Americans are being terrorized into not celebrating Xmas

[Rhizomorph13]

Wow Pippy,

What an emotionally charged rant! Here are a few things that come to mind when I sift through what you wrote.

Unions are an unnecessary drag on resources.

Large corporations provide value through leveraging economies of scale; tariffs hinder those economies of scale by limiting, through economic pressure, where corporations can reasonably source their inputs to production.

The system isn't perfect but we can make it better. The system will not benefit from the destruction of Walmart; only through focused policy reform can real change be attained.

What is wrong with purchasing inputs to production from the countries that have an over-abundance? For example: Labor in China, lumber from America, oil from OPEC nations, or potassium from Kazakhstan (I've heard that other countries have inferior potassium)? NAFTA brought about reform that facilitates benefits from international trade.

Rhizo

[theVOID]

Hey,
If I may...

They also employ a lot of people in areas where small business have failed on their own. Yeah they're big business and there is always a downside, i just don't think it's as one sided as you.

All I said, and I feel it still very valid, is that people who shop at walmart do not deserve full-time employment.

People who want cheaper goods do not deserve the right to work full time? That is utter nonsense and completely counter intuitive to your point because the less money people have the more likely they are to shop cheaper.

What about the family who are up to their neck in bills and couldn't afford to shop at a local business? Do they deserve less money? As you can see it is completely counter intuitive thinking.

This is because if supporting walmart, you have to support them as a whole. Walmart is not a close friend of yours offering savings because they really and truly care about your quality of life.

No, they offer cheaper prices because they have a purchasing and negotiating power with suppliers, which is due to the fact that people chose to shop with them in the first place. It's a mutually beneficial arrangement.

If you decide that the most important bottom line is the cheapest products possible, than you have to live with that choice, and all its implications.

Some don't have the luxury you seem to have to chose to buy something else.

If you prioritize saving a few cents over supporting any kind of reasonable economy, then you are choosing a walmart world of minimum wage work, never enough hours, no proper benefits.

1) Global economics is a more reasonable and long-term economic model.

2) Plenty of local businesses also pay little more than minimum wage, especially in the grocery industry.

Walmart might not be the best employer by a mile, but they still make jobs that don't exist. They are a last resort for people and i wouldn't want to be in that position - but some people are.

And the next level, with 90% of the products being imported you are choosing to support the manufacturing industry that is 1000's of miles removed from you. You are also choosing not to have employee unions.

Unions, what is this? the 1930s?

Supporting industry 1000 miles away is a good thing, you have formed a tie between two communities, the purchasing community who need the product and the supplier who needs money, economic interdependency is a good thing.

You are stating that you don't want anything of any quality,

That's complete nonsense, what i am saying is some times quality is not an important factor in purchasing decisions.

but everything as cheap and disposable as possible.

Oh, so walmart only make disposable products? so a computer i buy from walmart is more disposable than the one from the local computer guy? It's the same spec Pc that will last just as long but COSTS LESS. Why pay more for no benefit?

And every cheap, disposable object has to be shipped overseas for a short involvement in your life before you throw it out and do it again. We are also now edging onto the pollution issue, because this very economic model is about as inefficient as possible.

What makes you think that i will own something i bought from walmart for any less amount of time than something from a specialist store?? Fuck, they're often the same brands.

Someone's a little bitter i sense - have a personal problem with a corporation Pippy?

But it's recognized as a living (but never dying) entity with it's own rights.
With that comes my right to have a "personal problem" with this living co-operations actions that affect my life. You make it sound so petty, but am I really expected to have no negative feelings towards the actions I have seen the Walmart group doing for many years?

You are free to think whatever you want, that's not debatable, i just sensed a story there.

I think global economy is a far more powerful force for good than the local economy.

Give me an example of how the global economic model is a "far more powerful force for good" than local economy, if you could. I can go on and on about the issues it has created. It was decentralized control and the outsourcing of dangerous work that led to the Bhopal incident. Look at pre-NAFTA Mexico City, and post-NAFTA. How many products made in China were recalled last year? Were the recalls effective? If you see the global economy as a force for good, you must really be ignoring or missing a lot of the information, including basic economic principles.

Then you likewise provide evidence to the contrary.

