The sins of Wal-Mart.

FEMA, I have a question for you. I really admire your business practices, but . . .

Supposing that a competitor came along with ten times your capital resources (or more), started hiring people at a fraction of what you pay but in larger quantities, maybe not getting people who are as good as yours, but getting the job done, and offering whatever you offer at a fraction of the price you have to charge. Could you compete?

Now, in some businesses the above scenario isn't possible. Some businesses require labor of such skill and scarcity that trying to cut corners on labor costs is self-defeating. Maybe yours is in that category. You didn't say what business you're in, so I don't know.

But in all cases where the laws of economics render socially irresponsible actions feasible, a company that is morally willing to take those actions will prevail against a company with more scruples, all else being equal.

I can state this as a social law: Business practices tend to degrade to the level of depravity allowed by law and market conditions, whichever is more restrictive. If the law allowed businesses to hire hit teams and rub out their competition, some among them would do so, and those with too much honor to follow suit would be murdered and go out of business.

King Leonidas opined that there is nothing wrong with the profit motive. I disagree. The profit motive is inherently amoral at best, immoral when it leads a person to cross a line into cruelty or irresponsibility, as it often does. Certainly there is nothing noble, inspiring, or admirable about wanting to acquire lots of material gain, and it's a motive that can -- and, under competitive pressure, all too often does -- lead to actions that are themselves contemptible.

Wal-Mart is a particularly striking example of this principle in action. But it is not unique. It is simply one of the worst of an inherently bad breed.

Hello Two Steps Forward, thank you for an interesting post.

King Leonidas opined that there is nothing wrong with the profit motive. I disagree. The profit motive is inherently amoral at best, immoral when it leads a person to cross a line into cruelty or irresponsibility, as it often does. Certainly there is nothing noble, inspiring, or admirable about wanting to acquire lots of material gain, and it's a motive that can -- and, under competitive pressure, all too often does -- lead to actions that are themselves contemptible.

Wal-Mart is a particularly striking example of this principle in action. But it is not unique. It is simply one of the worst of an inherently bad breed.

Profit is generally the prima facie bedrock on which business is founded. Profit in and of itself is not bad until the lust for profit transcends and assails generally accepted moral boundries. We agree on this point.

Supposing that a competitor came along with ten times your capital resources (or more), started hiring people at a fraction of what you pay but in larger quantities, maybe not getting people who are as good as yours, but getting the job done, and offering whatever you offer at a fraction of the price you have to charge. Could you compete?

Now, in some businesses the above scenario isn't possible. Some businesses require labor of such skill and scarcity that trying to cut corners on labor costs is self-defeating. Maybe yours is in that category. You didn't say what business you're in, so I don't know.

Let's take a look at your second point, immediately above, first. There is another variable to consider other than skilled labour. The factor I'm alluding to is one that offers protection via intellectual property or proprietary rights. Still though, as you point out, can we compete? This point may seem somewhat fragmented but allow me to explain.

Intellectual property does not success guarantee. Why? Because the market segment you are selling your innovation in has been doing quite well using older/other technology to this point. A wily professor at Texas A&M University once said: "If you don't have competition you don't have an innovation." So what we are selling are innovations that perform tasks better and faster addressing specific customer needs within an industry segment. We sell on features, benefits, quality, and value. The point behind what I'm typing here is that the market will determine the real value of your offering in this arena.

Now, let's take a look at your first point outside my unique business position. I can tell by your post you have sigificant business understanding and I will offer an answer pointing to a flaw in your hypothetical postulation.

As you and I both know there are costs associated with business start up. Many capital expenditures are fixed thus leaving both businesses on a somewhat level playing field. However, you point to labour as the significant reduction in cost associated with my competitor's business allowing them to sell their product at a "fraction of the cost." I'm sure you'll agree that labour alone would not provide an opportunity to allow for selling of their product at a "fraction of the cost" of our product - certainly when weighed against recovering some capital costs AND all the while providing a reasonable return on investment (ROI) over a period of time.

Let's, however, say all things ARE equal and your postulation stands. If you're stepping onto the battlefield with my companies you'll need to bring more to the party than a cheaper product. Here's why.

