Let's talk about supply, demand, and billionaires.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

So no one is self employed?

Farmers markets don't exist?

No one free lances?

It's absolutely up for interpretation.

What came first, a single man selling potatoes, or a business offering a man a job to sell his potatoes at their shop?

A self employed person is the worker AND the EMPLOYER...
He/She represents the "JOB" and "EMPLOYER" simultaneously.

I was strictly speaking to the thread and EMPLOYEES.

Again, consumers don't create a JOB. Money doesn't. Workers do not.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

So no one is self employed?

Farmers markets don't exist?

No one free lances?

It's absolutely up for interpretation.

What came first, a single man selling potatoes, or a business offering a man a job to sell his potatoes at their shop?

Corporations don't put the farmer's market out of business, the legal annihilation of cash will. The gov kills small business with regulations and funny money. In the case that corps prevent new businesses, the corps are using the government.

P.S. I own a wholesale/retail business. If you'd like to know what role "Corporations" have in the process, what part they play, how they get so big, etc.. let me know.

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Consumers create a situation where work is necessary, or deemed as reasonable.

Consumers create work, in their own way.

I can agree with your specific instance that consumers do not create jobs, as defined as being employment by another...

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Consumers create a situation where work is necessary, or deemed as reasonable.

Consumers create work, in their own way.

I can agree with your specific instance that consumers do not create jobs, as defined as being employment by another...

Consumers fuel PROFIT and demand.

The job creation process is the implied RISK and decision of a BUSINESS OWNER/EMPLOYER

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

I'd like to know why corporations are important for the consumer.

My main premise is that they are not important for the majority.

How they became, why they exist, how they exist is less interesting than the answer to the question.. Do the need to?

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

I'd like to know why corporations are important for the consumer.

My main premise is that they are not important for the majority.

How they became, why they exist, how they exist is less interesting than the answer to the question.. Do the need to?

1) They aren't..they share RISK by bulk purchase. They fuel MANUFACTURERS.
2) They are not important, they are only made important through leverage and capital
3) They share risk, which for MANUFACTURERS is needed.

I can explain further if you'd like

a reply to: deadlyhope

I'm curious whether you are a democrat or republican. Your post has tons of free market (conservative) thinking. When the government steps in they further screw up the free market, which you in some sense seem to support. If you do not like a company, what they do, how they treat their employees or the environment, don't buy stuff from them until they change their ways.

By the way.... "Corporation" is just a legal term.

It doesn't denote size by default

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

That all makes sense to a degree. Though the term "risk" is used too lightly, in my opinion. Walmart has no risk in buying bulk, in my opinion. They've leveraged their large name to the point that the manufacturers face a risk in rejecting business - set at Walmarts prices and expectations. Leverage is huge, and Walmart is a rather large weight on the one side of the scale.

Do you disagree, and if so, why?

Don't forget that with Supply and Demand..

You have

1) Manufacturing
2) Processing
3) Distribution
4) Sales/Retail
5) Consumer

Repeat...

Many steps in the process of how it works. All sharing risks and capital

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

I'd like to know why corporations are important for the consumer.

My main premise is that they are not important for the majority.

How they became, why they exist, how they exist is less interesting than the answer to the question.. Do the need to?

I am not sure what alternatives you see. Corporations developed over the need for investment and liability protection. Businesses get formed with funding, and the people funding those businesses don't want to be liable because the business screws up (rather the people who run the business should be liable). Investment is good. Corporations is a term that covers any company incorporated as a corporation. You may not like the pharmaceutical industry or oil industry, but do not generalize based on the form of entity. It makes you sound uniformed.

a reply to: ExNihiloRed

I'm a mix of both Republican and Democrat, and have views on all sides - views that can also change depending on the economy and social situation.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

That all makes sense to a degree. Though the term "risk" is used too lightly, in my opinion. Walmart has no risk in buying bulk, in my opinion. They've leveraged their large name to the point that the manufacturers face a risk in rejecting business - set at Walmarts prices and expectations. Leverage is huge, and Walmart is a rather large weight on the one side of the scale.

Do you disagree, and if so, why?

Fine get rid of Wallmart. Then let the other small entities run that industry. Except over time a new Wallmart will be formed because that's everyone's goal to become large and successful.

originally posted by: Puppylove
There's a fundamental problem with this, for people to be able to demand they must be able to afford that demand.

First the stuff they demand has to be made. The businessman has to guess what people will want, which is a gamble. If the businessman guesses right then the people will have stuff to buy that they want, and the businessman will get a payday.

Money needs to be in the hands of consumer so they can buy more to create this demand. As all the wealth is in the hands of the wealthy and the general populace is struggling to just get by, there's no money with which to create this demand. It does fall to the rich, because like a sponge they've sucked up all the cash flow.

Inflation and taxation over the last 100 years has removed wealth from the normal people and retarded the development of new products and small businesses. Each person would have 20 times more wealth without the progressive top down "management" of the economy. The cost of central banking and central planning has been two world wars and all of the depressions and inflation. And the regulations made by the gov always favor the corps with the most lawyers.

We can't create a demand so they can expand and create more jobs because we have no purchasing power.

The people you want to fix your dilemma are the people who took 95% of your wealth in the first place.

a reply to: ExNihiloRed

I certainly am uninformed else I would not have made this thread.

I nysekf believe America could stand on many, many small businesses.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

That all makes sense to a degree. Though the term "risk" is used too lightly, in my opinion. Walmart has no risk in buying bulk, in my opinion. They've leveraged their large name to the point that the manufacturers face a risk in rejecting business - set at Walmarts prices and expectations. Leverage is huge, and Walmart is a rather large weight on the one side of the scale.

Do you disagree, and if so, why?

Manufacturers (many not all) are looking for bulk purchases to survive. The average biz owner cannot afford 100,000 units of a widget like a Walmart. So Walmart gets a lot of leverage on price.

BUT...they tank profit for the manufacturer almost ALWAYS....but they would not be distributed or 'branded' without heavy players (I come in on this loophole sometimes)

Manufacturers also have "exclusivity' contracts with heavy hitters. The average person is locked out.

The sheer buying power and BULK purchases dilutes the supply, and there is a race to the bottom.

Yes, large BUYERS tank profit and in tern lock most others out, but they spread the product further and reach more than could have with the average seller

There's pluses and minuses to this practice. And the more heavy hitters, the more DILUTED the product.

And they themselves are selling at razor thin margins, many times at a loss.

It's become convoluted...much more to it

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: ExNihiloRed

I'm a mix of both Republican and Democrat, and have views on all sides - views that can also change depending on the economy and social situation.

'

I get that. I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Tough place to be in the current political climate.

a reply to: ExNihiloRed

In a world population of billions of uneducated consumers there is no threat to any company from a few educated individuals to not buy from them. The population is too large and too unorganized. Boycotting was a useful tool when business existed in and were beholden to smaller communities. Large world expanding corporate business laugh at such attempts. Is the reason Walmart can just walk into any community no matter how many people in the community cry fowl and scream they don't want them there.