Let's kill Wal-Mart

[123tim]

NO!

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

I'm going to say this and be done.

I think that most people on this forum might be too young to understand what is going on with Wal-Mart.

I've tried for over 15 years not to buy Chinese products. I can't anymore because of people saying that they couldn't survive buying American products. Now everything is Chinese.

We (My family) make very little money and have done very well. We just don't buy many things that aren't necessary.

I think that everyone will get used to this because soon the U.S. won't produce anything..

 

[jcarcinogen]

I'm going to say this and be done.

I think that most people on this forum might be too young to understand what is going on with Wal-Mart.

I've tried for over 15 years not to buy Chinese products. I can't anymore because of people saying that they couldn't survive buying American products. Now everything is Chinese.

We (My family) make very little money and have done very well. We just don't buy many things that aren't necessary.

I think that everyone will get used to this because soon the U.S. won't produce anything..

When Sam Walton was alive, Walmart made an effort to sell American products. No matter how you feel about Walmart you have to agree that he'd be rolling in his grave knowing his company is the largest conduit to sell Chinese products.

 

[angelatc]

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.

Of course I read the article. I am saying the solution she proposes, which is to boycott those products, in inhumane and ineffective. She does not provide a single historic example that proves otherwise.

 

[angelatc]

I'm going to say this and be done. I think that most people on this forum might be too young to understand what is going on with Wal-Mart. I've tried for over 15 years not to buy Chinese products. I can't anymore because of people saying that they couldn't survive buying American products. Now everything is Chinese. We (My family) make very little money and have done very well. We just don't buy many things that aren't necessary. I think that everyone will get used to this because soon the U.S. won't produce anything..

Wal-Mart is a symptom, not the cause. Look at what happened to the auto industry when Washington decided to put tariffs on imported cars, because the American companies were in trouble. They opened up auto plants here.

 

[angelatc]

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.

Your argument is for protectionism. I'm ok with that. But I don't think that somehow forcing Wal-Mart to raise prices will help a damned thing.

I wonder if the Levis workers were unionized?

 

[TruthisTreason]

Wal-Mart is a symptom, not the cause.

+1

And no post on this thread proves otherwise.

 

[familydog]

Of course I read the article. I am saying the solution she proposes, which is to boycott those products, in inhumane and ineffective. She does not provide a single historic example that proves otherwise.

I'm glad you did read the entire article. I'm just wondering why you missed the point of it.

Normal libertarian theory cites that sweat shops are beneficial to the poor. The poor choose to work there because it is the best situation for them. Their standard of living rises because they are able to work for more money than they could get otherwise. Thus, boycotting goods made from these sweat shops will only hurt these poor whose standard of living is effected by the goods they make. This is true in places like Hong Kong.

However, the article points out that much of these sweat shop workers in most other parts of the world do not choose to work there. Their governments kidnap them and force them to work as slaves. Their land is stolen to make these plantations and sweat shop. Their standard of living is worse off. Boycotting the goods that they are forced to make only hurts the governments that are responsible for such slave labor. What is inhumane is the governments actions. They are the ones being hurt by the boycott.

I'm going to take a wild guess. You would suggest that an 18th century British citizen would have been inhumane and cruel for boycotting clothes made with slaves in America? I mean, boycotting these clothes would hurt the African-American slaves whose standard of living is greatly increased by the generous slave traders and plantation owners that decided to "rescue" them from Africa and "borrow" their property in the process.

 

[krazy kaju]

I support Wal-Mart. I support anyone and everyone who is anti-union.

 

[danberkeley]

Wal-Mart wouldn't be able to hire companies that take advantage of the poor in corrupt countries if people didn't buy from them.

If Americans stopped buying Chinese made goods, guess who would buy them. The CHINESE! The fact that the Renminbi hasnt been made fully convertable has prevented the currency from appreciating against the US dollar. So dont worry about it. Once the Renminbi floats to where it should be, Americans wont be able to afford Chinese imports.

If people stopped buying from them, then Wal-Mart would have to change in order to survive.

And the people who shop at Wal-Mart would have to find more expensive means of finding their everyday needs.