We have a teared bonus offering for our distributors. Simply, a good portion of our profit is returned to our distributors fostering higher sales and creating product loyalty because of our "share the profit" commitment - not to mention quality. Also, we invest in - hedge against costs - raw materials by use of call or put options. Our financial team is second to none in this regard, and this allows us to use optioned monies to further capture lower costs using leveraged profits against raw material price increases. Finally, we invest in local utilities. Of course you know how this increases your bottom line when a sound state of leverage is achieved.

In today's market place it is not simply a matter of cost being the common denominator. There is brand loyalty, quality, features, benefits, and value. If this were not so we'd all be driving Ladas and wearing PF-Flyers.

Please don't take my reply to be smug or insulting, it is anything but. It's difficult to convey a "clinically boardroom" voice and bisiness mannor using only a text format.

I trust I have answered your question directly. If you have others please post them. It's my complete and utter pleasure exchanging information with a person who seems to possess sound business acumen.

Fema:

Thanks for your kind words. Although I'm not in business for myself, I do have some education on the subject and it's something I've thought about and researched a lot. So much of what is wrong with the world is, at root, economic.

As I noted, labor costs can't always be reduced. There are some areas of work that are so quality- and morale-dependent that trying to reduce pay just plain can't succeed. A good example is commission sales. A sales force that feels cheated, even if it doesn't have any place else to go, is not going to deliver its best performance, and that will hurt the company's revenues (and the salespeople's income -- but the reduction in performance is gut-level and not really voluntary). Many other professional jobs are in the same category. You can't underpay doctors or lawyers -- or teachers, although we do -- without having critical quality suffer. I'm still not sure what it is your companies do, but your reference to proprietary information provides a clue that you may be in a field where the quality of labor outweighs the quantity as a factor. Put simplistically, it's a lot more important for a company selling computer software to have superior programmers on its team, than it is for a fast-food outlet to have superior burger-flippers. That, plus the relative scarcity of those with programming skills, makes programming much more a seller's market while burger-flipping is a buyer's market.

Also, it's true that initial capital expenditures have to be factored in to the picture, and other costs such as raw materials, licensing and permits, taxes, cost of distribution, so on and so forth. It's much more complicated than focusing purely on labor costs would suggest. But that's why I tossed that "all else being equal" in there, deliberately to set other factors aside. I don't mean to suggest that they're economically unemportant. But we were discussing Wal-Mart and the way that company treats its employees. I think an examination of Wal-Mart's approach to purchase of real estate, construction costs, wholesale merchandise purchases, and dealings with government agencies would likely reveal similar underhandedness and ruthlessness, and those factors are just as crucial to Wal-Mart's business success. But they weren't under discussion in this thread.

I also hope I haven't given the impression that I think a company can unilaterally set wages anywhere it pleases. That's not true at all. As with all other commodities, the price of labor is set by supply and demand. How much labor does the company need? How important is quality? How big is the pool of available workers with the required skills? What is the minimum that MUST be paid, regardless of these factors, because of the investment of time and money the worker has put in acquiring his skills, to prevent his chucking it all and going and doing something else?

But there are things companies can do, either unilaterally or cooperatively, to affect most of these conditions. Going back to the example of programmers, while their prevailing pay remains pretty high, it is not as high as it would be if the federal government hadn't been persuaded by the computer industry to accept large numbers of skilled software engineers from foreign countries (especially South Asia) as immigrants. That minimum which must be paid to someone who has put in the effort to acquire the necessary education is lower for an Indian (who is used to less lucrative alternatives) than for an American, and the sheer number of skilled people increases the labor pool. These factors bring the prevailing pay down. Software engineering remains quality-intensive, and the competition among software companies for the best programmers remains intense, but the baseline is lower.

A similar course was taken during the late 19th century, while the country was industrializaing rapidly. The railroads were rather famously built by immigrants from Europe and Asia, and so built more cheaply than they would have been without all that immigration. Same with a lot of other infrastructure-building and factory-staffing.

Nowadays, for work that doesn't require a lot of skill or knowledge of the English language and American culture, i.e. most manufacturing work, the preferred practice is to ship capital overseas and employ dirt-cheap foreign workers in their own countries, where they are kept in line by repressive governments that lack the inconvenient democratic features we have here. That's what Wal-Mart's suppliers do in many cases.

Wal-Mart at home does something different. It depresses wages not by increasing supply, but by reducing overall demand through putting its competitors out of business. (Of course, that gives Wal-Mart other benefits, too, especially w/r/t control of market share.)

