The Republicans really wonder about capitalism.

[Uncensored2008]

There is no such thing as free market Capitalism.

I invite you to visit a swapmeet, flea market or yard sale some day.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, I didn't say " Capitalism is destroyed by the free market." I said "Pure (unregulated) capitalism operates without governmental constrains and is destructive to the free market."

It's an idiotic statement, based on ignorance rather than evidence - but it is the one that you made.

 

[Uncensored2008]

insane, capitalism requires regulation. You are pretending to yourself that there is some version of capitalism somewhere that existed without government. Most capitalists, including Friedman, have always wanted goverment money, courts, police and pollution laws at a minimum.

You've never read Friedman, that is very clear.

A system of torts is vital to any society, capitalists support a venue where grievance may be settled. You are correct that Dr. Friedman argued for government money, what you did not grasp was that he was advocating that the Federal Reserve system be abolished and the coining of money return to congress.

You're mixing apples and hand grenades, which is leading you to rather wacky conclusions.

 

[doctor100]

Think about it, no antitrust laws, and no regulations on issuance of stocks and bonds, lending, advertising, deceptive business practices, price fixing, insider trading, etc...

Yawn..

Utter nonsense. Monopolies and trusts ONLY exist at the behest of and with the collusion of the government. In a market situation, they do not and can not exist. The only way to stop a competitor for undercutting price is through the threat or actuality of violence. Where there is violence, there is government involvement - 100% of the time. Every monopoly this nation has seen, from railroads to oil barons to soon-to-be health care, is based on government collusion and mandate.

Businesses with enough resources are free to use any means to destroy competition and monopolize markets.

Where do you get such stupid ideas?

Take an introductory economics class.

You are absurdly ignorant.

Uncensored . . .now, don't get me wrong, I've learned form you a couple of times, so I don't mean to insult you

but . . .

the whole exchange quoted above just demonstrated a incredible lack of understanding of how the world works.

Only two things need be noticed: first that a person cannot continually undercut prices infinitly; larger, more resourceful corporations have a greater ability to do so than smaller less resourced corporations. And "government sponsored monopolies" are absolutely not the only form of monopoly-unless a government has controls to prevent private sector monopolies in place; idealy after establishing anti-trust laws a gov't only establishes or permits a monopoly if they believe it is a "natural monopoly".

In the modern economy non-government assisted monopolies don't exist in developed countries BECAUSE of anti-trust laws and gov't interference. Hence the "true capitalism doesn't exist" argument because we found that monopolies were basically bad. Advanced economic classes will tell you that monopolies don't exist without gov't participation-that's true because they deal with the modern economy. Basic economic classes will tell you that monopolies do exist, up til anti-trust, that's true because they are dealing with the underlying principles pre gov't development of econ. controls.

---------------

Aside from all that, on some of the other stuff you've said. Mostly about what someone intends or does not intend. i would like to introduce you to a concept: it's called "Hanlon's Razor"

 

[RachelMadcow]

Democrats create ghettos

 

[The Rabbi]

It depends what you mean. I would view Sweden as a social democracy.

Well, it isn't a democracy - they have no direct vote. It is a parliamentary republic, as most of Europe is.

It's a parliamentary monarchy.

 

[doctor100]

Democrats create ghettos

LOL, true-though I do believe it started in GA. (granted, it did start before the party flip).

Of course "republicans created homelessness" is also unfair. Dems champion mixed income housing, the solution to "gov't created ghettos"; Honestly, I would prefer doing the old bible way-inviting the homeless into your home; but I don't see that often in Rep states (I have seen it in the North).

the road to hell is paved with . . . .hanlon's razors . . .you make the best with what you got until you see the problems; then you try to fix those.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Only two things need be noticed: first that a person cannot continually undercut prices infinitly; larger, more resourceful corporations have a greater ability to do so than smaller less resourced corporations.

And yet smaller companies manage to undercut large corporations all the time.

