# News & Current Events > Economy & Markets >  Wal-Mart undercutting practises

## ian_co

So today I was discussing free market competition and while I was discussing Standard Oil, my friend brought up Wal-Mart even though he knew it was not a monopoly. He brought up the practice where Wal-Mart, due to it's large net profit, is able to maintain a barrier for new competition because they are able to undercut their prices to actually cost them more than they profit and outlast competition only to raise the price again.

I asked if he could provide evidence for that but he was unable to give an example, but it was important because I still considered the reasoning behind it. I also brought up that Wal-Mart is still forced under market forces to maintain low prices but I felt unsatisfied with this answer.

I know government intervention does not increase competition, but what are your thoughts about such practices and it's relation to the free market in providing competition?

----------


## silverhandorder

It is a short sighted practice. What happens if the competition digs in long term? You will end up wasting money. This is how Dow Chemicals forced out German Cartel from US. He bought up their cheap chemicals and sold it in germany at a profit.

----------


## Jeremy

Low prices are good, not bad.

----------


## Knighted

> He brought up the practice where Wal-Mart, due to it's large net profit, is able to maintain a barrier for new competition because they are able to undercut their prices to actually cost them more than they profit and outlast competition only to raise the price again.


Your friend is right, at least in theory.  And undercutting isn't the only reason why a monopoly can exist for a long time.  A monopoly may not last forever, but it's entirely plausible that if an industry has enough barriers to entry like startup capital costs and regulations to comply with, and the company has significant name brand recognition, undercuts competition as you mentioned, and makes deals with suppliers to keep competitors out, a company could dominate the market for decades if not longer.  Collusion is also a possibility.  A company may not technically be a monopoly either, but they own such a large percent of industry sales that they are one for all intents and purposes.  

On the other hand, I don't think that under monopoly status, the company automatically has free reign to raise prices to the moon.  There is always the threat that if a company hikes prices too high, the profit incentive for other monolithic corporations with money to burn to step into that market to try to capture some of the market share will outweigh the costs and risk of them doing so.  The end result is that in a so-called monopolized industry, a company is able to enjoy a large profit margin while cornering the market on sales without threat of competition for a significant length of time.  I like to think of a company's profit margin being a function of all of the factors mentioned in the paragraph above like barriers to entry, name brand recognition, regulations etc.  Add enough of these together, and a company can scoop up a sizeable profit margin in its industry without much fear of competition - which for consumers means significantly higher prices than would be expected if that industry was not more or less monopolized.

----------


## Becker

> Low prices are good, not bad.


agreed. the hypocrisy of people blaming Wal Mart for giving most Americans good prices, while saying nothing about Apple, which services less than 10% of all Americans with overpriced products, and was at one recent point, the most valuable company in the US. Corporations are measured by who they put out of business, rather than how much money they make or how many people they serve.

----------


## vodalian

There are 2 kinds of monopolies.. Forced monopolies (created by government) and monopolies created because people CHOOSE that company over the rest. If a store drives out competition in a community because everyone goes to that store due to it being better than the rest, or can provide cheaper prices due to high efficiency, then how is that a bad thing? What alternative does your friend propose, the government come in, put a gun to the store owner's head and make them raise their prices? What point does that serve when everyone obviously loves this store and chooses to go there?

----------


## Becker

> There are 2 kinds of monopolies.. Forced monopolies (created by government) and monopolies created because people CHOOSE that company over the rest. If a store drives out competition in a community because everyone goes to that store which is better than the rest, or can provide cheaper prices due to high efficiency, then how is that a bad thing?


yeah, how is it a bad thing, I wonder.

----------


## wannaberocker

Actually Wal Mart now is not the lowest cost anymore. My parents use to shop at walmart, but now buy from dollar general because the same food supplies are cheaper there. 

The point is that walmart could only stay the lowest priced for so long. If they stayed lowest price for too long they would start losing money. The market always has a way of working things out.

----------


## kpitcher

There was a very interesting article about this years ago on fastcompany. It shows how Walmart uses their huge buying power to dictate pricing to vendors and forces companies to use the cheapest labor possible - mostly overseas obviously - simply because that's the only way to hit their price points. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. 

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/...tml?page=0%2C1

----------


## Becker

> Actually Wal Mart now is not the lowest cost anymore. My parents use to shop at walmart, but now buy from dollar general because the same food supplies are cheaper there. 
> 
> The point is that walmart could only stay the lowest priced for so long. If they stayed lowest price for too long they would start losing money. The market always has a way of working things out.


and watch the people say "yeah, so now there's incentive to introduce new competitors" as if its always easy.

----------


## Xenophage

When a company as great as WalMart emerges on the scene, the other players in the industry have got to be on their A game to compete.  WalMart has driven many stores out of business, because they offered the superior choice to the consumer.

If WalMart actually uses it's superior positioning to offer products at a *loss* to consumers, they can only maintain that pricing for a finite period of time.  They might drive a competitor out of business, but they'll eventually have to raise their prices to continue operations.  That gives someone else an opportunity to compete again, and in the meantime the consumers haven't suffered one bit.  The other business that couldn't compete has suffered, but that's the risk you take when you engage in fair competition.  Some people win, other people lose, but society always benefits.  Attempting to rig a system where nobody loses always leads to everybody losing over the long haul.

Now imagine if the regulatory and tax burden were less.  WalMart's competitors might be able to afford a stronger response to WalMart's consistently low prices.  All that time, energy and money spent paying off the government would instead be channeled into providing better quality products at lower prices for the consumer, because refusal to engage WalMart in honest competition would spell demise.

Ultimately, wherever WalMart has engaged their competitors in tough competition, the consumer has benefited enormously.

A very good analogy exists in the technology sector:  Back in the 90's everyone and their grandma used Netscape as their internet browser.  It was superior to anything else on the market, and you could have your own fully functional copy for a meager $30.  Microsoft was floundering on the web, and so they offered their competing browser Internet Explorer for *free.*  They spent millions on development, advertising and distribution, but they never charged their customers a single cent.

Arguably, Internet Explorer was an inferior product to Netscape, but it didn't mater.  Why spend $30 on something when you could get a competitor's product for free?  Microsoft used its massive financial resources to drive Netscape out of business and establish themselves as the dominant browser company.  Netscape lost, Microsoft won, but what did the consumers get?  Free browsers.

Flash forward more than a decade later and browsers are *still* free, to this day.  The companies who produce them found other means to raise revenue, by bundling products, engaging in targeted advertising, and promoting their search engines.  Consumers today couldn't ever imagine *buying* a web browser, and competition is more robust in that sector than *ever*.

What happened?  Microsoft, drunk with victory, got lax in keeping Internet Explorer up-to-date technologically, and began offering a poorer quality product.  New competitors emerged.  First it was Opera, then it was Mozilla Firefox (an offshoot of what used to be NetScape), and then Google offered up Chrome.  Microsoft was unable to maintain its aggressive position in the market, unable to choke out all of their competitors, and now Internet Explorer is struggling to reattract users after having lost them.  But the end result was a massive win for the consumer.  The web browsers today kick ass, and we don't pay cent for them, all because the *evil* Microsoft engaged in *unfair* competition.

Oh, and by the way, WalMart still faces stiff competition from Fred Meyer, Target, and other national chain stores.  We're nowhere near seeing a monopoly.

----------


## Becker

> Oh, and by the way, WalMart still faces stiff competition from Fred Meyer, Target, and other national chain stores.  We're nowhere near seeing a monopoly.


where I live , I don't know what Fred Meyer is, and Target doesn't have half the products I can get at Wal Mart, luckily, WalMart is crowded and a bit far, so its not a tough choice.

----------


## Xenophage

> where I live , I don't know what Fred Meyer is, and Target doesn't have half the products I can get at Wal Mart, luckily, WalMart is crowded and a bit far, so its not a tough choice.


Fred Meyer may be mostly a west coast operation.  I haven't spent much time on the east cost.

----------


## donnay

A very good and true Documentary about Wal Mart! Wal-Mart: The High Cost Of Low Price is a feature length documentary that uncovers a retail giant's assault on families and American values. The film dives into the deeply personal stories and everyday lives of families and communities struggling to fight a Goliath. A working mother is forced to turn to public assistance to provide health care for her two small children. A Missouri family loses its business after Wal-Mart is given over $2 million to open its doors down the road. A mayor struggles to equip his first responders after Wal-Mart pulls out and relocates just outside the city limits. A community in California unites, takes on the giant, and wins! Producer/Director Robert Greenwald and Brave New Films take you on an extraordinary journey that will change the way you think, feel -- and shop.

Also another tidbit about Wal-Marx practices--They would take out insurance policies on people (without their knowledge) and upon their passing Wal-Marx would collect the benefit.  

Source:
http://consumerist.com/2007/07/walma...eir-death.html

----------


## Becker

> Fred Meyer may be mostly a west coast operation.  I haven't spent much time on the east cost.


and I'm in California...I just looked, there is a few in my area, I guess I've just never heard people go there, thanks for the info.

----------


## emazur



----------


## fisharmor

> Oh, and by the way, WalMart still faces stiff competition from Fred Meyer, Target, and other national chain stores.  We're nowhere near seeing a monopoly.


Excellent examples and +rep.
There's a Wal-Mart close by to me, and I can't stand the place.
It's a nightmare to get in and out of, the lines are about a quarter mile long at all times of day, and they don't have anything I want.  I still check it out once in a while, but the shoes all suck, the electronics are all available online for the same price... the only thing I'll consciously go for is Winchester White Box, and Hoppes #9.

Target has a better lot, more register attendants, and overall less of a low-rent atmosphere.  They protect my time and for that I'll happily give them the extra dollar (gasp) in return for not stealing 20 minutes of my life.

I don't buy food from Wal-Mart... that's asinine.  We have Wegmanns here now, and while things aren't cheap there, they aren't cheap there either.  Prices are competitive, and the people at Wegmanns actually love what they're doing.  Wal-Mart could never compare with their wine selection, and I actually do have to buy gorgonzola cheese pretty regularly - I don't trust Wal-Mart to have that... I don't trust Wal-Mart even to know what that is.
Oh, and Wegmann's gets me in and out of the store quickly.

The people shopping at Wal-Mart obviously have jobs - I don't see the purpose in going there, when they could just put in an extra half hour, and have a couple extra dollars on top of what they'd have to pay some other store not to waste their time.

----------


## 123tim

> There was a very interesting article about this years ago on fastcompany. It shows how Walmart uses their huge buying power to dictate pricing to vendors and forces companies to use the cheapest labor possible - mostly overseas obviously - simply because that's the only way to hit their price points. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. 
> 
> http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/...tml?page=0%2C1


Thank you for bringing this up. 

Walmart has several documented cases of forcing a manufacturer to sell them products at_ below_ the manufacturing costs required to make the product!  Huffy was one.  I think that Vassic pickle was another.

You can read about it here (PDF):
www.kuratrading.com/PDF/Walmart1.pdf

To China we go!

----------


## Cutlerzzz

If a company lowers prices they are accused of predatory pricing. If a company raises prices they are accused of price gouging. If a company maintains prices, they are accused of cartelizing. 

I can't remember who said this, but it is true here.




> A very good and true Documentary about Wal Mart! Wal-Mart: The High Cost Of Low Price is a feature length documentary that uncovers a retail giant's assault on families and American values.


Somehow, making money through voluntary exchange is an assault on American values now. The inefficient firms that lobby to get Wal-Mart banned from communities are supposed to be standing for "American values", by using government force in order to make a buck? 




> The film dives into the deeply personal stories and everyday lives of families and communities struggling to fight a Goliath.


Struggling to fight a company that provides low prices? The horror!




> A working mother is forced to turn to public assistance to provide health care for her two small children. A Missouri family loses its business after Wal-Mart is given over $2 million to open its doors down the road. A mayor struggles to equip his first responders after Wal-Mart pulls out and relocates just outside the city limits. A community in California unites, takes on the giant, and wins! Producer/Director Robert Greenwald and Brave New Films take you on an extraordinary journey that will change the way you think, feel -- and shop.
> 
> Also another tidbit about Wal-Marx practices--They would take out insurance policies on people (without their knowledge) and upon their passing Wal-Marx would collect the benefit.


Why does any of this matter?

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> When a company as great as WalMart emerges on the scene, the other players in the industry have got to be on their A game to compete.  WalMart has driven many stores out of business, because they offered the superior choice to the consumer.
> 
> If WalMart actually uses it's superior positioning to offer products at a *loss* to consumers, they can only maintain that pricing for a finite period of time.  They might drive a competitor out of business, but they'll eventually have to raise their prices to continue operations.  That gives someone else an opportunity to compete again, and in the meantime the consumers haven't suffered one bit.  The other business that couldn't compete has suffered, but that's the risk you take when you engage in fair competition.  Some people win, other people lose, but society always benefits.  Attempting to rig a system where nobody loses always leads to everybody losing over the long haul.
> 
> Now imagine if the regulatory and tax burden were less.  WalMart's competitors might be able to afford a stronger response to WalMart's consistently low prices.  All that time, energy and money spent paying off the government would instead be channeled into providing better quality products at lower prices for the consumer, because refusal to engage WalMart in honest competition would spell demise.
> 
> Ultimately, wherever WalMart has engaged their competitors in tough competition, the consumer has benefited enormously.
> 
> A very good analogy exists in the technology sector:  Back in the 90's everyone and their grandma used Netscape as their internet browser.  It was superior to anything else on the market, and you could have your own fully functional copy for a meager $30.  Microsoft was floundering on the web, and so they offered their competing browser Internet Explorer for *free.*  They spent millions on development, advertising and distribution, but they never charged their customers a single cent.
> ...


