about supporting free trade practices. If free trade and the theory of comparative advantage are to be believed (and they've got most economists and a load of empirical evidence supporting them), free trade (or even unilateral reduction of trade barriers) increases the wealth of both nations involved in the trade, whereas protectionist trade policy ruins markets and was arguably responsible for the Great Depresssion.
Do some people get harmed by the shifting of labor forces? Yes, the same way brickmakers suffered when steel construction began, or stables lost out with the invention of the automobile. But the nation as a whole benefits economically, even after money is expended to retrain workers for industries in which the US has a comparative advantage. >>
First a point on which I'm unsure, and then one on which I'm certain.
The Great Depression, as I understand it, was more about the artificial inflation of money in the abstract on the Stock Exchange. In essence, I see it as effectively a huge poker game of raise after raise after raise -- and when something finally triggered a "call," all those chips they were using (the stocks) turned out to be just chips, with little actual money behind them. If someone has a clearer explanation for me, however, I'd be glad of it -- economics is not my best field.
However, I am sure I am on stronger ground with my next point. I think that last paragraph quoted above puts forth an inappropriate comparison. To say that the brickwork industry was displaced by the steelmaking industry or that stabling was displaced by the automobile is to give examples of major changes in technology, not merely shifts in the location of labor. So Wal-Mart, which (like other outlets) supports manufacturing more firmly overseas instead of in the U.S., but is not introducing a new technology in the process, is not comparable. This is not a matter of judgment of values -- merely a comment on the appropriateness of the comparisons given.
-----------------------
By the way, with regard to the original post, this is just insane. I seem to recall a few years ago that the conservatives were railing against Wal-Mart for abandoning its "buy American" stance and getting stuff from China; now they want to castigate the Democrats for the same position! How hypocritical can you get?
~David D.G.
What Kat said.
And, furthermore, while "free" trade may be great (it's not, as David D.G. and NKF said) if you're in the US, the biggest bully in the playground, it sucks some serious arse if you're not. Ask Australian farmers. Ask Canadian lumber workers. Ask any Mexican you like.
David D.G.
As to your first point, that the Great Depression was caused by the vicious circle initiated by the stock market crash...
You're right in that a decrease in trade wasn't the sole cause of the Great Depression. The Wall Street Crash wasn't really the major cause, but was one of the events that lead up to the Depression. Many economists and historians believe, in fact, that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was the cause of the Crash, because the prices of stocks anticipate future profit growth, and many industrialists and investors predicted the retaliatory tariff escalation that occurred.
(For the record, a decline in stock price does not have any immediate effect on the corporation the stock represents or its book value, though it has an effect on the ability of the corporation to raise future funds through equity sales, and because banks became much more conservative or failed because of the crash, it would have been extremely difficult for businesses in the US to raise funds).
As to your second point, I don't think it's an inappropriate comparison at all. Whether a worker loses his job because technology has made his product obsolete or he loses his job because production has shifted elsewhere, for all intents and purposes the effect on the worker is the same (he or she has lost his job because his services are no longer in demand through no fault of his own), and the economic incentive for the industrialist to shift production is virtually identical. The only ways to prevent a shift in labor are a) find a way to restore demand for the old product; b) provide a subsidy for producers not to move the production; or c) impose legislation to prevent the transfer of labor, by either outlawing the new product, or banning competitive products from other markets.
Whether the person loses the job because the technology changes or the industry moves, he or she must still retrain; whether the change is from brick to concrete or from $100 American toasters or $70 Chinese toasters, the capitalist must move the production to compete.
I hate Wal*Mart because they move into a town, practice predatory loss-pricing while covering the losses with other stores until they have driven all the local competition out of business. Then they raise their prices to the normal levels and hire all the former small buisnessmen providing them with substantialy lower wages than they had before, thus securing for themselves not only a desperate, captive workforce, but a population so under-paid that they have no choice but to patronize the very retail establishment that caused the situation in the first place.
And god forbid they should try to Unionize, because then Wal*Mart will simply close the store and abandon the area to an even greater level of poverty than they were causing.
I hate Wal*Mart not because I'm a Democrat, which I am, but because they are the very definition of a parasitic company. I don't know about you, but I'm of the opinion that if you notice a giant, bloated parasite sucking your blood, you should scrape it off and stomp the shit out of it.
From what I've read of Adam Smith, capitalism is as dependent upon consumers having valid choices as it is upon economies of scale. While companies that provide products with higher quality and/or at a cheaper price will grow relative to their competition, markets dominated by one or few players weaken the concept of enlightened choice. When retailers like Wal-Mart or software suppliers like Microsoft dominate their markets the tipping point is passed and capitalism slides into oligarchy/monopoly (and, if not stopped, our modern variant of feudalism, fascism). Ironically, the companies weakening capitalism defend themselves as being the true capitalists: "How did we get where we are if we weren't?" The relief valves that save capitalist systems are competition, innovation and, if necessary, anti-trust legislation.