Strictly speaking, no company can get around the laws of supply and demand. But in practice, there are ways to make those laws work for you, if you have influence with the government, business cunning, and lots of capital.

In the end, however, all of this ends up being counterproductive to the economy as a whole. Goods produced must be sold, and can only be sold to those with the money to buy them. A highly-paid labor force creates a stronger consumer market (and so more business revenue) than a poorly-paid one.

How evenly or unevenly wealth is distributed in a society affects two things inversely. One is the consumer market (which is stronger the more evenly wealth is distributed), and the other is accumulation of capital (which is just the opposite). But the tendency in a market economy with strong corporate influence on government is to err on the side of uneven distribution. If all capitalists were enlightened that would not be so, but alas they are not.

The main point I want to stress here is what I said before, that Wal-Mart is only an especially nasty example of something that is inherent in a capitalist economy. Look into what used to be done in the early 20th century "company towns" where one company owned practically everything, including the available housing and food outlets. Or look at the prevailing wages, work hours, and working conditions in American manufacturing prior to the labor-union victory of the late Depression years. Heck, just do a Google search for "Triangle Shirt Factory fire." These things make Wal-Mart look almost benign.

The idea that business can, or should be allowed to, police itself is a myth.

Hello Two Steps Forward, nice to read your post.

The idea that business can, or should be allowed to, police itself is a myth.

I would say this is true. From another perspective you could also consider the public as the ultimate policing agency. I would say businesses are (at least in this day and age) more sensitive to public opinion. Millions of dollars are poured into making sure of public perception before rolling out new products. In fact, some manufacturers are more than willing to take oblique shots at competitors who may not be flying straight.

As you astutely point out Wal-Mart is one of the worst. Yes there are others, but not all businesses are run without ethics. It's easy to use a cynically broad brush when talking about corporations as a whole - quite easy - and for the large part, true. After all, there is more than enough blame to be shared regarding inappropriate business practices. We are assailed by it most every day. I give you ENRON.

I guess the issue remains one of business roaming the halls of moral responsibility with impunity.

I am remined of the time Amazon rolled out a pedophile handbook on Father's day. Imagine. Amazon immediately tried to defend it's position by suggesting they'd give their customer's what they wanted and they wouldn't allow their competition to get the upper hand in sales. (Once again, imagine!) Really, their position could be translated as: "If our competitors have no moral backbone then, by God, neither do we!" Their anything-for-a-buck mentality supports your point completely. Yet, there were other marketers of books who refused to even consider the possibility of selling that book. I would say these retailers support mine.

I guess it boils down to a point of Wal-Mart being allowed to; through being the 1000-pound gorilla, send so many businesses under with no seeming hope of intervention.

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater

Did I miss some legislation that required everyone to work only at walmart?

No, you haven't missed that legislation. However you have missed the point. Wal-Mart in some small towns may be the only place to gain employment since they have driven all the small businesses out.

Your line of thinking is in line with typical management style of today. That is why there are over 40,000,000 uninsured workers today.

Have you checked on your health care system? Have you checked on the relationship between the insurance industry and the health care system.

Do some homework. If you are a compassionate person you will come away shocked. If not you will just think you are saving a $1 while actually costing yourself $1,000s.

Would someone PLEASE tell me exactly what Walmart sells, which is driving other business's out of the picture?? I live in Sacramento ( a midsized town by California standards). Cosco's, Sam's Clubs and Walmarts are a dime-a-dozen here.

Right across the parking lot from the Sam's Club, which is right up the street from me, is a Western clothing and Bootry, a fish & chips joint (run by a nice Chinese family) a travel agency, an accounting firm, and a discount store (Big Lots!). Mind you, this is all running on the opposite side of Sam's Club parking lot...and these businesses THRIVE.

As for the argument of "Wallmart sells junk from China and undercuts American Labor.", well, consider that WELL OVER HALF the floor space of the Sam's Club I shop at (which is a division of Walmart, in case someone doesn't know.) is filled with FOOD! (and before you accuse Sam's of driving the grocery stores out of business, there's a Safeway right down the street from Sam's, and they're doing just fine.)

Lastly, I'm not going to fault Walmart for not offering a decent benefits package, since the VAST majority of stores I shop at probably don't offer one the their workers either.