+1

----------


## donnay

> If a company lowers prices they are accused of predatory pricing. If a company raises prices they are accused of price gouging. If a company maintains prices, they are accused of cartelizing. 
> 
> I can't remember who said this, but it is true here.
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, making money through voluntary exchange is an assault on American values now. The inefficient firms that lobby to get Wal-Mart banned from communities are supposed to be standing for "American values", by using government force in order to make a buck? 
> 
> 
> ...


When a company gets subsidies by the State and takes away from average Mom & Pop businesses, that is fair?

When a company strong arms purveyors to make their things at the price Walmart dictates, that is fair?

When Walmart props up factories in China where the people get paid $3.00 a day to make products to sell to the U.S. at a rate hike of 200%, that is fair?

I live in a small town who continuously fights to not let Walmart in or around our town.  I am thankful a lot of people have insight and enough wisdom to be stubborn enough to not fall for their deception-- that it will bring jobs to our area and all the other lies they say.  We have a lot to protect around here, we keep local businesses in business by keeping Walmart out of our town!

Not to mention Walmart was the main reason we have RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) in products--do some research on that.  They worked hand-and-hand with the DoD to have all products with tracking devices on them!

We are not dealing with a truly free market--we have crony capitalism and Walmart capitalizes on it.

You need to watch the documentary I posted...then come back in to the discussion.

----------


## Becker

> If a company lowers prices they are accused of predatory pricing. If a company raises prices they are accused of price gouging. If a company maintains prices, they are accused of cartelizing. 
> 
> I can't remember who said this, but it is true here.


exactly, corporations are never good guys, lol.




> Somehow, making money through voluntary exchange is an assault on American values now.


its what happens when you believe in rights, it's a slippery slope to "entitlement".




> The inefficient firms that lobby to get Wal-Mart banned from communities are supposed to be standing for "American values", by using government force in order to make a buck?


because they're fighting bad guys, so they're not the initial aggressors




> Struggling to fight a company that provides low prices? The horror!
> 
> 
> 
> Why does any of this matter?


good question

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> When a company gets subsidies by the State and takes away from average Mom & Pop businesses, that is fair?


Walmart gets relatively little in subsidies, and many of their competitors are subsidized or protected by the state.




> When a company strong arms purveyors to make their things at the price Walmart dictates is fair?


Walmart cannot make anyone price anything at a price they do not want to sell something at. Companies sell at low costs to Walmart because it is in their best interest to do so. 




> When Walmart props up factories in China where the people get paid $3.00 a day to sell to the U.S. at a rate hike of 200% is fair?


Yes, because it is done through voluntary exchange. Walmart deserves credit for utilizing the international division of labor in order to increase prosperity. This frees up American labor for productive purposes.




> I live in a small town who continuously fights to not let Walmart in or around our town. I am thankful a lot of people have insight and enough wisdom to be stubborn enough to not fall for their deception-- that it will bring jobs to our area and all the other lies they say. We have a lot to protect around here, we keep local businesses in business by keeping Walmart out of our town!


Protectionism is awful economics. There is no fixed number of jobs. If local business cannot compete with Walmart, then they should all go out of business and stop wasting resources. They are an inefficient waste of time, and their land, labor, and capital should be set free for productive purposes. If they are getting government protection, then they are leeching off of the state. This is no different from any other form of crony capitalism. It is just special interest groups being protected from competition.

----------


## Becker

> This frees up American labor for productive purposes.


LMAO

I'm sure the unemployed Americans right now are loving their "freed up labor for productive purposes". We're too busy sleeping on OWS and playing Angry Birds on our iPhones

----------


## MRK

Walmart's food prices in the Indianapolis area are typically overall higher than the local competitors like Kroger, Meijer, and definitely Aldis.

Walmart will however have selectively lower prices on certain products, but they change these around from time to time in what appears to be an effort to trick people into thinking their overall prices are lower than they really are.

Walmart does often have lower prices on household durable goods that overwhelmingly seem to come from China. But I have found that these prices are almost always beat by online competitors which often make their products in North America.

----------


## FlatIron

Honestly, Wal-Marts low prices wont be able to handle it much longer from the new expanded competition i.e. Amazon, Ebay etc, and from the unions

----------


## specsaregood

> Target has a better lot, more register attendants, and overall less of a low-rent atmosphere.  They protect my time and for that I'll happily give them the extra dollar (gasp) in return for not stealing 20 minutes of my life.


go to  their site and print out the coupons that are relevent to your shopping trip and you might not even have to spend that extra dollar.

----------


## roho76

Hillary Clinton worked for WalMarx. I'm sure they have their hands in the governments pockets in one way or another. 

It's my opinion that companies wouldn't get that large in a free market without the governments invisible hand. Companies like GM, Bank of America, and who ever owned Solyndra (I'm sure that wasn't their first handout) wouldn't get as big as they do. Other companies would flood the market and offer competing products at the same price because the cost of producing the product would come down. You can see this in the computer market, cell phone market, TV market and you don't see this in Agriculture, cell phone market, and Big Oil. The moment they create the Department of 1's and 0's expect tech prices to take a 180.

----------


## FlatIron

> When a company gets subsidies by the State and takes away from average Mom & Pop businesses, that is fair?
> 
> When a company strong arms purveyors to make their things at the price Walmart dictates, that is fair?
> 
> When Walmart props up factories in China where the people get paid $3.00 a day to make products to sell to the U.S. at a rate hike of 200%, that is fair?
> 
> I live in a small town who continuously fights to not let Walmart in or around our town.  I am thankful a lot of people have insight and enough wisdom to be stubborn enough to not fall for their deception-- that it will bring jobs to our area and all the other lies they say.  We have a lot to protect around here, we keep local businesses in business by keeping Walmart out of our town!
> 
> Not to mention Walmart was the main reason we have RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) in products--do some research on that.  They worked hand-and-hand with the DoD to have all products with tracking devices on them!
> ...


Not really fond of the protectionist idea, but I am glad your local government is handling the issue, and not Washington, itself

Edit: Machines will take over the labor burden, so its only a temporary issue.

----------


## specsaregood

> Hillary Clinton worked for WalMarx. I'm sure they have their hands in the governments pockets in one way or another. 
> 
> It's my opinion that companies wouldn't get that large in a free market without the governments invisible hand


you are correct, walmart got to their size with ample government help.

----------


## Seraphim

How so? Genuinely interested - any amunition to argue against Wal Marx.




> you are correct, walmart got to their size with ample government help.

----------


## specsaregood

> How so? Genuinely interested - any amunition to argue against Wal Marx.


Well the easiest example would be tax exemptions they got from towns for building, exemptions that all the smaller competitors didn't get.

Or there is the issue of them telling their employees to get on govt welfare/healthcare/subsidy programs.  Since they pay them low enough wages to qualify.

----------


## trey4sports

> Low prices are good, not bad.



Exactly. Low prices are great for the consumer, and if we as consumers can get products for less than cost that's great. Predatory price cutting may work for a short while but once they have monopolized the market and raise prices then competition will once again arise.

----------


## roho76

> Well the easiest example would be tax exemptions they got from towns for building, exemptions that all the smaller competitors didn't get.
> 
> Or there is the issue of them telling their employees to get on govt welfare/healthcare/subsidy programs.  Since they pay them low enough wages to qualify.



Rod Roddy, tell him what he's won.

----------


## angelatc

> Fred Meyer may be mostly a west coast operation.  I haven't spent much time on the east cost.


It is, but Wal-Mart certainly isn't a monopoly in any sense of the word.    Wal-Mart made their initial billions servicing rural areas of America, places that the big retailers said weren't big enough to justify serving.    They didn't start to move into the suburbs and cities until the 90's.  They completely rewrote the inventory management book, too. Their distribution system is second to none.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Hillary Clinton worked for WalMarx. I'm sure they have their hands in the governments pockets in one way or another. 
> 
> *It's my opinion that companies wouldn't get that large in a free market without the governments invisible hand.* Companies like GM, Bank of America, and who ever owned Solyndra (I'm sure that wasn't their first handout) wouldn't get as big as they do. Other companies would flood the market and offer competing products at the same price because the cost of producing the product would come down. You can see this in the computer market, cell phone market, TV market and you don't see this in Agriculture, cell phone market, and Big Oil. The moment they create the Department of 1's and 0's expect tech prices to take a 180.


IIRC, Standard Oil became huge without government's hand.  I could be wrong though.

----------


## angelatc

> Well the easiest example would be tax exemptions they got from towns for building, exemptions that all the smaller competitors didn't get.
> 
> Or there is the issue of them telling their employees to get on govt welfare/healthcare/subsidy programs.  Since they pay them low enough wages to qualify.


You've really been on the liberal side of things lately. 

The other side of the coin is that the WalMart adds an astronomical value to the properties and businesses of their neighbors, something their smaller competitors didn't do. The additional revenue they bring in creates a bidding war among townships for their presence, and they'd be retarded not to take advantage of that.

Since when is it the employers responsibility to pay anything above what the market will bear for wages?

----------


## angelatc

> IIRC, Standard Oil became huge without government's hand.  I could be wrong though.


A&P, the grocer, was incredibly huge back in the day.  Wal-Mart has nothing on them as far as market share goes, but as always, the market caught up with them.

----------


## Knighted

> Your friend is right, at least in theory. And undercutting isn't the only reason why a monopoly can exist for a long time. A monopoly may not last forever, but it's entirely plausible that if an industry has enough barriers to entry like startup capital costs and regulations to comply with, and the company has significant name brand recognition, undercuts competition as you mentioned, and makes deals with suppliers to keep competitors out, a company could dominate the market for decades if not longer. Collusion is also a possibility. A company may not technically be a monopoly either, but they own such a large percent of industry sales that they are one for all intents and purposes.


Can't believe I forgot to mention one of the biggest reasons here.  Economies of scale.  In certain industries, the very nature of a company growing larger allows them to produce products at a cheaper cost than smaller companies.  This creates an incredible competitive barrier for new companies seeking to enter into such an industry.  Literally as a company grows larger, their pricing advantage over smaller competitors grows larger as well.

----------


## donnay

> Walmart gets relatively little in subsidies, and many of their competitors are subsidized or protected by the state.


Wal-Marx gets $1 Billion in government subsidies.  Again, in a free market the people would be the regulators not the government!  Those subsidies come off the backs of hard working people in the form of taxes.  So at the barrel of a gun, my money goes to subsidizing Mega Corporations like Wal-Marx!  That's not freedom!

Sources:
http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/24/news...art_subsidies/
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Co...t_Welfare.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-nor..._b_443649.html
http://www.walmartmovie.com/facts.php
http://walmartsubsidywatch.com/methodology.html
http://www.thepanelist.net/neuberts-...he-corporation




> Walmart cannot make anyone price anything at a price they do not want to sell something at. Companies sell at low costs to Walmart because it is in their best interest to do so.


LOL!  That's rich.  What happens is people compete to get Wal-Marx to buy their products, since it is a huge retailer.   The supplier makes a deal with them and signs a contract, that Wal-Marx provides the supplier with, agreeing to to sell such product(s) for a trial of six months.  Then at Wal-Marx's discretion they tell the supplier if they want to sell any more of their product line in Wal-Marx, the price needs to come down considerably.  Because Wal-Marx is a huge retailer people try to keep up, but usually wind up going out of business because they can not sustain their business at the current rate they were undercut by Wal-Marx.

Sources:
http://www.fastcompany.com/1681262/w...e-yields-green
http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/03/cre...s-walmart.html
http://www.leadershipnow.com/leadershop/1594200769.html
http://www.brookesnews.com/070110walmart.html




> Yes, because it is done through voluntary exchange. Walmart deserves credit for utilizing the international division of labor in order to increase prosperity. This frees up American labor for productive purposes.


You think the people in China voluntarily agree to the terms and conditions?  $3.00 a day, in conditions, kennels in this country would be closed down for?  And what particular production has America gained since all the big companies went overseas?  Are you not paying attention to the current unemployment in our country?




> Protectionism is awful economics. There is no fixed number of jobs. If local business cannot compete with Walmart, then they should all go out of business and stop wasting resources. They are an inefficient waste of time, and their land, labor, and capital should be set free for productive purposes. If they are getting government protection, then they are leeching off of the state. This is no different from any other form of crony capitalism. It is just special interest groups being protected from competition.


If we had a truly free market without government interferences, then competition would be wonderful.  But this is not a level playing field when government allows Big Corporations to dictate.  

Again, it was Wal-Marx who pushed to have RFID's placed in all products.  You make no comment about the spy chips in our products, which they worked together with the DoD to have suppliers put spy chips in every product they sell. This adventure cost Wal-Marx $3 billion.   Guess you must be comfortable with that as well--nah, it doesn't interfere with our civil liberties to have the products we buy being tracked and traced, eh?

