|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
yet you think businesses limiting the freedom of other businesses is somehow a good thing? |
I think businesses competing with other businesses..fighting over a limited number of resources, and striving to make a load of money by giving consumers what they want is a very messy and ugly process. It does have some unavoidable casualties..but in the end, yes it's a GREAT thing.
| quote: |
sorry mate but you're completely missing the point. i would have much less of an issue if these big companies were passing on the savings to the consumer. but the fact of the matter is that they're not. |
Well they certainly are passing it on to some extent, which is why they are such a popular shopping destination...but no they aren't going to pass on all of the savings. They are in business to maximize profit just like every other corporation on the planet and are going to charge as much as the market will bear. Could they sacrifice some profit to lower prices further? Sure..but what of it? Are you proposing we force them to pass on more of the savings to consumers? What would the implications of that be? Wouldn't it make their prices even MORE attractive and increase their monopoly power further?
| quote: | | i have no problems with businesses making profits and doing all the wonderful things that businesses do. but it bothers me no end when businesses become so large and influential that the traditional rules of capitalism and free markets cease to apply. |
The traditional rules of capitalism always apply, until the government intervenes. ;) |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
I actually found on a Wal-Mart hating site that their average wage last year for full time associates was $10.68/hr That's pretty damn good for an entry level job...$4/hr above federal minimum wage. |
10.68 is the AVERAGE full time associate salary, not the averge starting associate salary. 10.68 is not good if you've been on the job for 5 or 6 years. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
Well jer, if you hold a utilitarian "greatest good for the greatest number" philosophy, you should be willing to overlook these drawbacks given the increased purchasing power they give to tens of millions of customers. But it is your prerogative if you want to boycott them. |
what would their purchasing power be if their jobs weren't outsourced to china (or eliminated by walmart pricing tactics) to make lower cost goods to be sold at walmart and bought by those people with the lower salary?
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt Every dollar spent is a sign of approval, and every dollar not spent is a vote of "no confidence".
Long live democracy. |
unfortunately these issues are out of the control of the individuals who shop at walmart. They approve because they have no choice. Fortunately, I'm well situated as not to give a about saving $400 a year by shopping at walmart. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
I think businesses competing with other businesses..fighting over a limited number of resources, and striving to make a load of money by giving consumers what they want is a very messy and ugly process. It does have some unavoidable casualties..but in the end, yes it's a GREAT thing. |
Lets stop talking in generalisations. We have some very specific examples in this thread. How is forcing farmers into bankruptcy to feather their own nests a good outcome for consumers? How is destroying a vital component of the system that distributes goods a benefit to anyone, other than the giant chains?
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
Well they certainly are passing it on to some extent, which is why they are such a popular shopping destination...but no they aren't going to pass on all of the savings. They are in business to maximize profit just like every other corporation on the planet and are going to charge as much as the market will bear. Could they sacrifice some profit to lower prices further? Sure..but what of it? Are you proposing we force them to pass on more of the savings to consumers? What would the implications of that be? Wouldn't it make their prices even MORE attractive and increase their monopoly power further? |
You seem to have ignored the important timeline. In the past walmart or coles or Woolworths may have provided the very best value for money available. But once market dominance occurs this ceases to be the case. They have already destroyed most competition, and now they use their dominance to (coerce if you will) increase their profit margins, not through competition of course but veiled threats of economic pressure. It ceases to be a good thing when suppliers do not have the choice to sell their wares elsewhere.
Im not saying they can’t make a profit, im saying they shouldn’t be destroying businesses that provide them with goods without also providing such benefits to the consumer.
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
The traditional rules of capitalism always apply, until the government intervenes. ;) |
So you think uncompetitive behaviour due to market dominance is a natural, desirable outcome? How can you champion a “free” market when the activities of some in that market ensure its anything but free? |
|
|
| w_ashley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
I actually found on a Wal-Mart hating site that their average wage last year for full time associates was $10.68/hr That's pretty damn good for an entry level job...$4/hr above federal minimum wage. |
10$/hour is a paltry wage. Has it come to Canada being a better place for employment than the US?
