Let's kill Wal-Mart

[Petar]

1.2 million people in America voted for Ron Paul, and if we all support each other economically, then we can start putting an actual dent into the exporter of Chinese fascism that is the Wal-Mart leviathan.

www.freemarketforliberty.com provides an easy way for us to do that, and once we create a thriving liberty oriented market place, then it will be easy to continuously funnel a portion of that circulating currency towards revived money bombs for liberty, because a tool will be added that will allow listing owners to show how much money they have donated to liberty candidates.

Then it will also be easy for us to keep growing our movement, because people will join just for the economic benefits, and then it will be easy for us to educate them as well.

So please support this initiative by listing your liberty supporting business today.

[Truth Warrior]

Dream on. Ron Paul voters are a rounding error to WalMart. :D

[Sematary]

1.2 million people in America voted for Ron Paul, and if we all support each other economically, then we can start putting an actual dent into the exporter of Chinese fascism that is the Wal-Mart leviathan.

www.freemarketforliberty.com provides an easy way for us to do that, and once we create a thriving liberty oriented market place, then it will be easy to continuously funnel a portion of that circulating currency towards revived money bombs for liberty, because a tool will be added that will allow listing owners to show how much money they have donated to liberty candidates.

Then it will also be easy for us to keep growing our movement, because people will join just for the economic benefits, and then it will be easy for us to educate them as well.

So please support this initiative by listing your liberty supporting business today.

People want cheap products so they can buy even MORE stuff.
I personally shop at Walmart regularly because well, there is no other place to shop. I could go to Sears but I can't afford their stuff. So, Walmart or Kmart it is.
If you have children (and I have many), Walmart is a savior on your budget.

[noxagol]

NO! Cause then I would be out of a job. And seriously, if they only sold American goods, which are loads more expensive, then no one would be able to afford to buy anything.

The rest is OK though.

[Truth Warrior]

Everybody HATES WalMart, except the customers. :D

[UtahApocalypse]

NO! Cause then I would be out of a job. And seriously, if they only sold American goods, which are loads more expensive, then no one would be able to afford to buy anything.

The rest is OK though.

Same with me! NO jobs in Utah, Walmart though was hiring. Unless someone here can pay me to stay home then I need a job.

[eric_cartman]

what's wrong with wallmart?

by attacking wallmart, you're attacking a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. the fact that America can trade paper dollars for the import of real goods that can be sold for cheap in wallmart is a good thing for the time being. unfortunately, that system will come crashing down because it's not sustainable... so this is what you need to be attacking... not wallmart. they're just running a business, and they run the business very well. if you want America to start to produce things, they can't have the ability to print paper dollars instead of producing real goods.

[noxagol]

I just signed up my friend's and I woodworking business we are starting up, waiting the addition of woodworking to the listing though.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Let's kill Wal-Mart

http://i38.tinypic.com/2s1orxd.jpg

[Kludge]

I love Walmart for their efficiency and effectiveness. I hate protectionism, and I hate the minimum wage. Eliminate the minimum wage and you've made Walmart's current business model much less appealing.

[Truth Warrior]

http://i38.tinypic.com/2s1orxd.jpg

Hillary arriving for a WalMart board of director's meeting? :D

[votefreedomfirst]

The only real problem I have with Walmart is that as a company it often encourages employees to seek (and provides information for) state welfare/medicare/etc. aid instead of paying decent wages and benefits. So it's an extremely successful company that is subsidized by taxpayers.

That and the Walton family, worth tens of billions of dollars, gives hardly anything at all to charity. That's not nearly as offensive to me as the eagnerness to tap into taxpayers instead of their bottom line, though.

[ShowMeLiberty]

what's wrong with wallmart?

by attacking wallmart, you're attacking a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. the fact that America can trade paper dollars for the import of real goods that can be sold for cheap in wallmart is a good thing for the time being. unfortunately, that system will come crashing down because it's not sustainable... so this is what you need to be attacking... not wallmart. they're just running a business, and they run the business very well. if you want America to start to produce things, they can't have the ability to print paper dollars instead of producing real goods.

I hate WalMart because it's always so crowded. I try to find what I need at KMart instead. ;)

But the quoted post is pretty much true. WalMart is just running a very successful business model and they obviously fulfill a huge consumer need for inexpensive products.

Plus that $4 prescription plan they started (now copied by other retail drug outlets) was a great idea. If that isn't free market showing government how it's done, somebody tell me why not.

The real problem is the policies, both gov't and private, that sent all these manufacturing jobs overseas where items can be produced far more cheaply. Ask the big labor unions why American companies can't compete. Ask the politicians who voted for NAFTA why American companies can't compete. Ask the politicians who continue to give China "most favored nation" trading status why American companies can't compete.

[Truth Warrior]

The only real problem I have with Walmart is that as a company it often encourages employees to seek (and provides information for) state welfare/medicare/etc. aid instead of paying decent wages and benefits. So it's an extremely successful company that is subsidized by taxpayers.

That and the Walton family, worth tens of billions of dollars, gives hardly anything at all to charity. That's not nearly as offensive to me as the eagnerness to tap into taxpayers instead of their bottom line, though.

Their money, their choice. I imagine that most of their wealth is tied up in WalMart stock. ;)

[Truth Warrior]

I hate WalMart because it's always so crowded. I try to find what I need at KMart instead. ;)

But the quoted post is pretty much true. WalMart is just running a very successful business model and they obviously fulfill a huge consumer need for inexpensive products.

Plus that $4 prescription plan they started (now copied by other retail drug outlets) was a great idea. If that isn't free market showing government how it's done, somebody tell me why not.

The real problem is the policies, both gov't and private, that sent all these manufacturing jobs overseas where items can be produced far more cheaply. Ask the big labor unions why American companies can't compete. Ask the politicians who voted for NAFTA why American companies can't compete. Ask the politicians who continue to give China "most favored nation" trading status why American companies can't compete.

"Nobody goes there anymore, because it's always so crowded." -- Yogi Berra

:D

[Petar]

Dream on. Ron Paul voters are a rounding error to WalMart. :D

1.2 million consumers would be a good start.

Also, once we are all supporting each other, then we will be able to grow fantastically.




People want cheap products so they can buy even MORE stuff.
I personally shop at Walmart regularly because well, there is no other place to shop. I could go to Sears but I can't afford their stuff. So, Walmart or Kmart it is.
If you have children (and I have many), Walmart is a savior on your budget.

Fair enough.

Buy inexpensive products, support your family, I get the picture.

But its also a double edged sword.

Americans spending all of their money at Mal-Mart supports the direction that this country is moving towards Chinese style fascism.

What we really need is a way to bring manufacturing back to the United States.

Also, supporting businesses that will donate towards liberty candidates will create extra value for your purchases as well.

The goal of this project is to give you more options in the market place, so that hopefully soon you can make these kinds of purchases for your family as well.

I think that if we try and support each other as much as possible, then that will help us to be more competitive with Wal-Mart as well, so hopefully you'll be able to afford these options.





NO! Cause then I would be out of a job. And seriously, if they only sold American goods, which are loads more expensive, then no one would be able to afford to buy anything.

The rest is OK though.

Well, I don't want you out of a job per se, but I do hope that liberty supporting organizations can grow to defeat Wal-Mart in the market place, so that you can find work at one such place then.

Yes, Wal-Mart is more competitive because it sells slave made products, everyone knows that, and that's what I want us to be able to defeat.





Everybody HATES WalMart, except the customers. :D


People need to know that there really will be a tangible price for selling your soul to the devil, and that will arrive as complete fascism in America if we don't find a way out of this ugly situation soon.





Same with me! NO jobs in Utah, Walmart though was hiring. Unless someone here can pay me to stay home then I need a job.

I feel your pain, and like I said, I do hope that liberty supporting organizations can grow to defeat Wal-Mart in the market place, so that you can find work at one such place then.




what's wrong with wallmart?

by attacking wallmart, you're attacking a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. the fact that America can trade paper dollars for the import of real goods that can be sold for cheap in wallmart is a good thing for the time being. unfortunately, that system will come crashing down because it's not sustainable... so this is what you need to be attacking... not wallmart. they're just running a business, and they run the business very well. if you want America to start to produce things, they can't have the ability to print paper dollars instead of producing real goods.

Well, I do agree with you that the funny money/Federal Reserve System is at the heart of Americas economic woes, but I also believe that America loses an important part of itself when it chooses Chinese slave labor for made in America products.

Obviously it would have been nice if we could have done away with the Fed a long time ago, then maybe we would not even be having this problem, but right now I am just trying to find a way for us to cope.

I think if we start using our federal reserve notes to build an economy that supports liberty and will abolish the Fed, then that will be very helpful.

[votefreedomfirst]

Their money, their choice. I imagine that most of their wealth is tied up in WalMart stock. ;)

Of course...but you can't defend their practice of forcing taxpayers to subsidize their inadequate wages and benefits. Sure that's a problem with the system as a whole, but Walmart has no qualms with exploiting it.