Welcome to the wonderful world of Wal-Marx!

Sources:
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2003/11/61059
http://www.informationweek.com/news/205900237
http://www.spychips.com/what-is-rfid.html
http://news.cnet.com/2010-1069-980325.html
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/networki...rfid-39117737/
http://www.spychips.com/press-releas...art-texas.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...061198090.html
http://www.rfid1984.com/
http://www.dailytech.com/The+Champio...ticle10375.htm

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> Wal-Marx gets $1 Billion in government subsidies.  Again, in a free market the people would be the regulators not the government!  Those subsidies come off the backs of hard working people in the form of taxes.  So at the barrel of a gun, my money goes to subsidizing Mega Corporations like Wal-Marx!  That's not freedom!
> 
> Sources:
> http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/24/news...art_subsidies/
> http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Co...t_Welfare.html
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-nor..._b_443649.html
> http://www.walmartmovie.com/facts.php
> http://walmartsubsidywatch.com/methodology.html
> http://www.thepanelist.net/neuberts-...he-corporation


Gets? That said Walmart has gotten over a billion in subsidies, over an unknown period of time (I'm assuming several years). Those subsidies listed include government health care programs that clearly are not subsidies, and tax breaks. It does not factor in the things government does to hurt Walmart (protectionist policies). The kicker is that Walmart, according to the first article, had over 9 billion dollars in profits that year alone. A billion dollars in "subsidies" (with a rather loose definition and no stated time frame) that does not factor in the things government does to harm Walmart, has very little to do with their success when they make 9 times that a year in profits. 




> LOL!  That's rich.  What happens is people compete to get Wal-Marx to buy their products, since it is a huge retailer.   The supplier makes a deal with them and signs a contract, that Wal-Marx provides the supplier with, agreeing to to sell such product(s) for a trial of six months.  Then at Wal-Marx's discretion they tell the supplier if they want to sell any more of their product line in Wal-Marx, the price needs to come down considerably.  Because Wal-Marx is a huge retailer people try to keep up, but usually wind up going out of business because they can not sustain their business at the current rate they were undercut by Wal-Marx.
> 
> Sources:
> http://www.fastcompany.com/1681262/w...e-yields-green
> http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/03/cre...s-walmart.html
> http://www.leadershipnow.com/leadershop/1594200769.html
> http://www.brookesnews.com/070110walmart.html


Again, that is voluntary exchange. Those individuals agree to deals with Walmart because they believe they are better off for it. 




> You think the people in China voluntarily agree to the terms and conditions?  $3.00 a day, in conditions, kennels in this country would be closed down for?


What a rediculous statement. $3.00 an hour is a nice job in China. They don't have the capital to work with that we do. So, China is somehow supposed to offer $25.00 dollar an hour jobs with benefits and air conditioning according to you? 




> And what particular production has America gained since all the big companies went overseas?  Are you not paying attention to the current unemployment in our country?




The unemployment crisis started in 2007 due to Fed monetary policy, not Walmart. 




> If we had a truly free market without government interferences, then competition would be wonderful. But this is not a level playing field when government allows Big Corporations to dictate.


You're saying that because we don't have a free market, the government needs to kill competition to protect politically favored firms. You've been posting here for four years now. Do you read any Mises.org articles?




> Again, it was Wal-Marx who pushed to have RFID's placed in all products. You make no comment about the spy chips in our products, which they worked together with the DoD to have suppliers put spy chips in every product they sell. This adventure cost Wal-Marx $3 billion. Guess you must be comfortable with that as well--nah, it doesn't interfere with our civil liberties to have the products we buy being tracked and traced, eh?


So, do you think that a local Ma and Pa shop would turn down a $3 billion dollar contract?

----------


## wannaberocker

> Well the easiest example would be tax exemptions they got from towns for building, exemptions that all the smaller competitors didn't get.
> 
> Or there is the issue of them telling their employees to get on govt welfare/healthcare/subsidy programs.  Since they pay them low enough wages to qualify.


When did walmart tell their employees to get  on govt welfare/ healthcare or subsidy programs? My father has worked for walmart for the past 10 years and hes never been on govt welfare/ healthcare or subsidy programs.

----------


## wannaberocker

i hear to many of the stories about wal mart and how it shuts down the neighbourhood stores. The fact of the matter is that it also helps relativly low skilled individuals get employment. A friend of mine who dropped out of high school couldnt find any work. Then wal mart came along and he got a full time job with them. That was the only place that would hire him at his skill level and also provide him health care. THe mom n pap stores he worked at before couldnt provide health care for him. 

At the end of the day you can tell just as many positive stories about walmart as negative. And when people complain about other businesses closing because of walmart. Well what the hell do you want? a society where there is no competation and so businesses never have to go belly up?

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> i hear to many of the stories about wal mart and how it shuts down the neighbourhood stores. The fact of the matter is that it also helps relativly low skilled individuals get employment. A friend of mine who dropped out of high school couldnt find any work. Then wal mart came along and he got a full time job with them. That was the only place that would hire him at his skill level and also provide him health care. THe mom n pap stores he worked at before couldnt provide health care for him. 
> 
> At the end of the day you can tell just as many positive stories about walmart as negative. And when people complain about other businesses closing because of walmart. Well what the hell do you want? a society where there is no competation and so businesses never have to go belly up?


+1

Somehow, voluntary exchange is considered a bad thing to much of this board. People agree to work for Walmart voluntarily, and buy their products voluntarily. The biggest winners are the poor, who get job opportunities and much needed lower prices.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

interesting thread.  Can't wait till AF chimes in.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> interesting thread.  Can't wait till AF chimes in.


Once AF and some of the nationalists/protectionist posters find this...

----------


## donnay

> Gets? That said Walmart has gotten over a billion in subsidies, over an unknown period of time (I'm assuming several years). Those subsidies listed include government health care programs that clearly are not subsidies, and tax breaks. It does not factor in the things government does to hurt Walmart (protectionist policies). The kicker is that Walmart, according to the first article, had over 9 billion dollars in profits that year alone. A billion dollars in "subsidies" (with a rather loose definition and no stated time frame) that does not factor in the things government does to harm Walmart, has very little to do with their success when they make 9 times that a year in profits.


And I am saying government should not be in the business of protecting Big Business like Wal-Marx--or any Big Business for that matter.




> Again, that is voluntary exchange. Those individuals agree to deals with Walmart because they believe they are better off for it.


Yeah tell that to the countless businesses who had to shut down because they could not keep their lights on, pay employees and make a profit when Wal-Marx undercut them to produce the products they offered.

You can take a drive in New England, especially in Maine and check out all the countless empty textiles building that went belly-up because they could not compete with the Chinese made clothing.




> What a rediculous statement. $3.00 an hour is a nice job in China. They don't have the capital to work with that we do. So, China is somehow supposed to offer $25.00 dollar an hour jobs with benefits and air conditioning according to you?


To make a statement like, paying Chinese workers $3.00 a *DAY* to live in conditions that a kennel here in our country would be shut down for is ridiculous?  How very humanitarian you are.  I suppose you are in favor of slave labor then.  

We don't do the Chinese people any favors by continually supporting their Communist government, by the way.

Source:
http://factsanddetails.com/china.php...=9&subcatid=60




> The unemployment crisis started in 2007 due to Fed monetary policy, not Walmart.


When industries like the textiles, paper and other manufacturers started shutting down shops and moving overseas, tons of people lost jobs, and that was way before 2007.  It has been incremental, but just as it has been incremental, the effects are coming home to roost now as well.




> You're saying that because we don't have a free market, the government needs to kill competition to protect politically favored firms. This entire post is scary, and the ideas behind come from unions. You've been posting here for four years now. Do you read any Mises.org articles?


SIGH...no that is not what I am saying, what I am saying is that we do not have a truly free market.  What we have is a crony capitalistic market.  In a truly free market, a market that is set by the people and not government, competition would be wonderful.  As it stands now, we have corporations dictating to government and government comes in and regulates businesses.  It's corrupted from stem to stern.  Big pHarma is a perfect example of this corruption as well.




> So, do you think that a local Ma and Pa shop would turn down a $3 billion dollar contract?


As it stands now, Mo and Pops don't get those luxurious bids--most of them have been driven right out of business.

That's how corporate America works.  Corporations are like the mafia and the government is their muscle men.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> And I am saying government should not be in the business of protecting Big Business like Wal-Marx--or any Big Business for that matter.


I agree. None the less, Walmart had over 420 billion dollars in revenue last year, per wikipedia. Getting 1.2 billion dollars in "subsidies" over the last few years is not why they are successful. 

The government should not be in the business of protecting big business or small business. Everyone should be treated equally.




> Yeah tell that to the countless businesses who had to shut down because they could not keep their lights on, pay employees and make a profit when Wal-Marx undercut them to produce the products they offered.
> 
> You can take a drive in New England, especially in Maine and check out all the countless empty textiles building that went belly-up because they could not compete with the Chinese made clothing.


Please, read Bastiat. 

http://www.econlib.org/library/Basti...SophCover.html

It makes no sense (and is morally horific) to use government force to protect failed firms from competition. I'm sorry for not hating Walmart for driving incompetent firms into bankruptcy and freeing up their resources.




> To make a statement like, paying Chinese workers $3.00 a DAY to live in conditions that a kennel here in our country would be shut down for is ridiculous? How very humanitarian you are. I suppose you are in favor of slave labor then.


Please, take a basic economics course. You cannot magically raise standards of living in developing countries with little to no capital. You're making yourself look foolish by demanding that Walmart pays third world workers high wages. 




> When industries like the textiles, paper and other manufacturers started shutting down shops and moving overseas, tons of people lost jobs, and that was way before 2007. It has been incremental, but just as it has been incremental, the effects are coming home to roost now as well.




No, the unemployment rate was normal. 




> SIGH...no that is not what I am saying, what I am saying is that we do not have a truly free market. What we have is a crony capitalistic market. In a truly free market, a market that is set by the people and not government, competition would be wonderful. As it stands now, we have corporations dictating to government and government comes in and regulates businesses. It's corrupted from stem to stern. Big pHarma is a perfect of example of this corruption as well.


You're saying that because we don't have a free market, and have crony capitalism, that we need to protect inefficient business's because they are politically favored.




> As it stands now, Mo and Pops don't get those luxurious bids--most of them have been driven run out of business.
> 
> That's how corporate America works. Corporations are like the mafia and the government is their muscle men.


Ma and Pa shops don't get those luxorious bids, because they do not have the resources. If they had them, they would take three billion dollars in a heart beat.

----------


## donnay



----------


## donnay

> I agree. None the less, Walmart had over 420 billion dollars in revenue last year, per wikipedia. Getting 1.2 billion dollars in "subsidies" over the last few years is not why they are successful. 
> 
> The government should not be in the business of protecting big business or small business. Everyone should be treated equally.


Umm, yeah that is what I have already stated twice.  Let me see if I can make it a little simpler for you--Government has no business regulating ANY business--period.




> It makes no sense (and is morally horific) to use government force to protect failed firms from competition. I'm sorry for not hating Walmart for driving incompetent firms into bankruptcy and freeing up their resources.


Who the HELL is asking for government force to protect failed firms??????????????  Please go back and re-read what I wrote.  Again, reiterating, GOVERMENT HAS NO BUSINESS REGULATING AND PROTECTING BUSINESSES--period.




> Please, take a basic economics course. You cannot magically raise standards of living in developing countries with little to no capital. You're making yourself look foolish by demanding that Walmart pays third world workers high wages.


I don't need an economics indoctrination.  I can clearly add 2+2, and I have owned three successful businesses without a College Indoctrination certificate.  I am not asking for anyone to raise the standard of living in any country.  By buying Chinese-made products you inadvertently are supporting slave labor whether you want to believe it or not.  I do not support propping up Communist countries, and abhor the way the Communist Chinese treat their people.  So I make it a practice, to try to not buy things made in China--not because I hate the people, but I do not support slave labor of any kind.




> No, the unemployment rate was normal.


Oh okay if you say so.  




> Ma and Pa shops don't get those luxorious bids, because they do not have the resources. If they had them, they would take three billion dollars in a heart beat.


Indeed they would, but they don't have a chance in a crony capitalistic system.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Mrs. AF is doing an awesome job all by herself.

I'm sitting this one out boys.

LoL




> Once AF and some of the nationalists/protectionist posters find this...

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> Umm, yeah that is what I have already stated twice.  Let me see if I can make it a little simpler for you--Government has no business regulating ANY business--period.
> 
> Who the HELL is asking for government force to protect failed firms?????????????? Please go back and re-read what I wrote. Again, reiterating, GOVERMENT HAS NO BUSINESS REGULATING AND PROTECTING BUSINESSES--period.


 


> I live in a small town who continuously fights to not let Walmart in or around our town.  I am thankful a lot of people have insight and enough wisdom to be stubborn enough to not fall for their deception-- that it will bring jobs to our area and all the other lies they say.  We have a lot to protect around here, we keep local businesses in business by keeping Walmart out of our town!


Quite clearly, you are. Your own words. 




> I don't need an economics indoctrination. I can clearly add 2+2, and I have owned three successful businesses without a College Indoctrination certificate.