I will concede that it is GOOD BUSINESS SENSE to offer a decent benefits package. Can it happen in Walmart? Of course! Hey, I used to work at a Big Lots!, which sells WAY CHEAP stuff, and still offers a Retirement package and Health benefits. I LOVE shopping there too!

[edit on 21-12-2005 by Toelint]

Again, this is not about Wal-Mart being unfair to its employees. This is all about Wal-Mart not catering to the unions. If you believe unions should be required for all companies, then yes, boycott Wal-Mart while continuing to shop at CostCo and their ilk. If, however, you have a problem with Wal-Mart's employee benefits, then you need to take a look at every major department store, recognize that Wal-Mart is better than most to their employees, and boycott every one of them.

Originally posted by Toelint
Would someone PLEASE tell me exactly what it is Walmart sells which is driving other business out of the picture?? I live in Sacramento ( a midsized town by California standards).

Sacramento is the state capital. It has around 400,000 people. If that is "midsized by California standards," this is only because California includes Los Angeles, which is huge. Sacramento is in no way, shape, or form a rural small town.

Wal-Mart cannot drive all competition out of business in a city the size of Sacramento. But it can do so in smaller towns in rural areas.

Originally posted by junglejake
Again, this is not about Wal-Mart being unfair to its employees. This is all about Wal-Mart not catering to the unions.

edworkforce.house.gov...

edworkforce.house.gov...

www.freepressed.com...

www.therearguard.pdx.edu...

walmartwatch.com...

www.usatoday.com...

You might want to read those links and reconsider your position.

I would also suggest, just for fun, going to www.jibjab.com and clicking the link for "Big Box Mart." Funny and sad both at once.

First, we live in a free market, and Wal-Mart has the right to do what it will. You have the right not to shop there because of that.

That having been said, I have a few questions for you.

1) What is the nation's minimum wage law?
2) What is the average Wal-Mart employee paid, not including benefits, per hour?
3) What is the nation's minimum benefit law?
4) What benefits do employees of Wal-Mart get? (Hint)
5) Why do you still fly if flight attendants are paid slave wages yet forced to live in cities with the highest priced housing in the nation?

Originally posted by junglejake
First, we live in a free market, and Wal-Mart has the right to do what it will. You have the right not to shop there because of that.

That having been said, I have a few questions for you.

1) What is the nation's minimum wage law?
2) What is the average Wal-Mart employee paid, not including benefits, per hour?
3) What is the nation's minimum benefit law?
4) What benefits do employees of Wal-Mart get? (Hint)
5) Why do you still fly if flight attendants are paid slave wages yet forced to live in cities with the highest priced housing in the nation?

Yes, Jake it is a "free country". However, many Americans lose their "freedoms" daily due to their inability to get health problems fixed.

Honest question deserves honest answer. As a Christian do you not feel that all are entitled to quality health care no matter of rank, status, income, race, religion, or any other matter?

I have nothing against any major corporation. What I do find disturbing is the reluctance of the American people and the lack of understanding of the people in the understanding of the health care/insurance industry.

Most want the system fixed. Most say it "can't" be done. I hate the word "can't". No one truly understands the problem until they run into it themself. Then an amazing transformation takes place.

Do you not feel it is immoral for some to make fortunes, I'm not saying a reasonable income, I'm saying fortunes off of people's bad health? One segment of society wants to keep it the way it is-let the businesses insure. Yet, the options for such become more and more limited. Businesses don't want to insure because of the high cost. Yet, one can buy a home cervical unit for $450 which the insurance industry will cover over $1600 when prescribed and billed thru insurance. Are you ready to take a stand on this as badly as wanting "Christmas Trees" sold at Wal-Mart?

The health care fiasco is what Christians truly should be fighting for and about. That is a real moral issue. If Rev. Falwell and other churches can spend millions on lawyers about "Christmas Trees" then surely millions can be spent fighting the health care/ insurance fiasco in this country. That is a true moral issue to fight.

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
Yes, Jake it is a "free country". However, many Americans lose their "freedoms" daily due to their inability to get health problems fixed.

We are not a socialist country, though.

Honest question deserves honest answer. As a Christian do you not feel that all are entitled to quality health care no matter of rank, status, income, race, religion, or any other matter?

