Let's kill Wal-Mart

Besides, Wal-Mart likes to eliminate competition. When competition is eliminated, there is no capitalism. Adam Smith 101. :)

Target
K-Mart
etc.

don't qualify as competition? Wal-Mart eliminate the competition that aren't economically effective in the present day market. Much like Fannie May and Freddie Mac, bad businesses should fail. Mom and pops have to re align their business or move to a new sector in the economy.

Wal-Mart should follow all labor laws in all countries they have businesses in. And if they break the law, they should be held to it. I believe that is the case.
 
Target
K-Mart
etc.

don't qualify as competition? Wal-Mart eliminate the competition that aren't economically effective in the present day market. Much like Fannie May and Freddie Mac, bad businesses should fail. Mom and pops have to re align their business or move to a new sector in the economy.

There really is no choice in the products offered; it is all disposable, made in China, and in many cases the exact same stuff.

For those on a shoestring budget, buying something that lasts makes good economic sense. The stuff in the large box stores is designed to break or wear out. When you spend three times the money on something, it usually lasts much more than three times as long, and is often covered by a manufacturer guarantee that is good even after it officially expires.

Social Engineer,
I like your idea. The naysayers do not have to participate. As a producer of real goods, I often barter for other real goods or services. In a strong local economy, we must place some value on our production often considering need more than comparative dollar value. If we can connect with others that, "get it", we can collectively have more federal reserve notes available for what we cannot provide within the community.
 
It may not be politically correct, but children working hard is NOT a bad thing! As long as there is not some kind of REAL abuse, children working for a little bit of money is not a bad thing.

I had a few opportunities when I was a child to work. Once I got around $2/day. I was overjoyed to have $10 at the end of a week. And that was HERE IN THE GOOD OLD USA, where $10 is nothing.

Everyone who opposes children making a buck in CHINA because it's unethical should reconsider. They are likely living healthier lives because of the OPPORTUNITY to work and have money, to buy food and clothing and, on occasion, get medical care.

Some woman can't afford a tooth brush? If she has a job and makes money, she's better off than if she didn't. Besides, that's the wrong way to describe the situation. If she has money, but doesn't spend it on a tooth brush, then she has decided NOT TO afford (not "can't afford") the tooth brush. But without the paying job, she wouldn't have the opportunity to choose. But she's making money and making decisions on how to spend the money in MORE IMPORTANT ways than on a tooth brush.

All retailers do this: take goods and resell them at a higher price. There is nothing wrong with that. It benefits the workers who produce the goods and it benefits the consumers who need the goods.

The real problem is a free global economy. I won't call it evil, but it is a problem to us. Borders have kept economies apart for so long, and now with the inequality in economies is draining us of wealth. That's what you get when you open the dam.

Wal-Mart is not the problem. They were just one of the first national retailers to take advantage of free trade. What we need to do is make an effort to show a great deal of opposition to free trade and globalization.

A sparse network of like-minded people cannot overcome this. You would need to create a community of people living in harmony, producing and consuming goods locally. You will not have much success without the ability to buy locally, building your own local economy instead of spread out amongst many different local economies that all thrive on cheap goods.

The cost of living here is low, and so are wages. I likely wouldn't be able to afford many products made in the US, even if it's by liberty supporters. Unless their cost of living was low like my own.

But having a community with it's own balanced, self-sustaining economy is something I really would like to be a part of. Because the US is doomed by it's own policies and cannot sustain itself, and all communities without balanced, self-sustaining economies are doomed with it. I don't want to be one of the hundreds of millions of people fighting just to hold on to life when it all comes crashing down and there's no local support, just other helpless people like myself who relied on Wal-Mart.
 
It may not be politically correct, but children working hard is NOT a bad thing! As long as there is not some kind of REAL abuse, children working for a little bit of money is not a bad thing.

I had a few opportunities when I was a child to work. Once I got around $2/day. I was overjoyed to have $10 at the end of a week. And that was HERE IN THE GOOD OLD USA, where $10 is nothing.

Everyone who opposes children making a buck in CHINA because it's unethical should reconsider. They are likely living healthier lives because of the OPPORTUNITY to work and have money, to buy food and clothing and, on occasion, get medical care.

Some woman can't afford a tooth brush? If she has a job and makes money, she's better off than if she didn't. Besides, that's the wrong way to describe the situation. If she has money, but doesn't spend it on a tooth brush, then she has decided NOT TO afford (not "can't afford") the tooth brush. But without the paying job, she wouldn't have the opportunity to choose. But she's making money and making decisions on how to spend the money in MORE IMPORTANT ways than on a tooth brush.

All retailers do this: take goods and resell them at a higher price. There is nothing wrong with that. It benefits the workers who produce the goods and it benefits the consumers who need the goods.

The real problem is a free global economy. I won't call it evil, but it is a problem to us. Borders have kept economies apart for so long, and now with the inequality in economies is draining us of wealth. That's what you get when you open the dam.

Wal-Mart is not the problem. They were just one of the first national retailers to take advantage of free trade. What we need to do is make an effort to show a great deal of opposition to free trade and globalization.

A sparse network of like-minded people cannot overcome this. You would need to create a community of people living in harmony, producing and consuming goods locally. You will not have much success without the ability to buy locally, building your own local economy instead of spread out amongst many different local economies that all thrive on cheap goods.

The cost of living here is low, and so are wages. I likely wouldn't be able to afford many products made in the US, even if it's by liberty supporters. Unless their cost of living was low like my own.

