Economic Distortion
Island_Savage
Join Date: 2003-09-30 Member: 21354Members
Join Date: 2003-09-30 Member: 21354Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Capitalism dead in the U.S.</div> I was in a heated economic debate with a few friends on mine the other day. The argument was comprised of most of the following details. They argue that capitalism is still alive in the U.S. That it is the lifeblood and what we stand for in this country, etc, etc.
When i look at today's economy and how it functions compared to the economy 100 years ago i see some major differences. Back in the 1800's more than 50,000 businesses controlled around 90% of the economic assets and power functions of the economy. This of course leads to fierce competition between competeing areas of the market. this would lead one to beleive that such competition is one of the major parts of capitalism. The fact that competition will keep the prices semi-balanced, and that one can rise up and create a business of varying sizes starting with nothiing. This is something that we have prided in ourselves for years. You can come to the U.S. with nothing, and make a name for yourself. I've seen a number of businesses go under in the last few years in my own town.
I look at today's economy and i see that 90% of the major economic assets are controlled by under 400 major corporations. These corporations usually work together in some way or means to create a standard price for something; Agreed upon by some board of executives. With this kind of market control in it appears to me to have elimnated what would be competition on a large scale, it only leads to competition in the retailers. The distributors of the product to the general public. The market we have in the U.S. is more monopolistic than capitalistic.
Which leads me to my next point, the government whose purpose and involvement through history with the economy has changed many time, isn't doing anything. As a matter of fact due to the powerful lobbying on these large corporations we see more laws which allow them more freedom and power in the market. For example a year or two ago, bush signed into law an act which relaxed toxic waste disposal regulations.
These are just a few examples i'll list a few more in future posts. but i'm interested to hear everyones idea on this.
When i look at today's economy and how it functions compared to the economy 100 years ago i see some major differences. Back in the 1800's more than 50,000 businesses controlled around 90% of the economic assets and power functions of the economy. This of course leads to fierce competition between competeing areas of the market. this would lead one to beleive that such competition is one of the major parts of capitalism. The fact that competition will keep the prices semi-balanced, and that one can rise up and create a business of varying sizes starting with nothiing. This is something that we have prided in ourselves for years. You can come to the U.S. with nothing, and make a name for yourself. I've seen a number of businesses go under in the last few years in my own town.
I look at today's economy and i see that 90% of the major economic assets are controlled by under 400 major corporations. These corporations usually work together in some way or means to create a standard price for something; Agreed upon by some board of executives. With this kind of market control in it appears to me to have elimnated what would be competition on a large scale, it only leads to competition in the retailers. The distributors of the product to the general public. The market we have in the U.S. is more monopolistic than capitalistic.
Which leads me to my next point, the government whose purpose and involvement through history with the economy has changed many time, isn't doing anything. As a matter of fact due to the powerful lobbying on these large corporations we see more laws which allow them more freedom and power in the market. For example a year or two ago, bush signed into law an act which relaxed toxic waste disposal regulations.
These are just a few examples i'll list a few more in future posts. but i'm interested to hear everyones idea on this.
Comments
It's socialism, democracy @ capitalism at the same time - no big companies taking over everything, people caring for eachother, democracy and prosperity (a lot of multinational companies are Dutch)
too bad it's also bureaucratic as hell.. *sigh* and the EU sucks..
Americans are expected to be consumers yet, American companies send thier manufacturing operations overseas because of they have lax environmental laws. Send all the "working class" jobs to countries where there are no labor laws...and now tech jobs are going overseas. Notice when you call tech support the operator always has an indian accent? Thats cuz thier in India. Even 3-D work is sent overseas nowadays. Why? because they can pay them less, dont have to provide benifits. Within 50-60 years Working Class (lower-middle class) families will be living at poverty level and America will serve as little more than corporate headquarters for middle-managers and executives to enjoy the freedoms this country provides.
Americans are expected to be consumers yet, American companies send thier manufacturing operations overseas because of they have lax environmental laws. Send all the "working class" jobs to countries where there are no labor laws...and now tech jobs are going overseas. Notice when you call tech support the operator always has an indian accent? Thats cuz thier in India. Even 3-D work is sent overseas nowadays. Why? because they can pay them less, dont have to provide benifits. Within 50-60 years Working Class (lower-middle class) families will be living at poverty level and America will serve as little more than corporate headquarters for middle-managers and executives to enjoy the freedoms this country provides. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which is my number 2 reason we should shut our borders tighter then the Korean DMZ.
