Socialism Creates Monopolies, Capitalism Destroys Them

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by lordtyp0

This part is problematic: Lower prices for consumers is fine and dandy. But the destruction of local business = fewer jobs and less buying power in a city.



So having a Wal Mart in a community means less jobs?

Isn't Wal Mart one of the largest job creators in the US?

Wal Mart doesn't destroy jobs, they create jobs.

If you mean "good high paying jobs" - no domestic retail outlet pays its store employees high wages. None. So how is Wal Mart doing anything different?

The reasons why wal mart is able to put mom and pop out of business is because they can offer a much large range of products (good for consumers) at cheaper prices (good for consumers).




posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Snarf
 


Actually I wasn't the one comparing. I was stating lack of regulations lead to monopolistic tendencies. Aside from saying Wal-Mart (as my example) is bad for the economy I was not making a judgement call on it's practices aside from showing the symptoms. Obviously I am anti-wal-mart, but if I had a business and was after the quick money grab (as most are) I cannot say for certain if my methods would be different.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 



1 You do not have the money to build such a structure.
2 You go out of busniness because you can offer limited items in a limited shop, limited by space and limited by the money you have, and since they have it all why bother to go to your shop and then to another shop when I can get it all in one place.
3 Since they sell alot they can afford to lower prices, you can not.


It seriously hurts my head when i get this angry at such a flimsy argument:

1.) WalMart didn't magically have enough money to become as big as they are for no reason. They started small, and worked their way up. They offered us what Mom & Pop refused to: Good Prices on the items we need/want.

2.) If you find that you are 100% unable to compete with something, then you should try something else. Offer something walmart does not sell. Don't open up a grocer next to Walmart and then expect to compete. Its not walmarts fault that customers want to pay lower prices and you can't offer them. its your fault.

3.) Yes, they sell alot. Thats not their fault. That's the seed they have sewn. They are successful. You are not. That is nto their fault. Blame yourself, not somebody else.

These kinds of arugments remind me of my brother & his son. His son will mess up (lets say he scribbles with a crayon on the wall) and his dad was scold him for it.

His Boy (Jeremy) will scream and kick and swear up and down that it wasn't him, that it was his friend (i forget his name) but his "friend" is invisible of course.

It wasn't Jeremys' fault, it can't be. It never is Jeremy's fault. But in reality, it was Jeremy's fault...its just that Jeremy's too immature to accept responsibility for his own actions at such an early age.

My how the irony staggers.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I think you are mistaken about socialism, socialism is collective ownership, without it you will have no military, no firefighters, no cops, no roads, no public schools, etc. Any country/society that collects taxes is a socialist country/community.

It is capitalism/free market that creates monopolies, in a free market there is no regulation, companies gets too big that they can kill small businesses and new businesses.

Regulation is necessary.

Remember when Wall Street was collapsing? All of a sudden they wanted government intervention to bail them out. After the bail out, when the government wants to regulate them so it doesn't happen again... They scream..."No to government intervention, we want a free market!"

In a free market, there will be no intervention, if they collapse there's no bail out.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by lordtyp0

This part is problematic: Lower prices for consumers is fine and dandy. But the destruction of local business = fewer jobs and less buying power in a city.



So having a Wal Mart in a community means less jobs?

Isn't Wal Mart one of the largest job creators in the US?

Wal Mart doesn't destroy jobs, they create jobs.

If you mean "good high paying jobs" - no domestic retail outlet pays its store employees high wages. None. So how is Wal Mart doing anything different?

The reasons why wal mart is able to put mom and pop out of business is because they can offer a much large range of products (good for consumers) at cheaper prices (good for consumers).



They are amongst the largest single employers, not job creation.
They put other stores out of business creating a larger labor pool. Then they absorb the labor at reduced rates (Smiths pays 9.50/hour. Wal-mart is minimum wage, also they do not allow overtime or even full time designation to avoid any benefits).

This is not job creation.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by lordtyp0
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Sorry, I did not mean to imply Wal-Mart was a monopoly. I actually define them as a predatory company-well on it's way of becoming a monopoly.

The evidence of that is how all stores around crumble. Sears Grand is struggling, Kmart was also hit hard. Target reduced it's stores.

In the City of Tooele Utah (bout half an hour west of Salt Lake) there were 3 grocery stores. A Wal-Mart super center set up shop. One of the stores folded. The other two (Albertsons and Smiths) made an arrangement of trading territory: They agreed to pull stores and give regions to the other-otherwise they both would have folded as the other store did.

Though Wal-Mart is not a classic monopoly they hold all the power of one.


I think your example highlights the benefits of the market in action.

Consumers win.

Albertsons and Smiths in your example folded because they could not deliver products at the same price and efficiency as Wal Mart.

They deserve to be put out of business if they can't compete on cost.