[Truth Warrior]

Of course...but you can't defend their practice of forcing taxpayers to subsidize their inadequate wages and benefits. Sure that's a problem with the system as a whole, but Walmart has no qualms with exploiting it. Of course I don't. I don't think WalMart is FORCING anybody to do anything. That's the government's job. ;)

[FindLiberty]

Protectionism: That last union wage increase ($57.33 per hour) with health care benefits requires all consumers avoid those low cost stores selling stuff made in china (for $.48 per day). Yea, they should pay a US company 30x more for the same stuff... YOU pay more so I can keep my job.

Ain't' it grand?

Forcing taxpayer subsidy is just the gravy on top if "it".

[KenInMontiMN]

If Dr. Paul's reasonable tariffs were imposed- particularly against trade partners wildly out of trade balance, along with strict enforcement of laws pertaining to employment/cash contracting w/undocumented here, then simultaneously there would be a rise in US mfg jobs coinciding with a much stronger demand for unskilled labor. These would produce much better low-end wages due to market forces working their magic, more than offsetting price increases. The working poor would benefit the most; the non-working poor would be looking at much stronger incentive to work and much greater opportunity to do exactly that. Median level labor reward would feel an upward push right along with it. Coincidentally the demand for legal and documented immigration would be stronger, as would the demand to return non-violent Americans held unproductively in incarcerated state back into the labor market economy.

The rampant rise in military deployment overseas, both private as well as US service, US incarceration rates, trade imbalance, unchecked flow of illegal immigation- these phenomenon coincide with one another and are intertwined as symtoms/causes of one another. In a very real sense, whether planned that way or not, the flood of illegals serves the purpose of replacement workers for millions of incarcerated/deployed Americans removed from the economy as productive individuals here. That removal spurs both the demand for the immigrant, legal or otherwise, as well as the need to lean more heavily on the products of overseas labor and drive our external debt deeper into the red.

[Truth Warrior]

1.2 million consumers would be a good start.

Also, once we are all supporting each other, then we will be able to grow fantastically.



Like spitting in the ocean.<IMHO> Do you know how many customers WalMart has? WalMart has CLOSED stores with more customers than that. :D


People need to know that there really will be a tangible price for selling your soul to the devil, and that will arrive as complete fascism in America if we don't find a way out of this ugly situation soon.


Keep telling that to the voters. LOUD, CLEAR and OFTEN. ;)

[Petar]

http://i38.tinypic.com/2s1orxd.jpg

Heh, you are implying that I am quixotic...

Well, I think you are a giant, and I am going to slay you I guess...

Dick


I love Walmart for their efficiency and effectiveness. I hate protectionism, and I hate the minimum wage. Eliminate the minimum wage and you've made Walmart's current business model much less appealing.

Heh, I'm sure that IG Farbin made efficient use of its concentration camp victim/slave laborers as well.

I'm not sure where I stand on things like free trade and protectionism, I have to learn more. I know I'm against minimum wage too though.



The only real problem I have with Walmart is that as a company it often encourages employees to seek (and provides information for) state welfare/medicare/etc. aid instead of paying decent wages and benefits. So it's an extremely successful company that is subsidized by taxpayers.

That and the Walton family, worth tens of billions of dollars, gives hardly anything at all to charity. That's not nearly as offensive to me as the eagnerness to tap into taxpayers instead of their bottom line, though.

Yeah, encouraging employees to collect state welfare sounds sleazy. I think taking advantage of Chinese slave labor is sleazy too though.




I hate WalMart because it's always so crowded. I try to find what I need at KMart instead. ;)

But the quoted post is pretty much true. WalMart is just running a very successful business model and they obviously fulfill a huge consumer need for inexpensive products.

Plus that $4 prescription plan they started (now copied by other retail drug outlets) was a great idea. If that isn't free market showing government how it's done, somebody tell me why not.

The real problem is the policies, both gov't and private, that sent all these manufacturing jobs overseas where items can be produced far more cheaply. Ask the big labor unions why American companies can't compete. Ask the politicians who voted for NAFTA why American companies can't compete. Ask the politicians who continue to give China "most favored nation" trading status why American companies can't compete.


Wal-Mart takes advantage of Chinese slave labor to provide cheep products.

May not be illegal, but it's probably immoral, and we are going to have to pay the piper one day, as long as we continue to sell our soul to this system.

$4 prescription plan that works? Sounds like successful free market capitalism, I think that's good.

I happen to agree with you that trade Unions grow to a point where they kill their host, and that's not good for anyone. If a company like that dies, then the free market has spoken, but when Lee Iacoka get's a government bailout because of it, then that's a government policy that hurts us all by inflating our dollar.

Is NAFTA another government policy that hurts us all? Probably I guess, but I do need to learn more about that.

Like I said, the point of this whole project is to use our ideals to create a competitive market place, so that we can use it to effect political change.

Ultimately it's the Fed that we need to do away with, and perhaps NAFTA too, I don't know for sure yet.

But I do know that we need to organize ourselves into an effective socio/economic/political machine, so that we can have the power to effect the changes that we need to make.

[Truth Warrior]

What LAWS ( so called ) is WalMart breaking? :rolleyes:

[Petar]

What LAWS ( so called ) is WalMart breaking? :rolleyes:


Well, I never said it was breaking any laws, but that does not mean it's good for America to be spending all of its money there.

What laws do the masses break when they vote for Obama or McCain?

How about the law of "don't piss into the wind"?

[ShowMeLiberty]

Wal-Mart takes advantage of Chinese slave labor to provide cheep products.

May not be illegal, but it's probably immoral, and we are going to have to pay the piper one day, as long as we continue to sell our soul to this system.

Yes we will. But trying to kill WalMart for successfully working the system we all live in does not fix the problem. Fix the real problem and WalMart will find itself with a lot more competition. The consumers will naturally cut WalMart down to size if and when they have more realistic choices.


I happen to agree with you that trade Unions grow to a point where they kill their host, and that's not good for anyone. If a company like that dies, then the free market has spoken, but when Lee Iacoka get's a government bailout because of it, then that's a government policy that hurts us all by inflating our dollar.

Exactly. This is a prime example of government policy being the real problem, not the business that takes advantage of what government makes available.


Is NAFTA another government policy that hurts us all? Probably I guess, but I do need to learn more about that.

Yes, NAFTA disguises itself as "free trade" but actually kills real free trade by favoring certain big companies and making trade with the US difficult or impossible for small or new businesses. Definitely learn more about this and other things people have mentioned in this thread. WalMart is a very visible target but it isn't the root cause of what is wrong.


Like I said, the point of this whole project is to use our ideals to create a competitive market place, so that we can use it to effect political change.

Nothing wrong with that.

[Indy Vidual]

Off to shop at the 'evil' Walmart now...


/ Cheap Chinese junk, Yummy!

[votefreedomfirst]

Well, I never said it was breaking any laws, but that does not mean it's good for America to be spending all of its money there.


As Peter Schiff might point out, what's the true nature of this "money" we're sending over to China? In reality, China is giving away everything that they export. That's a pretty sweet deal for the United States if you ask me.

[Truth Warrior]

Well, I never said it was breaking any laws, but that does not mean it's good for America to be spending all of its money there.

What laws do the masses break when they vote for Obama or McCain?

How about the law of "don't piss into the wind"? And I didn't say that you did. That's why I asked the question. :) ALL it's money? :confused:

None, the system actually encourages it. If voting ever really changed ANYTHING, it would be illegal.<IMHO> ;)

Yeah, how about that? Not really a good idea.<IMHO> But that sure doesn't seem to stop the "true believer" dedicated voters. :rolleyes:

[fr33domfightr]

You can blame Walmart for using Chinese made goods, but then you'd also have to blame those that shop there. That being said, sometimes I go to Walmart (Target in my area) and I always look for American made products, if available. Typically, they can't be found at all (even at the higher price I expect), that's what I don't like. The problem I see with cheap Chinese products is the quality is cheap as well. So usually, I'll just stick to items like toiletries that would be the same, no matter where I shop.


FF

[Petar]

As Peter Schiff might point out, what's the true nature of this "money" we're sending over to China? In reality, China is giving away everything that they export. That's a pretty sweet deal for the United States if you ask me.

I'm pretty sure that Americans could make better use of this money by buying made in America products, and also using it to support political campaigns that are going to change the root causes of diseases like Mal-Mart.

I'm just trying to provide more options, so that maybe we can start doing this easily en-mass.

[MGreen]

Let's kill government first, then worry about WalMart.

[Truth Warrior]

Let's kill government first, then worry about WalMart. Now there's an idea. ;)

:D

[yongrel]

Stupid thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGb9OLqsvV8

[Petar]

Let's kill government first, then worry about WalMart.

