How I spell capitalism: W-A-L-M-A-R-T (590 hits)
Category: Business & FinancialRating: -0.11 on 37 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Leaves Teeth Marks (View user info) at 2005-07-04 22:39:59 EDT
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html
You should at least skim that article before you read my post. Try not to vomit.
Here's the deal, I've seen quite a few people bitching about Wal-Mart in my day. Usually people complaining about how Wal-Mart either mistreats its employees or runs local chains out of business. Most of us have probably heard these two gripes, and the link I've posted above provides one that's new to me. It didn't take me very long to figure out it was just more whiny bullshit. I'm going to try to touch on a few points without being too completely boring.
We've all heard people complain about how Wal-Mart puts "mom and pop" stores out of business. What's this? A company able to sell goods and services at more affordable prices AND offers greater selection? I call that CAPITALISM, you pinko commie bastard. Hell, Wal-Mart even puts bigger-than-mom-and-pop-sized stores out of business. And I say "good for them!" Most people won't debate that Wal-Mart isn't at all competitive on brand name clothes or electronics, among other things. Wal-Mart is never going to put stores like Best Buy or any clothing chain stores out of business. Point is, if you can offer a better product, Wal-Mart isn't going to put you out of business.
Wal-Mart has so much market power that they can dictate the prices of their suppliers. Wal-Mart won't stock your product unless they can sell it at a certain price. This means, if you don't let them stock your brand A product, they'll go to brand B and most likely put you out of business. Now let's call this maneuver "capitalism". By using "capitalism", some people bitch that Wal-Mart forces companies to invest in over-seas labor and production. You've probably heard some whiny liberal refer to this as "outsourcing". "Outsourcing jobs overseas". Holy shit, I guess somebody didn't tell John Kerry we've had a term for this practice for a while now in America. It's called FREE TRADE.
I like when jobs get sent overseas. It's called competition. You know why America kicks so much ass? Because we're competitive, and we don't cater to whiners and sore losers. Competition is GOOD for society. Handouts are BAD. Do you really want to pay more for an inferior product just because some pussy liberal is too lazy to work harder or be more competitive with foreign labor? I don't.
Now, about Wal-Mart mistreating it's employees. I don't really know what goes on here or how their employees are treated. I try not to even shop at Wal-Mart, much less be employed by them. I have a theory that when your floor managers have an IQ of 10, and it's 5 points higher than the people that work under them, you're going to run into occasional turmoil. Here's the deal: you make minimum wage and you have no skills. Either go get a job somewhere else or be more competitive. That's what the rest of us do. Stop asking for other people to do shit for you, and do something for yourself.
User Reviews
Submitted by shitfuck (user info) at 2005-07-06 01:06:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I'm leaning towards puritan capitalism, but at the end of the day I care too much about the world and people. Obviously, I'm not going to be the one to solve the problems that big box retailers bring with them--and it certainly won't happen on this website.
You're missing a huge point. Distribution. The fact that companies like walmart actually decrease the number of choices a consumer has--not to mention water down any culture or esoterica that the area might have. You think that's fair competion? Urban sprawl is America's gift to the world--communities behind gates that look like every other community behind a gate, serviced by out of the box strip malls. Nameless, faceless cities.
Do you know what walmart puts it suppliers through? Go read up.
America kicks so much ass?
I must have missed that memo.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-06 01:04:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
what kind of nigger are you buying watermelon at 0230 hours?
We all too high by then to do much mo' than sit around and watch rap videos.
Submitted by Wiggles (user info) at 2005-07-06 00:53:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2005-07-06 00:11:22 (#)
Ranking: 2
If people don't like Wal-Mart, why are so many shopping there?
-----------
Because people put bargains before morals?
Fuck, I'd be a liar (in addition to already being a hypocrite) if I said I didn't occasionally shop at Wal-Mart. I fucking hate everything about the store and everything it stands for, but where else am I going to get a watermelon at 2:30 in the morning?
Submitted by Wiggles (user info) at 2005-07-06 00:49:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Anybody who thinks there is anything to "get" about capitalism is a moron. Pure capitalism is economic anarchy, which is no better than social anarchy.
People advocate capitalism because it lets the economy flow naturally. But nature is a brutal, unstable, and heartless force. If you want to have a sustainable and just society, you need regulation. I'm not saying socialism would work, but I don't believe any economic system would work when it's applied to a densely populated nation that operates in a global economy made up of greedy people that want to kill each other.
