(November 8, 2014 at 2:23 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Bad wealth is what Walmart does. We subsidize their bank accounts through food stamps because their workers are basically stuck buying at those places most of the time because that is the only place they can afford to shop. And on top of tax payers subsidizing their low wages mentality, they also move into a location and undercut and kill small businesses.

Walk into a Walmart and then walk into a Costco and look the employees. The Walmart employees look like they just got off the boat. Costco employees are much higher caliber. If you forced Walmart to pay Costco wages...what do you think Walmart will do? They will begin to look for Costco caliber employees. Those who aren't Costco Caliber will have few job opportunities. Walmart is good for the economy because it provides jobs to people who have the hardest time finding jobs.

Also another thing you lefties overlook is that Walmart and Costco have different business models. Walmart stocks about 100,000 different items much of which need to be tediously stock on shelves. Costco stocks about 4000 items which are rolled out onto floor on pallets and shoved into bays. A typical Coscto employs a lot less people than a Walmart. Consequently Costco needs a higher caliber employee. If you have 10 people scheduled and 1 lays off....that hurts a lot more than if you have 100 people scheduled and 1 lays off. Costco pays more to their employees because there business model demands more from their employees.

Costco would like you to think they pay more because they are a responsible employer....but the truth is they pay more because their business model requires it to work properly. The government intervention you want in the market will screw people. It will require them to become completely government dependent. But that's what the left wants....a voter based completely dependent on the government.

Sorry, you are trying to twist it to suit your own desires. Nothing more.

---

No different than when a right winger reads their holy book to justify social pecking orders.

(November 8, 2014 at 5:06 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Sorry, you are trying to twist it to suit your own desires. Nothing more.

---

No different than when a right winger reads their holy book to justify social pecking orders.

I'm trying to get you to look at the world yourself....to think for yourself....to ask questions like what are the potential downsides if we did this or that? Is this statistic really relevant....what is it that is relevant that I should be looking at?

You're a brainwashed demozombie and I am trying to save you.

(November 8, 2014 at 12:56 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I'm sorry but if you are making the same case I am if you think trusting the private sector after everything it has done over the past 30 years in getting most of what it has wanted, by removing more regulations that magically the private sector will will do the right thing on it's own is patently absurd. Libertarians are nothing but republicans on steroids.

Sorry, it is simply even a worse argument to justify more greed and exploitation.

You're a simplistic thinker and incapable of nuance.

(November 8, 2014 at 10:55 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(November 8, 2014 at 12:56 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I'm sorry but if you are making the same case I am if you think trusting the private sector after everything it has done over the past 30 years in getting most of what it has wanted, by removing more regulations that magically the private sector will will do the right thing on it's own is patently absurd. Libertarians are nothing but republicans on steroids.

Sorry, it is simply even a worse argument to justify more greed and exploitation.

You're a simplistic thinker and incapable of nuance.

Spoken like a true apologist. Let me translate for you. "I don't like it when you see through the elaborate tripe"

You don't like me for the same reason religious people do not like me. Occham's razor.

It really is not complicated at all. When you know that ecosystems are better for all species when they are not lopsided all the species in that ecosystem do better. You still have diversity and some inequity but it cannot survive when it gets lopsided in any direction.

COSTCO was not good enough of an example for you. Billionaire Nick Hanauer is not good enough for you. And I am sure that Robert Reich who is an economist is also not good enough for you.

You are reacting just like a theist when you tell them there is no god.

You like theists argue "nuance" thinking "it is complex" and "you wouldn't understand" works on someone who DOES understand that humans are diverse and slapping your utopia script on everyone else works for everyone else.

You might as well be a Muslim arguing for global Islamic dominance. If it makes no sense that a religion will get everything that it wants, why should business get everything it wants?

You are arguing for YOUR view of how economics should go. But there are others in the world who know as much about it as you do that disagree with you. So like I said, you do not get to decide in a politically diverse society and economically diverse society how it should go. That is why WE vote, not just you.