Let's gang up on Wal-Mart and defeat them in the free market, and then use the money we earn to reform government.

[Petar]

Stupid thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGb9OLqsvV8

Worthless contribution

[Truth Warrior]

Worthless contribution qft.

[Petar]

qft.

Go fuck yourself

[Truth Warrior]

Go fuck yourself I WAS agreeing with YOU. DUH!! Get a clue. :rolleyes: What does "qft" mean?

[Petar]

I WAS agreeing with YOU. DUH!! Get a clue. :rolleyes: What does "qft" mean?

Oh, I looked up "qft" and all I could find was "quit fucking talking".

Since you quoted my post, I thought you meant me.

Ok, misunderstanding, I apologize I guess.

Friends?

[amy31416]

I WAS agreeing with YOU. DUH!! Get a clue. :rolleyes: What does "qft" mean?

I'd be pissed if you agreed with me too. Fortunately that has not yet happened. :D:p

[votefreedomfirst]

Just to be clear, QFT is an acronym for "quoted for truth".

[Melissa]

I don't shop at walmart any more and have not for months, thier are other stores it just takes a bit of looking around

[Truth Warrior]

Oh, I looked up "qft" and all I could find was "quit fucking talking".

Since you quoted my post, I thought you meant me.

Ok, misunderstanding, I apologize I guess.

Friends? qft = "quoted for truth". ;)

Apology accepted, I guess.

Your call, it's up to you. :) I'll survive, either way.

[AJ Antimony]

One, we haven't even been able to get 100,000 people out of 1.2 million to simply sign up on a fuckin website, let alone work together on a project

And Two, Wal-Mart hating is BULLSHIT! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGb9OLqsvV8)

[Truth Warrior]

One, we haven't even been able to get 100,000 people out of 1.2 million to simply sign up on a fuckin website, let alone work together on a project

And Two, Wal-Mart hating is BULLSHIT! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGb9OLqsvV8)

qft! :D

[yongrel]

I like Walmart. I am on a shoestring budget, and it's fantastic to be able to buy everything that I need for under 30 bucks. If you can find another store where I can buy 3 tshirts, 1 pair of shorts, a 6 foot extension cord, Thomas the Tank Engine bedding, and double-sided tape for less than the $28.90 I paid this morning, don't keep it to yourself.

Walmart has helped the poor of this country far more than any government program.

[Petar]

One, we haven't even been able to get 100,000 people out of 1.2 million to simply sign up on a fuckin website, let alone work together on a project

And Two, Wal-Mart hating is BULLSHIT! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGb9OLqsvV8)


Well, we have more than 80,000 people that the CFL will hopefully promote this project to, and that would be a very good start.

And if it starts making significant money for the businesses who participate, then why should not all of the 1.2 million people who voted for Ron hear about it quickly?

Don't you think that money is a good motivator?

I'm not really asking people to do any work, I'm just asking businesses to sign up, so that we'll all have an easy way to find each others businesses.

Unless I'm mistaken, shopping is also a common activity that people regularly participate in anyways?

[Truth Warrior]

I like Walmart. I am on a shoestring budget, and it's fantastic to be able to buy everything that I need for under 30 bucks. If you can find another store where I can buy 3 tshirts, 1 pair of shorts, a 6 foot extension cord, Thomas the Tank Engine bedding, and double-sided tape for less than the $28.90 I paid this morning, don't keep it to yourself.

Walmart has helped the poor of this country far more than any government program. I've recently just fallen in love with "Dollar Tree", etc., etc.

Everything for a FRN. :cool:

[acptulsa]

Walmart has helped the poor of this country far more than any government program.

Yes indeed. By acting as a major clearing house for imported goods of every description, they have helped a whole bunch of blue collar middle class people escape the drudgery of their backbreaking jobs. And out of the middle class, but that's beside the point. Right? What better way to help the poor than to increase their numbers so they aren't all alone?

And, yes, there were government programs that made it all possible.

[Petar]

I like Walmart. I am on a shoestring budget, and it's fantastic to be able to buy everything that I need for under 30 bucks. If you can find another store where I can buy 3 tshirts, 1 pair of shorts, a 6 foot extension cord, Thomas the Tank Engine bedding, and double-sided tape for less than the $28.90 I paid this morning, don't keep it to yourself.

Walmart has helped the poor of this country far more than any government program.

Okey doke, fair enough, shoe-string budget, and Wal-Mart sells cheap stuff.

Well, hopefully when all liberty supporters are listing their businesses on here and supporting each other, then maybe you can find some competitive deals.

Wouldn't it be nice if you could also know that your money was also going towards liberty campaigns, and maybe even made in America products?

That's all that I'm going for here really.

That, and maybe a way to work in gold based or alternative currencies too.

[Truth Warrior]

I once saw a "BUY AMERICAN!" sign in a WalMart.

On the back, in fine print, it said "Printed in CHINA". :D

[NEPA_Revolution]

Hasnt anyone seen the south park wal-mart episode? You have to break the heart by the TV section :cool:

[Ozwest]

I love Walmart for their efficiency and effectiveness. I hate protectionism, and I hate the minimum wage. Eliminate the minimum wage and you've made Walmart's current business model much less appealing.

For those advocating the end of the currently dismal minimum wage, why not similar dissatifaction towards over-blown executive salaries, perks, and severance packages?

It is the minimum wage earners fault that the economy is in decline, not Enron type executives, unscrupulous private parties, greedy lenders, apathetic politicians, thieves, and con men.

Who is exploiting people and weakening civil society?

The person flipping your burger or cleaning your toilet. Makes perfect sense.

[liberteebell]

what's wrong with wallmart?

by attacking wallmart, you're attacking a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. the fact that America can trade paper dollars for the import of real goods that can be sold for cheap in wallmart is a good thing for the time being. unfortunately, that system will come crashing down because it's not sustainable... so this is what you need to be attacking... not wallmart. they're just running a business, and they run the business very well. if you want America to start to produce things, they can't have the ability to print paper dollars instead of producing real goods.

+1

I can walk to the nearest brand new Super Wal-Mart in my town but I rarely shop there. I despise Wal-Mart, mainly because of how they use eminent domain to acquire property to build their stores. Even so, Wal-Mart is the symptom; who can blame a business for taking advantage of free government assistance and our broken monetary system?

My little "Boycott of One" is to avoid paying taxes or reducing the amount of taxes I pay by buying used goods at garage sales, thrift shops, pawn shops, flea markets, bartering and private sales; buying only necessities at retail stores, doing without the latest fad such as wide screen teevees, and just plain doing without PERIOD. I don't drive unless I absolutely have to and then, I try to combine several errands in one trip.

I otherwise support small businesses whenever possible, and if I know of a Liberty person who runs a business, I support them.

It's difficult to get kids out of the Consumerism mode, especially when all their friends have the latest and greatest of everything but I certainly try to minimize how much my family participates.

[Petar]

For those advocating the end of the currently dismal minimum wage, why not similar dissatifaction towards over-blown executive salaries, perks, and severance packages?

It is the minimum wage earners fault that the economy is in decline, not Enron type executives, unscrupulous private parties, greedy lenders, apathetic politicians, thieves, and con men.

Who is exploiting people and weakening civil society?

The person flipping your burger or cleaning your toilet. Makes perfect sense.

Well, I don't believe in minimum or maximum wages, but I certainly don't appreciate criminals in the market place, particularly the super rich ones like Enron executives who cause the most damage.

People need to realize that it is crime, and not capitalism itself that needs to be controlled.

The simple fact of the matter is that the bigger the government, then the less power people have over it, so the easier it is for criminals to penetrate.

The federal reserve system would be a prime example of the biggest criminals in the world, in collusion with some of the biggest government in the world, causing some of the worst destruction possible within a society.

So no, I don't want a maximum wage, I want a smaller government, and that would be the opposite.

So hopefully, when the Fed is abolished one day, then maybe the criminals who run it can actually see justice at some point.

That's the dream anyways...

[mediahasyou]

Walmart is helping 3rd world countries modernize. If walmart were not to bring their stores into china, the Chinese would have worse jobs and would be stuck in subsistance farming. However, Walmart can provide cheaper and better products for the Chinese; Therefore, China can focus on more modern services and products than what Walmart sells. Therefore, giving the Chinese better quality jobs.

[Petar]

+1

I can walk to the nearest brand new Super Wal-Mart in my town but I rarely shop there. I despise Wal-Mart, mainly because of how they use eminent domain to acquire property to build their stores. Even so, Wal-Mart is the symptom; who can blame a business for taking advantage of free government assistance and our broken monetary system?

My little "Boycott of One" is to avoid paying taxes or reducing the amount of taxes I pay by buying used goods at garage sales, thrift shops, pawn shops, flea markets, bartering and private sales; buying only necessities at retail stores, doing without the latest fad such as wide screen teevees, and just plain doing without PERIOD. I don't drive unless I absolutely have to and then, I try to combine several errands in one trip.