Minimum wage in ontario is like 10$/hour. and is set to increase to $10.25 in 2010
I'm getting paid close to that for eating food and pricking myself with a glucometer. |
|
|
| w_ashley |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
um, people ARE able to set their own prices or say how much a dollar is worth :conf: |
No they say how much the goods are worth, not how much the dollar is worth. Financers say how much the dollar is worth and also set interest rates.
While you can... it ain't easy. While you can set the price of goods, you can get access to them, and you can't get the raw resources unless you run into one of these big people. The common person is disempowered, and you know why....
Sure you can choose where that PPP (purchasing power parity) goes but some things are a given unless you are self sufficient. |
|
|
| w_ashley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Makes for lots of dead people |
oh ye of little faith. Peoples driving adapts to adverse road conditions, people drive responsibility. Fact is.. people break the road rules anyway. The difference is that now atleast people don't need to worry about the government clamping down on them when they break them, so they can live free from false regulation. You have no data to substantiate a world without road rules. The government should move to cushion and develope technology to meet the demands of the people, not push down and suppress the wishes of the people. Serve them, not repress them.
| quote: | | and an oligarchy of an economy. |
yah cause that doesn't already exist.
| quote: | | How about a financial institution becoming so big that its failure would destroy the financial system? |
Not gonna happen, we came close to that wish Bush, but it could have been worse. (joke) - fact is there are rises and failures.. money doesn't exist.. it is all about materials. People who horde nothing(re: money) are the only ones to suffer, because they didn't contribute to the economy and instead sat on potential productivity - or there was no demand - which meant that prices should increase. Leading to inflation. Leading to interest rate hikes - or the banks accepting lowered profitability, and return on investments.
| quote: | | Isn't that what the market does? |
sure, but the market is regulated, what if it wern't? Basically all it would mean that people could actually trick other people and not go to jail for it. Fact is, it is still happens, and not everyone goes to jail. If you don't trust someone why give them your money?
| quote: | | Which is the natural outcome of unrestrained capitalism, or rather, coercive monopolies. I have a feeling you really don't truly know the results of a coercive monopoly, otherwise you wouldn't be okay with their existence. Luckily, countries in the EU and USA, have anti-trust laws to prevent such exploitation. |
I also suppport revolutions when government fails to provide for the people. That is the difference. If the government doesn't act to protect the people from corruption the people must act to protect the people. Fact is though. If "tycoons" don't provide for the people through philanthropy then they have a right to be upset, and they have a right to demand freedom if it is oppressed by a member of the public. We can be reasonable and we can support freedom. This is not to say the ultrarich are corrupt and selfish but rather to say monopolies are efficient and well managed. When they cease to be, that is grounds for competition, if you can do better than them. It drives better services. Fact is though I support natural resources to be government run, not private, so monopolization of raw means of production couldn't be monopolized - but product and techonology could if no one steps up to fill the void. Fact is though I don't support IP so it levels the playing field a bit. Price regulation of raw materials based on demand isn't out of the question for the government but price adjustment based on demand, and public need for the produce should be weighted into the governments sales... but the people should have some say in how public corporations are run, and what those values are. Not as far as socialism, but a role of oversight and a charter and mission that serves public interest, rather than a board serving solely the corporations interests, it should be more global in pursuit, and meet the peoples needs. Private corporations have every right to look out for their interests. but government is meant to be a corporation for the people, and frankly it is sad in the case of so many governments that it has turned into a private institution.
| quote: | | Would be true for the average Joe or even a millionaire, but when an institution with over $1 trillion in assets and liabilities is about to go insolvent, yes they cry to the government, and yes we better bail them out because basically they have a financial gun pointed to our head. The remedy to this situation isn't to get rid of all the rules. |
I digress and reject that situation 1 trillion dollars becoming fluid will boost the economy, rather than have it locked in stasis.. and drain public resources. Let the private sector live and breath.. if it is so important to the well being of the people it should be a crown corporation / nationalized entity. National security intersts should be under the control of the apparatus.. not private industry for private individuals to reap profits at the expense of the tax payer.