(November 8, 2014 at 11:18 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(November 8, 2014 at 10:55 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: You're a simplistic thinker and incapable of nuance.

Spoken like a true apologist. Let me translate for you. "I don't like it when you see through the elaborate tripe"

You don't like me for the same reason religious people do not like me. Occham's razor.

Nonsense. When logic fails, you reach for imprecation, as you're doing here.

(November 8, 2014 at 11:18 pm)Brian37 Wrote: It really is not complicated at all. When you know that ecosystems are better for all species when they are not lopsided all the species in that ecosystem do better. You still have diversity and some inequity but it cannot survive when it gets lopsided in any direction.

COSTCO was not good enough of an example for you. Billionaire Nick Hanauer is not good enough for you. And I am sure that Robert Reich who is an economist is also not good enough for you.

You are reacting just like a theist when you tell them there is no god.

Really? Reread my point: you're incapable of nuance. Now, reread this reply of yours. It might have escaped your notice that I'm not arguing with your premise, but critiquing your style.

(November 8, 2014 at 11:18 pm)Brian37 Wrote: You like theists argue "nuance" thinking "it is complex" and "you wouldn't understand" works on someone who DOES understand that humans are diverse and slapping your utopia script on everyone else works for everyone else.

What is my "Utopia script"? I'm critiquing your sloppy thinking, not arguing against your premise.

(November 8, 2014 at 11:18 pm)Brian37 Wrote: You might as well be a Muslim arguing for global Islamic dominance. If it makes no sense that a religion will get everything that it wants, why should business get everything it wants?

Where did I say that? Link and quote, or recant.

(November 8, 2014 at 11:18 pm)Brian37 Wrote: You are arguing for YOUR view of how economics should go. But there are others in the world who know as much about it as you do that disagree with you. So like I said, you do not get to decide in a politically diverse society and economically diverse society how it should go. That is why WE vote, not just you.

Thanks, Captain Obvious. I know by now that I'm not a dictator. But just as you have, and misuse at high volume, your voice, so do I use my own to promulgate my own views.

Rather than attack me, answer the point I made earlier. In case you forgot, I've looked back to fetch it for you. Make your next post a reasonable reply to the point, please.

Parkers Tan Wrote:[...] not all libertarians or conservatives think that liberals want a communist state. You might have more success in changing minds by working with moderates, rather than assuming that those who disagree with you must be extremist.

That is an invitation to discussion and not polemics. Show your ability to do so by answering the point, rather than attacking the speaker.

(November 8, 2014 at 1:29 pm)Heywood Wrote: Walmart and McDonald's increase the standard of living and we are better off that they exist.

You clearly haven't eaten the crap McDonald's passes off as food recently.

(November 9, 2014 at 9:07 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: You clearly haven't eaten the crap McDonald's passes off as food recently.

Actually it's not that crappy in Austria. Our laws concerning ingredients are pretty strict.

(November 9, 2014 at 9:12 pm)abaris Wrote:

(November 9, 2014 at 9:07 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: You clearly haven't eaten the crap McDonald's passes off as food recently.

Actually it's not that crappy in Austria. Our laws concerning ingredients are pretty strict.

Here in America, it tastes like plastic. It's loaded with salt and chemicals which beggar pronunciation, it has about six jillion calories per serving with 80% of them from fat, and buying one of their burgers is a good way to corner the market on cholesterol.

(November 9, 2014 at 9:55 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Here in America, it tastes like plastic. It's loaded with salt and chemicals which beggar pronunciation, it has about six jillion calories per serving with 80% of them from fat, and buying one of their burgers is a good way to corner the market on cholesterol.

Yeah, I watched a video about the pink slime. Made me want to vomit. That's what you get when capitalism is running unchained. Don't get me wrong, we've got capitalism too, but there are strict regulations in place when it comes to food.