Owning a business has nothing to do with economic understanding. Read what Bastiat has to write about trade, protectionism, and labor. 




> By buying Chinese-made products you inadvertently are supporting slave labor whether you want to believe it or not.


The typical claim of a protectionist with no argument. Find any proof what so ever that Walmart is employing slaves. Note that simply getting paid less than the average American in 2011 does not make someone a slave.




> I do not support propping up Communist countries, and abhor the way the Communist Chinese treat their people. So I make it a practice, to try to not buy things made in China--not because I hate the people, but I do not support slave labor of any kind.


As if the United States has a remotely free country, society, or has a government that treats people fairly.




> Oh okay if you say so.


Yes, as the graph shows so clearly.




> Indeed they would, but they don't have a chance in a crony capitalistic system


Or because they don't have the resources.

----------


## donnay

> Quite clearly, you are. Your own words.


My own words is that my town, the people in it are educated in economics.  They know by allowing a Big Corporation like Wal-Marx in, it will hurt the locals.  When you buy local you keep the local economy going.  Again, I don't need a poison-ivy league degree nor do the people in our town.  We get it!



> Owning a business has nothing to do with economic understanding. Read what Bastiat has to write about trade, protectionism, and labor.


*“They will come to learn in the end, at their own expense, that it is better to endure competition for rich customers than to be invested with monopoly over impoverished customers.”*  ~Frederic Bastiat

*“And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God”*  ~Frederic Bastiat



> The typical claim of a protectionist with no argument. Find any proof what so ever that Walmart is employing slaves. Note that simply getting paid less than the average American in 2011 does not make someone a slave.

----------


## Danke

I like the extra lead I get with Walmart products.

----------


## donnay

> I like the extra lead I get with Walmart products.


That so if you cause any trouble, the government muscle (Vinnie Bag-of-Doughnuts) can trow you into the watah, and watch ya sink.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> My own words is that my town, the people in it are educated in economics.  They know by allowing a Big Corporation like Wal-Marx in, it will hurt the locals.  When you buy local you keep the local economy going.  Again, I don't need a poison-ivy league degree nor do the people in our town.  We get it!


By your own words, you do support government interference with private business, oppose private property rights, and want to protect politically favored firms from competition.

I think it is evident to everyone reading this topic that you're community is not educated in economics. It's blatently obvious that protectionism is wrong, and supported by no major schools of economic thought. Every single Austrian economist in the world is opposed to protectionism. 90% of professional economist oppose protectionism. 75% of the Ron Paul Forums opposes protectionism. 

The idea of a local economy is as laughable as it gets. There is nothing local about your economy, or any other economy today. You have a product or item from every country in the world in your community. Try avoiding trade with the rest of the world. See where it gets your community.




> *“They will come to learn in the end, at their own expense, that it is better to endure competition for rich customers than to be invested with monopoly over impoverished customers.”*  ~Frederic Bastiat
> 
> *“And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God”*  ~Frederic Bastiat


I'm not looking for random quotes that have nothing to do with the conversation. I'm suggesting you actually read his books about trade.



I can't believe I actually spent 17 minutes watching those videos. At no point is it ever shown that anyone is forced into slavery by Walmart. The first video was made by a union leech looking to make a buck off the rest of society through government. The first video actually ended with the girl saying she is glad that she worked for a sweat shop. 

The other video was not about Walmart in particular, China in particular, and was made by ignorant American leftist reporters that claimed that high wages, health care benefits, paid vacation, and maternity leave are all "fundamental human rights". They are astounded that Bangledash, a country with a per capita income of $1,500 dollars a year, did not ban child labor, had multiple families living together, and that Disney only paid them a few dollars a day. As if Bangladesh workers produce enough to feed their children. Banning child labor in Bangladesh results in starvation and prostitution. Demanding benefits that they aren't productive enough to earn gets them fired and sent back to the jungle.

----------


## donnay

> I think it is evident to everyone reading this topic that you're not educated in economics. It's blatently obvious that protectionism is wrong, and supported by no major schools of economic thought. Every single Austrian economist in the world is opposed to protectionism. 90% of professional economist oppose protectionism. 75% of the Ron Paul Forums opposes protectionism.


I have not, nor do I advocate government protectionism...so why do you keep repeating this Ad nauseam?  What the people in my town are doing is protecting their vital interests as per the Declaration of Independence-- Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.  My town isn't looking for government handouts to subsidize our farms/ranches and other businesses.  Many of us barter--can't barter with Wal-Marx now can you?

I back Dr. Paul 150% and I agree with everything he says about Big Business and Big Government.  So what is your disconnect?

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> I have not, nor do I advocate government protectionism...so why do you keep repeating this Ad nauseam?


Are you trying to be taken seriously at this point?

----------


## donnay

> Are you trying to be taken seriously at this point?


I am tired and need to go to bed...so you can take it which every way you want.

----------


## Krugerrand

I'm curious to see what WalMart does when China drops the dollar peg.  WalMart relies so heavily on products from China and we just won't be able to afford their stuff anymore.  I'd like to see if they are planning for this and what their plans might be.

I wonder if children in Africa will work for near nothing....

----------


## Travlyr

> When a company gets subsidies by the State and takes away from average Mom & Pop businesses, that is fair?
> 
> When a company strong arms purveyors to make their things at the price Walmart dictates, that is fair?
> 
> When Walmart props up factories in China where the people get paid $3.00 a day to make products to sell to the U.S. at a rate hike of 200%, that is fair?
> 
> I live in a small town who continuously fights to not let Walmart in or around our town.  I am thankful a lot of people have insight and enough wisdom to be stubborn enough to not fall for their deception-- that it will bring jobs to our area and all the other lies they say.  We have a lot to protect around here, we keep local businesses in business by keeping Walmart out of our town!
> 
> Not to mention Walmart was the main reason we have RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) in products--do some research on that.  They worked hand-and-hand with the DoD to have all products with tracking devices on them!
> ...


+rep

A lot of people who claim to be from the Austrian school advocate for government subsistence in business. Jeffrey Tucker wrote an article about how well McDonalds was doing and that the measly $Millions in subsidies they got from TARP was offset by the taxes and regulations. I'm with you. If Walmart did not get subsides and protections from governments, they would have to compete.

----------


## Wesker1982

> So today I was discussing free market competition and while I was discussing Standard Oil


The mainstream version of the Standard Oil story is a myth.

*Most monopolies are not created by selfish others, but by our own aggression.*

*In an economy free of governmental regulation, wouldn't a firm or group of firms obtain a monopoly over some vital resource or product? And won't the monopoly then exercise its power by raising prices?*

*The Myth of Natural Monopoly*

*Is statism needed to protect against corporate monopolies?*

*Big Business will dominate the free market?*

*Tom Woods on Monopolies*

*Fear of Monopoly*







And also page 39 The Standard Oil Case 

and Witch-hunting For Robber Barons: The Standard Oil Story

Just FYI

----------


## Johnny Appleseed

The mass number of people have determined that cheaper is better, that quantity is better than quality because it affords them the fix of buying stuff and thus a sense of control.  

You see when man moves from having to hunt for his food/clothing in the wild to having his mate buy it in the market a compensation has to be made.

----------


## erowe1

> So today I was discussing free market competition and while I was discussing Standard Oil, my friend brought up Wal-Mart even though he knew it was not a monopoly. He brought up the practice where Wal-Mart, due to it's large net profit, is able to maintain a barrier for new competition because they are able to undercut their prices to actually cost them more than they profit and outlast competition only to raise the price again.
> 
> I asked if he could provide evidence for that but he was unable to give an example, but it was important because I still considered the reasoning behind it. I also brought up that Wal-Mart is still forced under market forces to maintain low prices but I felt unsatisfied with this answer.
> 
> I know government intervention does not increase competition, but what are your thoughts about such practices and it's relation to the free market in providing competition?


Let's say your friend is right and Walmart does that.

Don't they have the right to do that?

----------


## xFiFtyOnE

My family no longer shops at Wal-Mart.  Several reasons for this, quality of food/products, the wages they pay employees, and it's always much quicker to get in and out of a local grocery store.  This is just something else to add to the list.

----------


## erowe1

> My family no longer shops at Wal-Mart.  Several reasons for this, quality of food/products, the wages they pay employees, and it's always much quicker to get in and out of a local grocery store.  This is just something else to add to the list.


I generally don't enjoy shopping at Walmart either. But since I like how they make liberals mad, I sometimes send them a check with a note that says, "Keep up the good work."

----------


## Todd

> *A Missouri family loses its business after Wal-Mart is given over $2 million to open its doors down the road.* A mayor struggles to equip his first responders after Wal-Mart pulls out and relocates just outside the city limits. A community in California unites, takes on the giant, and wins! Producer/Director Robert Greenwald and Brave New Films take you on an extraordinary journey that will change the way you think, feel -- and shop.
> 
> Also another tidbit about Wal-Marx practices--They would take out insurance policies on people (without their knowledge) and upon their passing Wal-Marx would collect the benefit.


Exactly.  That is not a free market.  The little mom and pops doesn't get the community government to fork over grants to build their stores.  It's a very un free market advantage.

----------


## bolil

They let me sleep in their parking lot when I was down on my luck.  I guess I'm a bit in debt for that.

----------


## donnay

> +rep
> 
> A lot of people who claim to be from the Austrian school advocate for government subsistence in business. Jeffrey Tucker wrote an article about how well McDonalds was doing and that the measly $Millions in subsidies they got from TARP was offset by the taxes and regulations. I'm with you. If Walmart did not get subsides and protections from governments, they would have to compete.


Thanks, Travlyr.

Subsidies are nothing more than stealing from one group to pay for another.  I never gave government the permission to take my money to pay for things I do not consent.  So long as they give subsidies to Wal-Marx, Wal-Marx will continue to be the predators that they are...continually seeking out the cheapest slave labor to fill up their stores with disposable goods.  There is nothing American about them, they care not who they destroy in their wake.

Government has no business regulating business.  Many people are lead to believe that is a "Free Market."    They have given the appearance, the illusion, that we have a free market.  This market is free to help the 1 percent, not the 99 percent.

The thing that concerns me is, Wal-Marx worked hand-in-hand with the DoD to have spy chips put in the products, that doesn't bother anyone?

And let's not forget Wal-Marx is working with Homeland [In]Security on the, "If See Something, Say Something" snitch program.



*Walmart Partners with U.S. Department of Homeland Security in "If You See Something, Say Something."* 

http://walmartstores.com/pressroom/news/10493.aspx

Everyone has a role to play in keeping themselves and their communities safe. Walmart is proud to be the first national retailer to partner with Secretary Napolitano and the Department of Homeland Security in the “If you see something, say something” campaign. We urge our customers and associates to join us.

Beginning this month, nearly 600 Walmart stores equipped with checkout video screens will begin airing a public service announcement from Secretary Napolitano, urging people to take an active role in ensuring the safety and security of our nation and our communities. 





That, to me, is equally disturbing to know that Wal-Marx and government are business partners to snitch on people!

----------


## cdc482

Your friend brings up a decent point, I heard for the first time about 3 years ago. 

Wal-Mart is problematic because it is heavily subsidized by the government and therefore our tax dollars. For example, their workers are encouraged to sign up for welfare and Wal-Mart executives enjoy huge tax breaks. But many people see a bag of chips for $1, and they think, wow that's cheap!, unaware of the hidden cost.

Ultimately, people decide what they want to buy. If people become aware of Wal-Mart's hidden prices they will shop at more ethical stores (stores were the executives don't make 99% of profits and the front-line workers make 1%). The biggest reason this doesn't happen is the issue your friend bought up. It would take a huge amount of start-up capital (a large period of enduring massive losses) and/or strong public support of your company to overcome existing giants like Wal-Mart.

Despite the non-free market practices of Wal-Mart, and many peoples' awareness of the hidden cost, there is still not enough support among the public to support another store or fund a more ethical wholesaler.

HOWEVER, to end on a hopeful note, there have been stories of stores with higher prices (at first) but ethical business practices that have enjoyed public support to overcome larger competitors. See 'No Harm.'

----------


## Becker

> Let's say your friend is right and Walmart does that.
> 
> Don't they have the right to do that?


haven't you heard? corporations are not people so they got no rights, especially if they're the rich ones!

----------


## Becker

> They let me sleep in their parking lot when I was down on my luck.  I guess I'm a bit in debt for that.


i've heard that a few times from different people. just hope nobody is ever hurt, very generous of them otherwise.

----------


## specsaregood

> They let me sleep in their parking lot when I was down on my luck.  I guess I'm a bit in debt for that.


Yeah, I've spent more nights sleeping in their parking lot than any single hotel/motel chain.

----------


## roho76

> You've really been on the liberal side of things lately. 
> 
> The other side of the coin is that the WalMart adds an astronomical value to the properties and businesses of their neighbors, something their smaller competitors didn't do. The additional revenue they bring in creates a bidding war among townships for their presence, and they'd be retarded not to take advantage of that.
> 
> Since when is it the employers responsibility to pay anything above what the market will bear for wages?


He's right. Cities are picking the winners and losers when they give huge tax breaks to WalMart when Bob's grocery down the street doesn't. Bob's grocery shouldn't have to pay the taxes if WalMart doesn't. How is that Liberal?