So, no, my real beef is with the people who purchase Wal-Mart products that are created with essentially slave labor,
which encourages Wal-Mart to maintain their status-quo.

I dont remember the last time slaves were paid by definition. Try using a different word next time.

e.g. If no one bought stolen goods, then the market for stolen goods would dry up, and the incentive to steal goods would lessen dramatically.

If gov'ment stopped taxing and regulating American companies (small and big) to death, then there would probably be no need to for companies to go over seas or outsource.

And if people would quit buying products made by abused workers from Wal-Mart in order to save a few pennies,
there wouldn't be a market for the products.

So giving someone a job they were not entitled to is abuse?

The purchases show approval of Wal-Mart tactics, and allows them to continue.

What's wrong with penny pinching?

Yeah, they're fighting for those jobs because those are the only ones available because there's no incentive for companies to provide better ones because people buy from the companies that pay $3 for 14 hours of back-breaking labor.

What are you talking about? Factory jobs arent the only jobs being created in China. China has a fully developed stock market that didnt exist 20 years ago. It has a fully developed tourism industry. It has everything the USA had until the USA gov'ment wreck the entire economy.

They might keep a small family barely alive with those wages, but it's hardly "support" in the true sense of a decent life.

Again, what are you talking about? The Chinese have a saving rate of 45% percent. What's America's, -2%? China has one of the fastest-growing automobile markets and competes with Russia for first place. People are dropping their bike and getting into cars that consume gasoline that American's can barely afford.

Didn't you know? Slaves will fight for jobs if that's the only way they have to get food to eat in order to stay alive.

See above.

And I shouldn't have to tell you this, but the concept is universal among stores, regardless of brand name.

And BTW, companies are moving to places like Vietnam now because $3/day is higher than the even poorer will work for.

The movie posted earlier showed women in Bangladesh brushing their teeth with ashes on their finger because
they can't afford toothbrushes with what they're getting paid.

So what? That person probably didnt even brush her teeth before getting a job making stuff for Wal-Mart.

Is that better than starving to death? Yes. But does it make it right? No.

So helping people from starving to death is not right????

If people want to live an abundant lifestyle on the backs of the poor, that's their choice,
but I prefer to try and follow The Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Lol. I've read that book. Too bad you're misapplying it.

And take to heart the spirit behind the words, "What you have done to the least of them, you have done to me".

What caused conditions to change in America? Was it by supporting the same ol' same ol'?
Or standing up against the greed of those who took advantage?

As long as people support the way things are, they will never change.

Right is left. Left is right. Me win argument! Yay me!

Unfortunately is isn't that simple.

There are more Wal-Marts than K-Marts and Targets in this country. Wal-Mart likes to prey on rural areas where the only businesses are mom and pops.

The problem with your argument is that it is completely biased. How do you know Wal-Mart "likes to prey"? Did you ask it and did it respond with, "yes. me like to prey"? Also, "mom and pops" is a loaded term. I woudl call them "less efficient".

These small businesses can't survive if Wal-Mart provides the same goods or services that they do at rock bottom prices. Thus, competition is eliminated. Even if there is a K-Mart, often times they can't compete with a Super Wal-Mart. Several towns I am familiar with in Northwest PA had K-Marts but they closed soon after Wal-Mart moved in. Even the K-Marts simply couldn't compete.

So what. That means that Wal-Mart is providing goods and services more efficiently.

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.

YEs. That's why you want to heavily tax Chinese imports.

Thank you for bringing this up.
(Note) The "You" that I talk about below refers to all of us. Not directly to Truth Warrior.

You is I. I is you. We is them. Them is us.

Wal-Mart does use force. They've reversed the law of supply and demand and now tell the Manufacturer what to charge for a product. Price is no longer dictated by supply or demand...It's dictated by Wal-Mart telling the manufacturer that they're the only buyer in town. If you don't sell the product cheaper then you're out of business. Sounds great if you shop at Wal-Mart, but not so great if you work in a factory and need to feed your family.

"They're reversed the law of supply and demand.." lol. You obviously dont understand supply and deamn.