My main reason for supporting a global economy is because it builds economic interdependence between nations and regions, strengthening ties and creating a strong reason for avoiding conflict and promoting mutual respect - something a local economy cannot ever deliver as it contains the trade of goods and services and thus interdependence within a relatively small population who no longer have any vested interest at all in maintaining good relations with other regions.

lead to interdependency and make conflict too costly

Or more likely, if the interdependency becomes one-sided or unfair. Trust me, there are much better motivators for avoiding conflict that we should try first.

The other ones don't work. Look at the British and the French - they hated each other for hundreds of years even though they were so similar, had the same faith in the same god, had a number of cultural and political similarities and the geographical similarity yet none of that nor human decency stopped the conflict. It was only when the nations began to trade and become interdependent that the conflicts stopped and the two nations are relatively close now in a global context.

Both are essential but ultimately the global economy is more beneficial for both peace and innovation.

I can only see that being possibly true if you were talking in an ideological sense. The perfect, functioning and well-maintained global economy, in theory, could potentially be "Better for peace and innovation". But the global economy as it stands today, and also where it appears to be going, are the exact opposite of such. Peace and innovation? We are in the middle of a perpetual war against an emotion that is part of an economic "protection racket" and are driving the same cars we had 100 years ago. Do you see peace and innovation? Please be kind enough to point that out, as it pertains to global economy. And don't say the stupid Gates foundation, or some flaky pseudo-philanthropy, because problems pretending to be solved by the ultra-rich that were in their own right caused by the global economic models flaws (that made them ultra-rich) do not count.

Where we appear to be going is a very good direction, environment asside, the scale of conflict worldwide is relatively low, no two superpowers have their missiles aimed at each other and while there is an element of extremism it aint no cold war. Want to know why there won't be another cold war? Because China, Russia and the USA are too dependent on each other. Every nation, even if not struck directly by the physical terror of nuclear war will suffer greatly due the removal of a major trade partner leading to the loss of jobs which leads to poverty and a lack of development.

It is also common knowledge that economic competition is the prime driver for innovation this century. With small businesses and local economies the competition will slow down tremendously leading to the slower development of new technologies, medicines, agricultural techniques etc all of which tremendously enhance all of our lives. Funnily enough there is an emerging technological showdown in green technologies, something that will be very good for fighting climate change mid to long term and it will be fueled directly by economic competition.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet also populate that list, yet they are the easily amongst biggest individual philanthropists the world has seen. They've done more for the species than the equivalent net worth of local business owners combined while providing an equal, if not greater amount of jobs.

You're kidding right? You're just pulling my leg? You are gonna stand there and defend Bill Gates and Warren fucking Buffet as heros?

Take a consortium of local business owners up to the net worth of Gates and then find out who donated a higher percent of the total personal income from equal amounts spent by the public. Gates will come out as more generous by a significant amount. This means that the people who bought from Gates ended up having a far more significant portion of that money donated to charitable enterprise than a combination of local businesses.

Judging from our prior disagreements, I am gonna assume you are a multi-millionaire. That is the only reason I can think that you would get any sense that the world you want to live in is in any way coherent to the world they want to live in.

Judging from our prior disagreements, I am gonna assume you are an technophobe-hippy. That is the only reason i can think that you would get any sense that the world you want to live in is in any way coherent to the world we actually live in.

Bill gates and Warren Buffet. God damn. If they did more for us as a species... I can't even begin to express how silly that is. What does the statement that "they did more for the species than the equivalent net worth of local business owners combined while providing an equal if not greater amount of jobs" even mean?

Meaning quite simply take the effect that any small business movement has ever had and compare it to what Gates did for the computer revolution that is improving all areas of life from medicine to education to entertainment, not to mention the thousands upon thousands of jobs that were created in an entirely new field, personal computing, combined with the fact that his full time job is now supporting people with AIDS in 3rd world countries.... What has local business ever done to match that significance?

When I lived on an island in the States, we had a law. No franchised corp was allowed to build on the island. They fought tooth and nail, they tried to put a Subway, a McDonalds... It did not matter that the locals did not want one, so they were forced to legislate. Why would they do that? Because even one franchised corp would ship that much money out of the local economy, and replace peoples self employment with a far less accommodating work. That is an example of local economy, as it was surrounded by 30 miles of water it was easier to understand.

That's great if they want to live on an isolated island and take care of themselves, just don't expect me to find that idea appealing in any way.