----------


## Xenophage

> and I'm in California...I just looked, there is a few in my area, I guess I've just never heard people go there, thanks for the info.


Fred Meyer is basically Wal-Mart for snotty people with more money to burn who like to feel superior to the 'white trash' that hangs out at Wal-Mart.  They have good sushi and a decent electronics section.

----------


## specsaregood

> You've really been on the liberal side of things lately.


I just noticed you added that.   FWIW: I'm not on any "side".   I'm just expressing my thoughts freely.   Feel free to categorize them if you must; but it probably distorts your interpretations.

----------


## Keith and stuff

This certainly isn't true.  Many stores (both online and off) have lower prices than Wal-Mart on many of most items.  Just shop around for a few years and you will notice this.

Several different dollar stores, ALDI, market basket, Costco, Trader Joe's, Amazon.com, Dell.com, Overstocked.com, Ocean State Job Lot, Save-O-Lot, refurbished places, damaged good places and so on.  Even major grocery stores like Kroger and Safeway are sometimes less expensive.  Not to mentions sales and specials.

----------


## wannaberocker

> +1
> 
> Somehow, voluntary exchange is considered a bad thing to much of this board. People agree to work for Walmart voluntarily, and buy their products voluntarily. The biggest winners are the poor, who get job opportunities and much needed lower prices.


Thats true. Especially considering we have so many self described anarcho capitalist here. I must say i was a bit surprised to hear so many protectionist views.

----------


## LayZayFaire

The best and cleanest Walmart I've been to is in the West Side of Chicago.  I don't know if you know the West Side, but it ain't no walk in the park.  It is pretty damn ghetto and I would definitely not walk around at night, not even with company.  

The first time I walked in I was impressed with the cleanliness.  I walked through the produce section and the veggies didn't look half bad.  They looked pretty fresh and were on shelves in clean woven baskets.  I was impressed also with the black staff.  They looked happy and attentive.  This is much different than if you go to a fast food restaurant in the ghetto.  The black workers are usually pretty lazy, it takes forever for them to complete your order, and management is a nightmare.  I went to Popeye's in the hood once and they said they ran out of chicken.  What?  Well anyways, the Walmart was nothing like that.  Everything was orderly, I found a great price for Classico Alfredo sauce, and my friend was able to fill his prescription in a reasonable amount of time despite the crowd.  Best Walmart I've ever been to, and in a place I would have never thought would have such a well-run store.

That's good $#@! Walmart, cheers.

----------


## LibForestPaul

> There was a very interesting article about this years ago on fastcompany. It shows how Walmart uses their huge buying power to dictate pricing to vendors and forces companies to use the cheapest labor possible - mostly overseas obviously - simply because that's the only way to hit their price points. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. 
> 
> http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/...tml?page=0%2C1


And why do those *overseas* vendors not set up shop and sell directly here in the *US*; regulation perhaps?

----------


## wannaberocker

hmm so walmart forces vendors to use the cheapest labor possible. Well who is the winner then? i say its the american consumer because they get the products cheap. So what exactly is the wrong in this situation? Should walmart tell vendors to find the most expensive labor force? 

Its strange really. Most of the times my leftist friends who hate walmart and complain about what walmart pays their employees are also the first ones to bitch, when the price for a product goes up lol. Its as if people wanna live in a fantasyland where everyone is rich and products are very cheap (world wide).

----------


## donnay

> hmm so walmart forces vendors to use the cheapest labor possible.


Uh huh and you get what you pay for--disposable products.

----------


## wannaberocker

> Uh huh and you get what you pay for--disposable products.


Exactly, the market needs disposable products and wal mart provides them at a low price. I dont see whats the harm, wal mart dosnt market themselves as "Top quality" seller. They market themselves as a "Low cost" provider.

----------


## Soca Taliban

Now I agree that the government should not provide any subsidies for Wal-Mart, however, it's kind of silly to say that Wal-Mart put these other small shop out of business. It's not Wal-Mart that does, its the consumer.  The consumer is the one putting these small mom and pop stores out of business because they vote with their wallets.

----------


## cdc482

I agree that there are cheaper options than Wal-Mart that you mentioned including Trader Joe's.

The biggest issue with Wal-Mart is that the worker's keep 1% of the companies profits and the other 99% go to executives. A real rip-off, but as it grows, so does its buying power and then other employment options shrink...
Not very good for society if they continue to shop there, but so many people fail to realize the hidden cost.

----------


## donnay

> Now I agree that the government should not provide any subsidies for Wal-Mart, however, it's kind of silly to say that Wal-Mart put these other small shop out of business. It's not Wal-Mart that does, its the consumer.  The consumer is the one putting these small mom and pop stores out of business because they vote with their wallets.


I vote with my wallet--I do not shop at Wal-Marx.

Wal-Marx can buy in great quantities whereas the Mom and Pop cannot.  If any one has worked in wholesale, you would know it is cheaper by the dozen.  For instance, if the Mom and Pop owns a hardware store, they cannot afford to buy 200 lawnmowers at a time, therefore, they can only get a specialty rate versus a quantity rate--it makes a huge difference on the price that a Mom and Pop can sell the lawnmower for than Wal-Marx can.

Of course the most people are going to go to Wal-Marx because the price of the lawnmower is considerable cheaper, and then they still have enough money to buy the lawn chairs they wanted too.

My theory is, when Wal-Marx is the only store in town, and they have knocked out all the competition, then they can charge higher prices and you will have no other choice but to pay.

Pay less now, pay dearly later...

----------


## silverhandorder

> Uh huh and you get what you pay for--disposable products.


What if I want disposable products?

----------


## donnay

> What if I want disposable products?


Then your wish will be their command.  But, be careful what you wish for...

----------


## vodalian

> I vote with my wallet--I do not shop at Wal-Marx.
> 
> Wal-Marx can buy in great quantities whereas the Mom and Pop cannot.  If any one has worked in wholesale, you would know it is cheaper by the dozen.  For instance, if the Mom and Pop owns a hardware store, they cannot afford to buy 200 lawnmowers at a time, therefore, they can only get a specialty rate versus a quantity rate--it makes a huge difference on the price that a Mom and Pop can sell the lawnmower for than Wal-Marx can.
> 
> Of course the most people are going to go to Wal-Marx because the price of the lawnmower is considerable cheaper, and then they still have enough money to buy the lawn chairs they wanted too.
> 
> My theory is, when Wal-Marx is the only store in town, and they have knocked out all the competition, then they can charge higher prices and you will have no other choice but to pay.
> 
> Pay less now, pay dearly later...


Can you cite an example of this happening? Also, what makes a mom and pop shops necessary? The typical argument is "it puts mom and pop shops out of business", but how is that a detriment to society? Mom and pop shops sell the same type crap Walmart sells, except it's normally way overpriced and they often heavily discriminate when it comes to hiring by only hiring family.

----------


## donnay

> Can you cite an example of this happening? Also, what makes a mom and pop shops necessary? The typical argument is "it puts mom and pop shops out of business", but how is that a detriment to society? Mom and pop shops sell the same type crap Walmart sells, except it's normally way overpriced and they often heavily discriminate when it comes to hiring by only hiring family.


By your last statement it sounds like you have a dog in this hunt.  Mom and Pop and small businesses keep the local economy stimulated.  Without entrepreneurs you are left with nothing but Big Corporations, who will lobby and get what they want.  Which in turn will dampen any future prospects for young kids who want to invent, create and build and aspire to have their own business with their ideas, talents and ingenuity.

http://www.momandpopnyc.com/campaign...2010.26.00.pdf
http://www.momandpopnyc.com/campaign...,%209.1995.pdf
http://www.momandpopnyc.com/campaign...%2011.1.00.pdf
http://www.momandpopnyc.com/campaign...,%207.1993.pdf
http://www.momandpopnyc.com/campaign...%205.29.02.pdf
http://www.newrules.org/retail/news/...-shops-expense
http://www.newrules.org/retail/key-s...igbox-retail#6
http://www.newrules.org/retail/key-s...igbox-retail#4

I can cite you more if you need more.

----------


## vodalian

> By your last statement it sounds like you have a dog in this hunt.  Mom and Pop and small businesses keep the local economy stimulated.  Without entrepreneurs you are left with nothing but Big Corporations, who will lobby and get what they want.  Which in turn will dampen any future prospects for young kids who want to invent, create and build and aspire to have their own business with their ideas, talents and ingenuity.


All of those links are complaints that Walmart's prices are too cheap.. I want proof of your implication that Walmart moves into towns, drives out every business with their cheap prices, then raises their prices to screw everyone and hold them hostage with their monopoly.

----------


## donnay

> All of those links are complaints that Walmart's prices are too cheap.. I want proof of your implication that Walmart moves into towns, drives out every business with their cheap prices, then raises their prices to screw everyone and hold them hostage with their monopoly.


All the information I posted in my earlier post had this information there, all you had to do is look at it.

*Competing with the Discount Mass Merchandisers - By Dr. Kenneth Stone, Iowa State University, 1995*


_The basic premise of this study and others by Ken Stone is that the retail "pie" is relatively fixed in size (it grows only incrementally as population and incomes grow). Consequently, when a company like Wal-Mart opens a giant store, it invariably captures a substantial slice of the retail pie, leaving smaller portions for existing businesses, which are then forced to downsize or close. This study of Wal-Mart's impact on Iowa towns found that the average superstore cost other merchants in the host town about $12 million a year in sales (as of 1995), while stores in smaller towns nearby also suffered substantial revenue losses. These sales losses resulted in the closure of 7,326 Iowa businesses between 1983 and 1993, including 555 grocery stores, 291 apparel stores, and 298 hardware stores. While towns that gained a Wal-Mart store initially experienced a rise in overall retail sales, after the first two or three years, retail sales began to decline. About one in four towns ending up with a lower level of retail activity than they had prior to Wal-Mart's arrival. Stone attributes this to Wal-Mart's strategy of saturating regions with multiple stores._

http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/faculty...A_WM_Study.pdf

Okay, so if we do the math, in the above study, 7,326 businesses closed due to the fact that Wal-Marx's moved in, within a 10 year span and no new growth was obtained. You do not see that as an economic downside to that local economy?

__________________________________________________  ______

http://www.newrules.org/retail/key-s...igbox-retail#6

*The Economic Impact of Locally Owned Businesses vs. Chains: A Case Study in Midcoast Maine - by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance and Friends of Midcoast Maine, September 2003.*

_Three times as much money stays in the local economy when you buy goods and services from locally owned businesses instead of large chain stores, according to this analysis, which tracked the revenue and expenditures of eight locally owned businesses in Midcoast Maine. The survey found that the businesses, with had combined sales of $5.7 million in 2002, spent 44.6 percent of their revenue within the surrounding two counties. Another 8.7 percent was spent elsewhere in the state of Maine. The four largest components of this local spending were: wages and benefits paid to local employees; goods and services purchased from other local businesses; profits that accrued to local owners; and taxes paid to local and state government. Using a variety of sources, the analysis estimates that a national big box retailer operating in Midcoast Maine returns just 14.1 percent of its revenue to the local economy, mostly in the form of payroll. The rest leaves the state, flowing to out-of-state suppliers or back to corporate headquarters. The survey also found that the local businesses contributed more to charity than national chains._

----------


## Soca Taliban

> I vote with my wallet--I do not shop at Wal-Marx.
> 
> Wal-Marx can buy in great quantities whereas the Mom and Pop cannot.  If any one has worked in wholesale, you would know it is cheaper by the dozen.  For instance, if the Mom and Pop owns a hardware store, they cannot afford to buy 200 lawnmowers at a time, therefore, they can only get a specialty rate versus a quantity rate--it makes a huge difference on the price that a Mom and Pop can sell the lawnmower for than Wal-Marx can.
> 
> Of course the most people are going to go to Wal-Marx because the price of the lawnmower is considerable cheaper, and then they still have enough money to buy the lawn chairs they wanted too.
> 
> My theory is, when Wal-Marx is the only store in town, and they have knocked out all the competition, then they can charge higher prices and you will have no other choice but to pay.
> 
> Pay less now, pay dearly later...


Again, its the consumers who decide that they'd rather spend their money on goods at Wal-Mart.  You choose not to, so be it, but there is a demand for the products Wal-Mart sells and at the price it sells it at.  I failed to see why you gripe about Wal-Mart undercutting local businesses yet somehow eliminate the possibility that another company can come in and undercut Wal-Mart if it raises its prices above the level consumers are willing to pay.

----------


## erowe1

> Okay, so if we do the math, in the above study, 7,326 businesses closed due to the fact that Wal-Marx's moved in, within a 10 year span and no new growth was obtained. You do not see that as an economic downside to that local economy?


I don't. Is having more businesses provide what could otherwise be provided by fewer businesses supposed to be good for the economy or something?

----------


## donnay

> Again, its the consumers who decide that they'd rather spend their money on goods at Wal-Mart.  You choose not to, so be it, but there is a demand for the products Wal-Mart sells and at the price it sells it at.  I failed to see why you gripe about Wal-Mart undercutting local businesses yet somehow eliminate the possibility that another company can come in and undercut Wal-Mart if it raises its prices above the level consumers are willing to pay.


