Let's kill Wal-Mart

[angelatc]

Buying products that support slave labor?

No, low wage labor. Supply and demand. As demand for labor goes up, wages will rise. Not supporting those workers is cruel.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Buying products that support slave labor?

I didn't realize that products supported slave labor. Take your beef up with the manufacturers. They're the slave labor ( so called ) employers / overseers.

Geeze, next you'll probably be blaming the voters for Iraq, etc., etc. .

 

[familydog]

No, low wage labor. Supply and demand. As demand for labor goes up, wages will rise. Not supporting those workers is cruel.

Unfortunately that is not the case with many of these sweatshops. Governments often force poor people to work for these corporations. Not only that but their land is stolen as well. So it is literally slave labor. Few sweatshops are like the ones in Hong Kong where one could easily make the case that they are helping the poor.

By boycotting companies that use this government-backed slavery, we only hurt the government because they are getting kick backs. We don't hurt the poor themselves.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Unfortunately that is not the case with many of these sweatshops. Governments often force poor people to work for these corporations. Not only that but their land is stolen as well. So it is literally slave labor. Few sweatshops are like the ones in Hong Kong where one could easily make the case that they are helping the poor.

By boycotting companies that use this government-backed slavery, we only hurt the government because they are getting kick backs. We don't hurt the poor themselves.

Ah yes, governments FORCE. That does seem to ring a bell.

 

[angelatc]

Unfortunately that is not the case with many of these sweatshops. Governments often force poor people to work for these corporations. Not only that but their land is stolen as well. So it is literally slave labor. Few sweatshops are like the ones in Hong Kong where one could easily make the case that they are helping the poor.

By boycotting companies that use this government-backed slavery, we only hurt the government because they are getting kick backs. We don't hurt the poor themselves.

What country, specifically, are you talking about? Because China's standard of living seems to be dramatically improving as a result of the crap we buy from them.

While Cuba, OTOH, doesn't seem to be faring as well.

 

[familydog]

Ah yes, governments FORCE. That does seem to ring a bell.

Yes. Companies here that buy their goods from these government slave labor camps are supporting force.

 

[familydog]

What country, specifically, are you talking about? Because China's standard of living seems to be dramatically improving as a result of the crap we buy from them.

While Cuba, OTOH, doesn't seem to be faring as well.

There is a pretty good article on this topic--from a libertarian.

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/19_3/19_3_2.pdf

 

[Truth Warrior]

Yes. Companies here that buy their goods from these government slave labor camps are supporting force.

As are the US voters.<IMHO>

 

[familydog]

As are the US voters.<IMHO>

That's a whole other topic.

 

[Truth Warrior]

There is a pretty good article on this topic--from a libertarian.

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/19_3/19_3_2.pdf

Just too bad that NO ONE is THE spokesman for the libertarians.

 

[Truth Warrior]

That's a whole other topic.

Do US voters buy things from Wal Mart?

 

[KenInMontiMN]

Simple solution, get back to constitutionally sound regulatory tools that can be applied to achieve corrections in positive directions. Foolishness to expect corporations to do anything other than to seek the best short-term bottom line in completely amoral fashion, more true the bigger and more monopolistic they are allowed to grow.

The long term bottom line is a completely bankrupt USA privately, to match the public picture. Nevertheless we have statements here that strongly support such directions and even advocate that we'd all be better off under multinational corporate rule. Presumably with whatever constitutional protections they wished to allow on any given day. Don't imagine for a moment, people, that the globalist internationalists aren't seeded even into this forum.

Hell, I'd much rather be governed by Microsoft and WalMart than those corrupt inept incompetent sock puppet clowns in D.C.!

Welcome to RPF, Mr. David Rockefeller? The sock puppet clowns are merely representing corporate internationalism well, as we both know. Stop pretending massive growing debt, public and private, isn't right atop the agenda in the march towards eventual collapse of sovereignty and the insolvency of the USA. A fiscally sound USA, producing in a manner that it pays its bills in timely fashion and lives within its means, is the single greatest obstacle to the internationalists on the planet. So far they're winning the war in spectacular fashion. This movement is all about turning that around.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Simple solution, get back to constitutionally sound regulatory tools that can be applied to achieve corrections in positive directions. Foolishness to expect corporations to do anything other than to seek the best short-term bottom line in completely amoral fashion, more true the bigger and more monopolistic they are allowed to grow.

The long term bottom line is a completely bankrupt USA privately, to match the public picture. Nevertheless we have statements here that strongly support such directions and even advocate that we'd all be better off under multinational corporate rule. Presumably with whatever constitutional protections they wished to allow on any given day. Don't imagine for a moment, people, that the globalist internationalists aren't seeded even into this forum.