Unless there is economy of scale in the process, then a large company has no real advantage and may be at a disadvantage due to higher overhead costs.

And "government sponsored monopolies" are absolutely not the only form of monopoly-unless a government has controls to prevent private sector monopolies in place;

"Private sector monopolies" are a myth. They cannot exist. Part of what may be confusing you is terminology.

If I run a small food store in a small town, the only one in town, do I have a monopoly?

The answer is "no." If Wal-Mart moves in and I go broke, does Wal-Mart have a monopoly? Still "no."

You see, a monopoly is coercive in nature, a barrier or impediment to trade. Monopolies are enforced, they do not exist. What I mean by this is that a lack of competition does not equate to a monopoly. The coercive impediment to competition is what creates a monopoly. If Wal-Mart came to town, shot my dog and burned down my store, THEN they would be enforcing a monopoly by infringing on trade.

Now what would happen if Wal-Mart did that? I'd go to the police and seek an arrest and then sue them. The only way this would NOT happen is if the government were the enforcer of the monopoly. There is simply no other way to enforce it.

In the modern economy non-government assisted monopolies don't exist in developed countries BECAUSE of anti-trust laws and gov't interference.

Just the opposite, they do develop because of government interference on their behalf. Government coercion drives competitors from the market. Absent government coercion the competitors would refuse to bow to the monopoly or trust.

Hence the "true capitalism doesn't exist" argument because we found that monopolies were basically bad.

Again, monopolies cannot exist in a capitalist system. Coercion is absent in a free market, monopolies are coercive by nature. They do not and cannot exist.

Advanced economic classes will tell you that monopolies don't exist without gov't participation-that's true because they deal with the modern economy.

What economics should teach you is that monopolies and trusts are coercive in nature, violence and the threat of violence are the basis of any monopoly or trusts. Absent coercion, a monopoly cannot exist (a "natural monopoly" is an oxymoron.) Where there is coercion, there is government collusion. Government has exclusive control of violence. Any organized violence or threat of violence is done with the collusion of government.

Basic economic classes will tell you that monopolies do exist, up til anti-trust, that's true because they are dealing with the underlying principles pre gov't development of econ. controls.

Every trust you read about under the "Robber Barons" had the government enforcing it. The Federal Government ceded land and even army troops to the railroads and the oil companies. Without government the monopolies decried would not and could not have formed.

 

[Brutus]

I said unregulated capitalism is theoretical and exist nowhere and hopefully never will. I have no objection to regulated capitalism. It coexists with socialism in almost every country on the planet.

stop clowning and tell us whether you want a Republican amount of regulation or a Democratic amount, and why.

You have no objection to every country on earth?? See why we are 100% the liberal will be slow.

 

[RachelMadcow]

I always laugh when Democrat college stoners talk about capitalism, when daddy is paying for their education, their drugs, their housing, their food and their condoms.

My rights!!!




Democrats are usless stoned parasitic idiots

 

[Contumacious]

You want to see a pure unfettered (by government) form of capitalism in action?.

Just so you know, FDR destroyed the "conservatives" in 1935. They are now partners in the welfare/warfare state. The Republicans have not attempted to dismantle any of FDR fascist programs.

.

 

[Brutus]

You want to see a pure unfettered (by government) form of capitalism in action?.

Just so you know, FDR destroyed the "conservatives" in 1935. They are now partners in the welfare/warfare state. The Republicans have not attempted to dismantle any of FDR fascist programs.

.

That's absurd. Republicans ended welfare as we know it and have been for a Balanced Budget Amendment that would in effect make Democrats illegal. Republicans also have many Supreme Court appointees.Most importantly Republicans are the only real voice for freedom on earth. They are the last best hope for freedom

 

[Uncensored2008]

That's absurd. Republicans ended welfare as we know it

When did they do that? Under Clinton? All they did was shift the general relief crowd to SSI - effectively giving them a massive raise. Welfare has increased in the last decade.

and have been for a Balanced Budget Amendment that would in effect make Democrats illegal.

