Agna ... one more try ...

[JBeukema]

Then, pray tell, how can you be against Wal-Mart?

that's... not even remotely logical, KK

 

[KittenKoder]

Then, pray tell, how can you be against Wal-Mart?

As I've noted, Wal-Mart has adverse effects on local economies, including negative effects on employment, wages, and general economic conditions. But what you likely intend to ask is how I can be opposed to unchecked large-scale corporate power. The reason for that is that corporations often retain a form of hierarchical power over local labor markets as authoritarian as that of the state.

Um ... no, actually Wal-Mart offers a product at a price people like, they buy the products and thus the company thrives, that is capitalism. The fact that there is no competition is because of over regulation not allowing other companies to come in with the same products at competitive prices. There's where capitalism is being pushed aside and regulation is taking over. You are blaming the effect, not the cause. If you hate Wal-Mart then you are for more regulation, since Wal-Mart only exists because they found a way to work outside the regulations legally, and they thrive for it. If they deregulated at least half of what the government sticks it's nose into, more businesses would appear to compete.

Also, they don't ruin the areas, they move into areas that are already gone, otherwise they wouldn't be able to get employees.

 

[Agnapostate]

Also, they don't ruin the areas, they move into areas that are already gone, otherwise they wouldn't be able to get employees.

Wrong. Consult Zhang et al.'s The effects of Wal-Mart on local labor markets.

We estimate the effects of Wal-Mart stores on county-level retail employment and earnings, accounting for endogeneity of the location and timing of Wal-Mart openings that most likely biases the evidence against finding adverse effects of Wal-Mart stores. We address the endogeneity problem using a natural instrumental variables approach that arises from the geographic and time pattern of the opening of Wal-Mart stores, which slowly spread out from the first stores in Arkansas. The employment results indicate that a Wal-Mart store opening reduces county-level retail employment by about 150 workers, implying that each Wal-Mart worker replaces approximately 1.4 retail workers. This represents a 2.7 percent reduction in average retail employment. The payroll results indicate that Wal-Mart store openings lead to declines in county-level retail earnings of about $1.4 million, or 1.5 percent.

Complement it with Goetz and Swaminathan's Wal-Mart and County-Wide Poverty.

After controlling for other factors determining changes in the poverty rate over time, we find that counties with more initial (1987) Wal-Mart stores and counties with more additions of stores between 1987 and 1998 experienced greater increases (or smaller decreases) in family-poverty rates during the 1990s economic boom period.

If you were familiar with the empirical research, you'd be aware of the reality that the alleged methodological deficiencies that you refer to are nonexistent, and that the potential external factors that you speculate about are controlled for.

 

[JBeukema]

Um ... no, actually Wal-Mart offers a product at a price people like

By outsourcing to foreign nations, hurting the local economies of the customers. Also, not so long ago, there was a class-action lawsuit for sexual harassment- something they could get away with because of their power. Also, walmart and similar companies make it near-impossible for small 'ma and pop' shops to survive, making entrepreneurship near-impossible and thereby restircting capitalism and choice. These poeple then must workk for one of these super-guiants to earn a living, at which point they become subject the the will of that company. The end reult is- well, the aAmerican economy as it is today...

they buy the products and thus the company thrives,

Oft by exploitong poor people in impoverished nations run by totilarian regimes (like China) and/or devoid of meaningful gvernment (Mexico) while simutaneously crippling local economies by ewffectively suffing more funds from a given are that are returned through wages (in order to remain profitable) into the hands of a select few. These predatory practices are one of the main reasons American capitalism has reached a point where Marx's prediction looks quiote on-target: we cannot sustain this system

that is capitalism.

In one form, dictated by consumerism. You're making hs argument for him...

The fact that there is no competition is because of over regulation not allowing other companies to come in with the same products at competitive prices.

Wrong. It';s under-regulation and a lack of protectionism that allows this model to be successful (fior the corporation)

There's where capitalism is being pushed aside and regulation is taking over.

