|
|
#91
10-29-2007, 08:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: (Re)Writing a New Constitution
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If you want the government to protect the free market, you simply do not encroach on the free market. [/ QUOTE ] Where’s the freedom in allowing monopolies to run rampant in the absence of government anti-trust regulation? Where’s the freedom in making factory or mine workers wage slaves because we don’t have enough jobs to go around and employers won’t provide fair wages or safe working conditions on their own free will? Where’s the freedom in letting fraudulent and unsafe products reach the market because we cannot let the government regulate the free market? Since the 1st Wal-Mart opened where I live in 1987 my local retail market has lost something like 15 other retail stores that sold some or all of Wal-Mart's product lines. This isn't competition; it's predation. As a consequence my freedom as a consumer has decreased while my cost as a consumer has increased. If you value freedom you should be as opposed to central economic planning from Wall Street as you are from Pennsylvania Avenue. [/ QUOTE ] I've tried to say this...monopolies are anti-free market. They seek to stifle competition and innovation (from outside sources). While they may be an end result of capitalism, they are not desirable because a monopoly no longer wins the game on its own merits but on the fact that it controls the market. Therefore, they are mostly undesirable. A free-er market encourages competition, innovatation, and ideas. Monopolies do not. Generally, they only seek to serve their won good. Capitalism does not necessarily equal free market. We are headed towards a time when small businesses will be phased out of existence. The stifling of innovation that will result with be the antithesis of the American dream and the beginning of the end of America's economic superpower status. 
|
|
#92
10-29-2007, 08:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: (Re)Writing a New Constitution
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If you want the government to protect the free market, you simply do not encroach on the free market. [/ QUOTE ] Where’s the freedom in allowing monopolies to run rampant in the absence of government anti-trust regulation? Where’s the freedom in making factory or mine workers wage slaves because we don’t have enough jobs to go around and employers won’t provide fair wages or safe working conditions on their own free will? Where’s the freedom in letting fraudulent and unsafe products reach the market because we cannot let the government regulate the free market? Since the 1st Wal-Mart opened where I live in 1987 my local retail market has lost something like 15 other retail stores that sold some or all of Wal-Mart's product lines. This isn't competition; it's predation. As a consequence my freedom as a consumer has decreased while my cost as a consumer has increased. If you value freedom you should be as opposed to central economic planning from Wall Street as you are from Pennsylvania Avenue. [/ QUOTE ] Your post is a complete mess, but I'd sure like to see how Wal-Mart has increased your costs, given that is a quantifiable fact that most people that shop at Wal-Mart vice other stores have significant decrease in their living costs. [/ QUOTE ] Wal-Mart and the other big-box stores were once an innovation that lowered costs. The problem is that if you have a better delivery system to the consumer will have a more and more difficult time because Wal-Mart is working against you to stifle competition. In this way, innovation and future progress are blocked. Yes, costs are lower because Wal-Mart was an innovation unto itself. That does not mean that Wal-Mart is the pinnacle of the discount store revolution. You may have the best idea in the world...the problem is that you can't compete with Wal-Mart because of certain anti-free market business practices.
|
|
#93
10-29-2007, 08:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: (Re)Writing a New Constitution
[ QUOTE ]
You may have the best idea in the world...the problem is that you can't compete with Wal-Mart because of certain anti-free market business practices. [/ QUOTE ] Examples?
|
|
#94
10-29-2007, 09:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: (Re)Writing a New Constitution
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] You may have the best idea in the world...the problem is that you can't compete with Wal-Mart because of certain anti-free market business practices. [/ QUOTE ] Examples? [/ QUOTE ] 1) Wal-Mart requires that non-equivalent suppliers give lower prices to them than they give to anyone else. Tough to compete directly if your gross profit is compromised from day 1. 2) Wal-mart, when introduced to a community devoid of big-box stores (which are now almost nonexistent) will take gross profit losses in order to drive out existing, locally-owned businesses. Once the competition is gone, they gradually increase prices to their "normal" for that area. They are willing to use their deeper pockets to kill the competition...but the "victory" for consumers is only a temporary one. Those are only two domestic items.
|
|
#95
10-29-2007, 10:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: (Re)Writing a New Constitution
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If you want the government to protect the free market, you simply do not encroach on the free market. [/ QUOTE ] Where’s the freedom in allowing monopolies to run rampant in the absence of government anti-trust regulation? [/ QUOTE ] How does one gain a monopoly without force? [ QUOTE ] Where’s the freedom in making factory or mine workers wage slaves because we don’t have enough jobs to go around and employers won’t provide fair wages or safe working conditions on their own free will? [/ QUOTE ] Appeal to emotion fallacy. In case you haven't noticed, we have MORE jobs than people. that's what makes it economically attractive for people from other countries to risk their LIVES crossing deserts etc to get here. [ QUOTE ] Where’s the freedom in letting fraudulent and unsafe products reach the market because we cannot let the government regulate the free market? [/ QUOTE ] Appeal to massively-debunked-fallacy fallacy. Use the search function. Private product regulation EXISTS (because government regulation is less stringent than the market demands) and it WORKS. [ QUOTE ] Since the 1st Wal-Mart opened where I live in 1987 my local retail market has lost something like 15 other retail stores that sold some or all of Wal-Mart's product lines. This isn't competition; it's predation. As a consequence my freedom as a consumer has decreased while my cost as a consumer has increased. [/ QUOTE ] You're not entitled to shop at any particular store. And please explain how your costs have increased.