Ahh, what does my religion tell me to do on this matter. Quite simply, my religion states that the employer has the right to pay whatever they want. (Matthew 25:15 (pay according to ability), Matthew 20:13-15). I, personally, would want to pay my workers via $ and benefits as best I could while maintaining good prices for my product, not hindering the growth of my company, maintaining a positive income to be used for R&D and marketing, etc. What's the point of giving all my employees great benefits and pay if they're going to be out of work in a couple of months because my company can't afford it? That, however, is what I would do, not what the Bible states I have to do.

No one truly understands the problem until they run into it themselves. Then an amazing transformation takes place.

That transformation may have taken place for you, but it did not for me. At least, though I was hosed due to a lack of healthcare in 2002 after having been laid off, I still do not support universal health care.

Do you not feel it is immoral for some to make fortunes, I'm not saying a reasonable income, I'm saying fortunes off of people's bad health? One segment of society wants to keep it the way it is-let the businesses insure. Yet, the options for such become more and more limited. Businesses don't want to insure because of the high cost. Yet, one can buy a home cervical unit for $450 which the insurance industry will cover over $1600 when prescribed and billed thru insurance. Are you ready to take a stand on this as badly as wanting "Christmas Trees" sold at Wal-Mart?

Yes. Quite frankly, I don't care if Wal-Mart sells Christmas trees And no, I do not think it is immoral for some to make fortunes. I think they're foolish investing in treasures here on Earth and not in heaven, but it is not immoral. Now, your assumption that if the government offered universal health care that our options would be the same as or greater than they are today is something I am in serious contention with you on.

The health care fiasco is what Christians truly should be fighting for and about. That is a real moral issue. If Rev. Falwell and other churches can spend millions on lawyers about "Christmas Trees" then surely millions can be spent fighting the health care/ insurance fiasco in this country. That is a true moral issue to fight.

Says you. Apparently our society is also being horribly evil for not stopping all spending on anything except the medical industry so as to find more cures and save more lives?

This is the core difference between a Conservative and a Liberal. You see a need in society, a valid and urgent need, and believe it is the government's responsibility to do something about it. I believe it is my own responsibility to do something about it by investing in companies that try to help, giving to charities, etc. I believe in individual responsibility.

Now, you started with the statement that, "Honest question deserves honest answer." I answered your questions...Now, since those other questions were rather rhetorical, I'll ask another. Would you prefer we live in a socialist nation?

This is the core difference between a Conservative and a Liberal. You see a need in society, a valid and urgent need, and believe it is the government's responsibility to do something about it. I believe it is my own responsibility to do something about it by investing in companies that try to help, giving to charities, etc. I believe in individual responsibility.

Did I say anything about the government's responsibility? NO!!! It is the people's responsibility. You know the one's who are not informed, ill informed, or have no way or receiving such information.

See that is the core difference between a Liberal and Conservative. A conservative believes the government does not have a responsibility to it's people. That is except to send them to war for trumped up reasons.

Yes, it is the people's responsibility to get such information. That is why we elect others to "represent" us. Is that what they are not for? Therefore it is that representative's responsibility to vote for the good of the people. It goes into the "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Also included is "Promote the general welfare". I'm not using welfare in the context that you are getting ready to fire back about.

You answered my question Jake. I now do trust your committment to Christianity and GOD. We are all GOD's children. Every last one of us. GOD gave man everything on this planet to take care. Included in that is the greater knowledge of others to help those not able to hold such knowledge.

You seem to want your cake and to eat it also. One can't have it both ways. Either stand up for true moral issues as you would stand up for Jesus or sit down. Jesus would want it that way. He tells me that. Does he not tell you?

Now, you started with the statement that, "Honest question deserves honest answer." I answered your questions...Now, since those other questions were rather rhetorical, I'll ask another. Would you prefer we live in a socialist nation[

Define socialist. If socialist is EVERYONE helping EVERYONE yes I do. That was Jesus's intention was it not?

If you feel strongly about the health care issue, providing such may be your ministry. Mine is not, I have other passions. You're wondering why I'm not up in arms over this issue, but I could raise thousands of other issues that you're not up in arms over that I believe we would agree are problems in the world.

I don't have a problem with Wal-Mart choosing how to run Wal-Mart. I don't think I would run it the same way, but I really can't be sure. I can't see the books, and again, I don't see how it would make sense to give the employees these benefits you think are required by God when, in doing so, they may have to lay off a substantial number of them after raising prices and becoming a non-competitive entity. Do I shop there, though? No, I do pretty much all of my shopping online. So I guess I'm boycotting Wal-Mart for being located almost a mile away from my house.

