A World without Globalization/Walmart style corps would suck!

Globalization is the problem with the USA

http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2011/07/14/globalism-slowly-killing-america/

 

A month orso ago, we changed our Internet-DigitalTV-Telephone subscription (or "Shake") because we would get more for a smaller amount of money. Anyhow, there needed to come a technician to de-install the previous, regular, Digicoder and install a HD one. Anyhow, I had a talk with the techinician and said that the TV (a Panasonic) is already 10 year old and that we aren't able to watch in "HD" because the television set is too "old". He then went one and said that you could buy an HD Flatscreen for about €300 (e.g. Samsung, I knew this since I worked a summerjob once at the Big Electro Department at Makro/Metro) but that you would need to replace it in a matter of 5 year maximum.

I remember only one TV we use to had before this one -- it was a black Panasonic too with a darkwooden frame. It lasted for about 20 years since my parents got it when they married.

Things aren't anymore what they used to be -- sad. And even more sad is that consumers -- like SiliconMagician -- are supporting the industrialists in their quest to ramble as much money from the pockets of the average consumer.

True enemies of the middle class are the ones not in favour of consumer protection.

 

I thought the same thing when I was scrolling down looking at the pics. Buying junk especially cheap junk is disgusting to me. I know I have a pregidous against new stuff from seeing so much foreign junk on that market that barely gets any use before going into the landfill.

There is something about paying more for something that will last longer or was built in my community.

The exception is electronics, I love cheap electronics and do not care if it does not last long because tech moves fast and things become outdated fast.

 

Is Silicon Magic's argument correct? I would agree that the cost of many items have been brought down by globalisation and the influence of a few big-box retailers on the consumer market (Wally World being the most obvious), but the aggregate purchasing power of the nation HAS ALSO GONE DOWN. Fewer manufacturing jobs at healthy salaries drops aggregate purchasing power, numerous small businesses that close or exist on lower profit margins drops aggregate purchasing power, lower property values on traditional Main Street retail stores drops aggregate purchasing power.

I have not been able to find a study or studies that examine all the positive economic effects and all the negative economic effects of these crucial national economic developments over the past few decades. This inclines me to believe the effects are more negative than they are positive; otherwise, business and big government would have rushed to take credit with a scientifically valid study that was very difficult to refute.

 

For what size? WHat resultion and refresh rate? Do all TV's cost 500 quid in the US?

 

I was talking about the first models of flat screens... They were very expensive, as is all tech when it first comes out.

 

Sorry but I disagree. The world would be much better off without Wal-Mart. They receive billions of dollars in government subsidies every year, which they use to drive their prices artificially low (lower than they would be able to in a deregulated free market), and so they are easily able to squelch out their competition. I don't support that kind of socialism. I support free market capitalism. Prices would be even lower than they are in Wal-Mart, and the dollar would be continuously gaining purchasing power. We'd be MUCH further advanced, technologically and standard of living wise, than we are now.

 

I think they mean specifically when they first came out. The only tv that would cost 1000 British pounds anymore, which would be something like 1700 dollars, would be like a 70 inch 3d tv. You can get a really nice, really big flat screen now for about 1000 dollars, and a pretty nice flat screen for as you said, about 500 dollars.

 

Can you present some evidence to support this assertion? They can charge artificially low prices, because they have large amounts of monopsony power, not because government subsidizes them. Despite what irrational and radical free market advocates like to delude themselves into believing, the free market is not a utopian fantasy. Your last sentence legitimately sounds like the ramblings of a homeless person on the streets!! No evidence whatsoever, so argument, no reason, just meaningless economic bumper sticker slogans!!

 

The stone is for me too!

 

http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/24/news/fortune500/walmart_subsidies/

http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/sites/default/files/docs/pdf/wmtstudy.pdf

The World outside of Free Market Capitalism is Centralized Planning of the Marketplace and that Economic Philosophy has been used since the Dawn of Civilization. The only groups of people who have ever supported Central Planning have been the established, Elite, Nobility and Government Officials becase of its own Direct Way of Governing the lifestyles of the masses outside of the influence of the system itself. Why do you think Slavery and harsh conditions existed so long in History? It's due in large part because of Central Economic Planning that allowed the Governments to have a deathgrip over the Populace to begin with.

Our Evidence is the past 6,000yrs... yours is nothing but, blaming Capitalism when there was Keynesian Practices and Government interference of the Marketplace. Maybe you should try examining the Philosophy you dislike and pinpoint it to periods of time it has failed.