But having a community with it's own balanced, self-sustaining economy is something I really would like to be a part of. Because the US is doomed by it's own policies and cannot sustain itself, and all communities without balanced, self-sustaining economies are doomed with it. I don't want to be one of the hundreds of millions of people fighting just to hold on to life when it all comes crashing down and there's no local support, just other helpless people like myself who relied on Wal-Mart.

Read the GATT first, then just maybe we can talk about a "free global economy" ( so called ). :p
 
Read the GATT first, then just maybe we can talk about a "free global economy" ( so called ). :p

Right. What we have is not a fully free global economy. But it does cross a few borders, which makes it at least semi-global. And I believe we are headed towards more globalization.
 
Right. What we have is not a fully free global economy. But it does cross a few borders, which makes it at least semi-global. And I believe we are headed towards more globalization.
What we have is merely government controlled, regulated, taxed and managed, etc., etc., etc. economies globally.
 
There really is no choice in the products offered; it is all disposable, made in China, and in many cases the exact same stuff.


I bought this at Wal-Mart, it was made it China. I don't think it's "disposable".
0084256900027_215X215.jpg


I guess we need to be more "specific" about what products one is referencing.
 
What we have is merely government controlled, regulated, taxed and managed, etc., etc., etc. economies globally.

Well, I'm glad you could pick out one phrase to comment on from my whole post.

In case you don't get my drift, I don't think it's taxed enough. The inequality of economic circumstances dictates the need for more tarrifs, because it's costing us everything. Jobs and wealth are being exported to the lowest bidder. We can't let that continue.
 
Well, I'm glad you could pick out one phrase to comment on from my whole post.

In case you don't get my drift, I don't think it's taxed enough. The inequality of economic circumstances dictates the need for more tarrifs, because it's costing us everything. Jobs and wealth are being exported to the lowest bidder. We can't let that continue.
The rest of your whole post I pretty much liked. :D Corps pay NO taxes the customers pay for EVERYTHING.<IMHO> :rolleyes:
 
Target
K-Mart
etc.

don't qualify as competition? Wal-Mart eliminate the competition that aren't economically effective in the present day market. Much like Fannie May and Freddie Mac, bad businesses should fail. Mom and pops have to re align their business or move to a new sector in the economy.

Wal-Mart should follow all labor laws in all countries they have businesses in. And if they break the law, they should be held to it. I believe that is the case.

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. 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.
 
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. 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.
Didn't Sears buy K-Mart? Or am I just having another senior moment? :)
 
Last edited:
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. 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.

Even in small town you'll find competition. Example in the small town I live near. There is a Payless shoe store across the street from a brand new Wal Mart. How can Payless compete selling shoes with Wal Mart in a town with the population under 10,000? There are also a few other shoe stores who specialize in different shoes (redwing boots example) that have competed with Wal mart for over 20 years.
 
I'd be curious to those who are opposed to Wal Mart saving us money by having cheaper prices, are you also in favor of tariffs on things such as Chinese steel, in order to make American steel competitive?

Of course I support tariffs, as does Dr. Paul. They should be applied most heavily towards trade partners wildly out of import/export balance, and not applied towards trade partners in reasonable balance at all. America must produce again or collapse. You can't run wild imbalances indefinitely without bleeding out ownership of America. Tariffs should be set and regulated according to ongoing trade figure updates, and industry-blind, applied equally to all products across the board from such an imbalanced trading partner, so as not to be treated as pork by congress for particular industries in a powerful legislator's district. Politicians should have no say whatsoever in the levying and level of such a regulatory control system that keeps America thriving. It should run on autopilot according to continuously updated trade figures. What constitutes an imbalance is open to debate, but up until the late 1990's, before we lost all handle on overall trade balance, overall import/export ratio dollar figures generally stayed around or below 1.25
 
Last edited:
BTW, I signed up for the program. I just don't agree with the anti-Walmart rants.

Ok, we can disagree about Walmart.

I can consider it a blight, and dream of the day that businesses that support liberty can swallow it up, and you can consider it a pointless target I guess.

I really do appreciate that we can work together on the main premise of my project though, thank you for signing up!
 
Last edited:
Even in small town you'll find competition. Example in the small town I live near. There is a Payless shoe store across the street from a brand new Wal Mart. How can Payless compete selling shoes with Wal Mart in a town with the population under 10,000? There are also a few other shoe stores who specialize in different shoes (redwing boots example) that have competed with Wal mart for over 20 years.

Pfft. That's not a small town. When you live in a county where the deer population outnumbers the human population, then you have small towns. :p
 
Of course I support tariffs, as does Dr. Paul. They should be applied most heavily towards trade partners wildly out of import/export balance, and not applied towards trade partners in reasonable balance at all. America must produce again or collapse. You can't run wild imbalances indefinitely without bleeding out ownership of America. Tariffs should be set and regulated according to ongoing trade figure updates, and industry-blind, applied equally to all products across the board from such an imbalanced trading partner, so as not to be treated as pork by congress for particular industries in a powerful legislator's district. Politicians should have no say whatsoever in the levying and level of such a regulatory control system that keeps America thriving. It should run on autopilot according to continuously updated trade figures. What constitutes an imbalance is open to debate, but up until the late 1990's, before we lost all handle on overall trade balance, overall import/export ratio dollar figures generally stayed around or below 1.25

Are you serious?
 
Wal-Mart is only a symptom of the problem. They are not the problem themselves. The problem is people who have no problem buying foreign made products that put Americans out of jobs. Patriotism is dead in America despite the 9/11 inside job.
 
Back
Top