The Republicans really wonder about capitalism.

[Toro]

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

The problem with this line of thinking is that it assumes that monopoly unto itself is a bad thing. Its not necessarily. The reason why monopoly is presumed to be a bad thing is because enterprises will exhibit monopoly power and extract monopoly rent from consumers. But what if the monopoly behaves like a firm in competition? Why is that bad, especially when it lowers costs for all? If you can buy something for $8 that used to cost $10, that is good for the consumer, no matter who sells it to you.

I'm not a big fan of Wal-Mart. I don't shop there often. However, Wal-Mart has not used to monopoly power to extract monopoly rents from buyers. They have done just the opposite in fact. They have lowered prices for consumers through scale. That is how efficiency in a market is supposed to work.

 

[Flopper]

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.



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".

"Walmart loves to shock and awe. City-size stores, absurdly low prices ($8 jeans!) and everything from milk to Matchbox toys on its shelves. And with the recession forcing legions of stores into bankruptcy, the world's largest retailer now apparently wants to take out the remaining survivors."

Read more: Walmart's Project Impact: A Move to Crush Competition - TIME

You can be guilty of unfair trade practices and monopolist behavior and still have competition. When those practices reduce competition to a point where the community suffers, it is a monopoly. In most cities, Walmart has not reached that point in its growth yet. However in a number of small towns Walmart has driven out all competition in number of areas. In many markets today, Target is Walmart’s only competitor.

In small communities, Walmart has often become the only game in town. They control the local labor market, and destroy small businesses. This is why many communities have said no to Walmart.

America’s economic future is dependent on our small businesses ability to enter markets and grow. When any one business becomes so large that it precludes this, it’s not healthy for our economy.

 

[Flopper]

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?



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.



Sounds like a good marketing plan.



Considered by whom? KOS kiddies?



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.



You mean, selling food for less than the competition?



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



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?



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



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.

I have never been a union member.
More competition does not limit choice but increases it.

“Like many businessmen of genius he learned that free competition was wasteful, monopoly efficient. And so he simply set about achieving that efficient monopoly.”
Mario Puzo

 

[Toro]

FTR, total retail sales in the US in 2010 were $4.55 trillion.

http://www.census.gov/retail/mrts/www/data/excel/mrtssales92-present.xls

Total world-wide Wal-Mart sales were $421 billion.

WMT Income Statement | Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Common St Stock - Yahoo! Finance

So Wal-Mart accounts for about 9% of food and retail sales.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I have never been a union member.
More competition does not limit choice but increases it.

No one is blocked from competing with Wal-Mart.

Do you think Kobe Bryant should be banned from professional basketball? Lenny Crabowitz can't compete against him. Bryant is clearly a monopoly and anti-competitive.

Excellence will not be tolerated, eh flopper?

 

[The Rabbi]

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!



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?



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.



Sounds like a good marketing plan.



Considered by whom? KOS kiddies?



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.



You mean, selling food for less than the competition?



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



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?



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



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



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.

I have never been a union member.
More competition does not limit choice but increases it.

“Like many businessmen of genius he learned that free competition was wasteful, monopoly efficient. And so he simply set about achieving that efficient monopoly.”
Mario Puzo

You dont have to be a union member to be a union thug. That's what makes America great.

 

[Brutus]

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

Yes indeed Wal-Mart has plenty of competition right now; moreover, they have to maintain their low price standards at 100% to discourage new competitors.

We should all thank Wal Mart for saving us about $40 billion, thanks to lower prices, in just the last 5 years!! This is capitalism at its finest.

The money we save at Wal-Mart we spend in other places thus stimulating the economy and employment.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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".

"Walmart loves to shock and awe. City-size stores, absurdly low prices ($8 jeans!) and everything from milk to Matchbox toys on its shelves. And with the recession forcing legions of stores into bankruptcy, the world's largest retailer now apparently wants to take out the remaining survivors."

