Wal-Mart

[gusmahler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you think they put small stores out of business, you're right! That's what COMPETITION is!

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's all competition is then I wouldn't piss on it to put out the flames if it was on fire.

This is not competition - this is removal of competition in order to create a monopoly. This is reducing everything to the lowest common denominator. Exactly the same result as communism.

Competition is very important and it should not be removed either through banning it or via monopolistic practices.

[/ QUOTE ]
How is Wal Mart removing competition? Getting rid of mom and pop stores doesn't get rid of Target, Office Depot, Best Buy, etc. (IOW, there is no actual "monopoly" because there are plenty of places where one can buy a competing product.)

[gusmahler]

[ QUOTE ]
Do any of u enjoy going to Wal-Mart? Because of the low prices, the immense selection of products, the friendly service? (yeah right). What is your opinion on Wal-Mart in general?

[/ QUOTE ]
Except for one specific Wal Mart Supercenter, every Wal Mart I've been to has been dirty and cramped. In contrast, Target is clean, well lit, and has a selection at least as good as Wal Mart. So I've always preferred Target.

Now that I live in northern California, I don't even have a choice. There's only one in the entire area from San Jose to San Francisco (and it's probably the dirtiest one I've ever seen.)

[John Cole]

[ QUOTE ]
I shop at Wal-Mart, but only because of their racist policies.


[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't sound like you, Dom. Have you worded this correctly?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I shop at Wal-Mart, but only because of their racist policies. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]


[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't sound like you, Dom. Have you worded this correctly?

[/ QUOTE ]

FHP

[TwoOuter]

[ QUOTE ]
A question. What, exactly, does profit represent to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose net income in an accounting sense and return on investment.

I have nothing against profit, just issues with how that profit is sometimes derived.

Just because someone is willing to work for $X an hour without benefits doesn't mean this is the right way to set wages. I choose to patronize businesses who treat employees in a fairer (imho) way. Those companies exist, and in my area they tend to be smaller businesses, not big boxes.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]

And then I get to stand in line for 10 minutes behind some smelly ass hole who apparently needed toilet paper, lotion, and beef jerky.



[/ QUOTE ]

.....this line made me laugh out loud.

Thanks!! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Stagger_Lee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you think they put small stores out of business, you're right! That's what COMPETITION is!

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's all competition is then I wouldn't piss on it to put out the flames if it was on fire.

This is not competition - this is removal of competition in order to create a monopoly. This is reducing everything to the lowest common denominator. Exactly the same result as communism.

Competition is very important and it should not be removed either through banning it or via monopolistic practices.

[/ QUOTE ]
How is Wal Mart removing competition? Getting rid of mom and pop stores doesn't get rid of Target, Office Depot, Best Buy, etc. (IOW, there is no actual "monopoly" because there are plenty of places where one can buy a competing product.)

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a lot more to it than meets the eye.

The monopolistic practices are often used to squeeze suppliers more than opposition. The knock on effect hits the opposition of course, and ultimately the consumer. Choice is removed.

Practices like hitting suppliers for goods on consignment +10% cash up front. Like making suppliers either in or out. You want to supply someone else - goodbye. You want to let a free market operate - goodbye. It gets even more insidious when a large retailer uses it's dominance in one market to cross subsidise and screw over another market. Using say, grocery dominance to subsidise entry to alcohol and fuel retailing. Get it under one banner, reduce the services (and any choice) to the lowest common denominator and cash in.

Monopolistic practices like creating false barriers to entry through manipulating suppliers or cross subsidisation are anti-capitalist and anti-competitive. But as long as people look at the short term (my next shopping bill) and not the long term (what will this all be like for my kids) then we probably deserve the screwing we are receiving.

[youtalkfunny]

[ QUOTE ]
his dues were nearly $200 a month.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never been a union member in my life. Is $200/mo standard??? Are there a lot of low-paid workers in this country paying dues like this?

That number knocks my socks off.

EDIT: I just searched the internet for a clip of the hilarious union meeting in the 80's classic "Armed and Dangerous", with Eugene Levy challenging the mobbed-up union leaders, led by Robert Loggia. I need to watch that movie again, soon.

[John Cole]

FHP? And where did the [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] come from?

[John Cole]

[ QUOTE ]
I've also noticed that the typical ass in Wal-Mart is far wider and more unsightly than one you might find in let's say Target.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've also noticed that people know which side of the aisle to walk on in Target. I was in Wal-Mart twice--and never again--and both times I kept my elbow raised so I could catch someone with a well-placed shot to the sternum when I was about to be steamrolled. This technique also works well in malls.