|
|
#96
10-29-2007, 10:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: (Re)Writing a New Constitution
[ QUOTE ]
Wal-Mart and the other big-box stores were once an innovation that lowered costs. The problem is that if you have a better delivery system to the consumer will have a more and more difficult time because Wal-Mart is working against you to stifle competition. In this way, innovation and future progress are blocked. [/ QUOTE ] Working against WHOM? Retail for staple products is OVERHEAD. You don't need fancy customer service to sell bananas, or paper plates, or light bulbs. Minimizing that overhead is really the only value a retailer can offer. WalMart does it better than anyone else. [ QUOTE ] Yes, costs are lower because Wal-Mart was an innovation unto itself. That does not mean that Wal-Mart is the pinnacle of the discount store revolution. [/ QUOTE ] Empty platitudes. Any meat? [ QUOTE ] You may have the best idea in the world...the problem is that you can't compete with Wal-Mart because of certain anti-free market business practices. [/ QUOTE ] Idea for what? What anti-free-market practices?
|
|
#97
10-29-2007, 10:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: (Re)Writing a New Constitution
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] You may have the best idea in the world...the problem is that you can't compete with Wal-Mart because of certain anti-free market business practices. [/ QUOTE ] Examples? [/ QUOTE ] 1) Wal-Mart requires that non-equivalent suppliers give lower prices to them than they give to anyone else. Tough to compete directly if your gross profit is compromised from day 1. [/ QUOTE ] Are you talking about other retailers competing with WalMart? It's not WalMart's business to make it easy for others to compete with them. If those other retailers could minimize overhead as much as WalMart can, they could compete. [ QUOTE ] 2) Wal-mart, when introduced to a community devoid of big-box stores (which are now almost nonexistent) will take gross profit losses in order to drive out existing, locally-owned businesses. Once the competition is gone, they gradually increase prices to their "normal" for that area. They are willing to use their deeper pockets to kill the competition...but the "victory" for consumers is only a temporary one. [/ QUOTE ] Oh, the old "predatory pricing" boogeyman.
|
|
#98
10-29-2007, 11:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: (Re)Writing a New Constitution
[ QUOTE ]
Are you talking about other retailers competing with WalMart? It's not WalMart's business to make it easy for others to compete with them. [/ QUOTE ] True, where did I say that it was Wal-Mart's business to do this? I'm saying that Wal-Mart has exploited a flaw in the system. [ QUOTE ] If those other retailers could minimize overhead as much as WalMart can, they could compete. [/ QUOTE ] This is BS. This is not about overhead. If you had a superior system that could reduce overhead by 30% compared to Wal-Mart, you would not be able to compete with them. DUCY? As for the empty platitudes in the above post, do you honestly believe that there is no better consumer delivery system that has been formulated than Wal-Mart's? [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] 2) Wal-mart, when introduced to a community devoid of big-box stores (which are now almost nonexistent) will take gross profit losses in order to drive out existing, locally-owned businesses. Once the competition is gone, they gradually increase prices to their "normal" for that area. They are willing to use their deeper pockets to kill the competition...but the "victory" for consumers is only a temporary one. [/ QUOTE ] Oh, the old "predatory pricing" boogeyman. [/ QUOTE ] Are you really saying that they don't engage in predatory pricing? Nice ad hominem with the boogeyman, though.
|
|
#99
10-30-2007, 12:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: (Re)Writing a New Constitution
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Oh, the old "predatory pricing" boogeyman. [/ QUOTE ] Are you really saying that they don't engage in predatory pricing? Nice ad hominem with the boogeyman, though. [/ QUOTE ] How is that an ad hominem?
|
|
#100
10-30-2007, 12:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: (Re)Writing a New Constitution
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Oh, the old "predatory pricing" boogeyman. [/ QUOTE ] Are you really saying that they don't engage in predatory pricing? Nice ad hominem with the boogeyman, though. [/ QUOTE ] How is that an ad hominem? [/ QUOTE ] A "boogeyman" is a false monster...the monster under the bed. You seem to have said that they don't engage in predatory pricing...that it [Wal-Mart's predatory pricing] is false.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