The jobs lost will be absorbed by Wal Mart hiring employees.

Now that consumers are paying less for goods, other areas of the market now have more available labor and capital.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0
 



but if I had a business and was after the quick money grab (as most are) I cannot say for certain if my methods would be different.


this is where i fail to understand you & those who think the same way (don't take this as an insult)...i just don't understand

The purpose of owning your own business is to be successful. You just claimed that if you did own your own business, that you would most likely strive to be the same thing: Successful


So my question is - why "hate" on those who can be successful?

Is it Jealousy?
resentment?
Rage?

Honestly - im not trying to be a prick...i honestly am trying to understand why it is that you hate on someone just because they're successful.

Walmart didn't go into business with the sole purpose of screwing over mom & pop.

Mom & Pop were causalities of retail war. Do you seriously expect WalMart to say "We will raise our prices to match yours, so that you don't go out of business" ???



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by lordtyp0

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by lordtyp0

This part is problematic: Lower prices for consumers is fine and dandy. But the destruction of local business = fewer jobs and less buying power in a city.



So having a Wal Mart in a community means less jobs?

Isn't Wal Mart one of the largest job creators in the US?

Wal Mart doesn't destroy jobs, they create jobs.

If you mean "good high paying jobs" - no domestic retail outlet pays its store employees high wages. None. So how is Wal Mart doing anything different?

The reasons why wal mart is able to put mom and pop out of business is because they can offer a much large range of products (good for consumers) at cheaper prices (good for consumers).



They are amongst the largest single employers, not job creation.
They put other stores out of business creating a larger labor pool. Then they absorb the labor at reduced rates (Smiths pays 9.50/hour. Wal-mart is minimum wage, also they do not allow overtime or even full time designation to avoid any benefits).

This is not job creation.


So being the largest employer is not "job creation?"

If the government forced wal mart to give all manner of benefits to its employees, but didn't do the same thing to Target, do you think Wal Mart would be in business very long?

If the government forced all retailers to give huge benefits to their employees, do you think any store but Wal Mart would be in business for very long?

What benefits wal mart more?

More regulation or less?



[edit on 29-12-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0
 



They are amongst the largest single employers, not job creation.
They put other stores out of business creating a larger labor pool. Then they absorb the labor at reduced rates (Smiths pays 9.50/hour. Wal-mart is minimum wage, also they do not allow overtime or even full time designation to avoid any benefits).


You are assuming that "Smiths" pays $9.50 an hour for a cashier clerk spot...but your'e wrong.

I honestly just called my local IGA and they pay the Illinois Min. Wage. Walmart, for the same spot, pays $0.25 more per hour.


if you think i'm making it up - call them yourself

(217) 352-0019 - Jerry's IGA
(217) 344-6148 - Walmart on high Cross roads


[edit on 29-12-2009 by Snarf]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by boniknik
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I think you are mistaken about socialism, socialism is collective ownership, without it you will have no military, no firefighters, no cops, no roads, no public schools, etc. Any country/society that collects taxes is a socialist country/community.

It is capitalism/free market that creates monopolies, in a free market there is no regulation, companies gets too big that they can kill small businesses and new businesses.

Regulation is necessary.

Remember when Wall Street was collapsing? All of a sudden they wanted government intervention to bail them out. After the bail out, when the government wants to regulate them so it doesn't happen again... They scream..."No to government intervention, we want a free market!"

In a free market, there will be no intervention, if they collapse there's no bail out.


1. in a free market there are no bailouts

2. government regulation created the financial crisis, not free markets

3. free markets prevent monopolies from forming because competition limits profits and prices. Monopolies can only form through government regulating competition.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 




2. government regulation created the financial crisis, not free markets


I think this is the only area i'll disagree with you on. I don't think it's fair to blame it ALL on government, because there was a lot of human greed involved as well.

I believe it was a very even combination of government regulation ... lack of government regulation, and business suit greed that put us where we are today.

One lead to the other, that lead to the other, and presto- main street gets reamed.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Snarf
reply to post by pepsi78
 



1 You do not have the money to build such a structure.
2 You go out of busniness because you can offer limited items in a limited shop, limited by space and limited by the money you have, and since they have it all why bother to go to your shop and then to another shop when I can get it all in one place.
3 Since they sell alot they can afford to lower prices, you can not.


It seriously hurts my head when i get this angry at such a flimsy argument:

1.) WalMart didn't magically have enough money to become as big as they are for no reason. They started small, and worked their way up. They offered us what Mom & Pop refused to: Good Prices on the items we need/want.

2.) If you find that you are 100% unable to compete with something, then you should try something else. Offer something walmart does not sell. Don't open up a grocer next to Walmart and then expect to compete. Its not walmarts fault that customers want to pay lower prices and you can't offer them. its your fault.