In conclusion, the world is fucked no matter what economic system the U.S. operates under, but you're a sucker for sticking up for capitalism.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-07-06 00:32:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2005-07-06 00:11:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Amen amen amen
If people don't like Wal-Mart, why are so many shopping there?
As to their employees, the recent immigration scandal wasnt reported clearly. Wal-Mart contracts out the cleaning duties.
The illegal immigrant cleaning crews were hired by a cleaning company and worked for/were paid by that company. Wal-Mart only paid the company for its services. It had nothing to do with the hiring.
Submitted by LeavesTeethMarks (user info) at 2005-07-05 08:21:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
b_badger:
I honestly don't see how ethics comes into play in a free market. The only analogy I can think of is when the Philadelphia Flyers had the Broad Street Bullies in the 70s and pretty much pushed every other team in the NHL around because they were so phyiscally intimidating and talented at the same time. Lots of people whined about their use of this tactic although it was completely within the rules of league. They just found a way to overwhelm everyone using a new means. Sorry if that was a shitty analogy but I believe it conveyed how I see things.
Submitted by b_badger (user info) at 2005-07-05 04:32:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
This discussion is interesting, to say the least, since it concerns me; reasons being
1.) I live on a low-income and will continue to do so for probably a year
2.) Despite this, I'm not on welfare of any kind
3.) This means I must find the cheapest product, simply because I can't afford anything else
4.) BUT, I also have ethics and strong opinions on globalization, corporate power etc.
5.) I usually eat a lot of "wierd stuff" that's not easy to find in a Wal-Mart so to speak
The thing is, 1-3 and common sense dictates that I buy my shit at Wal-Mart, BUT 4-5 tells me to shop otherwise, and well...ugh. Were was I going with this? I don't want to shop there because I despise the "tactics" of the company so to speak, BUT, being a broke-ass redneck I cannot afford NOT to shop there. Survival vs. Ethics, the good life indeed.
Submitted by LeavesTeethMarks (user info) at 2005-07-05 04:08:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Is that the protocol here? Call everyone who calls you on your bullshit an 'alter' (someone making an alternate nickname, I presume), and flame them? Sorry if you don't like my posts, you don't have to read them if you don't want. You can give me all the -2s you want. It's not going to stop me from speaking my mind. Please keep begging for "bart" to ban me though, that kind of warms my heart.
Hard to believe no one else has ever stumbled upon this place though via boredatwork.com via maddox.xmission.com and starting calling people on their bullshit. Although maybe you thought they were all 'alters' too. HMMMMMMMMMMM, kind of makes you think, doesn't it!
Submitted by Phate (user info) at 2005-07-05 04:07:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by bush_for_god (user info) at 2005-07-05 04:00:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I think I love you, whether you're an alter or not.
I love you, did I say that?
Submitted by Feijuada (user info) at 2005-07-05 03:23:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by Feijuada (user info) at 2005-07-05 03:22:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER ALTER
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-07-05 03:08:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by sparkle_pink (user info) at 2005-07-05 02:41:03 (#)
Ranking: 2
My brother and I had this exact same conversation the other day. I've never understood why people, such as my Dad, have a complete hate-on with Wal-Mart being all 'They close down Mom and Pop stores! They are corporate whores!' etc... yet he still shops there.
If people really hate Walmart that much, don't shop there. Capitalism works both ways.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
What alternative is there?
All the big companies are the same and they will all wipe out the mom and pop stores. It's a sad fact but a necessary step in social evolution. For a growing company, profit grows exponentially while expenses grow generally more linear. Thus, the bigger you are the more opportunity to make a profit and cut down on prices you have.
Now, unfortunately, because of this competition is slaughtered. This leaves you with three practical options.
1) Penalise the major corporations for being large to give smaller competition a chance.
This limits economic growth for the nation as a whole though because the major companies are restricted.
2) Let capitalism run it's course and allow a few men at the top keep the profits while they destroy competition. This is what you have now, basically and it leads to greater divides in rich and poor and great opportunity for the richer classes while disenfranchising the "lesser" citizens.
3) Socialise the major companies so that, although competition will still be destroyed, the profits made from the major corporations end up recirculating through society in the form of better public services and maybe even a tax-cut.