I otherwise support small businesses whenever possible, and if I know of a Liberty person who runs a business, I support them.

It's difficult to get kids out of the Consumerism mode, especially when all their friends have the latest and greatest of everything but I certainly try to minimize how much my family participates.

Well, I do agree that Wal-Mart is a symptom of the disease as opposed to being the disease itself, but I also know that if we can organize ourselves to defeat them in the free-market, then we will have a lot more power to effect the political changes that we need to make in order to cure the disease.

You sound like you are doing a good job on your own, and all that I am trying to do is make it easier for all of us to follow suite en-mass.

[Truth Warrior]

The BIGGEST customer of China, Inc. IS WalMart.

Perhaps WalMart is merely a CIA plot. Just get them dependent on WalMart and then cut their throat. ;)

[Roxi]

i already boycotted walmart... and i work for one of its competitors, but my boycott was based on the fact that they are evil, not that they import from china, because my company also gets most of its products from china, so does kmart, and dollar general... so if we boycotted based on that we wouldn't be shopping anywhere

[Petar]

i already boycotted walmart... and i work for one of its competitors, but my boycott was based on the fact that they are evil, not that they import from china, because my company also gets most of its products from china, so does kmart, and dollar general... so if we boycotted based on that we wouldn't be shopping anywhere

Well, if the 1.2 million people who voted for Ron all list their businesses here: www.freemarketforliberty.com then you'll probably have a lot of places to shop that may be competitive, and may provide you with the added bonus of supporting liberty campaigns (a tool will be added to show this).

Many of these businesses may sell made in America products to, so all in all it will be very excellent for America.

[Roxi]

and hey, that freemarketforliberty.com site is awesome... jay and i were talking about doing something like this a few weeks ago

[Rhys]

isn't hating walmart a socialist dem thing?

[yongrel]

isn't hating walmart a socialist dem thing?

It's a Kucinich thing ;)

[Petar]

Walmart is helping 3rd world countries modernize. If walmart were not to bring their stores into china, the Chinese would have worse jobs and would be stuck in subsistance farming. However, Walmart can provide cheaper and better products for the Chinese; Therefore, China can focus on more modern services and products than what Walmart sells. Therefore, giving the Chinese better quality jobs.

I would not cheer for modernized fascism. Besides the domestic problems that are exacerbated by Americans all shopping at Wal-Mart, I would love to see Wal-Mart lose all of its American business for the simple fact that China is fascist, and it's immoral that we sponsor fascism. Maybe then China's government would adopt greater liberty, if we'd only give them money in that case. Nonetheless, it is our domestic issues that we need to focus on first, and the fact of the matter is that we as a people could make much better use of the money we spend on Wal-Mart, if we'd only use it to support liberty instead.

[Kludge]

For those advocating the end of the currently dismal minimum wage, why not similar dissatifaction towards over-blown executive salaries, perks, and severance packages?

It is the minimum wage earners fault that the economy is in decline, not Enron type executives, unscrupulous private parties, greedy lenders, apathetic politicians, thieves, and con men.

Who is exploiting people and weakening civil society?

The person flipping your burger or cleaning your toilet. Makes perfect sense.

Silly Boots, this has nothing to do with who I like or am blaming (politicians, for the record). No one is entitled to artificially inflated wages, and certainly not entitlements from the government.

Do you disagree that Walmart goes to China for cheap labor?

[Petar]

isn't hating walmart a socialist dem thing?

Yeah, Hillary Clinton really hated Wal-Mart when she was on its board, and it must be pretty socialist of me to suggest that we should use the free-market to take away their business for ourselves.

[Ozwest]

Well, I don't believe in minimum or maximum wages, but I certainly don't appreciate criminals in the market place, particularly the super rich ones like Enron executives who cause the most damage.

People need to realize that it is crime, and not capitalism itself that needs to be controlled.

The simple fact of the matter is that the bigger the government, then the less power people have over it, so the easier it is for criminals to penetrate.

The federal reserve system would be a prime example of the biggest criminals in the world, in collusion with some of the biggest government in the world, causing some of the worst destruction possible within a society.

So no, I don't want a maximum wage, I want a smaller government, and that would be the opposite.

So hopefully, when the Fed is abolished one day, then maybe the criminals who run it can actually see justice at some point.

That's the dream anyways...

I agree with the majority of your points, but call me a socialist if you like...

Entrusting mega corporations with the security and determination of nations and societies based on global capitalism is not what the founding fathers envisioned.

Already, America is heading towards a corporate-fascist state.

[libertea]

Same with me! NO jobs in Utah, Walmart though was hiring. Unless someone here can pay me to stay home then I need a job.

Vote for Obama and you will be more likely to get paid to stay home.

[Truth Warrior]

Well, if the 1.2 million people who voted for Ron all list their businesses here: www.freemarketforliberty.com (http://www.freemarketforliberty.com) then you'll probably have a lot of places to shop that may be competitive, and may provide you with the added bonus of supporting liberty campaigns (a tool will be added to show this).

Many of these businesses may sell made in America products to, so all in all it will be very excellent for America. Talk to the "globalizers". :D BTW, it ain't the people, and NEVER was. ;)

[Ozwest]

Silly Boots, this has nothing to do with who I like or am blaming (politicians, for the record). No one is entitled to artificially inflated wages, and certainly not entitlements from the government.

Do you disagree that Walmart goes to China for cheap labor?

Minimum wage earners are not on artificially inflated wages. Many executives are.

I do not disagree with Walmart, or any other business pursuing financial advantage.

But... You as a citizen, should be prepared for catastrophic consequences, and the continuing demise of home-grown talent, and infrastructure.

As many of these corporations have benefited from hard working Americans, taxpayers infrastructure investment, and environmental liberties... Is it not commiserate, that these corporations invest in the community and nation that sustained them?

Or is that socialism?

[Truth Warrior]

I agree with the majority of your points, but call me a socialist if you like...

Entrusting mega corporations with the security and determination of nations and societies based on global capitalism is not what the founding fathers envisioned.

Already, America is heading towards a corporate-fascist state.

I like! :D

A socialist barbarian viking Neaderthal Aussie.

That works!

Oh, you mean the "evolved" to "Corporate State of Amerika"? :(

[Ozwest]

I like! :D

A socialist barbarian viking Neaderthal Aussie.

That works!

Oh, you mean the "evolved" to "Corporate State of Amerika"? :(

You forgot Amerika schooled and raised 7 - 24.

I have a heavy American accent, with the hint of slightly Northwest Barbarian.

My fellow Neanderthals keep "ribbing " me about it.

I am an outcast. :D

[Kludge]

Minimum wage earners are not on artificially inflated wages. Many executives are.

I must have heard that wrong... Why do we need a mandated minimum wage if their labor is already valued highly enough to receive those wages?

The share holders are the property owners, the CEO is usually the largest (or at least one of the largest) owner of the corporation. It is the duty of shareholders to vote out the abusive and incompetent board of directors and those who inflate their wage beyond their ability. The labor of a skill-less worker is tedious, but there is low risk if that person messes up. An entire corporation can become FUBAR without proper administration.

But... You as a citizen, should be prepared for catastrophic consequences, and the continuing demise of home-grown talent, and infrastructure.

Again, this is the failure of a government following the whims of its people. Labor should not be worth any more or less based on the nation you live in. If skill-less labor is high in supply, it must be accepted that price (wages) will be low.


As many of these corporations have benefited from hard working Americans, taxpayers infrastructure investment, and environmental liberties... Is it not commiserate, that these corporations invest in the community and nation that sustained them?

Or is that socialism?

That is socialism, bordering Communism. It is the duty of entrepreneurs to supply demand, that is all (unless they are a public company, in which case they have responsibilities to the shareholders). When someone chooses to invest money, they are already doing everyone a great favor. They provide direct jobs, tax revenue and indirect jobs by demanding more resources.

[Truth Warrior]

You forgot Amerika schooled and raised 7 - 24.

I have a heavy American accent, with the hint of slightly Northwest Barbarian.

My fellow Neanderthals keep "ribbing " me about it.

I am an outcast. :D There too, hunh? :(

:D

[KenInMontiMN]

The unchecked rise of corporatism is largely what has brought up the the point we're at; the traditional responsibility of gov't to keep such things broken up into smaller disconnected pieces has been almost completely abdicated. Walmart is merely a symptom of the rise in forces Andrew Jackson for one fought so hard to control and break up.

[Truth Warrior]

The unchecked rise of corporatism is largely what has brought up the the point we're at; the traditional responsibility of gov't to keep such things broken up into smaller disconnected pieces has been almost completely abdicated. Walmart is merely a symptom of the rise in forces Andrew Jackson for one fought so hard to control and break up. Through active and willing actions over time on the part of the "bought and paid for" governments, courtesy of the voters mainly and ALL of the American taxpayers. :p :rolleyes:

[Petar]

Obviously our politicians sold us all down the river a long time ago, but that does not change the fact that we can still use what is left of our free market so that we can make money for ourselves, and then use that money to change the politics that need to be changed.