It's the other way around. The big companies won't allow small companies to get started. Government is trying to hold back the big boys but it isn't doing a good job at it. I'm not really worried, things will work out eventually. I'd rather be in the position we are today then the position we were in 100 years ago. Hell, add another 50 years to that and you got slavery.
To give more flexibility to principled men like Kenneth Lay? <b>No thanks</b>.
This man is correct!
You want to challange a big company? Good luck. Red Tape and government subsidies are going to kill you. Also, why is it so bad to have big national companies? I can have the same soda wherever I go. I can get the right laundry detergent at any supermarket. Since when did bigger = badder?
EDIT
Bathroom monkey: You know why your little snipe there works? Because everyone knows who Kenneth Lay is. He became famous for his dishonesty. That means it is an out of the ordinary occurence. You're defeating your own argument by proving he is an anamoly.
Bathroom monkey: You know why your little snipe there works? Because everyone knows who Kenneth Lay is. He became famous for his dishonesty. That means it is an out of the ordinary occurence. You're defeating your own argument by proving he is an anamoly. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, he <i>wasn't</i> an anomoly. Enron . . WorldCom . . . Adelphia . . . the list goes on. He was simply the posterboy for corruption. And, in this case, an effectively used symbol.
Using your logic, I can open the sports page and conclude that the handful of athletes that I read about are the only talented ones out there in all of sports. Heck, I opened the Boston Globe and was able to conclude that Curt Schilling, Pedro Martinez, and Derek Lowe are the <b>only</b> players on the Boston Red Sox. Out of sight, out of existence!
However, what with the condensing of corporations, one person (or group of people) can do a <i>lot</i> of damage.
Touche.
Still, there are more good executives the bad ones. You just never hear about the good guys till they do something wrong. My point was that these aren't the norm. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Touche.
Still, there are more good executives the bad ones. You just never hear about the good guys till they do something wrong. My point was that these aren't the norm. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed . . . I know that the world isn't completely full of crazy, greedy, monstrous robber barrons, but I definitely like giving the government some flexibility and authority to weed them out.
A concession from Jammer? My day's complete <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
you can have the same buggy microsoft internet explorer anywhere you go ... gg
oh and maybe you can get a railroad ticket to chicago for $1000 (robber barons in the olden days). didn't they teach you about monopolies in school? no competition = less benefit for consumers... basic tenet of capitalism here people...
anyway I was originally saying the menix was talking about the wrong thing. i dont think he read the post. The thread starter said that only a few big companies exist. Then menix said "that's because the government encourages small companies." Don't see the connection there <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
oh and maybe you can get a railroad ticket to chicago for $1000 (robber barons in the olden days). didn't they teach you about monopolies in school? no competition = less benefit for consumers... basic tenet of capitalism here people...
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well not necessarily. Take Wal-Mart a huge company, safe to say they have a monopoly on....nearly everything. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> Now they hardly have any competition and their prices remain very low. Why? Because the second they start raising their prices, people get angry, they go shop at other stores that come in to pick up the pieces like vultures to a carcass. These monopolies won't raise prices to an unreasonable rate, as long as our system hasn't collapsed completely there well always be another place to go for whatever goods you need.
It used to only cost me like 4 bucks to get to chicago by train <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Economy is afterall just the monetary augmentation of basic society, and our most basic societal needs are food, shelter, safety to put our offspring in the world. This is not achieved by war and competition, but by predictability in personal safety and income. The competitive thought is, alas, a highly simplistic idea that is surviving from 19th century. Notion is: if we all go around killing each other, only the strongest will stand. Same holds for the competitive thought. Unfortunately it is only some of the complete equation, and I find it dubious that our economies, who wants competition, competition, competition, seems to be okay with our stores having prices on display. I mean, what is wrong with haggling about the price each time you go to shop? It's a waste of your time, basically. So set prices are more convenient, and efficient.
Try and transpose that on Big Economy. Lots of competition might create a few innovative winners, but it sure as heck also creates a number of losers, who basically wasted their time on nothing. As a society we would have been better off if they had used their strength and skill in an area where their labours wasn't wasted, basically. And as we can see from mergers, consolidation, this is a tendency that tends to happen anyway. People say "We merge to become more competitive", when in reality, they merge to eliminate competition.
Capitalism in america, while a good idea at the core, is taken into absurdity.