Bottom line, if the global economic model was one that functioned, we would have already seen so.

If it hasn't worked yet it never will? Sure, real factual statement... Let's just ignore the fact that economic competition has lead to more life enhancing innovations than i could possibly name.

How about this - When has the world ever been more connected?

The IMF, the WTO, the specter of "free-trade" (I am running out of stream, but ask me about free trade, soft-wood lumber, and Metclad Inc. one day, that's a good rant too) have done nothing but worsen many problems. World hunger is worse than ever

That is completely made up. The number of people living on less than $1.25 a day has fallen from 56% in 1980 to 23% today. Infant mortality in low income countries has fallen by 87% over 20 years. Adult literacy is also up Males from 72-86%, females from 56-74%. Poverty in east asia has fallen by over 80% 50% in south africa. Malnourishment is down 28% in sub Saharan africa.

sweatshop style labour have increased.

Sources?

Product quality has decreased, health concerns about these products abound. We have a much smaller manufacturing base. We have let them outsource everything, and where is the profit that they realized?

It is being rebalanced because the US lost it's disproportionate economic influence. All of this is making things more level and creating even more interdependency - which you already know i think is a good thing.

If you choose to shop at Walmart, you don't deserve full-time employment.

Cant' even begin to tell you how much i disagree with that statement, and how condescending it is to people who have no other options.

[Meatball]

I agree with Pippy, to an extent. The problem is that things aren't so cut and dry. Shopping at Wal-mart is bad for local economies and good for... a few people in Texas?

The problem isn't as simple as people making a choice to shop at Walmart. It's a downward spiral that creates people with less money, and empowers corps like Walmart to offer increasingly low prices that local business have no way of competing with. It's a back-and-forth effect that drains a local economy and drives small businesses into ruin.

This wouldn't be a problem if Walmart used that money to help those communities, but beyond offering low price goods, it doesn't. Walmart sends that money straight out of those places and into the pockets of a handful of already wealthy people, the only people who are truly profitting off this shameful racket.

Supermassive global corporations like Walmart can, on paper, operate fine and enrich communities, but they don't. With the amount of money they make at the top of the pyramid, they could afford to pay a lot of people very decent wages and improve a lot of lives. With the incredible advantage they have via supply and distribution, the Gordon Gecko of the Walmart world could still make a tidy profit and fund plenty of yachts and mansions while letting the Greeter Joes buy a fishing boat and a bungalow every now and then.

But that's not good enough. They have to push that profit margin to the redline. They need to squeeze every drop out of the world to please the shareholders.

Fuck, I just got myself all pissed off typing that rant. Summary: The world is a shitty place and people don't care about each other.

[Rhizomorph13]

Meatball,

Thank you for proving that you are still sane. I see all those problems that you see. The fact remains that the money that is leaving was traded for goods that stay to enrich the community. Who says that corporations or sole-proprieterships need to enrich the community in any way besides providing quality products at a reasonable price? Business has nothing to do with that, although large corporations usually DO contribute to charities to bolster their public image; I would rather they just skip it and pass on even more savings to me, or raise their workers wages .

All players in the market need to differentiate their product; Walmart does this through consistent quality and low prices. Those mom and pop shops need to differentiate what they are selling to compete in the market or find a different market to move into. Unfortunatly it isn't a smooth process...

For example, there was a local craft shop that had a great selection of FIMO clay that I shopped in frequently; when Walmart moved into Mcminnville the local craft shopped fizzled out because Walmart carried many of the same goods that the craft shop carried. The owner of the craft shop should have marched into Walmart and surveyed what they carried and found some niche items that were absent from Walmart's line up so he could compete through specialization. His real problem was that he was a git who failed to foster good relations with the community and so people like me who want FIMO clay were ok with a smaller selection so they wouldn't have to deal with him.

Competition is good for everyone and many mom and pop stores only hold positions on "main street, anytown USA" by virtue of being the first one to serve the community's need in a particular market. Bottom line is that when a business fails when Walmart moves into town it is because they didn't adapt fast enough to market trends.

Rhizo

[Eilonnwy]

So this has turned to a hate on Walmart thread? Joy!