Submitted by sparkle_pink (user info) at 2005-07-05 02:41:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
My brother and I had this exact same conversation the other day. I've never understood why people, such as my Dad, have a complete hate-on with Wal-Mart being all 'They close down Mom and Pop stores! They are corporate whores!' etc... yet he still shops there.
If people really hate Walmart that much, don't shop there. Capitalism works both ways.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-07-05 02:35:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-05 02:25:37 (#)
Ranking: 0
I like the NAZI position, except for all the master-race/killing my people part.
-==--=-==-=-=-=
Yeah, they did kinda fuck you over on that one.
Not that it was all that uncommon back then. Racial superiority was a concept accepted by nearly every nation on the Earth at that time...
The whole deathcamp thing was uncommon but the racial superiority thing wasn't.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-05 02:25:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I like the NAZI position, except for all the master-race/killing my people part.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-07-05 02:14:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by IhateTomCruise (user info) at 2005-07-05 01:51:04 (#)
Ranking: 2
william.. sorry ass "english".. don't drink and uber.
anyway, yeah, you don't think any man should be able to be disgustingly rich and there lies the ground where we part ways because that is exactly what capitalism affords.
i hate supporting people with no ambition
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This is the problem with you fellas. You assume socialism means welfare. It doesn't.
It supports greater equality for the lower classes, because we have more money going into public works, but that money will come from socialised corporations.
Welfare policy is completely independent of socialism... it just so happens a bunch of socialists would like to raise welfare. I personally would like greater restrictions on welfare qualifications enforced.
Look at Nazi German economic policy. It turned the nation out of economic dark ages in ten years to bring it back to one of the world's superpowers again. These are the economic principles I support.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-07-05 02:09:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Excuse my English on this site from 8am to 4:30pm AEST. I'm at work and usually Alt Tabbing to make sure nobody realises I spend 78% of the time on uber.
As a result I may mispell or fuck up the grammar.
Submitted by WellFedEthiopian (user info) at 2005-07-05 01:58:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Submitted by LeavesTeethMarks (user info) at 2005-07-05 01:28:47 (#)
Ranking: 0
>Submitted by WellFedEthiopian (user info) at 2005-07-05 00:47:09 (#)
>Ranking: -1
>
>I'm sure its been mentioned below, but Wal-Mart does not practice capitalism, it's more like a >monopoly.
Not a very successful monopoly when you have a Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy, and 5 grocery stores on the same 2 mile stretch of road.
-----------------------------
I'd say its well on its way when it forces its suppliers to sell goods to them at an unprofitable price and then leveraging it to crush the smaller business. At this rate, Wal-Mart will soon control and dictate the production and distribution of virtually all consumer products in the U.S.. When that happens, it would be absurd to think that Wal-Mart will not use their monopoly status to raise their prices and consumers will not be able to do anything about it because Wal-Mart has already put other consumer choices out of business. I'm not a history expert, but what Wal-Mart is doing sounds kind of like Standard Oil back in the 19th century.
Submitted by IhateTomCruise (user info) at 2005-07-05 01:51:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
william.. sorry ass "english".. don't drink and uber.
anyway, yeah, you don't think any man should be able to be disgustingly rich and there lies the ground where we part ways because that is exactly what capitalism affords.
i hate supporting people with no ambition.
Submitted by LeavesTeethMarks (user info) at 2005-07-05 01:28:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
>Submitted by WellFedEthiopian (user info) at 2005-07-05 00:47:09 (#)
>Ranking: -1
>
>I'm sure its been mentioned below, but Wal-Mart does not practice capitalism, it's more like a >monopoly.
Not a very successful monopoly when you have a Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy, and 5 grocery stores on the same 2 mile stretch of road.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-07-05 01:21:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by IhateTomCruise (user info) at 2005-07-04 23:58:01 (#)
Ranking: 2
yes, you definitely are a socialist and you don't get capitalism but you DO get the sorry ass Enlish.
=--=-=-=-=-=--=
I don't "get" capitalism because I believe no man should have the freedom to make disgusting amounts of money, and that the good of the majority outweigh the rights of the individual.
sorry ass enlish?
Submitted by WellFedEthiopian (user info) at 2005-07-05 00:47:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
I'm sure its been mentioned below, but Wal-Mart does not practice capitalism, it's more like a monopoly. Obviously, some natural monopolies exist that are for the good of the consumer, (e.g. telecommunications, utilities, etc.)retailing of consumer goods, however, is not. I fail to see how Wal-Mart will make the U.S. a more competitive player in the world when virtually all of its suppliers (and also jobs) are working (and spending their wages) overseas.