SIGH...what we have here is a failure to communicate, you need to look above your post at the impact studies done.  I have already gone round and round on these points, so take the time to read through the whole thread, with all the links provided.

One thing is libertarians ideals are great on paper, but when they are actually applied in the world with crony capitalism at the helm, it tends to do nothing for economic growth and more towards implemented slave labor.

----------


## Danke

I usually avoid Walmart and just give my business to Sam's Club.

----------


## donnay

> I don't. Is having more businesses provide what could otherwise be provided by fewer businesses supposed to be good for the economy or something?


Fewer business means fewer choices, and by fewer choices there is more of a chance of monopolizing.  In the impact studies above, show that there is more poverty in areas of less choice than that of it those where there were more choices available.

----------


## erowe1

> Fewer business means fewer choices, and by fewer choices there more of a chance of monopolizing.  In the impact studies above, show that there is more poverty in areas of less choice than that of it those where there were more choices available.


But that's fewer choices because of people making the choice to shop at Walmart. Essentially, all those mom and pop stores that get put out of business are just anchors on the economy. Would you also like to ban sewing machines so that more people can be employed sewing by hand?

There may be more poverty, but it's not because of Walmart.

Plus, like you said, stuff is cheaper at Walmart, so at least those poor people can buy affordable stuff, not like at those overpriced mom and pop stores.

----------


## Brent Pierce

Robert Higgs of the Mises Institute discusses this in his excellent podcast series "Crises and Liberty." He discusses how the old Standard Oil story has zero evidence backing it up and that this sort of thing usually ends up hurting the business using predatory pricing. He discusses the German Chemical Co that sold its products at a loss to the US only to have Dow Chemical buy them up and sell them in Germany for a profit. Higgs declares that "Predatory Pricing" is an argument for free markets and not against them. http://mises.org/media/categories/64...erican-History

----------


## donnay

> But that's fewer choices because of people making the choice to shop at Walmart. Essentially, all those mom and pop stores that get put out of business are just anchors on the economy. Would you also like to ban sewing machines so that more people can be employed sewing by hand?


Oh yes I am not saying people are not at fault for the fewer choices, but that is because they are not looking at the ramifications of their choices.  Mom and Pops are the cornerstone of our country, the spirit of freedom to be successful.  The anchors are the Wal-Marx who saturate the market with non-quality, cheap slave labor merchandise. To use your example; Mr. Singer who's innovation of the (up and down motion) sowing machine was greatly appreciated, but he didn't take jobs away from people with his invention, he in fact created jobs!




> There may be more poverty, but it's not because of Walmart.


Wal-Marx is a contributing factor, again, read the case studies that I have already provided.




> Plus, like you said, stuff is cheaper at Walmart, so at least those poor people can buy affordable stuff, not like at those overpriced mom and pop stores.


That is quite a condescending statement.  How do the poor people, get out of their poverty when there are no jobs to be had, because Wal-Marx has taken out any competition?

----------


## Soca Taliban

> SIGH...what we have here is a failure to communicate, you need to look above your post at the impact studies done.  I have already gone round and round on these points, so take the time to read through the whole thread, with all the links provided.
> 
> One thing is libertarians ideals are great on paper, but when they are actually applied in the world with crony capitalism at the helm, it tends to do nothing for economic growth and more towards implemented slave labor.


So your solution is gov't force and protectionism??

----------


## donnay

> So your solution is gov't force and protectionism??


I looking for a truly free market, where government does not interfere and where the people are the regulators!!

----------


## erowe1

> Wal-Marx is a contributing factor, again, read the case studies that I have already provided.


If those studies really argue that, then they'd be a waste of my time to read.

----------


## erowe1

> How do the poor people, get out of their poverty when there are no jobs to be had, because Wal-Marx has taken out any competition?


You seem to have this mindset that jobs are some kind of a finite resource so that when something gets done more efficiently, that leaves fewer jobs out there for people to have.

----------


## donnay

> You seem to have this mindset that jobs are some kind of a finite resource so that when something gets done more efficiently, that leaves fewer jobs out there for people to have.


Where have I said any of that nonsense?

----------


## donnay

> If those studies really argue that, then they'd be a waste of my time to read.


Then why do you continue wasting your time, circle jerking an argument?

*SIGH*

----------


## erowe1

> Where have I said any of that nonsense?


"there are no jobs to be had because Wal Marx has taken out any competition."

----------


## erowe1

> Then why do you continue wasting your time, circle jerking an argument?
> 
> *SIGH*


It's true that this is wasting my time. I plead guilty to that. But from what you've told me about those "studies" I gather that reading them would be an even bigger waste of my time than arguing on Ron Paul Forums is.

----------


## donnay

> "there are no jobs to be had because Wal Marx has taken out any competition."


By proxy through government subsidies!  What is it you do not get-- that government subsidizes them and not the small businesses?  And let me interject, quickly, I am not asking government to subsidize the small businesses.  I am just saying that with government interferences and aid it helps Wal-Marx to crush their competition with an uneven advantage.

----------


## donnay

> It's true that this is wasting my time. I plead guilty to that. But from what you've told me about those "studies" I gather that reading them would be an even bigger waste of my time than arguing on Ron Paul Forums is.


Unfortunately this is a typical response I am used to from people who are too lazy to look up the information, then go and waste my time breaking it all down for them.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> By proxy through government subsidies!  What is it you do not get--* that government subsidizes them* and not the small businesses?  And let me interject, quickly, I am not asking government to subsidize the small businesses.  I am just saying that with government interferences and aid it helps Wal-Marx to crush their competition with an uneven advantage.


Links, plz?  I've heard this claim, but haven't seen proof yet.

----------


## donnay

> Links, plz?  I've heard this claim, but haven't seen proof yet.


http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/24/news...art_subsidies/
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/24/bu...24walmart.html
http://www.livingeconomies.org/sites...e/wmtstudy.pdf
http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-02-1...-mona-williams
http://www.walmartsubsidywatch.org/
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...almart07m.html
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/05/...s-really-mean/
http://www.newrules.org/retail/key-s...-bigbox-retail
http://www.progress.org/2004/corpw37.htm
http://www.alternet.org/economy/27864
http://www.longviewinstitute.org/res...lingwomenshort
http://barriomulas.com/wp/?p=1471
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/...zing-wal-mart/
http://www.scragged.com/articles/wal...thout-taxation
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...report24m.html

----------


## Travlyr

I could start several nice little Mom and Pop shops with a $1 Billion subsidy.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> Links, plz?  I've heard this claim, but haven't seen proof yet.


He posted it earlier, and it was debunked.

----------


## donnay

> He posted it earlier, and it was debunked.


*Ahem*  I am a she, thank you very much.  And just where was that debunked?

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> *Ahem*  I am a she, thank you very much.  And just where was that debunked?





> That said Walmart has gotten over a billion in subsidies, over an unknown period of time (I'm assuming several years). Those subsidies listed include government health care programs that clearly are not subsidies, and tax breaks. It does not factor in the things government does to hurt Walmart (protectionist policies). The kicker is that Walmart, according to the first article, had over 9 billion dollars in profits that year alone. A billion dollars in "subsidies" (with a rather loose definition and no stated time frame) that does not factor in the things government does to harm Walmart, has very little to do with their success when they make 9 times that a year in profits.


Easy enough.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> I usually avoid Walmart and just give my business to Sam's Club.


I assume you realize they are both the same company.

----------


## Travlyr

> Easy enough.


Because somebody said so? That hardly qualifies as debunking. Or is debunking = denying?

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Easy enough.


I see. They made a ton of money so it must be assumed that they did not need the subsidies (which according to the figures was equal to 11% of their annual profits- no small figure). Proof the subsidy didn't help them- or is that proof that it really helped them a lot against their competition which did not receive $1 billlion? Retail makes or loses money on small margins so a little advantage on costs can go a long ways.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

Walmart, a company that has over 400 billion dollars in annual income, has received 1.2 billion dollars over the years in subsidies. By subsidies, they include tax breaks and other non subsidies in order to get that 1.2 billion dollar number. This does not factor in the damage that is done to Walmart by the government (protectionist policies). They also pay 7.2 billion a year in taxes.

----------


## donnay

> Easy enough.


That is not debunked...the point was ALWAYS they should not be given a dime of tax payers money, other than the fact that the citizen is purchasing something in their stores.

----------


## vodalian

> All the information I posted in my earlier post had this information there, all you had to do is look at it.
> 
> *Competing with the Discount Mass Merchandisers - By Dr. Kenneth Stone, Iowa State University, 1995*
> 
> 
> _The basic premise of this study and others by Ken Stone is that the retail "pie" is relatively fixed in size (it grows only incrementally as population and incomes grow). Consequently, when a company like Wal-Mart opens a giant store, it invariably captures a substantial slice of the retail pie, leaving smaller portions for existing businesses, which are then forced to downsize or close. This study of Wal-Mart's impact on Iowa towns found that the average superstore cost other merchants in the host town about $12 million a year in sales (as of 1995), while stores in smaller towns nearby also suffered substantial revenue losses. These sales losses resulted in the closure of 7,326 Iowa businesses between 1983 and 1993, including 555 grocery stores, 291 apparel stores, and 298 hardware stores. While towns that gained a Wal-Mart store initially experienced a rise in overall retail sales, after the first two or three years, retail sales began to decline. About one in four towns ending up with a lower level of retail activity than they had prior to Wal-Mart's arrival. Stone attributes this to Wal-Mart's strategy of saturating regions with multiple stores._
> 
> http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/faculty...A_WM_Study.pdf
> 
> ...




Again, none of that mentions anything about Walmart gaining local monopolies and raising prices to screw everyone due to a lack of options  That's what I'm asking you to cite an example of, because it doesn't happen.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> the subsidy didn't help them- or is that proof that it really helped them a lot against their competition which did not receive $1 billlion?


I did not say that it does not help them. For starters, much of that number includes tax breaks, which are not subsidies. It also does not factor in things the government does that hurts Walmart (protectionist policies or the 34% they pay in taxes). It also does not list a timeframe for those subsidies.

----------


## Zippyjuan

From New Orleans:
http://thelensnola.org/2011/10/20/wa...entilly-woods/



> It was a week before Hurricane Katrina’s sixth anniversary and the prevailing mood of the Gentilly town hall meeting was frustration.
> 
> A tired looking man asked Mayor Mitch Landrieu, the event’s host, why the city still hadn’t repaired flood-damaged roads in his neighborhood. An 80-year-old woman stood up to say a that drug dealers had set up shop in the overgrown vacant lots behind her house, she said. A day earlier, she said, gunshots killed one man and injured another on her block. Another senior citizen rose to implore the mayor to put recovery money toward projects that create jobs for young men in his community. Many begged the mayor to help bring more shops, particularly grocery stores, to the area.
> 
> When Councilwoman Cynthia Hedge-Morrell took the microphone to share the news that Walmart  would soon take over a prominent strip mall moldering since Katrina, it felt like  progress finally was being made. After years of staring at the blighted Chef Menteur Highway mall, owned by the New Orleans Redevelopment Authority since 2009, residents would soon have a place to shop. People cheered. The mayor clapped. And the “great thing,” Hedge-Morrell said, “is that it’s not dependent on us getting any federal grants.”





> But now it appears that taxpayers will  contribute as much as $2.8 million to the  effort.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s difficult to determine how much Walmart’s development will be subsidized until the retailer and NORA settle on a sales price. Yet it is safe to say that it would be a small miracle if the city broke even on the deal.
> 
> Taxpayers have already put $6.1 million into the site, slightly more than its 2008 appraised value of $5.5 million and nearly four times its  value of $1.6 million listed on the city assessor’s website. The $6.1 million reflects $4.3 million spent by NORA in 2008 to acquire the 12-acre property and another $1.8 million appropriation earmarked by NORA to buy adjacent parcels that will extend the site to Louisa Street, clean polluted soil, clear blight and move two businesses from the adjacent parcels.  Both expenditures come from the $411 million pot of Disaster Community Development Block Grant money that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development gave to New Orleans to aid in its Katrina recovery.
> 
> Most of that money has been set aside to repair or replace public property. Though the city has set allocated other grant monies for commercial redevelopment efforts, Walmart is the only for-profit entity to benefit so far from such an allocation. Only 11 other projects out of 92 account for more spending.  See the full list here.
> ...





> *Other retailers who have returned to New Orleans since Hurricane Katrina have not gotten the same kind of public assistance pledged to Walmart.* A Winn-Dixie grocery a few blocks from the Gentilly Woods Shopping Center reopened soon after Katrina at its own expense, and it now will be competing with the subsidized Walmart. Also since Katrina, locally owned chain grocer Robert Fresh Market has opened stores in Carrollton and Lakeview using low-interest federal Gulf Opportunity Zone bonds but without direct subsidies for infrastructure or land, said Rick Fernandez, Robert’s chief operating officer.
> 
> And while other grocery stores are eligible for direct assistance through a new Fresh Food Retail Initiative intended to spur development of supermarkets in low-income neighborhoods, individual stores are limited to a maximum grant of $1 million, half of which must be a loan.  With $14 million set aside for the program – $7 million coming from the city’s disaster grant fund and the other $7 million coming from a nonprofit financing partner – competition is fierce. In the Seventh Ward, Circle Food Store owner Dwayne Boudreaux is one of the applicants.
> 
> “If someone like Walmart is getting what it needs,” he said in a July interview, “I’m just praying I’ll get what I need.”