I'm always amused by the people who hate shopping at Walmart but do it anyway. My mother said that to me when she told me she's getting a Wii there. "I hate shopping at Walmart, but they have the Wii for $199 plus a $50 gift card, which I can use for a game" and so she stuffs down her righteous indignation to go shop there for that free game to give to my sister on Christmas. What?

I have no problem shopping at Walmart. They provide jobs. Maybe not the best Jobs, but they are Jobs.

Also, as far as Walmart providing shitty products, my sewing machine that I got there on the fly when my other one broke is fucking awesome.

I agree with what Meatball said, it ain't perfect. I do not believe in either extremes of Walmart hate or love. I think we need to strike a balance. I don't believe in a completely free market without any sort of regulations, but I don't believe in making it so every Joe schmoe has an equal share of the pie either. I think it's fair to have some regulations so the average consumer and employer doesn't get royally fucked, but still allow cooperations to make a buck.

[Pippy]

Yeah,

Now I remember how I was the king of thread hijacks, creating pages of dialog as an absolute non sequitor to the thread... How I reminisce.

It's a downward spiral that creates people with less money,

Thanks Meatball, that is a good point that I think I glossed over in my tirade. That people that are so poor as to not be able to shop anywhere else, as Void purports, are themselves a creation of the same economic principles not only practiced by Walmart, but even championed by them.

The world is a shitty place and people don't care about each other.

We just do what we can to make it less shitty, and remember to try to care...

What about the family who are up to their neck in bills and couldn't afford to shop at a local business? Do they deserve less money? As you can see it is completely counter intuitive thinking.

Hey Void, I will try to be much more concise, as to try to allow people to talk about being terrorized into not celebrating Christmas.
I am trying to argue that families that are up to their necks in bills and can't afford to shop anywhere but Walmart are in that situation because of things like Walmart (in that predatory capitalism is bad for quality of life). So I am not saying that they deserve less money because they have to pay just a little more for their groceries or stuff, but that they don't deserve to be in the situation where they are as poor as you describe. And someone that poor is likely not employed, and if they are it would probably be at minimum wage for 20 hours a week. So I am saying that they deserve good employment, then we could skip the desperate poorness, and that their poorness is a symptom of which the Walmart philosophy is part of the cause.

Some don't have the luxury you seem to have to chose to buy something else.

Yes, but why don't they have that luxury? I mean the savings is minimal, we're not talking a huge difference in cost of living. And I would guess that a lot of people who are "po' folk" could save a lot more money (and live much healthier lives) if they didn't rely on cigarettes, soda pop and Mcdonalds. There we are again with day-to-day decision making trumping other factors.

It's a mutually beneficial arrangement.

That is certainly not he case. It is beneficial for the top rung brass, and especially the manufacturing base, but someone, somewhere is coming up a big loser in the deal. Namely the people who used to have a job before Walmart got to town, but also local culture and habits. That is another story though.

Global economics is a more reasonable and long-term economic model.

I would argue that it could be the best model, but it could also be the worst. Let me give an example that might start a whole new hijack, world governance. The idea of world governance is neutral. We can have as good a world government as we can a bad. If someone offers you something like that you have to ask if it is done well, or poorly. If it is functional or dysfunctional. If it is good or evil (for the most archaic terms). So a global economy could in theory have many benefits, but I think it is clear beyond doubt that modern economy is more than a little flawed. We can't say that by necessity, world globalization is good, but there are good and bad paths, and we have to address the bad ones.

Walmart might not be the best employer by a mile, but they still make jobs that don't exist.

Again, let me reiterate. I think it is incorrect to assume that a town without a walmart has fewer jobs that a town with one. Taking into account the devastating effect on the other, more localized economies, of course. They certainly do not create jobs that didn't exist, and there is no way I could see that there is a net positive.

Unions, what is this? the 1930s?

No. You think a trade union is some old fashioned thing? Holy shit. I would say they are more important now than ever. I will also point out that a union is another idea that can be good or bad, and there are plenty of examples of bad unions, and that that is not a slight on the idea itself.

Why pay more for no benefit?

I am trying to argue that there is many benefits to paying more, and that by paying slightly less you are costing yourself far more than some spare change.

Then you likewise provide evidence to the contrary.

