Am I the only one that viewed the whole thing as an argument against state interventionism (in the forms of poverty relief, health care etc)? Looks like Wal-Mart wouldn't be able to exist without these subsidies and there is no doubt in my mind that Wal-Mart is the only ones guilty of these charges but, hey... am I alone?
"It has been well said that, while we used to suffer from social evils, we now suffer from the remedies for them."
F.A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty
Am watchijng it a bit. so far two whoppers:
1. If anything is a monopoly, Wal Mart is" .No. anyone has free netry to compete with walmart, so it's not a monopoly. an Israel Kirzer video [on FEE?] explains this well
2. "I'm for free enterprise but you gotta have regulations [to help keep me in business]" Thats like saying "Im for law and order, but you have to have a Mafia."
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
I noticed it as well.
Walmart doesn't make huge profits. If you check their wikipedia page, their net rev is 3% of their total income. In other words...walmart gets 12 of my dollars a month. That's less than WoW.
Nice.
World of Warcraft: The low cost of high geekdom.
I honestly don't know what lefties are thinking when they go to walmart and buy bulk toilet paper or something.
"Those greedy capitalist monopolists. Extorting the consumer. We're all just wage slaves in their corporate game of dominating helpless consumers who have to spend 10 bucks on toilet paper every year"
There are so many cheap products staring the left in the face. Particularly technology is always getting better and cheaper. Do they not realize that their pretentious cofee houses were created by an entrepreneur? Not the state? Never the state?
[edit: Gosh just go look at the rate of return on all these demonized corporations. It sucks. Apple beats most of them]
Anytime I hear the argument by the lefties that Wal Mart has ran all the Mom and Pop stores out of town I can't help but laugh inside a bit. If we carry out this argument to its illogical conclusion then the mechanization of farming equipment should have never taken place because it took jobs away from the workers who planted and picked the crops! Their arguments are only superficial since they fail to see the efficiencies gained. These gains in efficiency and productivity are then passed along to the end consumer benefiting us all and freeing up labor for more productive means. Perhaps if we had a government that didn't leech off the productive people in society this freed up labor could be used for more productive means rather than having to settle for cashier jobs at Wal Mart.
Yeah the Mom and Pop argument blows me away. It's almost as if people are trying to argue that these stores, who employed only a small percentage of what Wal-Mart employs, were paying grocery clerks $30 an hour or something.
When I was teaching in the government schools, I had to attend a conference on poverty and the kind of behavior it produces in kids coming from poor households. What it turned out to be was two administrators had read a book on poverty, soaked up everything in it without question, and then presented it as factual and sound analysis and this was to be our seminar. Anyway, the book, written not by an economist but a social critic, argued that Wal-Mart and other big box retailers are the number one cause of poverty in America. The two administrators presented this garbage as some kind of high-level analysis. I was floored and had to speak up, it taking me about 45 seconds to have everyone in the room on my side. Usually, I would keep my mouth shut in those circumstances but this was one time I just couldn't.
Needless to say, the administrators found it "offensive" that I was being "unprofessional" and "difficult." Score one for the good guys.
What did you say in 45 seconds that convinced everyone so hard?
Didn't really get into economic theory too much, but made two points. First, I asked them to think how it was possible to bring about poverty by lowering prices and serving low-income groups, then made the general observation that it was absurd to conclude that the buying and selling of goods somehow "creates" poverty.
I also happened to be the only economics teacher in the room, which probably helped.
Ahh you're a teacher :) Your oratory skills must have helped. Good choice of points in a small amount of time too though.
Does Wal-Mart get subsidies?
this is the most important question...
Depends on what you mean by subsidies.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Federal Government subsidising Walmart? Lobbying for regulation? I have my doubts about Walmart's business practices. Hey! But The East India Company is a good business model. Coercion through government monopoly.
I was going to ask you which subsidies you're talking about, and then I saw the other people above me ask too. Can you expand on which subsidies they're being given? I don't doubt you. I go far out of my way to purposefully not shop at Wal-Mart for various reasons, but I'd like to be enlightened.
"Depends on what you mean by subsidies. "
I don't know....what do they get from the federal government?
Are we going to consider government roads and government medical plans for Wal-Mart employees as governments subsidies?
I don't know if the allegation are correct but take a look
http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/corporate_subsidy/walmart.cfm
http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/pdf/wmtstudy.pdf
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Podesta-clan_s-close-ties-to-Obama-pay-off-big-97413374.html
http://mises.org/daily/1950
Lewis S.:I also happened to be the only economics teacher in the room, which probably helped.
Just try walmart vs. Costco.
Sometimes the lowest cost in the short run is the most expensive in the long run.
Dont forget how much influence walmart has on governments. That is corporatism.
Corporatism is using state means to enhance market share and profitability of a few favored firms, at the expense of the citizen.
Sorry this is bugging me... why were administrators giving a talk on poverty?
Why, teacher training, of course! That's just how the public schools operate, as farming centers for socialization and social justice. When you think about it, it's just more evidence that government schoolteachers are not educators, but social workers for the state, so these kinds of problems weigh heavily on their minds. The state schools are cruel places, practically laboratories of socio-pathology where young people are institutionalized and indoctrinated, so they feel the need for these kinds of programs to keep the teachers better prepared and better equipped to be effective classroom "managers."
Curriculum and real education really don't matter to administrators. At least that was my experience.
Lewis S.:Why, teacher training, of course!
"Are we going to consider government roads and government medical plans for Wal-Mart employees as governments subsidies?"
now we're getting somewhere....
no not roads...all businesses are going to have acces to those....there's no unfair advantage there...
what governemnt medical plans? medicaid?
you got anything else? more directly linked to wal mart?
this is the most important question in this thread...
From the top of my head, some possibilities.
- emminet domain?
- how the selling of the land to build the walmart was handled?
- Benefits from having limited liabilty as opposed to mom and pop stores which might be sole proprieterships.