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> That is not debunked...the point was ALWAYS they should not be given a dime of tax payers money, other than the fact that the citizen is purchasing something in their stores.


The point is subsidies that make up a thousanth of their revenue does not make or break the company. It also does not factor in what the government does to hurt Walmart. They pay 7.2 billion dollars in taxes every year, 6 times the 1.2 billion in subsidies, and that "1.2" billion dollars is over an unstated time frame. Is it 1.2 billion ever? Annually? None of the sources you posted say.

Your initial claim was that subsidies are what enables Walmart to drive small business's out of business. 




> When a company gets subsidies by the State and takes away from average Mom & Pop businesses, that is fair?


That was the context.

----------


## donnay

> Walmart, a company that has over 400 billion dollars in annual income, has received 1.2 billion dollars over the years in subsidies. By subsidies, they include tax breaks and other non subsidies in order to get that 1.2 billion dollar number. This does not factor in the damage that is done to Walmart by the government (protectionist policies). They also pay 7.2 billion a year in taxes.


Wal-Marx's tax avoidance schemes:
http://walmartwatch.com/wp-content/b...ce_schemes.pdf
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/walmart041607.pdf
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/walmart/...dodge_rent.php
http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/29455149.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/business/10prop.html
http://walmart.3cdn.net/3a4803813598..._gvm6ivfu3.pdf
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/i...oney_on_o.html
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/200..._tax_on_us.php
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/ic...94065.html.pdf
http://news.change.org/stories/8-rea...r-major-cities


If any one of us, individually tried these tax schemes we'd be rotting away in some Federal Pen like Ed and Elaine Brown!!

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> Wal-Marx's tax avoidance schemes:
> http://walmartwatch.com/wp-content/b...ce_schemes.pdf
> http://www.ctj.org/pdf/walmart041607.pdf
> http://reclaimdemocracy.org/walmart/...dodge_rent.php
> http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/29455149.html
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/business/10prop.html
> http://walmart.3cdn.net/3a4803813598..._gvm6ivfu3.pdf
> http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/i...oney_on_o.html
> http://www.tompaine.com/articles/200..._tax_on_us.php
> ...


http://www.forbes.com/2011/04/13/ge-...s_slide_7.html

Walmart is paying over 32% of their profits in federal income taxes. Walmart pays 7.2 billion a year in federal taxes. Your sources merely show Walmart evading a few million dollars in taxes over the years every. Let's look at the big, relevant picture.

----------


## Travlyr

> http://www.forbes.com/2011/04/13/ge-...s_slide_7.html
> 
> Walmart is paying over 32% of their profits in federal income taxes. Walmart pays 7.2 billion a year in federal taxes. Your sources merely show Walmart evading a few million dollars in taxes over the years every. Let's look at the big, relevant picture.


Lolz... wow. Their subsidies put people out of business and out of work. Socialism = fewer choices, lower wages, poorer quality.

----------


## donnay

> Again, none of that mentions anything about Walmart gaining local monopolies and raising prices to screw everyone due to a lack of options  That's what I'm asking you to cite an example of, because it doesn't happen.


If in essence Wal-Marx saturates regions with their stores, all through subsidies, all the while the small businesses have no subsidies, and now they must compete with a store that can buy merchandise in quantity--buying in bulk.  Wal-Marx can afford to nearly give products away, where the small business does not get the bulk rate, and therefore the small business struggles and cannot afford to give the things away, because they have overhead to meet each month.

And if you think for one minute, that if Wal-Marx was the only store around, that they won't raise their prices, you are living in denial.  Wal-Marx record is less than reputable.

----------


## donnay

> http://www.forbes.com/2011/04/13/ge-...s_slide_7.html
> 
> Walmart is paying over 32% of their profits in federal income taxes. Walmart pays 7.2 billion a year in federal taxes. Your sources merely show Walmart evading a few million dollars in taxes over the years every. Let's look at the big, relevant picture.


You forgot to deduct the subsidies they get, or the property taxes, in more than 1000 cases (that I found I am sure there are more), they evade in each state.  Just remember they have a mule team of the best of the best land sharks to get them out of a pinch, not to mention, they have the best of the best accountants finding all the loopholes, they lobbied Washington for!

Remember Hillary Rotten Clinton was on the Wal-Marx Board of Directors for six years, that in itself, speaks volumes to me!

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> You forgot to deduct the subsidies they get, or the property taxes, in more than 1000 cases, they evade in each state.  Just remember they have a mule team of the best of the best land sharks to get them out of a pinch, not to mention, they have the best of the best accountants finding all the loopholes, they lobbied Washington for!
> 
> Remember Hillary Rotten Clinton was on the Wal-Marx Board of Directors for six years, that in itself, speaks volumes to me!


You have nothing relevant to say it would seem. They have received a few hundred million dollars in subsidies over the last few years according to your sources, and paid tens of billions in taxes over that time frame. They make several 1000 dollars for every dollar in subsidies they receive.

I'm a voluntarist, not a statist. I don't consider tax exemptions to be "subsidies", as I believe in self ownership. They pay ten times more in Federal taxes every year than they have ever received in subsidies, according to your sources.

----------


## Travlyr

> You have nothing relevant to say it would seem. They have received a few hundred million dollars in subsidies over the last few years according to your sources, and paid tens of billions in taxes over that time frame. They make several 1000 dollars for every dollar in subsidies they receive.
> 
> I'm a voluntarist, not a statist. *I don't consider tax exemptions to be "subsidies", as I believe in self ownership*. They pay ten times more in Federal taxes every year than they have ever received in subsidies, according to your sources.


It Walmart gets a tax exemption for which a Mom & Pop shop do not qualify, do you consider that an unfair advantage?

----------


## donnay

> You have nothing relevant to say it would seem. They have received a few hundred million dollars in subsidies over the last few years according to your sources, and paid tens of billions in taxes over that time frame. They make several 1000 dollars for every dollar in subsidies they receive.
> 
> I'm a voluntarist, not a statist. I don't consider tax exemptions to be "subsidies", as I believe in self ownership. They pay ten times more in Federal taxes every year than they have ever received in subsidies, according to your sources.


You obvious haven't checked all the sources.  Now it is clear to me why your not against slave labor.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> You obvious haven't checked all the sources.


 Every argument you have made in this thread has been debunked. You're grasping at straws that do not exist. 




> Now it is clear to me why your not against slave labor


Says the statist. The slave labor claim was pretty easily debunked as well, just like everything else. 


I think this is about over.

----------


## donnay

> Every argument you have made in this thread has been debunked. You're grasping at straws that do not exist.


Debunked by you...I don't think so.  You're simply in denial, and our country is controlled by all the mega corporations.  We haven't see a truly free market in our lifetime and unless we get Dr. Paul in, we won't see one in the future either.




> Says the statist.


I do not go by any labels per se, but if I were to be asked what label I prefer, I would say, "I am an Anti-Federalist"

----------


## donnay

> The slave labor claim was pretty easily debunked as well, just like everything else.


What you don't realize is that sooner or later we will all be slaves on the global plantation, if we don't fight this corporate tyranny, now!  But you just go right on along and stick your head in the sand--voluntarily, that is certainly your choice.




> I think this is about over.


Yes, indeed it is.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

Instead of the government further intervening into the economy to combat previous interventions that may or may not have led to Walmart's current standing, why not loosen the economy so that it is easier to competitors to arise and thrive?

----------


## Eryxis

Dear Jesus, Cuttlerzzz, I get what you're saying.  TECHNICALLY, tax breaks are not subsidies, and if it were individuals who were getting these breaks, no big deal.  The problem is that these are tax breaks afforded to the largest retailers, Wal-Mart, Cabellas, etc and they are in direct competition with small business who are not privy to these same tax breaks.  In business, and especially retail business those few percentage points are the difference between a successful small business, and somebody throwing in the towel.  Local governments expect "business" to pay for all their luxuries and then literally GIVE away land and development costs to wal mart, et al.  It is absolutely absurd.

----------


## donnay

> Instead of the government further intervening into the economy to combat previous interventions that may or may not have led to Walmart's current standing, why not loosen the economy so that it is easier to competitors to arise and thrive?


That's the problem, Wal-Marx and other box stores knock out smaller competition.  If we had a truly free market,  of which we do not have, competition would be the best for the people.  And if a business had horrendous business practices, people would boycott it and either the business would try to rectify it or they would go our of business.

We need Government out, and the people in, and the economy will flourish--that's a truly free market!

----------


## Txrose4ever

> So today I was discussing free market competition and while I was discussing Standard Oil, my friend brought up Wal-Mart even though he knew it was not a monopoly. He brought up the practice where Wal-Mart, due to it's large net profit, is able to maintain a barrier for new competition because they are able to undercut their prices to actually cost them more than they profit and outlast competition only to raise the price again.
> 
> I asked if he could provide evidence for that but he was unable to give an example, but it was important because I still considered the reasoning behind it. I also brought up that Wal-Mart is still forced under market forces to maintain low prices but I felt unsatisfied with this answer.
> 
> I know government intervention does not increase competition, but what are your thoughts about such practices and it's relation to the free market in providing competition?


First of all, Walmart does not have a HUGE net profit. They profit 3.6% of sales. Small percentage compared to most companies. Most companies have "loss leaders", which are items they will sell at cost, or occasionally a little under cost to attract business in the hopes the customer will buy other products. A good example of this is milk.

----------


## donnay

> First of all, Walmart does not have a HUGE net profit. They profit 3.6% of sales. Small percentage compared to most companies. Most companies have "loss leaders", which are items they will sell at cost, or occasionally a little under cost to attract business in the hopes the customer will buy other products. A good example of this is milk.


From Wiki:

_For the fiscal year ending January 31, 2011, Wal-Mart reported a net income of $15.4 billion on $422 billion of revenue with a 24.7% gross profit margin). The corporation's international operations accounted for $109.2 billion, or 26.1%, of total sales.[1] It is the world's 18th largest public corporation, according to the Forbes Global 2000 list, and the largest public corporation when ranked by revenue._

______________________________________________

From Wiki:

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT) is the world's largest retailer and grocery chain by sales. Wal-Mart is so large that its are almost 50% more than its 5 closest competitors combined, including Target (TGT) and Sears Holdings (SHLD). Because of its mammoth size and buying power, Wal-Mart can buy its products at rock-bottom prices, exchanging high purchase volumes for low cost while passing the savings onto its customers. Many suppliers give in to Wal-Mart's pressure because they depend on the discount retailer for a majority of their sales. 

__________________________________________________  _______

*Fortune 500: Walmart Keeps Top Spot, But Exxon Is Profit King* 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_857991.html

The going might be tough for America's citizens, but more and more evidence, most recently the newest Fortune 500 rankings, suggests the corporations are doing just fine.

On Thursday, Fortune released their list of the 500 U.S. companies with the highest gross revenue in 2010. According to the results, the top revenue-earning U.S. companies recorded the third-highest increase in combined profits since the list's invention. Big companies, many of which profited from a belt tightening in the form of job cuts and productivity increases, the AP notes, also continued to leave the U.S. behind, expanding more overseas than at home.

Walmart, despite declining sales, remains atop the Fortune 500 list, followed by three oil companies: Exxon Mobil, Chevron and ConocoPhillips, in that order. Also in the top 10 are two financial giants (Fannie Mae and Bank of America), two Detroit stalwart's (General Motors and Ford Motor), Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway and energy company General Electric.

But while Walmart remains the highest revenue earner, it was far from the most profitable Fortune 500 company last year. On the strength of rising oil prices, Exxon Mobil, second to Walmart in total revenue, nonetheless recorded a net profit nearly double that of Walmart's, $30.5 billion to $16.4 billion, Fortune notes. Chevron, AT&T and JPMorgan Chase also had higher net profits than Walmart.

Within the top 10 revenue-earning U.S. companies, only Fannie Mae and Bank of America recorded a net loss last year. Fannie Mae, AP notes, jumped to 5th place from 81st in a single year.

Check out the full list here. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2011/
__________________________________________________  ________________________

Another forum member posted this in another thread, I think it is worthy to post it here:
*
Chart of who "owns" the Federal Reserve*
http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/whofed.html

Corporate tyranny...is not conducive to a Free Market.

----------


## Eryxis

What are you trying to say Donnay? It looks like you're confusing net profit with gross profit.

----------


## donnay

> What are you trying to say Donnay? It looks like you're confusing net profit with gross profit.


I am saying that their net profit is more than Txrose4ever implied.  That net profit is more when you factor in the international operations too.  This is a Corporation who receives subsidies which, to my way of thinking, Wal-Marx doesn't appear to need any handouts.

----------


## erowe1

> I am saying that their net profit is more than Txrose4ever implied.


