Let's kill Wal-Mart

[RickyJ]

Got a link? For Dr. Paul supporting Tariffs.

He supports the Constitution so he supports tariffs.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Ron is PRO FREE MARKET.

 

[familydog]

Ron is PRO FREE MARKET.

Then he wouldn't shop at stores which buy from sweatshops right?

 

[Truth Warrior]

Then he wouldn't shop at stores which buy from sweatshops right?

You'll need to ask Ron about that one. I'm not his spokesman.

 

[RickyJ]

Then he wouldn't shop at stores which buy from sweatshops right?

Of course he wouldn't. Being free market doesn't mean you have to be unpatriotic. You can still buy American if you want to.

 

[Truth Warrior]

As frugal as Ron is, I'll SWAG WalMart, etc. Also, he's not anti-China.

 

[KenInMontiMN]

Got a link? For Dr. Paul supporting Tariffs.

If you ever browsed the issues sections of RonPaul08.com thoroughly, the official campaign website had it up there. Now that the site has been taken down you can still pick up a lot of those positions on Wikipedia:
"Rather than taxing personal income, which he says assumes that the government owns individuals' lives and labor, he prefers the federal government to be funded through excise taxes and/or uniform, non-protectionist tariffs.[72]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Lower_taxes_and_smaller_government

The details I put forward about how to best apply tariffs are my own, I would apply them uniformly to all imports from any particular trading partner, but would impose higher tariffs on partners way out of balance down to none at all on trading partners with balanced trade numbers with us. If the longterm effects of continuous trade imbalances are not yet clear, then the message of responsible choices in the area of debt is apparently gotten lost somewhere as well.


Tariffs applied uniformly with a trade partner for the purposes of moving toward reasonable trade balance is not protectionism, any more than maintaining national defense is. A complete lack of either will eventually leave a nation in ruins. Such policy is about simple long-term survival. Protectionism is an overused term that properly refers to the practice that is still quite common among many of our supposed free trade partners involving not allowing imports to compete with domestic products at all in particular industries. In no case would I encourage real protectionism of that sort.

And don't get me wrong, I don't support 'killing Walmart.' I do support, on the other hand, favoring smaller local business entities in the way of support even when that costs a bit more. The whole concept of opening up everything in unlimited fashion and to an unlimited degree regardless of its impact on America is exactly the stuff the CFR internationalist is made of. We're about America first here, what's best for the massive corporations falls well down the list of priority, and in fact it is a proper and historical mandate of Federal gov't to watch for monopolism and nip that stuff in the bud through regulatory action.

 

[Truth Warrior]

RonPaulLibrary.com

 

[KenInMontiMN]

Thanks Truth Warrior. It's telling that here:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=940
Dr. Paul describes free trade as 'low tariffs.' As opposed to either tremendously high tariffs, unevenly applied tariffs for certain industries, or for that matter non-existent tariffs. He clearly recognizes tariffs as one possibility already constitutionally mandated that is a perfectly acceptable and preferable alternative for reducing or eliminating income taxes on individuals.

Free trade doesn't require tremendously complicated and lengthy trade agreements, just low tariffs in Paul's own words. When a nation like China uses unpaid prison labor to produce product destined for here, we have every right to question whether free trade is even something we want with that nation, whether high tariffs might not be in order.

 

[TruthisTreason]

Thanks Truth Warrior. It's telling that here:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=940
Dr. Paul describes free trade as 'low tariffs.' As opposed to either tremendously high tariffs, unevenly applied tariffs for certain industries, or for that matter non-existent tariffs. He clearly recognizes tariffs as one possibility already constitutionally mandated that is a perfectly acceptable and preferable alternative for reducing or eliminating income taxes on individuals.

Free trade doesn't require tremendously complicated and lengthy trade agreements, just low tariffs in Paul's own words. When a nation like China uses unpaid prison labor to produce product destined for here, we have every right to question whether free trade is even something we want with that nation, whether high tariffs might not be in order.

Your link also says this.
" If foreign governments want to hurt their own citizens with protectionist tariffs, let them. But let us set a good example here, and show the world an honest example of true free trade. "

I don't think this link proves Dr. Paul supports tariffs on Chinese goods. The article is referencing Nafta and Cafta. You may be right, but I don't think this link is a good conclusive piece. I'd be interested in seeing some more from him on this.

 

[KenInMontiMN]

Your link also says this.
" If foreign governments want to hurt their own citizens with protectionist tariffs, let them. But let us set a good example here, and show the world an honest example of true free trade. "

I don't think this link proves Dr. Paul supports tariffs on Chinese goods. The article is referencing Nafta and Cafta. You may be right, but I don't think this link is a good conclusive piece. I'd be interested in seeing some more from him on this.

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.

 

[kombayn]

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.

 

[123tim]

Of course I don't. I don't think WalMart is FORCING anybody to do anything. That's the government's job.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

This article has 9 pages.

 

[Truth Warrior]

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

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...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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

I've personally seen the manufacturer's reps lined up out the door in Bentonville, AR to BEG WalMart to carry their products. Walmart says, "OK, these are the conditions, agree to them or .................. NEXT! " It's my first hand understanding that's pretty much a typical daily occurrence.

Where's the FORCE?

 

[Truth Warrior]

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

 

[angelatc]

I would not cheer for modernized fascism. Besides the domestic problems that are exacerbated by Americans all shopping at Wal-Mart, I would love to see Wal-Mart lose all of its American business for the simple fact that China is fascist, and it's immoral that we sponsor fascism. Maybe then China's government would adopt greater liberty, if we'd only give them money in that case. Nonetheless, it is our domestic issues that we need to focus on first, and the fact of the matter is that we as a people could make much better use of the money we spend on Wal-Mart, if we'd only use it to support liberty instead.

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.

 

[angelatc]

I've personally seen the manufacturer's reps lined up out the door in Bentonville, AR to BEG WalMart to carry their products. Walmart says, "OK, these are the conditions, agree to them or .................. NEXT! " It's my first hand understanding that's pretty much a typical daily occurrence.

Where's the FORCE?

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.

 

[familydog]

Where's the FORCE?

Buying products that support slave labor?

 

[Truth Warrior]

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.

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.

As I sit here, as usual, in my Legend Gold Wrangler jeans, bought on sale from Target.

 

[angelatc]

As I sit here, as usual, in my Gold Legend Wrangler jeans, bought on sale from Target.

You can still buy "good" Levis. I suspect the money from the Wal-Mart sales subsidizes their continued production.

The article from Fast Company makes a case for protectionism, in that we Americans want clean air, clean water and decent wages, but we don't want to pay for products produced with those methods.