Nonsense. In the 12 years of the Reagan/Bush era, not one attempt was made to introduce a balanced budget provision, much less amendment. Even in the 94' contract with America, no real effort to codify a balanced budget was made. Nothing during the 8 years of Dubya, either.

Republicans also have many Supreme Court appointees.

That I will grant you. Thank God for Thomas, Alito and Roberts.

Most importantly Republicans are the only real voice for freedom on earth. They are the last best hope for freedom

I don't see it. They are nothing but a SLIGHTLY watered down version of the fascist democrats.

 

[doctor100]

Uncensored, we disagree about definitions.

You see, a monopoly is coercive in nature, a barrier or impediment to trade. Monopolies are enforced, they do not exist. What I mean by this is that a lack of competition does not equate to a monopoly.

A lack of competition is nearly my very definition of a monopoly-regardless of how it is attained. Attained w/ gov't help, w/o gov't help, w/coercion or w/o. It is the lack of competition for the trade that defines that it is a monopoly.

Let's see if I am right, shall we?

if i ask google to define monopoly i get several instances of my definition, none of yours. Let's dig.

Wikipedia offers up my definition but also links to something called a coercive monopoly which seems to be your position to a T.

I suppose the difference here is in an absolute monopoly and a practical monopoly. And what we are discussing is practical capitalism vs absolute capitalism. It seems my position is that in absolute capitalism practical monopolies exist; yours is that in a practical capitalism absolute monopolies cannot exist.

My position in a broader sense is that "absolute" things do not exist. absolute capitalism doesn't exist, absolute monopolies don't exist (black markets always exist, especially after coercion); even i dare say, absolute objectivity does not exist-and especially not in social sciences.

To give my position more meat for you to chew on is this: striving for absolute capitalism is a bad thing because it causes practical (for all intents and purposes) monopolies, which may then become coercive-and can do so because of a lack of gov't control. Such instances may lead to corporations that are actually more powerful than the government (such as when Rockefeller made more money than the United States government); and while theoretically only the government controls corporations, practically corporations can control government . . . At which point the gov't doesn't support the corporation, it is an extension of the corporation's will. In fact, you will find if you start to research the pre-union battles in West Virginia the law enforcement were literally owned by the mine companies.

I do not believe in absolute government authority; only practical authority. And practical authority is sometimes owned by companies, esp. those that become monopolies. This i find to be undesirable, and further, to be more probable with less gov't controls on company trust. "capitalism" then I find to be not pro-competion, but laissez-faire, and when taken to extreme or "absolute" measures to lead to negatives such as practical and potentially coercive monopolies.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Uncensored, we disagree about definitions.

It appears we do.

A lack of competition is nearly my very definition of a monopoly-regardless of how it is attained. Attained w/ gov't help, w/o gov't help, w/coercion or w/o. It is the lack of competition for the trade that defines that it is a monopoly.

Let's see if I am right, shall we?

if i ask google to define monopoly i get several instances of my definition, none of yours. Let's dig.

Wikipedia offers up my definition but also links to something called a coercive monopoly which seems to be your position to a T.

Actually, Wikipedia states;

{In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος (alone or single) + polein / πωλειν (to sell)) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.} (Emphasis added.)

Monopoly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A monopoly involves coercion by definition.

What is it that you, or others object to from a monopoly? That one vendor enjoys an unfair portion of sales? No, of course not. The objection is that the vendor has sufficient control as to be able to command exorbitant prices and block competition. Simply being a sole vendor does not empower a company to do this.

Let me demonstrate:

Apple is the only company who can sell an iPhone. Apple has no competition in the iPhone market. So is Apple a monopoly? If it is, why hasn't the SEC moved to break it up?

The answer is that it is not a monopoly. While it unquestionably has the sole ability and right to sell the iPhone, it does not act in a coercive manner to block competition. No coercion, no monopoly.