Using the numbers you just posted, their net profit is exactly what Txrose4ever said, accurate to the tenth of the percent.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

Without having read all of the posts in this topic (I got to about the fifth page before I got bored of reading the same arguments over and over again), I'll just throw my two cents in now, I guess: 

Some of you have argued that Walmart doesn't receive that much assistance from the government to continue its policies. I would disagree with that. Walmart enjoys an incredible amount of protection from the government in various ways. I'll just list them here to make the post easier to read:

*1. Subsidies*
Some of you may think I'm beating a dead horse here, since a few people brought up the issue of subsidies in earlier posts, but it is worth noting that Walmart received at least $1B dollars in subsidies from the records that could be found (about 160 incidents). The real figure could be much higher, because people within the company have stated that Walmart tries to get subsidies in at least one-third of its stores (that comes out to about 1,000 stores in total). 

The subsidies also do not only go to the stores themselves, but also to the distribution centers that Walmart employs. The actual process of granting subsidies is very shady and usually figures can only be verified if they are picked up by local media. (We all know how great of a job the media does in reporting every single fact. )

Of course, subsidies take the forms of property tax breaks, free land grants, making the land usable for the store, income tax credits, etc. Some of you have argued that tax credits are actually good, but I personally only see them as good when they are available to all possible parties; otherwise, it creates an unfair advantage IMO. There are TONS of examples of other subsidies that most people don't even consider. All these things add up. 

*2. Walmart as a "Big-Box Retailer"*
Unfortunately, I think many of us can make eloquent arguments for why the typical economic program nowadays fails, because usually it is designed to make the public sector bigger and pass accountability onto the taxpayer, but some of us here don't see the connections with that and operations like Walmart. Retail stores actually do very little to create jobs, because all they do is take resources away from small businesses (those "mom-and-pop operations" that I think donnay mentioned before). Sometimes Walmart actually drives a lot more business away than it creates. 

Another factor to consider is environmental and really societal impact; these retailers often encourage people to travel large distances away to get to them, which leads to all sorts of pollution and sprawling problems. Again, it's another factor that may or not convince some of you. I know a lot of us don't think environment is the most important thing to consider in the context of businesses succeeding, but I think the development of sort of a one-size-fits-all suburb in nearly every place in America has really hurt us. 

In other words, Walmart tends to squeeze the taxpayers for its own benefit. It seeks public assistance to enhance its bottom line. The fact that Walmart itself is a very controversial company doesn't mean that all the controversy comes from "protectionists" or "unionists". And lastly, Walmart may end up destroying more jobs because of its need to reach into nearly every function that smaller businesses could handle. Hell, I've even seen a Walmart bank when I've been to the one in Auburn. 

I encourage you guys to read this link: http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/sites/d...f/wmtstudy.pdf It's extremely long, but it does an incredible job at documenting the extent to which Walmart has benefited from its often-shady practices. There is a whole wealth of information out there about how bad big-box stores like Walmart actually are for society as a whole.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> First of all, Walmart does not have a HUGE net profit. They profit 3.6% of sales. Small percentage compared to most companies. Most companies have "loss leaders", which are items they will sell at cost, or occasionally a little under cost to attract business in the hopes the customer will buy other products. A good example of this is milk.


The low margin is important.  WalMart makes money on small margins by moving a ton of products.  This is also why small benifits such as tax breaks can be very significant. If you are making three percent on each good and you get a two percent break while your competion doesn't, that makes it easier for you to undercut their prices. On such small margins, they cannot afford to make the same reductions you can.   That gives you a significant advantage. You have five percent to work with while they only have three percent.  You can actually sell at below their cost and still be profitable.

----------


## Eryxis

> The low margin is important.  WalMart makes money on small margins by moving a ton of products.  This is also why small benifits such as tax breaks can be very significant. If you are making three percent on each good and you get a two percent break while your competion doesn't, that makes it easier for you to undercut their prices. On such small margins, they cannot afford to make the same reductions you can.   That gives you a significant advantage. You have five percent to work with while they only have three percent.  You can actually sell at below their cost and still be profitable.


This is the entire thread summed up very concisely.  I can't really believe that people defend the subsidies as "not that big".  Nobody wants protectionism, but if the alternative is to compete against a politically connected juggernaut, then I'll take my chances with protectionism.  I think we all want a level playing field for all businesses no matter the size.

----------


## Becker

> This is the entire thread summed up very concisely.  I can't really believe that people defend the subsidies as "not that big".  Nobody wants protectionism, but if the alternative is to compete against a politically connected juggernaut, then I'll take my chances with protectionism.  I think we all want a level playing field for all businesses no matter the size.


exactly, people want protectionism when it benefits them, and they want outsourcing, joblessness, and immigrants when it benefits them. They otherwise hate all of them.

----------


## Eryxis

Did you read my sentence even or just see " I'll take my chances with protectionism"?  When given two bad choices that affect whether somebody can pay their bills or not, everyone will chose the least bad option.  I personally am fighting to give people a third choice of a true free market.  I assume you are as well or you wouldn't be here.

----------


## Becker

> Did you read my sentence even or just see " I'll take my chances with protectionism"?  When given two bad choices that affect whether somebody can pay their bills or not, everyone will chose the least bad option.  I personally am fighting to give people a third choice of a true free market.  I assume you are as well or you wouldn't be here.


true free market, such as the one we see where? Imaginationland?

----------


## vodalian

> true free market, such as the one we see where? Imaginationland?


A non sequitur and argumentum ad populum wrapped up in one short comment... Not bad.

----------


## Becker

> A non sequitur and argumentum ad populum wrapped up in one short comment... Not bad.


no. just asking if you can show me one, or only in your imagination. any kid can imagine a better place, but if it doesn't exist, you'll always say "thats not how i wanted it to be" when somebody tries.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> no. just asking if you can show me one, or only in your imagination. any kid can imagine a better place, but if it doesn't exist, you'll always say "thats not how i wanted it to be" when somebody tries.


A free market exists anytime and anyplace two or more people engage in free and voluntary trade.  A "free market" is not necessarily a literal place.  You can make free market exchanges online.  But if you had read anything about free market economics you should know this.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> true free market, such as the one we see where? Imaginationland? just asking if you can show me one, or only in your imagination. any kid can imagine a better place, but if it doesn't exist, you'll always say "thats not how i wanted it to be" when somebody tries.


 Whenever a voluntary transaction takes place between two parties with no interlopers, that's a tiny free market. Go to a garage sale.  Buy a used car.  Then you too can feel the joy of being part of a free market.

----------


## Becker

> A free market exists anytime and anyplace two or more people engage in free and voluntary trade.  A "free market" is not necessarily a literal place.  You can make free market exchanges online.  But if you had read anything about free market economics you should know this.


ok. so then, free market refers to transactions, fair enough. do you admit no country as a system or whole has a market where all transactions are free from scrutiny, regulations, insurance, or other interferences? (and is it always a bad thing?)

----------


## Becker

> Whenever a voluntary transaction takes place between two parties with no interlopers, that's a tiny free market. Go to a garage sale.  Buy a used car.  Then you too can feel the joy of being part of a free market.


every con artist knows that.

----------


## LibertyIn08

Selling items below cost is good for consumers.

By the way, your friend should take a look at major retail firms' margins.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> every con artist knows that.


A "con artist" uses fraud in the trasaction, right?  That's what makes him a con artist.  Fraud is a force-substitute.  By using fraud, the con artist is trying to obtain something involuntarily, and rather than being upfront about it and putting a gun to the other party's head, he steals it in a more sneaky way: lying about what he's going to provide in the deal.  But his fraud makes the transaction completely involuntary just as surely as the gun to the head would.  

It's just the difference between the armed robber and the cat burgler: one puts a gun to your head, one quietly sneaks in the window while you're gone, but both are stealing.

----------


## Eryxis

> Selling items below cost is good for consumers.
> 
> By the way, your friend should take a look at major retail firms' margins.


Yes, but if the only way a company can do this is via tax payer subsidies the it is BAD for consumers.

----------


## Becker

> A "con artist" uses fraud in the trasaction, right?


Dependents on what you mean by fraud. Isn't value subjective?




> That's what makes him a con artist.  Fraud is a force-substitute.


Why is it force substitute? 




> By using fraud, the con artist is trying to obtain something involuntarily, and rather than being upfront about it and putting a gun to the other party's head, he steals it in a more sneaky way: lying about what he's going to provide in the deal.  But his fraud makes the transaction completely involuntary just as surely as the gun to the head would.


except the transaction was done under no force, where the victim had every right to refuse or be skeptical




> It's just the difference between the armed robber and the cat burgler: one puts a gun to your head, one quietly sneaks in the window while you're gone, but both are stealing.


the stealer didn't use force against you

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Selling items below cost is good for consumers.
> 
> By the way, your friend should take a look at major retail firms' margins.


Short term perhaps. If they continue to do this, then the business will fail and competiion will be reduced and prices become higher. 

Is it good that China can produce goods at a lower cost than here (with the help of government subsidies both direct and also in the form of currency manipulation)?  You get lower priced goods but jobs are lost here and wages reduced so the average worker has less money to spend on goods in the first place. Is the net effect of that an increased or decreased standard of living?  Not easy to say.

----------


## Steven Douglas

Operating deliberately at a loss for any sustained period of time is predatory behavior (a legal term), as it initiates a "last company standing" war of attrition. It is both premeditated and predatory because there are no other plausible reasons, ones that any reasonable and prudent person could see, understand and accept, as to why else any company would engage in this type of behavior.  It is not free market competitive, because it actively seeks to destroy competition. It is not a "live and let live, may the best and most productive enterprise win" scenario, but rather a _"get deliberately sick so that others will die"_ strategy.  

I have yet to see anyone effectively combat this.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> the stealer didn't use force against you


 Ah, this is the root misunderstanding.  "Force", in libertarianism, includes force against property.  Your property is an extension of yourself.  You have it because of that portion of your past which you used to create or trade for it.  I highly, highly recommend that you take 10 minutes and watch the folliwing video, maybe a couple times even, to understand the libertarian philosophy, and then, believe me, you will be able to debate us a lot more effectively, right now your lack of understanding about the people you are having debate/discussion with is really hindering you:




Don't worry, it's not designed to convert you if you're not predisposed to libertarianism.  It will just educate you.  Please be educated.  Thank you.

----------


## donnay

Wal-Marx teams up with Homeland Security--If You See Something, Say Something...




Another reason to boycott this wretched store!

----------


## Becker

> Don't worry, it's not designed to convert you if you're not predisposed to libertarianism.  It will just educate you.  Please be educated.  Thank you.


Fair enough. I have seen the video many times the past 8 years. And yes, the video is useless unless a person shares the terminology and assumptions.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

This is totally anecdotal...but the last time I was at wally world, the register girl short-changed me (I gave her a 20-spot for 2 bottles of dressing, and she gave me 2 dollars and change in return).  The manager said she would review the security tape and call me back.  That was more than a week ago-still no call.

----------


## donnay

> This is totally anecdotal...but the last time I was at wally world, the register girl short-changed me (I gave her a 20-spot for 2 bottles of dressing, and she gave me 2 dollars and change in return).  The manager said she would review the security tape and call me back.  That was more than a week ago-still no call.


I guess you learned your lesson, eh?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I guess you learned your lesson, eh?


Indeed!

----------


## Zippyjuan

You get the quality of help you are willing to pay for.  When you offer bottom dollar you get the lower quality worker as well. In this case, you probably would have ended up paying less by going to a store which offered better wages to their workers.

The "lowest price" is not always the best deal.   I don't shop at Wally World.

----------


## donnay

Arnold Schwarzenegger at Walmart
Save Money, Live Better
With Security



Arnold Schwarzenegger's late night run to Walmart turned into a full-blown mob scene -- his security team tried in vain to keep the crowd at bay.

Arnold tweeted this pic from the checkout line, with the caption, "Albuquerque is getting cold, so I bought some warm clothes for my crew today. Thanks to the employees who helped me!"

A store employee tells TMZ ... *Walmart managers dispatched their in-house security team to control the fans who hounded Arnold for pics and autographs.*

Arnold's there shooting a movie -- and we're told he slapped down his Amex to purchase a bunch of long sleeve shirts and a few jackets ... totaling about $300. 

http://www.tmz.com/2011/11/05/arnold.../#.TrVN3luqbbx

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Fair enough. I have seen the video many times the past 8 years. And yes, the video is useless unless a person shares the terminology and assumptions.


 What you are admitting here, then, is that you know perfectly well where libertarians are coming from, you understand quite thoroughly what assumptions we make, what terminology we use, and all the rest.  When you make one-line posts of 'isn't value subjective' or 'how do you define collectivism', or 'why is it a force substitute', you are just sniping, playing dumb, attempting to waste people's time.

You have certainly been successful thus far.  So, props to you!

----------


## Becker

> What you are admitting here, then, is that you know perfectly well where libertarians are coming from, you understand quite thoroughly what assumptions we make, what terminology we use, and all the rest.


I do understand what they assume, and have no problem with that, I have problem when people try to say "just because we assume it, its true and nobody is allowed to disagree, otherwise they must be tyrannist or irrational"




> When you make one-line posts of 'isn't value subjective' or 'how do you define collectivism', or 'why is it a force substitute', you are just sniping, playing dumb, attempting to waste people's time.
> 
> You have certainly been successful thus far.  So, props to you!


No, not playing dumb, just making people talk so they don't put words in anybody's mouth.

----------