 

You are confused. That is evidence that shows that walmart collects some subsidies, something I did not challenge. I asked for evidence to support the assertion, that it was those subsidies, a tiny fraction of the income they make, are the reason they can pay what price they like. There is absolutely NO evidence that is the case. Only entities with monopsony power are capable of doing that, and walmart has monopsony power, because they are such a huge retailer and buyer of goods. It has nothing to do with government subsidies.

As far as the next point goes, the very wealthy fund libertarian, conservative, etc movements. You understand this correct? They want free markets, and you work directly into their hands, and then pretend like you work in opposition? Of course those people will lobby for government to intervene to their benefit, but that will happen either way. What your ideology leads to is a free market for everyone else, but only a free market for the very wealthy when they want it to be so.


As far as when your ideology has failed, the evidence is overwhelming. The problem is that you, like all extreme free market advocates, have a conclusion, and you then shoehorn all new evidence in to fit that conclusion. I use the evidence to draw my conclusions. You shoehorn evidence in to fit your conclusions. We had freer markets in the late 19th and early 20th century. Those markets were not completely free, just like there were no unicorns about(the free market is a utopian myth), but the market was MUCH freer and social programs basically didn't exist. Surprisingly, despite your claims, things were much worse. Unbelievable I know. Also, you need only look at 2008 to find a massive failure of the market. Again, I know believers of the free market fairy tale shoe horned that into their previously held conclusions as well, but the actual evidence shows that the market quite clearly failed. While government policy played a role in creating the crisis, it was their efforts at deregulation and the failure of the market that were at the heart of the crisis(most specifically with the explosion in the trade of derivatives, which banking lobbyists kept from being regulated!!). Yet stunningly, even though the markets for derivatives was entirely unregulated, it was at the heart of the collapse. Shockingly the free market fairy tale turned out to be a lie in this instance.

 

The Governments in some areas has given them the Right to not have the Sales Tax on their Goods. Really fair against the other Vendors right?

You're confused on what Free Markets are.... Government intervention is a Keynesian Practice which is nothing more than Corporatism. That is not Capitalism at all...

19th-20th Century was a transition from Pre-Industrial to Industrial and there wasn't any Social Programs in existence than to my knowledge. Also you may reference Slavery in the USA which there again the Government enforced Slavery and Protected it which again isn't a Free Market Capitalistic Philosophy. The Railroad Companies were heavily subsidized during their times too and the failures were brought on by Malinvestment into the Marketplace because of the Government creating such a situation.

2008 wasn't a Free Market failure at all... It was due in large part because of the Federal Reserves intervention in the Marketplace creating Low Interest Rates and pumping money into the Economy which created Inflation. This sparked once again Malinvestment and a Bust Cycle... Which is nothing more than Keynesian Philosophical Apporach. That isn't a Free Market Capitalist Stance.

Blaming it on Deregulation is laughable... The Markets wouldn't have existed like that if the Federal Reserve and their Printing Press weren't trying to steer the Markets. All of your examples are failures of Central Economic Planning.

Edit: You need to do some research on Keynesian Centralized Economic Policy and Free Market Capitalistic Philosophy of Mises/Hayek.

 

Finally somebody speaks the truth. Wallyworld gets more government welfare than the welfare poverty stricken in Detroit, Chicago, and New York combined. Read it SM, learn it, know it.
　
　
　
SM, one day you are on a rant about how the poor shouldn't have luxuries like electronic devises and then the next day you are praising some corporate welfare sucking, slave labor using, communist financing, non capitalist socialist, economy crushing entity like wallyworld, for providing the poor with cheap crap. The only thing you got right is comparing it to the dollar store. It is a dollar store only bigger and more expensive. An economy destroying dollar store, you are right about that anyway.
　
　
　
Make up your mind and/or at least be consistent with your rants for a change.

 

What?

Poor people can't afford living room sets even at Walmart. Are you joking?

Heck, we're middle class and most of our furniture comes from craigslist or friends (free) or yard sales (cheap as heck).

You must think poor people are rich. A single good chair could cost you hundreds. Poor people do NOT have spending money. They've got to spend what little spending money they have on used crappy cars and food.

 

http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/sites/default/files/docs/pdf/wmtstudy.pdf

You know, a simple google search will reveal the information.

http://www.google.com

According to the goodjobsfirst link, Wal-Mart averages around $256 billion in profits worldwide. At 8500 stores, that's approximately $30 million per store annually, on average. The link also states that the average subsidy that Wal-Mart stores receive is around $3 million. That means that the average Wal-Mart store is getting subsidized approximately 10% of their profits, some cases more, some cases less. Either way, that should be very alarming to us, especially considering the size of Wal-Mart!