I suppose the difference here is in an absolute monopoly and a practical monopoly. And what we are discussing is practical capitalism vs absolute capitalism. It seems my position is that in absolute capitalism practical monopolies exist; yours is that in a practical capitalism absolute monopolies cannot exist.

We have seen absolute monopolies through AT&T, Amtrack, the USPS for example, many times. In all cases they ARE coercive, try building a passenger rail system and see how long it takes for men with guns to come threaten (or worse) you?

My position in a broader sense is that "absolute" things do not exist.

Yet they do, as demonstrated above. They ONLY exist with the collusion or direct involvement of government, though.

absolute capitalism doesn't exist,

Absolute capitalism exists at every yardsale on every Saturday of the year. It is the most free interaction that humans are capable of. Trade between buyer and seller with no threats, no violence - not from government not unions nor environmentalist nor church.

absolute monopolies don't exist (black markets always exist, especially after coercion);

In economic terms, black markets do not alter the reality of monopolies. Furthermore, in many cases a black market is not practical. There was no black market of telephone service back when the Federal Government enforced a monopoly for AT&T. There is no black market for rail service.

To give my position more meat for you to chew on is this: striving for absolute capitalism is a bad thing because it causes practical (for all intents and purposes) monopolies,

How does capitalism cause monopolies?

Such instances may lead to corporations that are actually more powerful than the government (such as when Rockefeller made more money than the United States government); and while theoretically only the government controls corporations,
practically corporations can control government . . .

When you intertwine government and corporations, fascism is the result. Why do you think Kaiser and Blue Cross love Obama?

At which point the gov't doesn't support the corporation, it is an extension of the corporation's will.

Nonsense. Governments have guns. They are ALWAYS calling the shots. They simply lie about it to the naive.

In fact, you will find if you start to research the pre-union battles in West Virginia the law enforcement were literally owned by the mine companies.

So it was government enforcing the monopoly position?

 

[Flopper]

Only two things need be noticed: first that a person cannot continually undercut prices infinitly; larger, more resourceful corporations have a greater ability to do so than smaller less resourced corporations.

And yet smaller companies manage to undercut large corporations all the time.

Unless there is economy of scale in the process, then a large company has no real advantage and may be at a disadvantage due to higher overhead costs.

And "government sponsored monopolies" are absolutely not the only form of monopoly-unless a government has controls to prevent private sector monopolies in place;

"Private sector monopolies" are a myth. They cannot exist. Part of what may be confusing you is terminology.

If I run a small food store in a small town, the only one in town, do I have a monopoly?

The answer is "no." If Wal-Mart moves in and I go broke, does Wal-Mart have a monopoly? Still "no."

You see, a monopoly is coercive in nature, a barrier or impediment to trade. Monopolies are enforced, they do not exist. What I mean by this is that a lack of competition does not equate to a monopoly. The coercive impediment to competition is what creates a monopoly. If Wal-Mart came to town, shot my dog and burned down my store, THEN they would be enforcing a monopoly by infringing on trade.

Now what would happen if Wal-Mart did that? I'd go to the police and seek an arrest and then sue them. The only way this would NOT happen is if the government were the enforcer of the monopoly. There is simply no other way to enforce it.



Just the opposite, they do develop because of government interference on their behalf. Government coercion drives competitors from the market. Absent government coercion the competitors would refuse to bow to the monopoly or trust.



Again, monopolies cannot exist in a capitalist system. Coercion is absent in a free market, monopolies are coercive by nature. They do not and cannot exist.

Advanced economic classes will tell you that monopolies don't exist without gov't participation-that's true because they deal with the modern economy.

What economics should teach you is that monopolies and trusts are coercive in nature, violence and the threat of violence are the basis of any monopoly or trusts. Absent coercion, a monopoly cannot exist (a "natural monopoly" is an oxymoron.) Where there is coercion, there is government collusion. Government has exclusive control of violence. Any organized violence or threat of violence is done with the collusion of government.