Unless someone here knows how to change politics without $$$

1.2 million liberty lovers is a potential gold mine, and I still maintain that we could find much better uses for all of the money that Walmart makes in America.

1 - Companies that support liberty campaigns
2 - Made in USA products

[Ozwest]

I must have heard that wrong... Why do we need a mandated minimum wage if their labor is already valued highly enough to receive those wages?

The share holders are the property owners, the CEO is usually the largest (or at least one of the largest) owner of the corporation. It is the duty of shareholders to vote out the abusive and incompetent board of directors and those who inflate their wage beyond their ability. The labor of a skill-less worker is tedious, but there is low risk if that person messes up. An entire corporation can become FUBAR without proper administration.


Again, this is the failure of a government following the whims of its people. Labor should not be worth any more or less based on the nation you live in. If skill-less labor is high in supply, it must be accepted that price (wages) will be low.



That is socialism, bordering Communism. It is the duty of entrepreneurs to supply demand, that is all (unless they are a public company, in which case they have responsibilities to the shareholders). When someone chooses to invest money, they are already doing everyone a great favor. They provide direct jobs, tax revenue and indirect jobs by demanding more resources.

Hooly Dooly!

You are a self-righteous capitalist.

How dare others question the omnipotent guidance of those who "choose" to do great favors?

Sorry, but I owned and ran a mid sized business for many years, and was indebted to my community, and the employees who helped my business thrive.

Guess I'm old-fashioned.

[Truth Warrior]

Obviously our politicians sold us all down the river a long time ago, but that does not change the fact that we can still use what is left of our free market so that we can make money for ourselves, and then use that money to change the politics that need to be changed.

Unless someone here knows how to change politics without $$$

1.2 million liberty lovers is a potential gold mine, and I still maintain that we could find much better uses for all of the money that Walmart makes in America.

1 - Companies that support liberty campaigns
2 - Made in USA products And yet they just keep on getting elected , reelected and rereelected. Go figure. ;) Surely if the voters disapproved and disliked their performances, they'd just fire their sorry asses. Wouldn't ya think?

[Kludge]

Hooly Dooly!

You are a self-righteous capitalist.

How dare others question the omnipotent guidance of those who "choose" to do great favors?

Sorry, but I owned and ran a mid sized business for many years, and was indebted to my community, and the employees who helped my business thrive.

Guess I'm old-fashioned.

:D


This is why altruism fails. Those blessed givers of joy and life expect something in return and it is given due to the socially accepted "moral obligation" receivers have (by the way, what gift were you given by the "community"?). Capitalism doesn't function rationally or efficiently when that happens and pretty soon you have corporations like Target giving 5% of their profits away.

Joining a true Commune is only possible under an otherwise anarchic society, something I'm hoping against.

[Ozwest]

:D


This is why altruism fails. Those blessed givers of joy and life expect something in return and it is given due to the socially accepted "moral obligation" receivers have (by the way, what gift were you given by the "community"?). Capitalism doesn't function rationally or efficiently when that happens and pretty soon you have corporations like Target giving 5% of their profits away.

Joining a true Commune is only possible under an otherwise anarchic society, something I'm hoping against.

Sorry mate,

I do not want to live my life according to spread sheets. You can be a capitalist, entrepreneur, businessman, or garbo, but a social conscience invigorates others.

Obviously, you are a wanna - be, or you would understand this.

But... You might be the commandant at the Chinese/prison cheap labor/Share holders facility.

[Kludge]

Sorry mate,

I do not want to live my life according to spread sheets. You can be a capitalist, entrepreneur, businessman, or garbo, but a social conscience invigorates others.

Obviously, you are a wanna - be, or you would understand this.

But... You might be the commandant at the Chinese/prison cheap labor/Share holders facility.


I understand the benefit of putting "Thank You For Your Patronage" on a plastic bag....

It's just not something I believe in.

[Petar]

And yet they just keep on getting elected , reelected and rereelected. Go figure. ;) Surely if the voters disapproved and disliked their performances, they'd just fire their sorry asses. Wouldn't ya think?

It's because historically, only the really wealthy have been able to afford mass media like newspapers, and radio stations, and TV networks, so super rich criminals like the Rothschilds et al have been able to get away with any crime that they want, whether it be the creating the Great Depression, instituting the Fed and the income tax, and the list goes on and on.

But now with the internet, anyone can make a website and reaches the whole world, so the elites days are seriously numbered.

When Ron Paul ran in 88 he went nowhere, but look at how much we accomplished this time around.

Provided that society is still intact, then a libertarian will become president within a couple of generations at most.

Free society really is under the gun too though, so everything will be clashing soon too.

[Ozwest]

I understand the benefit of putting "Thank You For Your Patronage" on a plastic bag....

It's just not something I believe in.

I'm interested. What do you believe in?

Strongest survives...

Saint George slays the dragon?

Most business involves human intercourse.

Perhaps this is why I despise analysts and paper shufflers.

It might be me, that needs adjusting...

[Truth Warrior]

It's because historically, only the really wealthy have been able to afford mass media like newspapers, and radio stations, and TV networks, so super rich criminals like the Rothschilds et al have been able to get away with any crime that they want, whether it be the creating the Great Depression, instituting the Fed and the income tax, and the list goes on and on.

But now with the internet, anyone can make a website and reaches the whole world, so the elites days are seriously numbered.

When Ron Paul ran in 88 he went nowhere, but look at how much we accomplished this time around.

Provided that society is still intact, then a libertarian will become president within a couple of generations at most.

Free society really is under the gun too though, so everything will be clashing soon too. Ah, you seem to be coming around to my "plutocratic oligarchy" US government system description. :cool:

[Ozwest]

It's because historically, only the really wealthy have been able to afford mass media like newspapers, and radio stations, and TV networks, so super rich criminals like the Rothschilds et al have been able to get away with any crime that they want, whether it be the creating the Great Depression, instituting the Fed and the income tax, and the list goes on and on.

But now with the internet, anyone can make a website and reaches the whole world, so the elites days are seriously numbered.

When Ron Paul ran in 88 he went nowhere, but look at how much we accomplished this time around.

Provided that society is still intact, then a libertarian will become president within a couple of generations at most.

Free society really is under the gun too though, so everything will be clashing soon too.

I wish I could agree with you that a libertarian will become President, but I can't.

Most voters are short sighted and lazy. They require "quick fix" solutions.

I do believe Libertarians can make serious in-roads into government by working from the "bottom up." I hope some of you run for office locally, or county.

[Truth Warrior]

I wish I could agree with you that a libertarian will become President, but I can't.

Most voters are short sighted and lazy. They require "quick fix" solutions.

I do believe Libertarians can make serious in-roads into government by working from the "bottom up." I hope some of you run for office locally, or county.




What Libertarianism Is Not (http://www.lewrockwell.com/kramer/kramer18.html)
Anything but a political philosophy. Article by Johnny Kramer.

[BarryDonegan]

walmart's prices have risen in my town Kroger is cheaper, and every smaller store is also cheaper.

i would say walmart was more convenient, but next to every walmart is a shopping center with all of the relevant stores.

[Ozwest]

What Libertarianism Is Not (http://www.lewrockwell.com/kramer/kramer18.html)
Anything but a political philosophy. Article by Johnny Kramer.



Thanks for the link Truth Warrior.

Without Ron Pauls continuing guidance, I have expanded my beliefs.

I can no longer be stead-fast in rationalized individualism. I tire of analyzing the "Libertarian" correct response. Sometimes, if it "feels" right... It is.

The answers that strict Libertarians offer, sometimes seem cruel and un-caring.

I don't know how to classify my current beliefs, but I am blessed to have experienced Ron Paul, and the dynamo humm...

[Truth Warrior]

Thanks for the link Truth Warrior.

Without Ron Pauls continuing guidance, I have expanded my beliefs.

I can no longer be stead-fast in rationalized individualism. I tire of analyzing the "Libertarian" correct response. Sometimes, if it "feels" right... It is.

The answers that strict Libertarians offer, sometimes seem cruel and un-caring.

I don't know how to classify my current beliefs, but I am blessed to have experienced Ron Paul, and the dynamo humm... You're welcome. :)

There is NO THE correct libertarian response.<IMHO> There are many.

Non-aggression and NO SHEPHERDS!<IMHO> ;)

[Ozwest]

You're welcome. :)

There is NO THE correct libertarian response.<IMHO> There are many.

Non-aggression and NO SHEPHERDS!<IMHO> ;)

I miss Ron Paul. :(

[Truth Warrior]

I miss Ron Paul. :( Where'd he go?

[Ozwest]

Where'd he go?

Fair call.

I guess not spending every waking hour of my life following the man.

Is the cut-off point.