Think of it this way. One small man in a small town grows food and sells it to small people for a fair price. The small man makes a fair profit and the customers are happy because they have a good product. Everyone is happy. However, you're a big man and you just moved into the area. You tell the small man that you're going to beat him up if he doesn't sell you the food at slave wages - He has to do this because you'll beat him up if he doesn't. You grow even bigger. The small man and his family nearly starve to feed you.

"small man", "fair profit", "good product", "big man", "slave wages", "grow even bigger" (as oppsoed to growing smaller). what if the "small man" kept the food instead of selling it? perhaps his family wouldnt starve to death.

This is my own crude analogy of Wal-Mart and this country.
You (in my analogy) are the small man.
Our country is the family of the small man and Wal-Mart is the big man.

unfortunatelt for you yor analogy is flawed.

If Wal-Mart doesn't scare you then I don't know what will. Wal-Mart is killing off all competition. They've done it both fairly and unfairly. It's obvious that they intend to expand into every aspect of the fabric of our society. Wal-Mart has it's own factories, farms, (and probably soon) health care facilities.

"killing" competition? so you support ineffecient businesses?

What will you do when Wal-Mart is the only place to Work, Shop, or Eat?
What will Wal-Mart do to you then?

I'll say, "thank God I saved 49 cents on this toothbrush."

Here is an article about Wal-Mart forcing lower prices:
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html

This article has 9 pages.

The producers arent forced to sell to Wal-Mart. They choose to.

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

Yup. We would never have a budget deficit.

I support Wal-Mart. I support anyone and everyone who is anti-union.

unions are such a scam.

 

[KenInMontiMN]

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.

Ron Paul recognizes that free trade doesn't exist in any real sense, has had discussions on record to that effect in House hearings with Greenspan, and has gone on record supporting uniform low tariffs to fund Federal gov't more than once, as preferable to individual income taxes. He doesn't see that as contradictory to open and free trade between partners in position to trade on equal footing with one another, nor do I. If you never saw his position for tariffs on his campaign site you weren't looking.

If you don't understand that our growing external debt is every bit as deplorable and dangerous to our country's solvency and sovereignty as the national public debt is, then you're simply the private face of the spendthrifts in Washington.

 

[KenInMontiMN]

I'm glad you did read the entire article. I'm just wondering why you missed the point of it.

Normal libertarian theory cites that sweat shops are beneficial to the poor. The poor choose to work there because it is the best situation for them. Their standard of living rises because they are able to work for more money than they could get otherwise. Thus, boycotting goods made from these sweat shops will only hurt these poor whose standard of living is effected by the goods they make. This is true in places like Hong Kong.

However, the article points out that much of these sweat shop workers in most other parts of the world do not choose to work there. Their governments kidnap them and force them to work as slaves. Their land is stolen to make these plantations and sweat shop. Their standard of living is worse off. Boycotting the goods that they are forced to make only hurts the governments that are responsible for such slave labor. What is inhumane is the governments actions. They are the ones being hurt by the boycott.

I'm going to take a wild guess. You would suggest that an 18th century British citizen would have been inhumane and cruel for boycotting clothes made with slaves in America? I mean, boycotting these clothes would hurt the African-American slaves whose standard of living is greatly increased by the generous slave traders and plantation owners that decided to "rescue" them from Africa and "borrow" their property in the process.

Good post. A businessman in my community has his Chinese mfgr'ing partnership next door to the prison, not by any coincidence.

 

[TruthisTreason]

Ron Paul recognizes that free trade doesn't exist in any real sense, has had discussions on record to that effect in House hearings with Greenspan, and has gone on record supporting uniform low tariffs to fund Federal gov't more than once, as preferable to individual income taxes. He doesn't see that as contradictory to open and free trade between partners in position to trade on equal footing with one another, nor do I. If you never saw his position for tariffs on his campaign site you weren't looking.

If you don't understand that our growing external debt is every bit as deplorable and dangerous to our country's solvency and sovereignty as the national public debt is, then you're simply the private face of the spendthrifts in Washington.

By putting tariffs on imports, you are putting tariffs on exports. History proves that.

No link?

 

[KenInMontiMN]

The tariffs on would-be exports are already in place, in many places, through many more direct and less direct means. As far as the link goes, they took down the site, as you know. If you want direct confirmation e-mail the man himself for his response through his congressional office.