Submitted by IhateTomCruise (user info) at 2005-07-04 23:58:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
yes, you definitely are a socialist and you don't get capitalism but you DO get the sorry ass Enlish.
Submitted by alfakyle (user info) at 2005-07-04 23:48:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Then how do you explain the closure of the only unionized Wal-Mart in North America, in Quebec?"
If I remember correctly, to sell a product in Quebec, it has to have French labeling -- how much would that cost? I could be wrong, but that's why a company I used to work for closed their Quebec stores.
Combine that with the employess having to pay union dues, and there ya go. The employees earn above minimum wage, but the dues drop it down, so they have to get paid more. Unions are destroying the economies of too many countries and they have to be stopped!
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-07-04 23:44:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by IhateTomCruise (user info) at 2005-07-04 23:36:27 (#)
Ranking: 2
will, walmart is already influencing the nation as a whole. many, many small towns that once had an array of small-time, family owned stores lining a downtown square are now empty, dilapitaded buildings and in my opinion monopolizes the job market as well as the consumer market. but having said that, i'm shocked that you would suggest socializing a retail company because of success. generally speaking, across the nation, many larger cities enjoy a wider variety of retail stores to choose from.
I don't wish to see my tax money spent regulating WALMARTS. The public can do a fine job of that themselves. Don't shop there, and don't work there if you don't like it.
You seem like a commie.
=-=-=--==--=-==-=-==-==
Hmmm interesting.
Walmart-like stores are necessary. They are the result of growing mass production ever since industrialisation. Mom and Pop stores will need to learn to compete and although I do feel for them, greater cheaper means of retail are better for society as a whole and are the way of the future. I support Wal-Mart... I just don't support the idea of a small group of people owning it.
Now, you don't want your tax-dollars regualating it? Walmart profits annually = 8 billion dollars
$8,000,000,000 minus regulation costs = $$$$$$$$$$$ = More money in the government reserves = TAX BREAKS
Don't shop there? Whether it's Walmart, oil companies or banks, we need these big companies. It's practically impossible to live without them.
Oh, and yes, I am a socialist.
Submitted by LeavesTeethMarks (user info) at 2005-07-04 23:39:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
>Submitted by dodahdave (user info) at 2005-07-04 23:16:15 (#)
>Ranking: 0
>
>Really?
>
>Then how do you explain the closure of the only unionized Wal-Mart in North America, in Quebec?
Canada.... meh....
Submitted by IhateTomCruise (user info) at 2005-07-04 23:36:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
will, walmart is already influencing the nation as a whole. many, many small towns that once had an array of small-time, family owned stores lining a downtown square are now empty, dilapitaded buildings and in my opinion monopolizes the job market as well as the consumer market. but having said that, i'm shocked that you would suggest socializing a retail company because of success. generally speaking, across the nation, many larger cities enjoy a wider variety of retail stores to choose from.
I don't wish to see my tax money spent regulating WALMARTS. The public can do a fine job of that themselves. Don't shop there, and don't work there if you don't like it.
You seem like a commie.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-07-04 23:17:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Ever since the industrial revolution the means of production have become more and more socialised and so have the means of retail.
I, unlike many others, realise that companies like Walmart must exist in order to give the people the best possible deals. This is cheap, socialised retail from cheap socialised production.
But what if the influences of such a large retailer began impacting on the nation as a whole? The solution is to socialise companies like Walmart.
The benefits of socialising major retails are that:
1) Those who buy the most and pay the most to the company, will contribute to the company's kitty which is returned to the people equally in taxes.
2) The company has a disincentive to do anything that will hurt the nation as a whole because the company is part of the nation.
3) The company cannot go bankrupt (only in dire dire national crises) or get sold to overseas plutocrats (like American oil).
4) The profits of the company contribute towards public services and not a swiss bank account.
5) If the management of the company is shitty, the government can do something about it, which is responsible to the people.
6) Lowers the rich/poor gap.