Someone going out to Africa to help villiages build wells doesn't make them a better Christian than someone becoming a pastor. God puts different callings on people's hearts. You have a passion for people in need of medical assistance that don't feel they can get it. That's awesome, and I commend that. Don't let that passion go to your head, though.

I would define socialism not as the corrupted Soviet Communism, but rather a communal country where everyone has exactly the same as everyone else regardless of talent or performance.

Originally posted by junglejake
First, we live in a free market, and Wal-Mart has the right to do what it will.

What do you mean by "free market"? Obviously there are some regulations on the economy, and no, legally Wal-Mart does NOT have the right to "do what it will," except within the law, and it does seem to violate the law rather often. And that leaves aside the question of moral, as opposed to legal rights. There, I will only say that Wal-Mart's policies cause much suffering to many people, and are for that reason morally wrong in my belief.

That having been said, I have a few questions for you.

1) What is the nation's minimum wage law?

Far lower than reasonable pay for an hour's work, low enough that almost no jobs actually pay that little.

2) What is the average Wal-Mart employee paid, not including benefits, per hour?

Lower than reasonable pay for an hour's work, low enough that almost no other jobs actually pay that little -- although still higher than the minimum wage, which is what you are trying to point out, as if meant diddly-squat.

3) What is the nation's minimum benefit law?

It has none.

4) What benefits do employees of Wal-Mart get?

A heck of a lot less than I do.

5) Why do you still fly if flight attendants are paid slave wages yet forced to live in cities with the highest priced housing in the nation?

I haven't flown anywhere in several years. But if I did, it would be because I had no choice about it. And if I lived in a rural small town, I might have no choice about shopping at Wal-Mart, either.

That in itself, though, is a problem.

I would define socialism not as the corrupted Soviet Communism, but rather a communal country where everyone has exactly the same as everyone else regardless of talent or performance.

Wow. You do realize, don't you, Jake, that by that definition there has never been a socialist country anywhere in the world? That's a pretty extreme sort of levelling, more like Marx's true communism than socialism.

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward

I would define socialism not as the corrupted Soviet Communism, but rather a communal country where everyone has exactly the same as everyone else regardless of talent or performance.

Wow. You do realize, don't you, Jake, that by that definition there has never been a socialist country anywhere in the world? That's a pretty extreme sort of levelling, more like Marx's true communism than socialism.

Yes, I do. It was Marx's true communism I was talking about, but that word has some very negative connotations in today's society which is why I didn't use the word.

Though there haven't been any countries that were truly socialist, there have been several communes that started trying to be socialist in nature. It's interesting to note they all fell apart, so far as I'm aware.

On paper, pure socialism is as perfect as pure capitolism. Unfortunately, there are these annoying humans that have to fit within the confines of these ideologies, and therein lies the problem and why pure societies of either will not work.

Though there haven't been any countries that were truly socialist, there have been several communes that started trying to be socialist in nature. It's interesting to note they all fell apart, so far as I'm aware.

The "Farm" in Summerville, Tn. has been in existence for over 35 years.

Most fail because somewhere down the line the greed of man comes in.

I offer this for all "conservatives". Start doing one's due diligence on what the radio talk shows host spit out. One will find out more often than not that they speak off of the top of their head with virtually no facts to back them up.

So...is the claim, then, that all conservatives on this thread, or rather all those who disagree with you, are just speaking off of talking points without really understanding the issue while the enlightened liberals, or rather those who agree with you, are fully educated on this issue and are the only intellectual ones participating in the conversation?

So...is the claim, then, that all conservatives on this thread, or rather all those who disagree with you, are just speaking off of talking points without really understanding the issue while the enlightened liberals, or rather those who agree with you, are fully educated on this issue and are the only intellectual ones participating in the conversation?

NO, I'm saying that no matter what side of the fence one is on do the diligence necessary before repeating many statements heard or read. One seems to want to cast me as a liberal. Funny, others cast me as a conservative.

Did Al Gore actually say he invented the internet? No, but somehow that became the mantra. I'm saying if something is repeated enough time then somehow it becomes the gospel when many times nothing could be further from the truth.