Republicans say they are for capitalism but they are actually for Big Business; recognize the subtle difference. Capitalism still allows consumers, "voting with their dollars", to influence markets. But if there's only one "ballot box" to vote those dollars in where is the competition and what happens to capitalism?
Consumers have plenty of choice in the retail market. They have Wal-Mart; they have Target; they have smaller retailers that have either branded themselves successfully enough to compete or have convinced consumers that it's worth it to pay a premium for their goods; and they have any number of online retailers. The barriers to entry in the retail market are not high enough to warrant fears of a monopoly or an oligarchy. Any number of players could still enter the market and compete.
I'll agree that certain industries (the operating systems market being one) have a high risk of monopoly, and that monopolies are a bad thing to be avoided, but the mere presence of a overwhelmingly large player in a single industry is not in and of itself proof of a monopoly. If you think that Adam Smith would not have wanted corporations over a certain size, I think I'd disagree. As far as I know, he had plenty of knowledge of large trading firms like the East India companies, and had nothing to say against them.
When consumers have a meaningful choice between the Wal-Marts and the Main Street General Stores (and they do), and they choose the Wal-Marts, that's capitalism. It's not a monopoly. Wal-Mart simply wins the competition.
I realize I'm about to get crucified for my opinion. I've noticed a lot of people getting into histrionics about "Republicans this" and "Conservatards that." I haven't tried to make generalizations about all Democrats, or all self-described liberals - I've only tried to present my own views on free trade. And hey, I'm not 100% pro-Wal-Mart, either.
When you try to proclaim that ALL Republicans, or ALL "conservatards" believe this or do this or are for big business instead of real capitalism, then you're no better than the moron Gene for whom this thread was started.
Yes, I'm GOP. No, I'm not a fundamentalist (I'm a moderate Jew). Yes, I think one can be both a Democrat and a loyal American. I believe that people can have reasonable differences of opinion. Just don't pigeonhole me as a moron right-winger.
It was Adam Smith who talked about perfect competition and how capitalism was to be a counter to the mercantilism that was prevleant in his day. Barriers to entry into a market (such as the massive size of Wal-Mart or Target) didn't exist then. From John Ikerd, From Capitalism to Corporatism ,
"In the late 1700s, these basic assumptions of perfect competition were pretty well reflected in the world into which Adam Smith made his inquiry. Consumer tastes and preferences could be accepted as given. There may have been strong efforts to bend people’s tastes and preferences to make them better citizens, better husbands and wives, or to save their souls, but their material needs and wants were pretty much accepted as given. There was little if any advertising designed to create wants and needs that did not previously exist.
"The economy was made up almost entirely of individual buyers and sellers. Most businesses were private enterprises, operated by a single individual or a family, possibly with a few hired workers. Corporations were rare in those days, mainly restricted to government granted monopolies. European craft and merchants guilds were still around, but Smith criticized them soundly because of their undesirable influence on competition. Most guilds were abolished by the early 1800s.
"In Smith’s day, it was easy to get into or out of a business. The enterprises were small, so the investments were small. It was easy to acquire enough money to get into a business that looked promising and not too painful to liquidate one that didn’t. Most buildings and equipment could be used for a number of different uses, so no one was locked into doing just one thing. Since most processing and manufacturing activities were pretty basic, there were few patents or copyrights to prevent competition from new or existing producers."
See also The Betrayal of Adam Smith by David Korten.
Smith is quoted on a Federal Reserve Bank website :
"The monopolists, by keeping the market constantly under-stocked, by never fully supplying the effectual demand, sell their commodities much above the natural price, and raise their emoluments, whether they consist in wages or profit, greatly above their natural rate. (p. 61)"
So Smith himself would think that corporations had and shouldn't grow so large as to dominate a market.
And if I can address Gene's original post about "Democratic leftards....who will stop at nothing to destroy a sucess [sic] of capitalism like Wal-Mart....Remember that the next [time?] you're in a voting booth and considering voting for a Democrat."
Gene introduced party politics into this thread from the beginning, so I don't mind taking a slap at the Republican Party for cozying up to Big Business. Anyone who denies that point either can't or won't read the newspaper.
And while I don't think all Republicans are as ignorant as Gene, statements like "If you think that Adam Smith would not have wanted corporations over a certain size, I think I'd disagree," only hurt your credibility. It sounds as if you are drinking the Kool-Aid. GOP-aid?
I believe that people can have reasonable differences of opinion. Just don't pigeonhole me as a moron right-winger.
Well I wouldn't say so, you are obviously well educated on the topic.
Consumers have plenty of choice in the retail market. They have Wal-Mart; they have Target; they have smaller retailers that have either branded themselves successfully enough to compete or have convinced consumers that it's worth it to pay a premium for their goods; and they have any number of online retailers.