Submitted by dodahdave (user info) at 2005-07-04 23:16:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Robert_of_Duluth (user info) at 2005-07-04 23:10:52 (#)
Ranking: 2
"The POINT is, if you offer your employees a fair wage with fair benefits Wal-Mart IS going to put you out of business. Wal-Mart uses bureaucracy to break unions by sending them broke. It is cheaper for Wal-Mart to break the law against their employees and in years' time pay a token fine than to actually negotiate with the union. The other independant store owners and chains can't compete with Wal-Mart because they (at least most of them) aren't as morally bankrupt."
I'm afraid you're sources are wrong. Wal-Mart employees are not unionized because they have repeatedly refused voluntarily. Wal-Mart voluntarily pays ABOVE the minimum wage and offers great benefits to employees.
---------
Really?
Then how do you explain the closure of the only unionized Wal-Mart in North America, in Quebec?
Submitted by Robert_of_Duluth (user info) at 2005-07-04 23:13:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"It's called globalization. Why pay an American to do a job what somebody who lives in poverty will gladly do for 1/50th of the wage? It's a race to the bottom to see which worker is willing to live and work in the worst conditions for the lowest pay. You will think it is fine until it boomerangs back to you."
Nobody's forcing those people to work at those wages, they do it because it is better than the conditions they are living in without the company. Would it be better for the company to pull out and leave them with nothing. Jobs at American companies are coveted there because it is a hell of a lot better than working in the rice paddies.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-07-04 23:12:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Good job.
One may want to read this http://www.xanga.com/d_prime
Submitted by TrickyRicky (user info) at 2005-07-04 23:12:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by Robert_of_Duluth (user info) at 2005-07-04 23:10:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"The POINT is, if you offer your employees a fair wage with fair benefits Wal-Mart IS going to put you out of business. Wal-Mart uses bureaucracy to break unions by sending them broke. It is cheaper for Wal-Mart to break the law against their employees and in years' time pay a token fine than to actually negotiate with the union. The other independant store owners and chains can't compete with Wal-Mart because they (at least most of them) aren't as morally bankrupt."
I'm afraid you're sources are wrong. Wal-Mart employees are not unionized because they have repeatedly refused voluntarily. Wal-Mart voluntarily pays ABOVE the minimum wage and offers great benefits to employees.
Submitted by Robert_of_Duluth (user info) at 2005-07-04 23:08:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"It's called monopolization. One company catering for the entire populus is able to lower prices because of the sheer volume of sales. It also means all the profits are being amassed by the one monopoly, as opposed to being distributed among thousands."
First, Wal-Mart does not have a monopoly on the large retail stores. Ever heard of Target? Or formerly K-Mart? Beyond that, in response to "It also means all the profits are being amassed by the one monopoly, as opposed to being distributed among thousands", if the service that Wal-Mart provides can be done by so few people, those thousands of people would better serve the economy in another sector since Wal-Mart and Target has the large retail section covered. Why should consumers have to pay for thousands of people to do the work that the few in the large retail stores can do more efficiently. That's what they tried to do in Soviet Russia, doesn't work. Capitalism works by weeding out innefficiency and allows for cheap products for everyone. More jobs will be opened up in the economy the more commerce there is so those thousands will certainly have jobs elseware. Say in North Korea it takes thousands to to retail and in America it just takes the few in Wal-Mart or Target. N. Korea also doesn't have a movie industry, software, etc. industry.
Submitted by bigfish (user info) at 2005-07-04 23:01:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"A company able to sell goods and services at more affordable prices AND offers greater selection? I call that CAPITALISM."
It's called monopolization. One company catering for the entire populus is able to lower prices because of the sheer volume of sales. It also means all the profits are being amassed by the one monopoly, as opposed to being distributed among thousands.
"Point is, if you can offer a better product, Wal-Mart isn't going to put you out of business."
The POINT is, if you offer your employees a fair wage with fair benefits Wal-Mart IS going to put you out of business. Wal-Mart uses bureaucracy to break unions by sending them broke. It is cheaper for Wal-Mart to break the law against their employees and in years' time pay a token fine than to actually negotiate with the union. The other independant store owners and chains can't compete with Wal-Mart because they (at least most of them) aren't as morally bankrupt.
""Outsourcing jobs overseas". Holy shit, I guess somebody didn't tell John Kerry we've had a term for this practice for a while now in America. It's called FREE TRADE."
It's called globalization. Why pay an American to do a job what somebody who lives in poverty will gladly do for 1/50th of the wage? It's a race to the bottom to see which worker is willing to live and work in the worst conditions for the lowest pay. You will think it is fine until it boomerangs back to you.