Asctually, regulatons that limit the growth of corporations and effective punish outsourcing (like high import taxes and the madnatory product testing I have eslewhere advocated) would helop slow or stop this problem. Regulations are not inherently bad. Some regulations are necessary; others are suicidal.

You are blaming the effect, not the cause. If you hate Wal-Mart then you are for more regulation, since Wal-Mart only exists because they found a way to work outside the regulations legally, and they thrive for it. If they deregulated at least half of what the government sticks it's nose into, more businesses would appear to compete.

first you said over-regulation allows Wal-mart to succeed.. now you're saying that Wal-marts's opponenets would necissarily call for more regulation?

Also, they don't ruin the areas, they move into areas that are already gone, otherwise they wouldn't be able to get employees.

Actually, they target businesses likely to bring in more profit( more affluent areas thast they can)- like all businesses

 

[JBeukema]

dammit, KK.. don;t make me agree with agna

 

[editec]

I find it somewhat amusing that people still believe that capitalism is a thing onto itself and not also a stepchild of the state.

Look at the word, folks CAPITALism.

There is no CAPITAL without a state to define it as such.

States which can lightly harness the creative power of CAPITALism can be highly productive, of course.

But states which allow CAPITALism to dominate that state very quickly become something less CAPITALISTIC than that laisse faire system some of you imagine once existed.

In those cases (as we find ourselves in now, for example) those who control the CAPITAL control the economy and they seldom do that fairly enough for the rest of society to really get the benefits of a capitalist system.

The problem isn't the system of CAPITALism v GOVERNMENT, because those two things are not necesssarily in opposition to each other. In fact they need each other to thrive.

No the problem is that PEOPLE with power tend to use that power to their advantage which typically disadvantages those without that power.

The problem with our system today is the problem that faces every civilization regardless of what economic system or system of governance.

The problem is that people are bad monkeys, folks.

The Judeao-Christians have a really pithy phrase to describe it, actually.

They call this problem ORIGINAL SIN.

 

[dilloduck]

I find it somewhat amusing that people still believe that capitalism is a thing onto itself and not also a stepchild of the state.

Look at the word, folks CAPITALism.

There is no CAPITAL without a state to define it as such.

States which can lightly harness the creative power of CAPITALism can be highly productive, of course.

But states which allow CAPITALism to dominate that state very quickly become something less CAPITALISTIC than that laisse faire system some of you imagine once existed.

In those cases (as we find ourselves in now, for example) those who control the CAPITAL control the economy and they seldom do that fairly enough for the rest of society to really get the benefits of a capitalist system.

The problem isn't the system of CAPITALism v GOVERNMENT, because those two things are not necesssarily in opposition to each other. In fact they need each other to thrive.

No the problem is that PEOPLE with power tend to use that power to their advantage which typically disadvantages those without that power.

The problem with our system today is the problem that faces every civilization regardless of what economic system or system of governance.

The problem is that people are bad monkeys, folks.

The Judeao-Christians have a really pithy phrase to describe it, actually.

They call this problem ORIGINAL SIN.

Some monkeys win and some monkeys lose-------does winning automatically make you a bad monkey ?

 

[editec]

I find it somewhat amusing that people still believe that capitalism is a thing onto itself and not also a stepchild of the state.

Look at the word, folks CAPITALism.

There is no CAPITAL without a state to define it as such.

States which can lightly harness the creative power of CAPITALism can be highly productive, of course.

But states which allow CAPITALism to dominate that state very quickly become something less CAPITALISTIC than that laisse faire system some of you imagine once existed.

In those cases (as we find ourselves in now, for example) those who control the CAPITAL control the economy and they seldom do that fairly enough for the rest of society to really get the benefits of a capitalist system.

The problem isn't the system of CAPITALism v GOVERNMENT, because those two things are not necesssarily in opposition to each other. In fact they need each other to thrive.

No the problem is that PEOPLE with power tend to use that power to their advantage which typically disadvantages those without that power.

The problem with our system today is the problem that faces every civilization regardless of what economic system or system of governance.

The problem is that people are bad monkeys, folks.

The Judeao-Christians have a really pithy phrase to describe it, actually.