Dreaded... New Hampshire.

[raystone]

then do we kill the similiar chain that pops up in it's place, then the next one.....can't change what the market will create.

[jcarcinogen]

Skip to 1:08 to see the lives of people working under socialism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6Z9i8272jY

[fletcher]

Is this some kind of Democrat site now? I have no problem with Wal-mart. I'll continue to shop there.

[Truth Warrior]

Is this some kind of Democrat site now? I have no problem with Wal-mart. I'll continue to shop there. The owners seem to prefer diversity of some opinions. :D

[Petar]

then do we kill the similiar chain that pops up in it's place, then the next one.....can't change what the market will create.

Yeah, the idea is that we use our power acting in what free-market that we have left, and then only buy from each other as much as possible, so that we can compete with NAFTA induced abominations like Wal-Mart as much as possible, and in a perfect world, we could take every dollar of their business for ourselves, so that as many people as possible will want to join our movement, while a continuous portion of these funds go towards funding liberty campaigns, so that we can change the political realities of things like NAFTA and the Fed, in order to get to the root of the disease.


Is this some kind of Democrat site now? I have no problem with Wal-mart. I'll continue to shop there.

No, this has nothing to do with socialism.

It is complete free-market capitalism.

I am simply providing a service that will inform you as to where the liberty supporting businesses exist within your community.

Then, hopefully, you will be able to find competitive deals with organizations that will give you the added bonus of supporting your liberty candidates, and maybe made in USA products as well.

Like I said 20 times before, the whole point is for us to take all of their business, so that we can use that money to change the political things that need to be changed here, (NAFTA, the Fed) in order to make sure that our society does not continue down the Walmart road to serfdom.

And I say Walmart road to serfdom because Walmart relies on things like NAFTA and Chinese fascism in order to do business as fabulously as it does.

[Ozwest]

Yeah, the idea is that we use our power acting in what free-market that we have left, and then only buy from each other as much as possible, so that we can compete with NAFTA induced abominations like Wal-Mart as much as possible, and in a perfect world, we could take every dollar of their business for ourselves, so that as many people as possible will want to join our movement, while a continuous portion of these funds go towards funding liberty campaigns, so that we can change the political realities of things like NAFTA and the Fed, in order to get to the root of the disease.



No, this has nothing to do with socialism.

It is complete free-market capitalism.

I am simply providing a service that will inform you as to where the liberty supporting businesses exist within your community.

Then, hopefully, you will be able to find competitive deals with organizations that will give you the added bonus of supporting your liberty candidates, and maybe made in USA products as well.

Like I said 20 times before, the whole point is for us to take all of their business, so that we can use that money to change the political things that need to be changed here, (NAFTA, the Fed) in order to make sure that our society does not continue down the Walmart road to serfdom.

And I say Walmart road to serfdom because Walmart relies on things like NAFTA and Chinese fascism in order to do business as fabulously as it does.

Haahaaa. Well said.

Your Avatar suits.

[phoenixrising]

Skip to 1:08 to see the lives of people working under socialism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6Z9i8272jY


the above is a must see as well as: "WalMart: the high price of low cost."...there is much more beyond what it all *appears* to be.

when you really understand what happens re: the sub standard slave wages in china to manufacture products; internal *rules* w/the way employees are handled; lack of benefits, the repercussions of the *union* word on the premises; the scam used in creating a job position that utilizes our welfare process ON PURPOSE (& gloats about it!); the ruin of mom & pop stores across america etc...the big picture may become clearer as to why many will stay away from a wal-mart!

IF there is any *other choice* nearby....it's ultimately up to each individual to decide to support the store or not..once you understand more comprehensively what is not easily seen upfront.

(i'm pretty sure sam's club is also owned by walton) salvation army, goodwill, savers, k-mart, target, costco etc... ..whatever other small or big box near you... NONE have the internal misgivings on every conceivable level.... from product creation...to consumer. personally. knowing this...i won't go into the store.

the above video is highly worth the time to watch! ...& yes wal-mart is extremely helpful to many who really need the low prices. yet for those who have a *choice* ...watch "WalMart: the high price of low cost." ...& then decide.

if i can relay this correctly...the ONLY reason china is so successful out here is because they will NOT upgrade the value of the yen in correlation to it's true worth. hence, they get to command the US market w/their cheap, toxic & sub-standard goods.

someone mentioned earlier accolades to a good successful business plan--i beg to differ. this is ALL about beating the sick freikin' system we have in place that ALLOWS the damn loopholes for anyone to do what wal-mart has! i will not condone that as good business smarts. it's more a matter of us taking a look at the stupidity in our government that would even allow this to perpetuate...even knowing the end results in all that is cited above!!

one last thought...when purchasing products for the home or clothing etc...at a wal-mart, take notice of how long the products lasts...then decide if you really saved $$ by having to replace it sooner than if you *bought local* ...just a thought. ;)

i never expected to see this in the forums...& never fathomed responding to a thread titled as such...yet so be it....yet knowing what i know...i read it all......AND i still detest this chain w/a mad passion & would rather pay slightly more than give then 1 nickle!!

[libertarian4321]

The only real problem I have with Walmart is that as a company it often encourages employees to seek (and provides information for) state welfare/medicare/etc. aid instead of paying decent wages and benefits. So it's an extremely successful company that is subsidized by taxpayers.

That and the Walton family, worth tens of billions of dollars, gives hardly anything at all to charity. That's not nearly as offensive to me as the eagnerness to tap into taxpayers instead of their bottom line, though.

Thats not a Walmart problem, thats a BAD GOVERNMENT problem.

You don't solve that problem by bitching about Walmart, you eliminate it by ending the give aways (Walmart doesn't control that).

[libertarian4321]

And I say Walmart road to serfdom because Walmart relies on things like NAFTA and Chinese fascism in order to do business as fabulously as it does.

FYI, Walmart was kicking ass LONG before Nafta (Sam Walton died the richest man in the world 2 years before NAFTA started) and LONG before the beginning of free trade with China.

Walmart does well because it is a ruthlessly efficient company.

You end trade with China tomorrow, and Walmart will STILL be kicking butt, I guarantee it.

[Petar]

i never expected to see this in the forums...& never fathomed responding to a thread titled as such...yet so be it....yet knowing what i know...i read it all......AND i still detest this chain w/a mad passion & would rather pay slightly more than give then 1 nickle!!

Hmmmm, was my thread title really that distasteful?

I thought a fellow Wal-Mart hater would appreciate the sentiment...

[Petar]

FYI, Walmart was kicking ass LONG before Nafta (Sam Walton died the richest man in the world 2 years before NAFTA started) and LONG before the beginning of free trade with China.

Walmart does well because it is a ruthlessly efficient company.

You end trade with China tomorrow, and Walmart will STILL be kicking butt, I guarantee it.

Well, if Walmart was not presently exporting so much of Americas manufacturing to fascist Chinese slave labor, and also taking advantage of the present NAFTA situation, then I would not see such a need for us to organize ourselves to compete with them and take away all of their business as much as possible.

But, since that is the present situation, then I do know that America would be much better served if liberty supporting and American producing companies were able to compete and take as much of their business away as possible.

So for now I'm just gonna hope that we can organize to compete with them as much as possible, and take away as much of their business as possible, and grow our movement as much as possible, and eventually make all of the political changes that we need to make.

Making the political changes that we need to make in America, in order to be able to solve the root of the problem here, is the ultimate point for me.

[phoenixrising]

Hmmmm, was my thread title really that distasteful?

I thought a fellow Wal-Mart hater would appreciate the sentiment...

nope! not distasteful...hope it didn't sound that way...just not anticipated here ;)

yet note as well: for those who may not be aware of the *deeper* story...i did take the time to respond...because i feel that strongly...knowing what i've learned. ;)

when u take the time to watch the vid i mentioned...it tells a completely dif. story than what many may think "beyond low prices" n'est pas? ;)

btw" i live in HI...so saving a buck is very important to me when u deal daily w/the "cost of paradise"...yet by shopping wal-mart...i feel i'd be selling my soul in the process...knowing what i know now.

it's a matter of personal choice.

[libertarian4321]

Well, if Walmart was not presently exporting so much of Americas manufacturing to fascist Chinese slave labor, and also taking advantage of the present NAFTA situation, then I would not see such a need for us to organize ourselves to compete with them and take away all of their business as much as possible.

Making the political changes that we need to make in America, in order to be able to solve the root of the problem here, is the ultimate point for me.

Two points:

1. We aren't here to "get Walmart." You may have some issue with Walmart, but thats not why most of us are here. "Get Walmart" isn't what the Ron Paul Revolution is about.