I fail to see why competition in the marketplace equals shady deals between competitors. The American marketplace is designed around individuals. The individual company owner and consumer play equal roles in productivity.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Economy is afterall just the monetary augmentation of basic society, and our most basic societal needs are food, shelter, safety to put our offspring in the world. This is not achieved by war and competition, but by predictability in personal safety and income. The competitive thought is, alas, a highly simplistic idea that is surviving from 19th century. Notion is: if we all go around killing each other, only the strongest will stand. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So....marketplace competition now equals war and death? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> /me puts head in hands
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Lots of competition might create a few innovative winners, but it sure as heck also creates a number of losers, who basically wasted their time on nothing. As a society we would have been better off if they had used their strength and skill in an area where their labours wasn't wasted, basically.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Entrepreneur's take risks. Sometimes those risks are very high. Usually that means the rewards can outweigh the loss. It sounds like where we're going is "A store owner who doesn't sell the right goods at the right price will fail. The owner who sells the right goods with the right prices will rise. We should pity the owner who fails and banish the owner who profits." I prefer my oatmeal to taste good, not almost good enough.
I do not believe politicians who tell me they will "reign in" businesses. As we all know, politicians can't keep their own books in order. Why would I want them keeping books for Walmart or the local shop owner? IMHO, the real problem we're facing isn't that businesses aren't holding up their end of the capitalist bargain, it's the consumer's lack of loyalty, refusal to find the best product and instead relying on the cheapest price "all-in-one" stores (read: Walmart), and thereby voting for the better company with their dollars. The consumer mindset seems to have been reduced to drive-thru mcchicken blandness.
Americans are expected to be consumers yet, American companies send thier manufacturing operations overseas because of they have lax environmental laws. Send all the "working class" jobs to countries where there are no labor laws...and now tech jobs are going overseas. Notice when you call tech support the operator always has an indian accent? Thats cuz thier in India. Even 3-D work is sent overseas nowadays. Why? because they can pay them less, dont have to provide benifits. Within 50-60 years Working Class (lower-middle class) families will be living at poverty level and America will serve as little more than corporate headquarters for middle-managers and executives to enjoy the freedoms this country provides. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which is my number 2 reason we should shut our borders tighter then the Korean DMZ. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Couldn't agree more tbh.
Shut our boarders, and god forbid ACTUALLY ENFORCE OUR F***ING IMMAGRATION POLICY.... sheesh ffs.
oh and maybe you can get a railroad ticket to chicago for $1000 (robber barons in the olden days). didn't they teach you about monopolies in school? no competition = less benefit for consumers... basic tenet of capitalism here people...
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well not necessarily. Take Wal-Mart a huge company, safe to say they have a monopoly on....nearly everything. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> Now they hardly have any competition and their prices remain very low. Why? Because the second they start raising their prices, people get angry, they go shop at other stores that come in to pick up the pieces like vultures to a carcass. These monopolies won't raise prices to an unreasonable rate, as long as our system hasn't collapsed completely there well always be another place to go for whatever goods you need. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Walmart is the single worst monopoly in the U.S. They bribe city councils with traffic lights and paved roads, often against the publics wishes so they can move into small 3000 person towns and destroy all the ma and pa stores and kill any tourism the town may have had. Even though Sam Walmart (I forget walmarts fouders name) said they would never go into a place where they were unwanted. Then they become the towns life line, nearly the only source of employment or goods stinting the economic growth of the smaller towns they invade. Its a stranglehold.
Besides, WalMart buys product at nearly 10 times the quanity of any other grocer or retailer...buying en mass means they pay almost nothing per item on the shelf, meaning they can still make a killing without ever raising prices. Walmart makes more profit per item (on most items) than any other retailer. Iirc they also make more profit on a single can of pepsi then pepsi makes per case they sell to Wal-Mart...a case is several hundred cans of soda.
Americans are expected to be consumers yet, American companies send thier manufacturing operations overseas because of they have lax environmental laws. Send all the "working class" jobs to countries where there are no labor laws...and now tech jobs are going overseas. Notice when you call tech support the operator always has an indian accent? Thats cuz thier in India. Even 3-D work is sent overseas nowadays. Why? because they can pay them less, dont have to provide benifits. Within 50-60 years Working Class (lower-middle class) families will be living at poverty level and America will serve as little more than corporate headquarters for middle-managers and executives to enjoy the freedoms this country provides. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which is my number 2 reason we should shut our borders tighter then the Korean DMZ. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Couldn't agree more tbh.