You really need to open your eyes dude. Keynesianism and central economic planning are disastorous. But then again, they never were meant to benefit the common man, just the ruling parasitic elite who take advantage of the common man. The biggest mistake you can make is allowing yourself to be brainwashed by the elite's lies. They WANT you to believe that central economic planning is for your own good. Just don't swallow the Kool Aid.

 

Tax exemptions (their competition and everybody else has to pay for including you), reduced utility bills (their competition, and everybody else has to pay for including you), grants that build their stores for them, the government subsidies paid to their armies of underpaid employees including food stamps, medical, dental, government housing, etc....etc… They play the system for everything they can get and more.
　
　
　
They are the largest employer of underpaid employees, financial supporters of communism/communist dictators ever to exist, and owners of the largest communist slave labor forces as well as the largest corporate leaches on the planet.

 

You hit the nail on the head. The best part is that people don't even realize how much of a leech Wal-Mart is on the system. They think it is the epitome of free market capitalism! When in fact Wal Mart uses taxpayers for all their worth! So corrupt!! LMAO!!!!!

 

No, middle class and upper middle class people have a twisted idea of what being poor is. The poor have ALOT more money than anyone is willing to admit because the poor are quite resourceful in their own twisted ways.

I grew up poor my entire life and continue to still live on a significantly lower salary than the average household income in America. I'm not rich, but I'm not exactly poor anymore either, but that is a recent development.

This idea that poor people suffer hunger/deprivation in America IS A MYTH. 100% MYTH pushed by Government politicians and bureaucrats who have a vested voting or economic interest in seeing programs to the poor expanded into infinity.

The meme of poor people suffering is merely propaganda. I've lived in these neighborhoods, I've taken part in their social structure, and I know exactly what I'm talking about from personal life experience of growing up poor in America.

It's simply not.that.bad.

As far as "crappy used cars" goes.. I bought a "crappy" 1987 Pontiac Fiero a couple years back for $1200 and then put $2000 into it to rebuild the motor and other key systems and now I have a rare car turning historical next year, that will last me years and years for 3200 bucks.. That is still a far better alternative to me, than spending 8k-12k over 5 years just to have the car immediately breakdown afterward.

 

But you are not an average household.

Neither is over 90% of the population, so what exactly is your point??

Oh and most poor people live paycheck to paycheck, and don't usually have $3000 of expendable cash lying around.

I don't believe you've ever been poor (truly poor) or lived in a really poor anything for that matter. Your comments are constantly derogatory to people you feel are beneath you. In most cases those types of comments come from spoiled little brats who have never "HAD" to work a day in their entire life, and don't even have a clue as to what it means to "work" for a living.

 

What do you mean "expendable cash"?? Buddy I had to save for 6 months!

It's not about being spoiled (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)! It's a simple matter of "if I can do it, anyone can"

If I put my mind to it, I typically achieve it and get what I want, even if it takes years to do so. It's called delayed gratification and apparently a large chunk of society has forgotten how to engage in it!

I feel superior to many others because I'm a stoic who accepts his fate and works hard and is constantly improving his life a little bit at a time no matter what the obstacles standing in my way or who says I can't or shouldn't.

Ambition is a superior human quality. Confidence in your own abilities to overcome all obstacles is the sign of a superior human being. Leadership qualities exercised everyday in order to hold an organization together is the activity of a superior human being.

Dependent natures are the sign of an inferior human being, blaming outside factors for failure is the sign of inferior human being, hatred for the things that are unattainable are the signs of an inferior human being.

I feel superior BECAUSE I ESCAPED without ANY help from ANYONE.

 

Good for you.

 

I would second it but I still don't believe SM has ever "HAD" to live in a desperate poverty stricken situation. If he had he would understand the condition much better than he obviously does.
　
　
People are creatures of habit and they live by what they know. Instilling work ethics, and conditioning one's self to succeed (not necessarily becoming rich) are learned traits, and unfortunately there are people at the bottom of the scale that will never be mentally adept at reconditioning themselves into that mold. It's not an excuse it's simply a reality, especially if they become enthralled in the "bad" influences that perpetuate the problem at an early age, and that could be a totally dysfunctional family or equally disturbed peers.
　
　
Lacking in basic educational skills and problems with the law at an early age only adds to the problem, and makes their continued failures inevitable.
　
　
One thing I have always believed in and that is the ability to make an attempt works much better than sitting around whining about the possibilities that could have been. If you don't try you may never know the possibilities.