2. Very little of what is made in China is made by slave or prison labor. China has a totalitarian government and corruption, but has a largely CAPITALIST economy (in some ways, capitalism is more vibrant in China than it is here). Some of you people still think its 1968 and the Chinese are carrying around copies of Mao's Little Red Book as they trudge to their State run factory job in some run down building. That is not how modern China runs. Almost everything you buy is produced either by factories owned by 1) Chinese Entrepreneurs- they are cranking out millionaires and billionaires at an astonishing rate- and it ain't by using prison labor or 2) Foreign companies (many of the American) building overseas factories.

[Petar]

Two points:

1. We aren't here to "get Walmart." You may have some issue with Walmart, but thats not why most of us are here. "Get Walmart" isn't what the Ron Paul Revolution is about.

2. Very little of what is made in China is made by slave or prison labor. China has a totalitarian government and corruption, but has a largely CAPITALIST economy (in some ways, capitalism is more vibrant in China than it is here). Some of you people still think its 1968 and the Chinese are carrying around copies of Mao's Little Red Book as they trudge to their State run factory job in some run down building. That is not how modern China runs. Almost everything you buy is produced either by factories owned by 1) Chinese Entrepreneurs- they are cranking out millionaires and billionaires at an astonishing rate- and it ain't by using prison labor or 2) Foreign companies (many of the American) building overseas factories.

My suggestion is that we take Walmarts business for ourselves, and I'm just using Walmart as a prime example of a company whose business we should be taking.

If we can compete with Walmart in the way that I am proposing, then we can also consistently funnel a portion of that money towards renewed money bombs for liberty.

Think of how many new people will become supporters, if we can give them an economic advantage to participate in.

Think of how many new liberty candidates this could enable.

The whole point is for us to be enabled to then make the political changes that need to be made in order to cure the disease behind the symptom that is Walmart.

NAFTA, IRS, the Fed, you name it...

And it really is a very ugly symptom that we are dealing with.

Americas manufacturing is gone, everything is being made in China, its all junk, and this is supposed to be progress?

Sorry, but a few heartless fascists getting mega rich at everyone else's expense is not my idea of progress.

That's right, a FASCIST society, China is FASCIST, because the super rich criminals who spearheaded international Communism were only really interested in creating GLOBAL FASCISM anyway.

FASCISM may have come to complete fruition in China, but I have some much better ideas about where we need to be spending our money before FASCISM comes to complete fruition here.

My only goal is to enable this initiative in a competitive manner using the free-market.

[libertarian4321]

My suggestion is that we take Walmarts business for ourselves, and I'm just using Walmart as a prime example of a company whose business we should be taking.

If we can compete with Walmart in the way that I am proposing, then we can also consistently funnel a portion of that money towards renewed money bombs for liberty.

Think of how many new people will become supporters, if we can give them an economic advantage to participate in.

Think of how many new liberty candidates this could enable.

The whole point is for us to be enabled to then make the political changes that need to be made in order to cure the disease behind the symptom that is Walmart.

NAFTA, IRS, the Fed, you name it...

And it really is a very ugly symptom that we are dealing with.

Americas manufacturing is gone, everything is being made in China, its all junk, and this is supposed to be progress?

Sorry, but a few heartless fascists getting mega rich at everyone else's expense is not my idea of progress.

That's right, a FASCIST society, China is FASCIST, because the super rich criminals who spearheaded international Communism were only really interested in creating GLOBAL FASCISM anyway.

FASCISM may have come to complete fruition in China, but I have some much better ideas about where we need to be spending our money before FASCISM comes to complete fruition here.

My only goal is to enable this initiative in a competitive manner using the free-market.

Your rant seems a bit disjointed- first going off on Walmart (which got big through good old fashioned capitalism LONG before China produced anything of consequence) and then ranting about "fascism" in China. BTW, global trade with the USA and other countries has ERODED the influence of the totalitarian government in China- and will continue to do so- China is far more open now than it was 20 years ago, both to its own citizens and to foreigners- its far from perfect, but its headed in the right direction.

Anyway, you obviously have a deep personal issue with Walmart- go ahead and start up a store to compete with them if you want (thats what Sam Walton did). But I'm not here to "get Walmart," and I suspect that many others here are not either.

[Petar]

Your rant seems a bit disjointed- first going off on Walmart (which got big through good old fashioned capitalism LONG before China produced anything of consequence) and then ranting about "fascism" in China. BTW, global trade with the USA and other countries has ERODED the influence of the totalitarian government in China- and will continue to do so- China is far more open now than it was 20 years ago, both to its own citizens and to foreigners- its far from perfect, but its headed in the right direction.

Anyway, you obviously have a deep personal issue with Walmart- go ahead and start up a store to compete with them if you want (thats what Sam Walton did). But I'm not here to "get Walmart," and I suspect that many others here are not either.

I suspect that many people here would much rather have the opportunity to find a competitive deal at a liberty supporting business with made in America products, as opposed to having to spend their money at a company that thrives off of international fascism, AKA "the globalist agenda".

[libertarian4321]

I suspect that many people here would much rather have the opportunity to find a competitive deal at a liberty supporting business with made in America products, as opposed to having to spend their money at a company that thrives off of international fascism, AKA "the globalist agenda".

BTW, I signed up for the program. I just don't agree with the anti-Walmart rants.

[Mark]

Finding out the truth about Wal-Mart's company policies and how they keep prices "low" isn't hard to do,
the info is freely available on the Internet, and if you shop there and support them then the same "blood" is on your hands,
and you share in their sins.

[Truth Warrior]

Finding out the truth about Wal-Mart's company policies and how they keep prices "low" isn't hard to do,
the info is freely available on the Internet, and if you shop there and support them then the same "blood" is on your hands,
and you share in their sins. What LAWS ( so called ) is WalMart breaking? Maybe your real beef should be with the lawmakers ( so called ). :rolleyes:

[Mark]

What LAWS ( so called ) is WalMart breaking? Maybe your real beef should be with the lawmakers ( so called ). :rolleyes:

Wal-Mart wouldn't be able to hire companies that take advantage of the poor in corrupt countries if people didn't buy from them.

If people stopped buying from them, then Wal-Mart would have to change in order to survive.

So, no, my real beef is with the people who purchase Wal-Mart products that are created with essentially slave labor,
which encourages Wal-Mart to maintain their status-quo.

e.g. If no one bought stolen goods, then the market for stolen goods would dry up, and the incentive to steal goods would lessen dramatically.

And if people would quit buying products made by abused workers from Wal-Mart in order to save a few pennies,
there wouldn't be a market for the products.

The purchases show approval of Wal-Mart tactics, and allows them to continue.

[Truth Warrior]

Wal-Mart wouldn't be able to hire companies that take advantage of the poor in corrupt countries if people didn't buy from them.

If people stopped buying from them, then Wal-Mart would have to change in order to survive.

So, no, my real beef is with the people who purchase Wal-Mart products that are created with essentially slave labor,
which encourages Wal-Mart to maintain their status-quo.

e.g. If no one bought stolen goods, then the market for stolen goods would dry up, and the incentive to steal goods would lessen dramatically.

And if people would quit buying products made by abused workers from Wal-Mart in order to save a few pennies,
there wouldn't be a market for the products. I reasonably assume that the "poor" are making the best choices for themselves, from among the available alternative options. ;)

[Mark]

I reasonably assume that the "poor" are making the best choices for themselves, from among the available alternative options. ;)

And the "available alternative options" are due to the support of the people who will buy products from companies who abuse their work force.

If people refused to support slave labor, there wouldn't be any need for it.

If people only bought from companies who treated workers fairly, then only those companies would thrive.

[Truth Warrior]

And the "available alternative options" are due to the support of the people who will buy products from companies who abuse their work force.

If people refused to support slave labor, there wouldn't be any need for it.

If people only bought from companies who treated workers fairly, then only those companies would thrive. You can "If" yourself into oblivion.

People do what they do, whether you like or approve of it, or not. ;)

I seriously doubt that you will be able to change human nature.

It's built in to the human species wiring.<IMHO>

[Mark]

You can "If" yourself into oblivion.

People do what they do, whether you like or approve of it, or not. ;)

I seriously doubt that you will be able to change human nature.

It's built in to the human species wiring.<IMHO>

Are you saying that it's "human nature" to take unfair advantage of others for personal benefit? Is that really human nature, or simply greed?

I didn't start out by saying that I was trying to change what people do,
I just pointed out that if one supports wrongdoing, then they are complicit in it.

It's somewhat akin to your sig:

"Any compromise between good and evil, only works to the detriment of the good and to the benefit of the evil."

If people turn a blind eye to evil in order to reap it's benefits, then they're taking part in the evil, and share responsibility for it.

[libertarian4321]

And the "available alternative options" are due to the support of the people who will buy products from companies who abuse their work force.

If people refused to support slave labor, there wouldn't be any need for it.

If people only bought from companies who treated workers fairly, then only those companies would thrive.

They aren't using "slave labor".