| quote: | | Obviously this is nonsense, a form of anarcho-capitalism. No less idealistic than Stalinist communism. |
I think there is a stark divide between the people owning a means of production, and the people controling the means of their survival. I think the people should have that right. You describe it as a gun to the head, not a carrot dangling from the end of the stick. It is obvious that the government through the people should have a means of sustained operations, but private individuals shouldn't profit from puppetering and market manipulation, that isn't in the publics interst.
| quote: | | This is a fundamental problem of capitalism. Corporations are viewed by law as "people". "People" with far more wealth, of which can buy influence, than any one real person could ever have. It just simply isn't fair, and results in a government beholden to corporations rather than the electorate. |
That is how you view it. But frankly that is only in LAW, not in the actual political sense. Those are two stark differences. It means those "people" pay taxes, and can be sued. Fact is though that the whole sense is a abjuration, and really is very stupid. It is the board of directors that is personally responsible for the acts of people in a corporation. While I think it exists for a good reason, I think you are painting a picture that is far from reality. Corporations arn't people, they are legal entities forged by private contracts, and contracts with government. But not people, rather a set of interacting contracts and obligations. People are real, corporations are a placeholder for people, aslo know as head persons.
If you didn't know corporation means incorporated within the government. meaning a corporation is the government but the rules are set and agreed how the government adminsiters it.. who is chosen to run it and how people get access to it, what its responsibilites are etc.. just like people in some cases are subjects of government, serving and legally responsible to act within the rules set out by government in their day to day life. There reward, they can have input into who tells them what to do.. but they may or may not get their way. While that isn't free, it is consensual enslavement to enact what might bring about freedom, if it works. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
Modern example of a company doing all of these things? Wal-Mart seems to be the punching bag of many lefties who criticize monopolies...but you will notice they got where they are by offering LOW "cut-throat" prices that competitors can't match..and rather than raising prices after being dominant and attempting to "gouge" consumers, they maintain their dominance by keeping prices low. This is an example of mass buying power and a very efficient business model. I'm not denying they don't have the power to influence the market and "bully" wholesalers to give them what they want...but this is not a coercive power any way you look at it. The power of coercion resides solely with the state..and for that reason alone you should be much more suspicious of federal power than those who gain power by satisfying public demand. The market punishes irrationality krypt. If Walmart ceased offering people what they desired, their profits would drop. If they started jacking up prices to above market rates, they would invite people to seek alternatives at other stores and e-commerce sites like Amazon (who would be glad to take the business). It would mean a slow and painful death for the largest company on the planet. |
Wal-Mart is not a monopoly. They compete against Best Buy, Target, Costco, etc. Wal-Mart is not the only retailer to buy from, therefore, there is no coercion in going to buy products from Wal-Mart. You know unrestricted capitalism will lead to coercive monopolies just like it did in your golden age (19th early 20th century), when steel, oil, and railroad monopolies, raped consumers to the hilt. This is really what you'r advocating.
| quote: | | As for corporate personhood, I don't think you realize the implications of removing it krypt.. Do you understand the reason it began in the first place? Do you realize that without the ability to form separate entities, every shareholder in a given venture could be held personally liable if management makes a bad decision? This means every shareholder could be sued for damages. Every share of stock you own is a potential guillotine hanging over your head that could become a lien against your house/car and other assets. The risk premium would shoot up like a rocket without corporate personhood and capital investment (along with every world stock market) would collapse. If you want to ban companies from contributing to political campaigns, that's another issue. A particular law could be passed to prevent that, but to remove personhood entirely would be disastrous. |
Personhood for corporations is ridiculous as it gives constitutional rights to corporations which were meant by the Framers to be for only natural persons. Additionally, who says personhood and liability protection go hand in hand? |
|
|
CLICK TO RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
tranceaddict Forums Archive > Other > Political Discussion / Debate
|