Shut our boarders, and god forbid ACTUALLY ENFORCE OUR F***ING IMMAGRATION POLICY.... sheesh ffs. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
How is this "labour competition" any different from economic competition in a capitalist sense? Overseas workers can provide the same labour at a better price, or a more beneficial location to the corporation. Thus giving american jobs away to other countries is the most cost effective and efficient way to do business, and that's the overall best way to do things, no? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
Americans are expected to be consumers yet, American companies send thier manufacturing operations overseas because of they have lax environmental laws. Send all the "working class" jobs to countries where there are no labor laws...and now tech jobs are going overseas. Notice when you call tech support the operator always has an indian accent? Thats cuz thier in India. Even 3-D work is sent overseas nowadays. Why? because they can pay them less, dont have to provide benifits. Within 50-60 years Working Class (lower-middle class) families will be living at poverty level and America will serve as little more than corporate headquarters for middle-managers and executives to enjoy the freedoms this country provides. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which is my number 2 reason we should shut our borders tighter then the Korean DMZ. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Couldn't agree more tbh.
Shut our boarders, and god forbid ACTUALLY ENFORCE OUR F***ING IMMAGRATION POLICY.... sheesh ffs. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How is this "labour competition" any different from economic competition in a capitalist sense? Overseas workers can provide the same labour at a better price, or a more beneficial location to the corporation. Thus giving american jobs away to other countries is the most cost effective and efficient way to do business, and that's the overall best way to do things, no? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not if they expect Americans to buy thier ****...the workers they are payin crap wages arent buying thier products. We are!
Globalization may eventualy even out, creating higher standards around the world for workers, but it will take decades, and I doubt it will ever happen. Companies set up businesses here, because of the benifits we can give...because of the freedoms they can enjoy, meanwhile thier workers have no freedoms.
The only way capitolism can stand is if commerce and consumer play equal roles, and that is partially created by returning profits to the consumer in the form of jobs and revenue. Profits dont make thier way back to the "consumer"...they make thier way to endentured servants, in some coutry where people dont have the rights we do, and the rest goes into the pockets of shareholders.
Eventually, the divide between have and have not in this coutry will grow to the point that there is no middle ground. Only dirt poor and filthy rich.
I fail to see why competition in the marketplace equals shady deals between competitors. The American marketplace is designed around individuals. The individual company owner and consumer play equal roles in productivity <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
In our current state of society, both america and europe, we are seeing the back sides of having the single entity as the universal constant. Now, it is in our basic behaviour to seek social units. We try to build relations with other people, cordial releations. Trade is a byproduct of these relationships. In a small close knit society you will not tolerate competition as it creates dissent and problems. In a large, modern state you encourage it because there are some obvious financial benefits involced. But the same tendency to form a unit is seen. In companies this is expressed as consolidation. Competition hurts! It creates losers as well as winners. We'd all be much better off if we charge a little more for our goods, innovate little less. Thats why you see monopolistic tendencies wherever it is possible.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So....marketplace competition now equals war and death? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> /me puts head in hands <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Competition laws are artificial "knife cuts" to the fabric of society. Let's create some trauma by forcing some kind of deals to be "illegal" and promote competition. It's like saying "war is ok." Because a competing scene will have losers and winners. It is conflict, and in it's deepest sense it shares a common cause with war. As Monsieur Evil discussed in an earlier thread: which wars are NOT economically motivated? WE haven't found a good example of one yet.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Entrepreneur's take risks. Sometimes those risks are very high. Usually that means the rewards can outweigh the loss. It sounds like where we're going is "A store owner who doesn't sell the right goods at the right price will fail. The owner who sells the right goods with the right prices will rise. We should pity the owner who fails and banish the owner who profits." I prefer my oatmeal to taste good, not almost good enough.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am actually not against competition as such, but ther one eyed focus on competition as the solution to every problem and the only valid way of making a society. As you can see, capitalism is leading towards consolidation and monopolisation, so the idea is broke from the beginning. We have to "help" it by trying to rip monopolies apart with a modicum of succes. But there are many examples of business where free competition is hurting more than it benefits. So I call for a moderate capitalism, because we benefit from competition, but we should not chase it singlemindedly.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I do not believe politicians who tell me they will "reign in" businesses. As we all know, politicians can't keep their own books in order. Why would I want them keeping books for Walmart or the local shop owner? IMHO, the real problem we're facing isn't that businesses aren't holding up their end of the capitalist bargain, it's the consumer's lack of loyalty, refusal to find the best product and instead relying on the cheapest price "all-in-one" stores (read: Walmart), and thereby voting for the better company with their dollars. The consumer mindset seems to have been reduced to drive-thru mcchicken blandness.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Problem is, once a behemoth like Walmart has out-competed every local contestant, they own the market and can do as they see fit. The current american system could lead to global "McDonaldization" of the economy. One brand of coffee. One brand of fast food. One brand of computer software. And we'd be right back at DDR style economy, or bloody war because someone's gotten fed up with it.