3.) Yes, they sell alot. Thats not their fault. That's the seed they have sewn. They are successful. You are not. That is nto their fault. Blame yourself, not somebody else.

These kinds of arugments remind me of my brother & his son. His son will mess up (lets say he scribbles with a crayon on the wall) and his dad was scold him for it.

His Boy (Jeremy) will scream and kick and swear up and down that it wasn't him, that it was his friend (i forget his name) but his "friend" is invisible of course.

It wasn't Jeremys' fault, it can't be. It never is Jeremy's fault. But in reality, it was Jeremy's fault...its just that Jeremy's too immature to accept responsibility for his own actions at such an early age.

My how the irony staggers.


I am unsure the relevance of any of this. The walmart of today is not the one from 1962 (which he got a magic loan from family to start. around 25,000 in 1962 would be around 386,653 today (based on 6% inflation up until 2010). Thats a decent starting capital.)

Some things walmart does on the local scale: Say Jeremy there made an invention, something small that he can make 100 units a month on, and is doing fine. Then WHAM: Walmart says "We want 500,000 units a year". Jeremy cranks production, sinks everything into it and is finally able to get that volume. Jeremy though is now in debt up to his crayons.
Walmart then turns to him and says "We still want 500,000 units but now we're only going to pay half of what we were paying you.

Jeremy's infrastructure and capital is now locked-he can't reinvest marketing, or to try and get it to target or others since Walmart is selling for near the cost of making them. Poor Jeremy is now locked in debt because he was naive. If he doesn't continue as is he loses everything. Instead his only option is to fire half of his brand new workforce so he can pay the interest on his loans.

Jeremy in this case is a friend of mine who invented a small bathtub scrubber and was making them in rubber casts in his garage. After walmart he works 90 hours+ a week and is barely able to keep ramen noodles on his table.

Regardless of how Walmart once embodied the American Dream, they are now the American Nightmare. Most communities see getting a walmart as some social acceptance of their town. Then it all goes down the toilet.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Snarf
reply to post by lordtyp0
 



They are amongst the largest single employers, not job creation.
They put other stores out of business creating a larger labor pool. Then they absorb the labor at reduced rates (Smiths pays 9.50/hour. Wal-mart is minimum wage, also they do not allow overtime or even full time designation to avoid any benefits).


You are assuming that "Smiths" pays $9.50 an hour for a cashier clerk spot...but your'e wrong.

I honestly just called my local IGA and they pay the Illinois Min. Wage. Walmart, for the same spot, pays $0.25 more per hour.


if you think i'm making it up - call them yourself

(217) 352-0019 - Jerry's IGA
(217) 344-6148 - Walmart on high Cross roads


[edit on 29-12-2009 by Snarf]


You realize there is cost of living differences from state to state, right? In Utah 7-11 pays 10.25 for a clerk on graves. In North Dakota it is min wage. Course in ND you can buy a 4 bedroom house for under 75k. In Utah the same house would be over 200k, California prob over 600k.

Wages are different from state to state.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0
 



Regardless of how Walmart once embodied the American Dream, they are now the American Nightmare. Most communities see getting a walmart as some social acceptance of their town. Then it all goes down the toilet.


I grew up in a community that begged for a walmart

I now live in a community that has 3 walmarts, 4 other companies that are just LIKE walmart (Meijer, Target, Schnucks, County Market) and a plethora of love for all of them.

Why? Because I, an average hard working citizen, don't really care if mom & pop go out of business.

Why? Because if they want to play the game, they have to play byt he rules.

If nobody is going to make an exception for me, then why should i make an exception for them?

I earn my paycheck by working hard and doing what im told.

Why can't mom & pop say the same thing?

Work harder. Find a way to beat walmart at their own game. Meijer, County Market, Target, and Schnucks seem to be able to compete just fine...and like i said there are THREE walmarts in my town.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   
What is microsoft, the most hyped up company in america.

Is that not a monoploy, and ms do everything to destroy its competitors.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0
 


i realize wages differ from state to state

i also realize that illinois has the highest wage to cost min. wages in the entire country.

Currently, Illinois' min. wage is $8.00 and goes up to $8.25 in July of 2010 which will make it tied for 1st in highest min. wages in the country...(tied with Washington DC) but it costs a hell of a lot more to live in DC than it does to live in Illinois.

Currently - IGA offers a cashier $8.00 and Walmart offers $8.25 for the same spot.

The federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour.

So a walmart in poduck illinois is paying $1.00 per hour more than the Federal Minimum wage, and $.25 more than the state min. wage.

All for a lousy cashier position that requires zero experience, zero intelligence, and zero initiative.

I'd say that's not too shabby...given the circumstances.

If walmart paid that position $150,000 a year....guess what?

Prices on everything would increase ten fold along with it, and walmart managesr would be making millions.