Welcome to RPF, Mr. David Rockefeller? The sock puppet clowns are merely representing corporate internationalism well, as we both know. Stop pretending massive growing debt, public and private, isn't right atop the agenda in the march towards eventual collapse of sovereignty and the insolvency of the USA. A fiscally sound USA, producing in a manner that it pays its bills in timely fashion and lives within its means, is the single greatest obstacle to the internationalists on the planet. So far they're winning the war in spectacular fashion. This movement is all about turning that around.

Simple eh? How ya gonna do it and get there?

Hey, you're merely singing to the preacher here, Dude. BTW, who is your sock puppet clown, vote choice? BTW, I don't include Ron in that description.

 

[angelatc]

There is a pretty good article on this topic--from a libertarian.

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/19_3/19_3_2.pdf

She doesn't refute any point I made. She is wrong.

And like I said, the Chinese standard of living is improving as a result of our trade. The same is true in Indonesia. It is not true in Cuba.

Where's her example of success? I missed that.

Look, she has a cute feel-good theory, but in practice the way to truly empower people is to give them jobs and pay them.

If we pull all the products from Burma off the shelves, as in the Berkley example, what motivation does the government have to even feed the people?

I don't see a single examples of successfully boycotting sweatshops in her rant. All she does is defend the motivation.

 

[TruthisTreason]

Yes, free trade can exist between real trading partners on reasonably equal footing, always a good example to set. Pretending free trade, on the other hand, with partners completely bankrupt in the area of personal liberty and responsibility that we are fighting so hard for, is absolute depravity. There is no possible excuse for treating the Chinese in particular as a legitimate trading partner. None whatsoever.

Like I said do you have any links to Ron Paul supporting the position you are supporting? I don't think your link "seals the deal".

I've been under the impression that Ron Paul supports FREE TRADE.

 

[Petar]

Eat my ass with this topic. Wal-Mart puts people to work and helps poverty-stricken areas with employment. This Wal-Mart bullshit will be better served on the Obama Forums, not here. We're free-market supporters, remember?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65aLfKke7IM

One of the best shows on television. Watch it, learn it, love it.

Eat your ass???

You vile little piggy.

Is it ok if I just respond intelligently to you? I hope that will satisfy you instead.

As far as direct employment goes, Walmart provides Americans with low paying retail service jobs, and relies on fascist government cooperation to provide them with slave labor for the actual manufacturing.

People keep saying that Walmart is improving the quality of life for Chinese peasants by providing this manufacturing work, and though I do believe this is probably true to a point, I also do believe that the fascist Chinese government that works hand in hand with Walmart to provide this labor, has absolutely zero interest in ever letting true free-market capitalism or individual liberty ever reach China.

Does anyone here really believe that the next step of the globalist agenda is to allow workers unions in China so that things can start to fully improve?

The next step in the globalist agenda is to destroy what free-markets that we have left here, so that we can become as fascist as China.

And where exactly within your vile little brain do you register me saying anything against free-market capitalism?

I am saying that we should use the free-market, compete with Walmart, take the money that they are making, and use it to fight against the globalist agenda instead.

And didn't anyone ever tell you that Pen and Teller is bullshit?

Duh.

It is absolutely clear you know nothing about retail, wholesale or supply and demand. Price is a factor in the equation! Wal-Mart hasn't changed that. Buyers and sellers have negotiated prices since cavemen traded dry firewood for animal skins. Do you really think that the sellers used to go in and demand a set price for their goods? That's freaking laughable!

I dare you to go invent a product and then try to get it on a retailer's shelf without a mind-blowing budget.

Most retailers charge tens of thousands of dollars in slotting fees. That's a fee to get the store to put your item on your shelf. So not only do you have to come up with enough cash to hire workers, buy inventory, rent space, etc etc, you have to freaking pay the big chains a lot of money to buy your product. That's the system responsible for upsetting the simple supply and demand chain! Wal-mart simply knows their customer base. Using your theory, I should be able to go to Bed Bath and Beyond and demand they carry dog food. It shouldn't matter that their customers aren't shopping for dog food.

Want to guess who doesn't charge slotting fees? Want to guess who has the most stringent ethics policy (and surveillance system) in the retail buying world?

Try to get in to see a buyer at almost any major retailer to show them the widget you want to sell. You'll soon find you have to already have a relationship, or pay an agent, just to get them to look at you product. Want to guess how simple it is to see a buyer at Wal-Mart? They're in the phone book. Call the front desk and make an appointment.

No, I was not actually saying that a given caveman would dictate exactly how many animal skins he would get for his fire wood.