Well by definition a market dominated by Walmart, Target, and other large retailers is an oligopoly. That may be less so in city, where you can have speciality retailers along with the larger chains. In a city you can also have chains competing with each other, offering at least some choice (the little that is available in an oligopic market). Now in more rural areas, where you may only have a single chain store, you have a total monopoly.
You make a good point with online retailers. Of course, the online retailers also have to add shipping to each individual item, the consumer has to pay for that somewhere along the line. Thus the prices offered by online retailers are not as attractive as those of local retailers.
Ah yes - each member of one family turns into multi-billionaires by exploiting tens of millions of others, at home and abroad, stymying the economy, and proliferating waste and destruction of precious resources by peddling crap by the bucket load.
Plastics are made from petrochemicals and hydrocarbon polymers - when turned into plastic, most are not biodegradable and all you are doing is ensuring crude hits ever spiralling prices and resources that take millions of years to accumulate are being squandered to feed an ever more wasteful hunger for junk, and make the world's most disgusting landfill.
Ah, the American dream in action! (according to 'Gene')
"Wow," I certainly don't crucify you for your opinion, even though I don't echo all of it. Also, I thank you for the extensive explanation of the causes of the Depression -- I don't understand most of the vocabulary in it, but I thank you for it just the same!
I still disagree with you about the applicability of the analogies you provided, but not enough to wrestle with it further. I simply disagree. The original point you made is still valid; I just think that the reason for the changes make a big difference when the whole point of what we're talking about is the relocation of manufacturing to take advantage of cheap labor. That is entirely different from a branch of technology being replaced by a completely different branch of technology -- at least, that is how I see it.
~David D.G.
David -
You're welcome to disagree. I can't tell you how relieved I am to find people who will debate and agree to disagree without resorting to character assassination.
Too much public discourse these days has devolved to "Liberals BAD!!/Conservatives BAD!!"
I accept that I probably won't convince many people that my opinion is correct, and likewise, my opinion has been shaped by many years of study, and deep thought about these issues. But if I can explain the free-trade argument as best I can, someone might be exposed to ideas they hadn't considered.
In my personal opinion, the arguments behind free trade are hard to understand without a background in macroeconomics and a knowledge of 20th century political history. That's why I try to put it out there. Also, I'm an intensely left-brained person (I respond best to well-structured logic) whereas this is more of an emotional, personal issue for a lot of people.
It's a tough debate to be sure, and likely will not end with our generation, though I still think free trade will benefit everyone in the long run.
The Democratic leftards hate Wal-Mart because they hate America and everything it stands for.
I'm no democrat, but that's because I'm far too liberal to be a democrat. I don't hate everything America stands for (or should I add, "in theory") quite the opposite. I support most of the principles on which the USA was founded. I don't much care for what it's become, though, it's true.
The Democratic party is the home of the socialists
As a socialist, I resent that. We're far too liberal to be democrats.
who will stop at nothing to destroy a sucess of capitalism like Wal-Mart.
If Wally world is a success of capitalism, it just proves my point that capitalism needs to be abolished. But I think it's more a success of corporatism than capitalism.
"I hate Wal*Mart because they move into a town, practice predatory loss-pricing while covering the losses with other stores until they have driven all the local competition out of business. Then they raise their prices to the normal levels and hire all the former small buisnessmen providing them with substantialy lower wages than they had before, thus securing for themselves not only a desperate, captive workforce, but a population so under-paid that they have no choice but to patronize the very retail establishment that caused the situation in the first place."
Exactly.
This has been an interesting discussion, but I'm still missing the connection between Democrats and Wal-Mart. Maybe it's my perspective from the affluent part of the Northeast, but around here, most of the people are Republicans, and while Bloomies and Williams-Sonomas are a dime a dozen, you'd have to drive 30 miles to find a Wal-Mart. If I suggested we get a Wal-Mart around here, my Republican neighbors would show up at my house with torches and pitchforks; although the Wall-Streeters with Wal-Mart in their portfolios would be happy to see one built in some fundie community in Arkansas. When did Wal-Mart become a Democrat-vs-Republican issue?
Just because they don´t buy in a sumpermaket?, well, in that case I am not a patriot, because I don´t buy in El Corte inglés(I´m Spanish)?
Alrighty, let's take Gene and make him work at a Wal-Mart. Take away his assets so he's forced to live on a Wal-Mart wage. Eventually, he'll get the point.
When he does, make him operate a small business when a Wal-Mart moves into town. I'm guessing he'll wind up working at the Wal-Mart.
After that, make him work in a Chinese sweatshop, producing the goods that Wal-Mart sells. Don't let him quit until he gets that point.
http://www.jibjab.com/originals/
(Note: Top, farthest on right.)
Well, I can hate hamburguers, because I don´t like their taste, and because they are told to exploit people(which I find unfair), am I anti-american?
And here we see the Republicans' true god: The Almighty Dollar.
I'm not American, but no conservative will ever get my vote. For anything.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.