I did, did you see? I mentioned NAFTA's impact on Mexico city, Bhopal as well as quality control and saftey measure concerns. What about the incentive to privatize things like water sources, trees, police services? Those have devastating effects. And I also mentioned that the pollution problem is almost entirely a result of modern version of economic globalization... The list goes on and on, if you would like I can probably write 10,000 words in evidence contrary to the current style of global economy being good, or certainly best.

Where we appear to be going is a very good direction, environment asside, the scale of conflict worldwide is relatively low, no two superpowers have their missiles aimed at each other and while there is an element of extremism it aint no cold war.

I could literally not disagree any more. I would not describe the human condition as "very good" at all. The scale of conflict has never been higher in some senses. There may be a few less boots on the ground than the height of the second great war, but the rhetoric and belief of necessity has never been greater. I would not have believed you if you had told me 10 years ago that we would let America and NATO fight a "war on terrorism". That not only would the idea of perpetual war for perpetual peace be unveiled, but that the average people would believe it. Just astounding, and that part of the war is much, much larger than never before. I mean the president just gave a nice little speech about the necessity of war, and how humans can't be expected to act any better than that, as he accepted a Nobel peace prize. Don't feel too bad about that though, they gave one to fucking Kissinger.

I can name multiple superpowers that I beleive have evidence of missiles aimed at each other. Russia and America, maybe. But the world is far bigger than that. How about India/Pakistan. How about Israel/Iran. Maybe Israel and Syria or Lebanon. China has missiles. North Korea has recently threatened America again (but we know it's a bluff). Ummmm... that might be all possibles. I know that America has said to have stopped flying bombers with nukes all the time, which is for the better since they tended to drop them in Canada by accident.

economic competition is the prime driver for innovation this century

At it's healthiest, may be. But add a little greed to the equation and people make organized religion, crack cocaine and planned obsolescence, the antitheses (literally) of innovation.

Bill Gates is one of the largest financial supporters of the GMO (genetically modified organism) industry. They talked him into how they will solve world hunger, just after they make a ton of money and permanently alter the genealogical structures of things essential to life first. That is not philanthropy, we are worse off for every dollar anyone donates to Monsanto. By not supporting that bad idea in a multi-million dollar way, you and I are a far more valuable human than Gates. Don't worship false idols, you know.

That wasn't concise, but I find myself strongly disagreeing with a lot of your argument. I hear you that my line about Walmart offends and seems stupid to you. I think you look a little silly supporting what is so obviously (to me) a very detrimental thing. So we will have to agree to disagree again, I fear.

Thank you for listening,
"We hold these truths to be self evident",
-Pip

[Rhizomorph13]

Pippy,

For the record, I see some of the problems that your crazed brain has fermented into looming problems with society and slippery slopes that will drag us all to hell. I do not "support" Walmart, I just see that they have managed to do something better than the stores they disrupt through their competition. If someone was really smart they could engineer a store that does even better, by reducing the chasm between executives and the common worker.

For example, if execs were paid 25% of what they are paid now and common employees were given a couple dollars an hour pay raise, the net effect would be a greatly reduced cost which could be passed on to consumer and make Walmart irrelevent! Also, because of the difference in pay, workers would be clamoring to work at your store. So, learn how to manage a multi-million dollar retail establishment and you could, through your shrewd business sense, take down Walmart.

Rhizo

[LEDO]

Ahhh, Walmart. Walmart is a better place to work than many of the low paying jobs out there. It is a cut above fast food and waitressing. The low prices at Walmart are actually a blessing to low income people who live pay check to pay check. In fact for some people it makes a major lifestyle difference in their lives, being able to afford shoes, clothes, and school supplies.

[Pippy]

If you don't see the slippery slope that predatory capitalism posits, that doesn't make me crazy.

If you want to live in a WalMart world, please do it quietly so that the rest of us can try to be better humans somewhere else.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

We need an atheist holiday.... but how? lol

I assume you're using the royal 'we'--there IS NO 'WE' when referring to atheists.


Mate I'm retired. EVERY day is atheist holiday for me. The US seems burdened with a vocal and disproportionately powerful lunar religious right absent in my country and most other civilised nations.

Here Xmas is a secular holiday ,with lip service paid to the religious aspects by most people. EG; It's traditional for southern European,orthodox and Hispanic males to go to church,one of two visits a each year. Most Aussies consider such behaviour extreme. Xmas is about giving and getting presents, eating too much,getting shit faced and fighting with one's relatives.