Basic economic classes will tell you that monopolies do exist, up til anti-trust, that's true because they are dealing with the underlying principles pre gov't development of econ. controls.

Every trust you read about under the "Robber Barons" had the government enforcing it. The Federal Government ceded land and even army troops to the railroads and the oil companies. Without government the monopolies decried would not and could not have formed.

The most glaring example of a monopoly that exists today is Wal-Mart. Before their expansion into groceries in the early 1990s, they were already known as a forceful retailer that drove small businesses out of the towns where they opened. But the move to add grocery stores onto their existing stores to create "Supercenters" removed all doubt as to whether or not they are a monopoly. What must be understood about the grocery business is how thin the profit margins are. I once heard that the average grocery store must gross one million dollars a day in order to make a profit; that is why there are so many bankruptcies and mergers within that industry. Adding a grocery store to the existing Wal-Mart store layout allowed them to sell groceries at little or no profit in order to sell more of their products elsewhere in the store. This action is described as "horizontalintegration" and is considered anti-competitive because the companies that deal only in groceries cannot match Wal-Mart's prices and lack the ability to make their own general merchandise store to match. As Wal-Mart built hundreds of new Supercenters during the 1990s, they began to employ another anti-competitive tactic. They have roughly a quarter of the American grocery market today, which makes them far and away the largest buyer of every major brand of foods; this leverage has allowed them to force suppliers to sell their products for less than their normal wholesale rates.

While one might immediately think that this is a good thing and leads to the lower prices you see in stores, you must also understand the detrimental effects it has on the side of the supplier. For example, Kraft Foods was forced to shut down dozens of plants and lay off over 30,0000 workers in order to meet Wal-Mart's price demands. Other major comanies that would seemingly be insulated from these problems, such as Coca Cola, Procter & Gamble, and Rubbermaid have also been forced to submit to Wal-Mart. A third way that Wal-Mart constitutes a monopoly is that they operate in many areas where they have a natural monopoly, meaning it would be impossible to introduce a competitor due to geographic or population reasons. In many small towns, they are the only store selling products like hardware, eyeglasses, electronics, and sometimes even a full line of groceries. This leavesthe residents of those areas with two choices on where to shop: Wal-Mart or going all the way to the next town, which may only have a Wal-Mart itself. It also leaves the residents of that town dependent on Wal-Mart's employment and sales tax dollars, meaning they have little choice but to go along with whatever the big corporation wants.

What Monopolies Exist Today? - Part 1: Wal-Mart - amicuspeccatorum's Blog - Blogster

 

[Brutus]

That's absurd. Republicans ended welfare as we know it

When did they do that? Under Clinton? All they did was shift the general relief crowd to SSI - effectively giving them a massive raise. Welfare has increased in the last decade..

sure but 100% of the push back has been Repubican. The end result depends on how much conservative reform the American people will support.

and have been for a Balanced Budget Amendment that would in effect make Democrats illegal.

Nonsense. In the 12 years of the Reagan/Bush era, not one attempt was made to introduce a balanced budget provision, much less amendment. Even in the 94' contract with America, no real effort to codify a balanced budget was made. Nothing during the 8 years of Dubya, either..

actually Newt got 32 states to sign up for Constitutional convention. They introduced 4 last year alone and one in March this year. They'd die for it but are very careful after what happened to Newt.

[

Republicans also have many Supreme Court appointees.

That I will grant you. Thank God for Thomas, Alito and Roberts..

Most importantly Republicans are the only real voice for freedom on earth. They are the last best hope for freedom

I don't see it. They are nothing but a SLIGHTLY watered down version of the fascist democrats.

you say what they are as if its fixed in stone and not a reflection of what the flip flopping public will tolerate at any one moment. Do you imagine that if the American people wanted ultra right wing Jeffersonian Tea Party Libertarians that representatives would not step forward to represent them for 175K a year??.