Read more: Walmart's Project Impact: A Move to Crush Competition - TIME

You can be guilty of unfair trade practices and monopolist behavior and still have competition. When those practices reduce competition to a point where the community suffers, it is a monopoly. In most cities, Walmart has not reached that point in its growth yet. However in a number of small towns Walmart has driven out all competition in number of areas. In many markets today, Target is Walmart’s only competitor.

In small communities, Walmart has often become the only game in town. They control the local labor market, and destroy small businesses. This is why many communities have said no to Walmart.

America’s economic future is dependent on our small businesses ability to enter markets and grow. When any one business becomes so large that it precludes this, it’s not healthy for our economy.

If you still have competitors - successful competitors - then what is the point of engaging in unfair trade practices, and how could they possibly be "monopolist"? And explain to me how the communities are suffering? I remember when WalMart came to the rinky-dink, podunk dump I grew up in. Suddenly, we no longer had to either shop at the massively-expensive Main Street stores or drive 35-45 miles to the next nearest towns to go shopping. Oh, the horrors of being "preyed upon" by WalMart! And as I recall, only one of those Main Street businesses ended up closing after the advent of the big, eeevil Wally World. And I think most people can just imagine how much it sucked for a community of about 20,000 to suddenly have all those new jobs show up.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If you still have competitors - successful competitors - then what is the point of engaging in unfair trade practices, and how could they possibly be "monopolist"? And explain to me how the communities are suffering?

Much of the success of Wal-Mart is based on a principle of Sam Walton, keep organized crime out of the business. One of the most prolific branches of organized crime in America is the AFL/CIO. By keeping the parasitic crooks out of Wal-Mart, a marvel of supply chain management emerged. Without Teamsters stealing every third load and breaking the legs of anyone who delivered on Sunday without quintuple pay and a 16 hour minimum, product has flowed smoothly to distribution centers and store shelves. This results in more choices and fresher produce for the consumer. Because this allows better choices, product moves faster, resulting in less spoilage and lower prices.

Lower prices with local stores and better selection - Wal-Mart is a blessing for every community they spring up in. The union slobs may be unhappy, but consumers are well served.

 

[editec]

Democrats are usless stoned parasitic idiots

Ah! would that it were so.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Why doesn't everyone agree with Milton Friedman that the battle between capitalism and liberal socialism is over. How did the USA ever get a socialist president in the face of all the evidence?

Look at

1)Cuba/ Florida
2)USA/USSR
......
10)Chile pre and post Friedman
11) Ireland pre and post tax cuts

When did Milton Friedman ever figure out that planned obsolescence made consumerism different from any capitalism that existed before 1900. Planned obsolescence is a 20th century phenomenon.

Consumers going into debt for junk was just buying their way into slavery. So now we have it.

Curious how double-entry accounting is 700 years old and invented in Italy but no Western country says it should be mandatory in the schools. The peons are supposed to be dumb so they can be more productive for their owners. We wouldn't want them smart enough to accumulate wealth.

Why that would be CAPITALISM!

As in ENLIGHTENED SELF INTEREST! Adam Smith would not stand for it.

psik

 

[Uncensored2008]

When did Milton Friedman ever figure out that planned obsolescence made consumerism different from any capitalism that existed before 1900. Planned obsolescence is a 20th century phenomenon.

Planned obsolescence isn't an economic system nor theory.

You are mixing gummi bears and hand grenades.

 

[Brutus]

When did Milton Friedman ever figure out that planned obsolescence made consumerism different from any capitalism that existed before 1900. Planned obsolescence is a 20th century phenomenon.

of course if it was a problem you could go into business and make stuff that lasts longer. Are you the only one smart enough to want that?

Consumers going into debt for junk was just buying their way into slavery. So now we have it.

actually we have the richest society in human history. We have 75 million smart phones that folks pay for every month

Curious how double-entry accounting is 700 years old and invented in Italy but no Western country says it should be mandatory in the schools. The peons are supposed to be dumb so they can be more productive for their owners. We wouldn't want them smart enough to accumulate wealth.

too stupid!!! why would teaching accounting be anything but a waste of time?? millions of companies go bankrupt; they all have bean counter accountants!!! Think!!!