Someone has to be on the bottom of the totem pole. Not everyone can be equal. The only way to have true equality is to have no currency.

And without currency, we'd all be pulling wagons with oxen again.


But then, we would all have to know how to raise oxen and build plows...because we would have no currency to pay someone to do it for us.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by Snarf]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by lordtyp0

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by lordtyp0
(snip for space)


So being the largest employer is not "job creation?"

If the government forced wal mart to give all manner of benefits to its employees, but didn't do the same thing to Target, do you think Wal Mart would be in business very long?

If the government forced all retailers to give huge benefits to their employees, do you think any store but Wal Mart would be in business for very long?

What benefits wal mart more?

More regulation or less?

[edit on 29-12-2009 by mnemeth1]


Job Creation means actually creating jobs. Not reshuffling them.
Target gives full benefits to employees.
Given what you have described: Less regulation benefits from. Though it seems we disagree on what regulation is.

I am defining regulation as a low or structure that dictates things a company cannot do. Please correct me if wrong (I know you will
): It seems like you are stating regulation is any law be it beneficial or harmful to their business practice.

Example: Most states have certain expectations on 'full time employment' and give a regulation on what a company has to do if they have a full time employee. Walmart gets around this by holding employees under the full time definition (usually, but not always: 40 hours a week). Even if the employee is at 39.99 hours, they are still not full time.

The regulation is full time designation. The loophole is the 39.99 hours real. Some employers (in Utah I have seen this first hand) will even drop benefits if you go 2 weeks in a row with less than 40 hours time. Like getting sick on a friday and coming back to work on the following monday (scheduled on the weekends). Thats 2 weeks in a row without 40 hours, so-they dropped health benefits and forced a 4 month wait until the next open enrollment.

(edit correcting quote tags)

[edit on 29-12-2009 by lordtyp0]

[edit on 29-12-2009 by lordtyp0]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by lordtyp0

Job Creation means actually creating jobs. Not reshuffling them.
Target gives full benefits to employees.
Given what you have described: Less regulation benefits from. Though it seems we disagree on what regulation is.

I am defining regulation as a low or structure that dictates things a company cannot do. Please correct me if wrong (I know you will
): It seems like you are stating regulation is any law be it beneficial or harmful to their business practice.

Example: Most states have certain expectations on 'full time employment' and give a regulation on what a company has to do if they have a full time employee. Walmart gets around this by holding employees under the full time definition (usually, but not always: 40 hours a week). Even if the employee is at 39.99 hours, they are still not full time.

The regulation is full time designation. The loophole is the 39.99 hours real. Some employers (in Utah I have seen this first hand) will even drop benefits if you go 2 weeks in a row with less than 40 hours time. Like getting sick on a friday and coming back to work on the following monday (scheduled on the weekends). Thats 2 weeks in a row without 40 hours, so-they dropped health benefits and forced a 4 month wait until the next open enrollment.


So you're saying Wal Mart should not be allowed to hire part time employees?

Obviously, the employees are willing to work for them.

So, if the government makes it illegal for wal mart to hire part time employees, but not Target, do you think wal mart would remain in business for very long?

If the government said no retailer could hire part time employees, do you think any store but wal mart would be around to do business?

Government regulations only help wal mart, not hurt them.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Snarf
 


The 150k/year thing.. Come on, thats just absurd (well, unless hyperinflation then it could happen.).

In Utah: We just have Target and Walmart that fit into that classification, I am hesitant to include Sears Grand in it, but it could be as well. The reason is over the last 10 years all the other stores have been run out.

Companies that offer benefits obviously have a greater per head cost on employees. The walmart of the past was something that could be competed against. But todays walmart is a juggernaut of destruction.

According to this there are 52 stores in utah counting Sams Club and distribution centers. The Utah population is about 2.3 million.

Illinois has 181 stores (also includes dist centers and sams club). IL stats

Population in IL is 12,901,563 (on 2009 census).

Look at the ratio of stores to population.

UT: 2.3 mil, 52 stores.
IL: 12.9 mil, 181 stores

Six times the population in IL, but only around 3.6 or so more walmarts. There are 5 more walmarts scheduled to be build in the Salt Lake and provo Valleys before the end of this upcoming summer.

The destruction I see is much more apparent in UT than in IL and is only getting worse.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0
 



The 150k/year thing.. Come on, thats just absurd (well, unless hyperinflation then it could happen.).


no, its not absurd. What im saying is that you're complaining about what they're being paid.

Im saying if Walmart were to pay them $150,000 a year, then they'd have to pay their managers a LOT more than that (because who wants to be a manager if a clerk gets paid the same amount?)

Then that costs pirces to go up because now everyone has more money to spend


Its how it works. It really is. You just are refusing to recognize it





top topics
 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join