 

[Toro]

Are you debating with yourself Brutus?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Only two things need be noticed: first that a person cannot continually undercut prices infinitly; larger, more resourceful corporations have a greater ability to do so than smaller less resourced corporations.

And yet smaller companies manage to undercut large corporations all the time.

Unless there is economy of scale in the process, then a large company has no real advantage and may be at a disadvantage due to higher overhead costs.



"Private sector monopolies" are a myth. They cannot exist. Part of what may be confusing you is terminology.

If I run a small food store in a small town, the only one in town, do I have a monopoly?

The answer is "no." If Wal-Mart moves in and I go broke, does Wal-Mart have a monopoly? Still "no."

You see, a monopoly is coercive in nature, a barrier or impediment to trade. Monopolies are enforced, they do not exist. What I mean by this is that a lack of competition does not equate to a monopoly. The coercive impediment to competition is what creates a monopoly. If Wal-Mart came to town, shot my dog and burned down my store, THEN they would be enforcing a monopoly by infringing on trade.

Now what would happen if Wal-Mart did that? I'd go to the police and seek an arrest and then sue them. The only way this would NOT happen is if the government were the enforcer of the monopoly. There is simply no other way to enforce it.



Just the opposite, they do develop because of government interference on their behalf. Government coercion drives competitors from the market. Absent government coercion the competitors would refuse to bow to the monopoly or trust.



Again, monopolies cannot exist in a capitalist system. Coercion is absent in a free market, monopolies are coercive by nature. They do not and cannot exist.



What economics should teach you is that monopolies and trusts are coercive in nature, violence and the threat of violence are the basis of any monopoly or trusts. Absent coercion, a monopoly cannot exist (a "natural monopoly" is an oxymoron.) Where there is coercion, there is government collusion. Government has exclusive control of violence. Any organized violence or threat of violence is done with the collusion of government.

Basic economic classes will tell you that monopolies do exist, up til anti-trust, that's true because they are dealing with the underlying principles pre gov't development of econ. controls.

Every trust you read about under the "Robber Barons" had the government enforcing it. The Federal Government ceded land and even army troops to the railroads and the oil companies. Without government the monopolies decried would not and could not have formed.

The most glaring example of a monopoly that exists today is Wal-Mart. Before their expansion into groceries in the early 1990s, they were already known as a forceful retailer that drove small businesses out of the towns where they opened. But the move to add grocery stores onto their existing stores to create "Supercenters" removed all doubt as to whether or not they are a monopoly. What must be understood about the grocery business is how thin the profit margins are. I once heard that the average grocery store must gross one million dollars a day in order to make a profit; that is why there are so many bankruptcies and mergers within that industry. Adding a grocery store to the existing Wal-Mart store layout allowed them to sell groceries at little or no profit in order to sell more of their products elsewhere in the store. This action is described as "horizontalintegration" and is considered anti-competitive because the companies that deal only in groceries cannot match Wal-Mart's prices and lack the ability to make their own general merchandise store to match. As Wal-Mart built hundreds of new Supercenters during the 1990s, they began to employ another anti-competitive tactic. They have roughly a quarter of the American grocery market today, which makes them far and away the largest buyer of every major brand of foods; this leverage has allowed them to force suppliers to sell their products for less than their normal wholesale rates.

While one might immediately think that this is a good thing and leads to the lower prices you see in stores, you must also understand the detrimental effects it has on the side of the supplier. For example, Kraft Foods was forced to shut down dozens of plants and lay off over 30,0000 workers in order to meet Wal-Mart's price demands. Other major comanies that would seemingly be insulated from these problems, such as Coca Cola, Procter & Gamble, and Rubbermaid have also been forced to submit to Wal-Mart. A third way that Wal-Mart constitutes a monopoly is that they operate in many areas where they have a natural monopoly, meaning it would be impossible to introduce a competitor due to geographic or population reasons. In many small towns, they are the only store selling products like hardware, eyeglasses, electronics, and sometimes even a full line of groceries. This leavesthe residents of those areas with two choices on where to shop: Wal-Mart or going all the way to the next town, which may only have a Wal-Mart itself. It also leaves the residents of that town dependent on Wal-Mart's employment and sales tax dollars, meaning they have little choice but to go along with whatever the big corporation wants.