And I see that you have experience in negotiating product "slotting" with large retailers, and though I find it mildly fascinating, I'm not sure what it really has to do with any of my points.

I'm just trying to say that it really sucks that a company called Walmart is able work hand in hand with a fascist dictatorship called China, so that they can use slaves to make really cheep crappy products, and then Walmarts little buddy Hillary Clinton can use her little buddy Bill Clinton to pass NAFTA, and make it that much easier for Americans to kiss their manufacturing and way of life goodbye.

I know that Walmart is just a symptom of this disease, I know that fascist American government policies like the Fed, the IRS, and NAFTA are at the root of it, but that is beside the point.

The point is that we can't print money like the Fed, we can't demand protection money from the public like the IRS, but what we can do is compete with Walmart in what free-market that we have left, and take as much money away from them as possible.

The simple fact of the matter is that this would just be a really good way for us to grow our whole movement, and also fund the political campaigning that we need to do in order to make the political changes that we need to make.

No more Fed, No more IRS, no more NAFTA.

Either way, Walmart and the globalists (international fascists) will be defeated.

That my friend is the whole point.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I shop at K-Mart

 

[familydog]

She doesn't refute any point I made. She is wrong.

And like I said, the Chinese standard of living is improving as a result of our trade. The same is true in Indonesia. It is not true in Cuba.

Where's her example of success? I missed that.

Look, she has a cute feel-good theory, but in practice the way to truly empower people is to give them jobs and pay them.

If we pull all the products from Burma off the shelves, as in the Berkley example, what motivation does the government have to even feed the people?

I don't see a single examples of successfully boycotting sweatshops in her rant. All she does is defend the motivation.

Did you read the entire article?

The author's main point is simple. Contrary to what many free market advocates think, much of the sweat shops around the world are anything but free. The author's several examples are backed up by evidence that is sound. This evidence points to government supported or government directed kidnapping, land stealing, and forced labor in order for these sweat shops to operate and exist in the first place. If you can cite where the citations in the article are wrong and misleading, please say something.

Besides, I don't see how the government stealing your land and forcing you to work somewhere is empowering.

I think the article fits well within libertarian theory. It is sound enough to be in the Journal of Libertarian Studies. The article is about terrible government and what the terrible government does. The author does not suggest that there be government intervention, but boycotting companies that support kidnapping, murder, slavery, etc. only hurt the companies and the government--not the people working the shops.

Again, the article is pro-free market, which is why it points out how much of these sweat shops are anything but.

 

[123tim]

As per my above post, I've actually been in that position. Wal-Mart knows exactly what their customers will buy and what their customers will pay for it. They look at your widget, they tell you what it will sell for and how much they will pay for it. If you can make it profitable, then you have a huge customer. Essentially they've done your market research for you.

Levis blue jeans is an example. The company was bankrupt. On the verge of closing the doors. They went to Wal-Mart to get Levis in the stores. WalMart said "You idiots - trying to sell farm quality denim to college students and soccer Moms is retarded. Make a cheaper jean - use thinner fabric and less stitching - and the Wal-Mart customers will buy them."

So did Wal-Mart kill Levis or save them? The people that work there seem to think it was a good decision to stay in business.

You may be right. The company may be ok, but apparently not the people who actually do the work (in this country) according to the article that I posted.

"If Levi clothing is a runaway hit at Wal-Mart, that may indeed rescue Levi as a business. But what will have been rescued? The Signature line--it includes clothing for girls, boys, men, and women--is an odd departure for a company whose brand has long been an American icon. Some of the jeans have the look, the fingertip feel, of pricier Levis. But much of the clothing has the look and feel it must have, given its price (around $23 for adult pants): cheap. Cheap and disappointing to find labeled with Levi Strauss's name. And just five days before the cheery profit news, Levi had another announcement: It is closing its last two U.S. factories, both in San Antonio, and laying off more than 2,500 workers, or 21% of its workforce. A company that 22 years ago had 60 clothing plants in the United States--and that was known as one of the most socially reponsible corporations on the planet--will, by 2004, not make any clothes at all. It will just import them."

Does anyone know if the "2004" prediction in the article came true?

(Edit) I guess that I didn't have to ask....I Googled and instantly found this:
Levi's to Close Last U.S. Plants
Much of the work once done in this country has moved instead to cheaper contract factories in Asia and Latin America

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0926-03.htm

I was trying to keep an open mind about this and let you all try to convice me otherwise. Now I feel even more convinced that Wal-Mart will be the end of this country.
We will be slaves in the U.S.

 

[austin356]

NO!

I am a college student and in need the 15% in savings WM provides over the competition.