While I really don't consider it my responsibility to further educate you as to Dr. Paul's position on tariffs as stated throughout the campaign, you can if you wish get confirmation here as well from paragraph 12 in this pretty good feature Donald Luskin did on the Paul/Economics platform in the National Review:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2Q5MDM2NzZkNzU5ZDEwYTI3ODg5YjY2YWZlMjFkYTc=

...and while I'm in no position to speak for the Congressman directly, my sense is that he has a clear understanding that only in that theoretical utopian scenario espoused by ardent internationalists will there ever be the slightest hope for free trade to flow unchecked in all directions; further that he would never advocate the surrender of sovereignty and self-determination that would entail, either for the USA or for that matter foreign societies. If he did, he'd be right down in NY with so many of the rest lobbying for CFR membership in order to be that prominent agent of the internationalist bankers. So my best guess is that he sees those tariffs as a pragmatic offset to the fact that there is no free trade, only managed trade, and clearly understands, as do I, and as you should- if you care at all about the future of this country- the books, both in the private as well as the public sense, must be reasonably in balance over the long haul; red ink is the path to insolvency. Not too complicated to understand I hope.

 

[TruthisTreason]

The tariffs on would-be exports are already in place, in many places, through many more direct and less direct means. As far as the link goes, they took down the site, as you know. If you want direct confirmation e-mail the man himself for his response through his congressional office.

While I really don't consider it my responsibility to further educate you as to Dr. Paul's position on tariffs as stated throughout the campaign, you can if you wish get confirmation here as well from paragraph 12 in this pretty good feature Donald Luskin did on the Paul/Economics platform in the National Review:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2Q5MDM2NzZkNzU5ZDEwYTI3ODg5YjY2YWZlMjFkYTc=

...and while I'm in no position to speak for the Congressman directly, my sense is that he has a clear understanding that only in that theoretical utopian scenario espoused by ardent internationalists will there ever be the slightest hope for free trade to flow unchecked in all directions; further that he would never advocate the surrender of sovereignty and self-determination that would entail, either for the USA or for that matter foreign societies. If he did, he'd be right down in NY with so many of the rest lobbying for CFR membership in order to be that prominent agent of the internationalist bankers. So my best guess is that he sees those tariffs as a pragmatic offset to the fact that there is no free trade, only managed trade, and clearly understands, as do I, and as you should- if you care at all about the future of this country- the books, both in the private as well as the public sense, must be reasonably in balance over the long haul; red ink is the path to insolvency. Not too complicated to understand I hope.

Here is your link.

"Paul is an advocate of free trade — to a fault. He believes deeply in unrestricted trade between people and nations. Yet he votes against free-trade agreements such as NAFTA and CAFTA because he believes that trade is a right, not a gift for Congress to bestow in certain circumstances. Without such agreements, the reality is that trade is probably less free than it is with them. Is Paul a nut for letting the perfect be the enemy of the good? Perhaps, but for Paul it’s a point of principle. He told me, “I don’t call them free-trade agreements; I call them managed trade agreements.” Instead, Paul would like to see a simple policy of “low and uniform” tariffs for all products from all nations."


Put into context, who would argue? Nafta and Cafta or "low and uniform" tafiffs on both sides, that in the end would cancel each other out. Sounds like equal (free) trade.

 

[familydog]

The problem with your argument is that it is completely biased. How do you know Wal-Mart "likes to prey"? Did you ask it and did it respond with, "yes. me like to prey"? Also, "mom and pops" is a loaded term. I woudl call them "less efficient"

My argument may be biased, but there isn't anything factual wrong with it.

 

[Carole]

Be careful not to confuse Free trade with Managed trade.

 

[angelatc]

I'm glad you did read the entire article. I'm just wondering why you missed the point of it.

Normal libertarian theory cites that sweat shops are beneficial to the poor. The poor choose to work there because it is the best situation for them. Their standard of living rises because they are able to work for more money than they could get otherwise. Thus, boycotting goods made from these sweat shops will only hurt these poor whose standard of living is effected by the goods they make. This is true in places like Hong Kong.