What Monopolies Exist Today? - Part 1: Wal-Mart - amicuspeccatorum's Blog - Blogster

How can WalMart possibly be a monopoly when it has numerous competitors in the market? Last I looked, my city had Target and K-Mart, not to mention numerous grocery store chains AND smaller mom-and-pop food stores. I am under no compulsion whatsoever to shop at WalMart if I don't choose to, because I have plenty of other options available. I realize that you found a blog that said so, therefore you figure it must be true, but I'm just not seeing how that qualifies as a "monopoly".

 

[Uncensored2008]

The most glaring example of a monopoly that exists today is Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart is not a monopoly, nor even close. Those who makes statements claiming that Wal-Mart is a monopoly are merely ignorant.

Take an introductory economics class!

Before their expansion into groceries in the early 1990s, they were already known as a forceful retailer that drove small businesses out of the towns where they opened.

Drove them out? Do you have video or other evidence of armed Wal-Marters "driving" other merchants out? Did they burn their stores? Kill their employees? Block deliveries?

But the move to add grocery stores onto their existing stores to create "Supercenters" removed all doubt as to whether or not they are a monopoly.

Not to someone with a modicum of education.

Fedco, Gemco, Target and Costco have long, back to the 1950's, run combination retail and grocery stores.

Adding a grocery store to the existing Wal-Mart store layout allowed them to sell groceries at little or no profit in order to sell more of their products elsewhere in the store.

Sounds like a good marketing plan.

This action is described as "horizontalintegration" and is considered anti-competitive

Considered by whom? KOS kiddies?

because the companies that deal only in groceries cannot match Wal-Mart's prices and lack the ability to make their own general merchandise store to match.

Yawn..

Wal-Mart is a master of supply chain management. What drives their success is their ability to manage a complex web of vendors and suppliers.

As Wal-Mart built hundreds of new Supercenters during the 1990s, they began to employ another anti-competitive tactic.

You mean, selling food for less than the competition?

They have roughly a quarter of the American grocery market today, which makes them far and away the largest buyer of every major brand of foods; this leverage has allowed them to force suppliers to sell their products for less than their normal wholesale rates.

You are free to send donations to those suppliers if you feel that you pay too little for your food.

For example, Kraft Foods was forced to shut down dozens of plants and lay off over 30,0000 workers in order to meet Wal-Mart's price demands.

So your claim is that by closing plants and laying off workers they could meet demand?

ROFL

You really haven't thought this through, have you?

Other major comanies that would seemingly be insulated from these problems, such as Coca Cola, Procter & Gamble, and Rubbermaid have also been forced to submit to Wal-Mart.

So armed Wal-Martians held guns to the head of Coca Cola execs and forced them to submit?

A third way that Wal-Mart constitutes a monopoly is that they operate in many areas where they have a natural monopoly, meaning it would be impossible to introduce a competitor due to geographic or population reasons.

Well dammit! How dare they provide goods and services to rural America!

In many small towns, they are the only store selling products like hardware, eyeglasses, electronics, and sometimes even a full line of groceries.

And you feel compelled to launch a personal mission to deprive these small towns of an outlet for these goods. Let them drive for hours to pay higher prices!

This leavesthe residents of those areas with two choices on where to shop: Wal-Mart or going all the way to the next town,

And you are determined to take away that choice - they can go to the next town or do without - you have a Union to promote - fuck the consumer!

You're a joke dude, a whiny little union thug spew complete and utter bullshit.