Very true. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
I happen to believe that eventually globalization, after much wailing and gnashing of teeth, will somewhat balance out the distribution of wealth around the world, combined with other factors such as renewable energy sources and improving technology. But that's not really relevant.
Mostly, my point was that pure capitalism and market forces have not been working for the majority, that being, the middle-class average income population, in the same way that labour competition with other countries is playing one group of people off the other. Either americans will have to accept lower wages, or greater freedoms and rights will have to be established for overseas workers. This has already happened to countries such as Japan and Korea, whose working class jobs are also being moved to poorer countries.
More informed, savvy consumers would definitely go a long way to balancing the relationship between retailer and customer, but frankly I'm not sure how this would be accomplished. There are so many products, services and information, that the time required on the part of the consumer is unreasonable.
While this may be true, I contend that it's the consumer who chooses which product to buy. It's the consumer's responsibility to support the smaller shops even if it means paying a few pennies more. That's where the system is breaking down. If McDonald's was the only restaurant on the planet, does that mean that I have to buy a BigMac? Or can I choose to cook my food at home?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(Phoenix Six)
More informed, savvy consumers would definitely go a long way to balancing the relationship between retailer and customer, but frankly I'm not sure how this would be accomplished. There are so many products, services and information, that the time required on the part of the consumer is unreasonable.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The lack of informed consumers follows the same trend as the finger-pointing "it's not my fault" crowd. The unreasonableness needs to return to an inherent responsibility.
Walmart is the single worst monopoly in the U.S. They bribe city councils with traffic lights and paved roads, often against the publics wishes so they can move into small 3000 person towns and destroy all the ma and pa stores and kill any tourism the town may have had. Even though Sam Walmart (I forget walmarts fouders name) said they would never go into a place where they were unwanted. Then they become the towns life line, nearly the only source of employment or goods stinting the economic growth of the smaller towns they invade. Its a stranglehold.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now this may not be the same everywhere but here what you say is just not true. I live in a relatively small town and we have a Wal-Mart "super center", we also have two little mom and pop stores, a K-mart, a Weis, and Thomas Market (There little map in the store says they have 20 locations on the east cost, so maybe someone has heard of them <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ) None of them are doing any worse then they were before the Wal-Mart moved into town as far as I can tell. Their parking lots are still filled with a decent amount of cars every time I drive past. The Wal-Mart did more to help this town then hurt it, it stuck its store out in some rag tag abandoned area next to our air-port. Now I do think they built an exceedingly large parking lot but besides that they have started development of a run down unwooded eyesore. Since they built their store there they have actually helped businesses, a dollar tree, hair salon, dairy queen, AAA agency, and a (my favorite) Wendys have all opened up in the same area. Maybe they are hurting some communities but they have yet to do anything bad here, I think it's just peoples "Big company = Enron-Bad-Evil" attitude coming into play.
Walmart is the single worst monopoly in the U.S. They bribe city councils with traffic lights and paved roads, often against the publics wishes so they can move into small 3000 person towns and destroy all the ma and pa stores and kill any tourism the town may have had. Even though Sam Walmart (I forget walmarts fouders name) said they would never go into a place where they were unwanted. Then they become the towns life line, nearly the only source of employment or goods stinting the economic growth of the smaller towns they invade. Its a stranglehold.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now this may not be the same everywhere but here what you say is just not true. I live in a relatively small town and we have a Wal-Mart "super center", we also have two little mom and pop stores, a K-mart, a Weis, and Thomas Market (There little map in the store says they have 20 locations on the east cost, so maybe someone has heard of them <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ) None of them are doing any worse then they were before the Wal-Mart moved into town as far as I can tell. Their parking lots are still filled with a decent amount of cars every time I drive past. The Wal-Mart did more to help this town then hurt it, it stuck its store out in some rag tag abandoned area next to our air-port. Now I do think they built an exceedingly large parking lot but besides that they have started development of a run down unwooded eyesore. Since they built their store there they have actually helped businesses, a dollar tree, hair salon, dairy queen, AAA agency, and a (my favorite) Wendys have all opened up in the same area. Maybe they are hurting some communities but they have yet to do anything bad here, I think it's just peoples "Big company = Enron-Bad-Evil" attitude coming into play. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wouldnt call that a small town. theres an airport for chrissakes, municiple or not . Sounds like where I used to live, a commuter town in the midst of development expansion. Not many small towns have a K-mart. I'm talking towns that need roads paved...a stoplight. Small towns, places that with little more than a mcdonalds or a big chain grocery store. Places who's economy doesnt reach far beyond the town because there isnt any commuting, to work or otherwise. Places that are, for the most part self sufficient on thier own.