However, the article points out that much of these sweat shop workers in most other parts of the world do not choose to work there. Their governments kidnap them and force them to work as slaves. Their land is stolen to make these plantations and sweat shop. Their standard of living is worse off. Boycotting the goods that they are forced to make only hurts the governments that are responsible for such slave labor. What is inhumane is the governments actions. They are the ones being hurt by the boycott.

I'm going to take a wild guess. You would suggest that an 18th century British citizen would have been inhumane and cruel for boycotting clothes made with slaves in America? I mean, boycotting these clothes would hurt the African-American slaves whose standard of living is greatly increased by the generous slave traders and plantation owners that decided to "rescue" them from Africa and "borrow" their property in the process.

Let me take a wild guess. You're perfectly willing to preach theory over fact.

I understand they don't have a choice about working there. I also understand that if the government has no reason to feed them, they won't.

I'm not going to comment on the slavery comment, because I am not dealing in hypotheticals. I asked simple for a single example of such a boycott actually improving the lives of the workers. I am still waiting.

 

[Unspun]

What????

Wal Mart is the epitome of free trade. I say buy EVERYTHING from Wal Mart! Well, almost.

They are pro free trade. Trading around the world will cause better friendships with other countries our government may "hate", such as China, and make it harder for them ever to start a war with them.

Wal Mart is anti trade Unions! How much more American can you get than that?

Wal Mart should be the official store of the Ron Paul movement. If anything to outrage the elites and pro-trade unionists that want you to hate Wal Mart.

Lew Rockwell talks about this very thing at about 7:15 into his latest podcast.

http://lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2008-08-24_026_from_the_dark_heart_of_dc.mp3

 

[danberkeley]

My argument may be biased, but there isn't anything factual wrong with it.

What was factual about your argument? Is it a fact that Wal-Mart "likes to prey" on "mom and pop" shops?

 

[familydog]

Let me take a wild guess. You're perfectly willing to preach theory over fact.

I understand they don't have a choice about working there. I also understand that if the government has no reason to feed them, they won't.

I'm not going to comment on the slavery comment, because I am not dealing in hypotheticals. I asked simple for a single example of such a boycott actually improving the lives of the workers. I am still waiting.

Either way it's theory. The burden of proof is not on this author or me.

This article doesn't deal with the rose colored glasses view of the world that libertarians like to deal with. This is a point in the article. Since normal libertarian theory doesn't apply, normal libertarian theory backed up by real world examples don't apply either. Also, the workers cannot simply leave if they want a better job or want better working conditions.

Thus, the normal libertarian theory that you're operating under can't possibly apply to these slave labor camps because the most important aspect to the theory is missing--the freedom to choose to work there.

"The condition of slavery prevents many of the workers from pursuing better jobs, even when manufacturers move to the country to take advantage of the cheaplabor. According to capitalist theory, the high profits made by corporations that manufacture their clothes in less-economically developed nations attract more entrepreneurs who want to further increase their profits, and these new entrants into the Burmese manufacturing market then have to bid up wages in order to entice workers to work for them. However, this logic only applies when workers are free to choose which jobs to work and receive the benefit of their productivity in the form of wages, which is not always the case in Burma. Here, the government is often paid by the multinational firms in order to utilize the labor of the prisoners. In such a situation the bidding up of the price of labor does not affect the incentives of the prisoner-workers. Rather, correct economic reasoning suggests that the politicians would respond to the increased demand for their cheap workers by raising the price that they (the government) charge for the labor. The upward movement in prices in turn provides the ruling classes with an incentive to enslave even more workers, ceteris paribus. As long as this upward movement in the price of labor allows corporations to maximize profit, they will continue to locate manufacturing in this nation, and this will lead, in a truly vicious circle, to still more enslavement of the population and little increase in the standard of living for the impoverished worker."

There is very few real world examples to back up this author's theory. That is the point he is trying to make. Since normal liberatian theory does not apply, we need to try new things. At the same time, continuing to buy goods from these workers only puts more money in the hands of the government. More money in the hands of the government makes them kill, steal, and kidnap more because they have an incentive. So maybe it is the people who support these governments actions that are cruel.