They call this problem ORIGINAL SIN.

Some monkeys win and some monkeys lose-------does winning automatically make you a bad monkey ?

Depends on how you play the game, doesn't it?

I know plenty of bad monkeys who don't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of, either.

In fact it's actually easier to be a good monkey if you have money than if you don't.

I'm certainly not of the opinion that all wealthy people are evil and all poor people good, if that was the point of your question.

But I am of the opinion that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

[Oddball]

By outsourcing to foreign nations, hurting the local economies of the customers. Also, not so long ago, there was a class-action lawsuit for sexual harassment- something they could get away with because of their power. Also, walmart and similar companies make it near-impossible for small 'ma and pop' shops to survive, making entrepreneurship near-impossible and thereby restircting capitalism and choice. These poeple then must workk for one of these super-guiants to earn a living, at which point they become subject the the will of that company. The end reult is- well, the aAmerican economy as it is today...

Absolute 100% bullshit.

That same drivel was pumped at the town of Steamboat Springs, CO, twenty years ago....The claim that it would destroy local business was not only false, downtown "mom and pops" businesse flourished.

The economic populist Wal-Mart haters really need to get some fresh scaremonger talking points.

 

[JBeukema]

Absolute 100% bullshit.

How so? It's simple, really. Because Wal-Mart has the power to buy in bulk (at lower cost), they can offer products as a significantly lower price. This makes it difficult for smaller businesses to compete in the market. It's called a successful bsiness model.

 

[Oddball]

Because Wal-Mart isn't a monolith.

There are literally hundreds of thousands of things you CAN'T get at a Wal-Mart, and boutique stores (which is most often what mom-n-pop operations are) fill in those blanks.

If Wal-Mart is such a juggernaut, how do Target and K Mart/Sears stay in business?

 

[Oddball]

And speaking of Sears, there was a time when they sold quote literally EVERYTHING, including entire houses, via their mail order operations....Did Sears take over the entire world of retailing??

 

[JBeukema]

k-mart still exists?

and I never said they had everything or that other large corporations couldn't remain in business

try not misrepresenting my statements, k?

 

[Oddball]

K Mart and Sears merged.

I'm not trying to misrepresent anything...Sears was just an example.

In any case, if the dreaded Wally World was such a fierce and predatory competitor, they sure have been doing a crappy job of it.

 

[Agnapostate]

No one claimed that they'd thrived merely because of monopolistic or oligopolistic conditions, from what I saw. Try addressing my comments about the "Wal-Mart effect" of reduced wages, employment, etc.

 

[Oddball]

More pure populist bullshit, that presumes people are just common clay for corporations or petty bureaucrats to mold, flake, and form.

If anyone's line of bilge is the quintessential race to the bottom, it's yours.

 

[Agnapostate]

More pure populist bullshit, that presumes people are just common clay for corporations or petty bureaucrats to mold, flake, and form.

I'd say the most important distinction here is that my assessment is based on empirical research that I've posted, while yours is based on dimwitted muttering that flies in the face of said research, because it conflicts with preconceived ideological dogma that you hold dear.

 

[roomy]

More pure populist bullshit, that presumes people are just common clay for corporations or petty bureaucrats to mold, flake, and form.

I'd say the most important distinction here is that my assessment is based on empirical research that I've posted, while yours is based on dimwitted muttering that flies in the face of said research, because it conflicts with preconceived ideological dogma that you hold dear.

Your emperical research begins and ends with you googling anything you agree with, you fucking mug.

 

[Oddball]

More pure populist bullshit, that presumes people are just common clay for corporations or petty bureaucrats to mold, flake, and form.

I'd say the most important distinction here is that my assessment is based on empirical research that I've posted, while yours is based on dimwitted muttering that flies in the face of said research, because it conflicts with preconceived ideological dogma that you hold dear.

Wow....More Freudian projection.

Bandler would have a field day with your smug little ass.

 

[JBeukema]

So.. agna cites a single example of short-lived successful decentralization...

how many successful republics can be cited?

how many instances can be cited where his flag was raised- and totalitarianism quickly took hold?