As in ENLIGHTENED SELF INTEREST! Adam Smith would not stand for it.

psik

it???? the lack of accountants? you seem nuts

 

[Flopper]

FTR, total retail sales in the US in 2010 were $4.55 trillion.

http://www.census.gov/retail/mrts/www/data/excel/mrtssales92-present.xls

Total world-wide Wal-Mart sales were $421 billion.

WMT Income Statement | Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Common St Stock - Yahoo! Finance

So Wal-Mart accounts for about 9% of food and retail sales.

Walmart trade practices are not a national problem but a local problem. In most cities, Walmart has sufficient competition from Target and other large retailers in the cities. The big problem occurs when Walmart comes to smaller towns and communities.

 

[Cecilie1200]

FTR, total retail sales in the US in 2010 were $4.55 trillion.

http://www.census.gov/retail/mrts/www/data/excel/mrtssales92-present.xls

Total world-wide Wal-Mart sales were $421 billion.

WMT Income Statement | Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Common St Stock - Yahoo! Finance

So Wal-Mart accounts for about 9% of food and retail sales.

Walmart trade practices are not a national problem but a local problem. In most cities, Walmart has sufficient competition from Target and other large retailers in the cities. The big problem occurs when Walmart comes to smaller towns and communities.

Problem for whom, precisely? Businesses that only survived up to that point because of a lack of competition? Wait, wouldn't that be a monopoly?

Certainly not a problem for the consumers there, who find shopping to be a much easier and cheaper proposition.

 

[Toro]

FTR, total retail sales in the US in 2010 were $4.55 trillion.

http://www.census.gov/retail/mrts/www/data/excel/mrtssales92-present.xls

Total world-wide Wal-Mart sales were $421 billion.

WMT Income Statement | Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Common St Stock - Yahoo! Finance

So Wal-Mart accounts for about 9% of food and retail sales.

Walmart trade practices are not a national problem but a local problem. In most cities, Walmart has sufficient competition from Target and other large retailers in the cities. The big problem occurs when Walmart comes to smaller towns and communities.

It's a problem if Wal-Mart wipes out local competition then jacks up prices after the competition is gone. But that's not what happens. Wal-Mart keeps prices low.

 

[RachelMadcow]

Democrats always raise prices on the public with their " save the poor" campaigns. Taxes always increase costs on the consumer, regulations always pass on costs to the comsumer, banning this and that make supply low and demand high, therefore raising costs on the consumer



In Short


Democrats are fucking trust fund brat non productive poor punishing idiots


See all democrat legislation for reference

 

[Flopper]

I have never been a union member.
More competition does not limit choice but increases it.

No one is blocked from competing with Wal-Mart.

Do you think Kobe Bryant should be banned from professional basketball? Lenny Crabowitz can't compete against him. Bryant is clearly a monopoly and anti-competitive.

Excellence will not be tolerated, eh flopper?

No one is blocked from competing with WalMart that can spend 50 billion a year with their suppliers.

Supporting sweat shops in third world countries, sex discrimination in the workplace, violations of wage and hour laws, and stocking 85% of your shelves with foreign made goods is not a mark of excellence.

 

[Brutus]

Supporting sweat shops in third world countries,

sweat shops save lives or people would not voluntarily work in them!
ban them and people die.

sex discrimination in the workplace,

of course if there was sex discrimination every one would want to hire women because they could pay them less and gain an advantage over competition. BUt this would drive up their wages to hire levels. You see, capitalism fixes problems

violations of wage and hour laws,

they must supply the best wages and hours or best employees will leave for better wages and they wil go bankrupt. Capitalism fixes all thiings.

and stocking 85% of your shelves with foreign made goods is not a mark of excellence.

if you're business is to make your customers rich by offering them goods and services at reduced prices then it is mark of excellence.

 

[RachelMadcow]

Obama told me that Hillary Democrat leader Clinotn was a lawyer for Walmart making sure that the sweatshops continued for capitalists and Wall st fat cats, obscene profits and human exploitation


but then again she was tricked into voting to invade Iraq......by an idiot.....