Chinese from the countryside are FLOCKING to the cities to get jobs in factories that make products sold at Walmart and every other store in the developed world. Its the biggest migration of people from the countryside to cities in the history of the world, dwarfing the migrations seen in countries like the USA in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Chinese are fighting to get those factory jobs you describe as "slave" jobs because they are easier and pay far better than backbreaking subsistence farming available previously. Those factory jobs, while paying nothing compared to similar jobs in the USA, pay a LOT more than they can make in their old jobs in the countryside.

One factory worker in the city, making stuff for Walmart, often supports an entire family.

Are the hours long? Yes. Is it "slavery"? HELL NO! When was the last time you heard of "slaves" fighting for those jobs?

The conditions in those Chinese factories, while obviously not as good as we have here today, are far better than they were in US sweatshops less than 100 years ago.

Also, I shouldn't need to tell you this, but I probably have to- if Walmart wasn't buying from those factories, then Target or Kmart or Carrefour or Karstadt whatever would. All you'd be doing is changing the name of the buyer, the life of the workers wouldn't change one bit...

[Truth Warrior]

Are you saying that it's "human nature" to take unfair advantage of others for personal benefit? Is that really human nature, or simply greed?

I didn't start out by saying that I was trying to change what people do, I just pointed out that if one supports wrongdoing,
then they are complicit in it.

It's somewhat akin to your sig:

"Any compromise between good and evil, only works to the detriment of the good and to the benefit of the evil."

If people turn a blind eye to evil in order to reap it's benefits, then they're taking part in the evil, and share responsibility for it.

Nope, I'm saying it's human nature to seek profit and avoid loss. ;) We are a "self-ish" species.<IMHO>

[Mark]

They aren't using "slave labor".

Chinese from the countryside are FLOCKING to the cities to get jobs in factories that make products sold at Walmart and every other store in the developed world. Its the biggest migration of people from the countryside to cities in the history of the world, dwarfing the migrations seen in countries like the USA in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Chinese are fighting to get those factory jobs you describe as "slave" jobs because they are easier and pay far better than backbreaking subsistence farming available previously. Those factory jobs, while paying nothing compared to similar jobs in the USA, pay a LOT more than they can make in their old jobs in the countryside.

One factory worker in the city, making stuff for Walmart, often supports an entire family.

Are the hours long? Yes. Is it "slavery"? HELL NO! When was the last time you heard of "slaves" fighting for those jobs?

The conditions in those Chinese factories, while obviously not as good as we have here today, are far better than they were in US sweatshops less than 100 years ago.

Also, I shouldn't need to tell you this, but I probably have to- if Walmart wasn't buying from those factories, then Target or Kmart or Carrefour or Karstadt whatever would. All you'd be doing is changing the name of the buyer, the life of the workers wouldn't change one bit...

Yeah, they're fighting for those jobs because those are the only ones available because there's no incentive for companies to provide better ones because people buy from the companies that pay $3 for 14 hours of back-breaking labor.

They might keep a small family barely alive with those wages, but it's hardly "support" in the true sense of a decent life.

Didn't you know? Slaves will fight for jobs if that's the only way they have to get food to eat in order to stay alive.

And I shouldn't have to tell you this, but the concept is universal among stores, regardless of brand name.

And BTW, companies are moving to places like Vietnam now because $3/day is higher than the even poorer will work for.

The movie posted earlier showed women in Bangladesh brushing their teeth with ashes on their finger because
they can't afford toothbrushes with what they're getting paid.

Is that better than starving to death? Yes. But does it make it right? No.

If people want to live an abundant lifestyle on the backs of the poor, that's their choice,
but I prefer to try and follow The Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

And take to heart the spirit behind the words, "What you have done to the least of them, you have done to me".

What caused conditions to change in America? Was it by supporting the same ol' same ol'?
Or standing up against the greed of those who took advantage?

As long as people support the way things are, they will never change.

[Truth Warrior]

Yeah, they're fighting for those jobs because those are the only ones available because there's no incentive for companies to provide better ones because people buy from the companies that pay $3 for 14 hours of back-breaking labor.

They might keep a small family barely alive with those wages, but it's hardly "support" in the true sense of a decent life.

Didn't you know? Slaves will fight for jobs if that's the only way they have to get food to eat in order to stay alive.

And I shouldn't have to tell you this, but the concept is universal among stores, regardless of brand name.

And BTW, companies are moving to places like Vietnam now because $3/hour is higher than the even poorer will work for.

The movie posted earlier showed women in Bangladesh brushing their teeth with ashes on their finger because
they can't afford toothbrushes with what they're getting paid.

Is that better than starving to death? Yes. But does it make it right? No.

If people want to live an abundant lifestyle on the backs of the poor, that's their choice,
but I prefer to try and follow The Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

And take to heart the spirit behind the words, "What you have done to the least of them, you have done to me".

What caused conditions to change in America? Was it by supporting the same ol' same ol'?
Or standing up against the greed of those who took advantage?

As long as people support the way things are, they will never change.

What is WalMart's company motto AND the primary and main customer draw?

[TruthisTreason]

According to this book, Wal Mart is a great deal.:cool:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51CNY3WF1WL._SL500_BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg

http://jim.com/econ/contents.html

[Mark]

Nope, I'm saying it's human nature to seek profit and avoid loss. ;) We are a "self-ish" species.<IMHO>

Yes, but what amount of profit, and at what cost? And when does the greed of humans cause them to lose their humanity?

The ones who seek ultimate profit with the least loss no matter the effect on their fellow humans
are following the wrong path for themselves and the world as a whole.

Isn't one goal to evolve into being better human beings? To be better people than we have been in the past?

Then, that will take examining ourselves and correcting the things that need changing.

And maximizing profit at the expense of those less fortunate is something that needs to change if we want to evolve into a better species.

And perhaps even to survive as a species.

Another World War, this time with nuclear weapons that can destroy our habitat,
is close at hand because of attempts to maximize profits and lifestyle by a small percentage of the population.

And if the larger percentage of people say "no more" to supporting that type of "human nature", we might have a chance to avoid it.

[Mark]

What is WalMart's company motto AND the primary and main customer draw?

I didn't post about "why", I posted about the consequences.

"What comes around goes around". "Karma is a Bastard". "One gets what they deserve". "What a person sows, they will reap".

[Truth Warrior]

Yes, but what amount of profit, and at what cost? And when does the greed of humans cause them to lose their humanity?

The ones who seek ultimate profit with the least loss no matter the effect on their fellow humans
are following the wrong path for themselves and the world as a whole.

Isn't one goal to evolve into being better human beings? To be better people than we have been in the past?

Then, that will take examining ourselves and correcting the things that need changing.

And maximizing profit at the expense of those less fortunate is something that needs to change if we want to evolve into a better species.

And perhaps even to survive as a species.

Another World War, this time with nuclear weapons that can destroy our habitat,
is close at hand because of attempts to maximize profits and lifestyle by a small percentage of the population.

And if the larger percentage of people say "no more" to supporting that type of "human nature", we might have a chance to avoid it. Corporations are amoral, by law and definition. Maximize shareholder returns AND profit is the MANDATE. It's called fiduciary responsibility. ;)

BTW, the answer to my question is: Always low prices, Always.

[Truth Warrior]

I didn't post about "what", I posted about the consequences.

"What comes around goes around". "Karma is a Bastard". "One gets what they deserve". "What a person sows, they will reap". Only sometimes and not nearly often enough.<IMHO> ;)

The government sows, we reap. :p :rolleyes: Or at another level, vice versa. :D

[Mark]

Corporations are amoral, by law and definition. Maximize shareholder returns AND profit is the MANDATE. It's called fiduciary responsibility. ;)

BTW, the answer to my question is: Always low prices, Always.

And if people didn't support the companies, then profits would plummet, and the companies would have to change. Which is my point.

[Truth Warrior]

And if people didn't support the companies, then profits would plummet, and the companies would have to change. Which is my point. We covered your "if" previously.<IMHO> Nope, you're just ignoring the very common "go out of business" option.

The market place can be a very cold and heartless "mother". ;)

[Mark]

Only sometimes and not nearly often enough.<IMHO> ;)

The government sows, we reap. :p :rolleyes: Or at another level, vice versa. :D

Sure, most everything's relative, but how does that "Serenity Prayer" go?

grant me the serenity -
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference

We have the option to not support and thereby change unfair labor practices.

Personally, I find more serenity in not purchasing trinkets made by abused labor than doing so, other's mileage may differ.

And who knows, maybe there really is something to the school of thought that there's more to life than the physical that we see,
and that we answer for our actions when our life in this world ends. If so, complete and just reaping may very well follow.

But either way, seeing a child worked like a slave so that I can have lots of extra stuff at "Low Prices Always" just doesn't do it for me.

[Mark]

We covered your "if" previously.<IMHO> Nope, you're just ignoring the very common "go out of business" option.

The market place can be a very cold and heartless "mother". ;)

Okay, then change it to "when".

"Go out of business" is the point, if they want to stay in business, then they would have to change.

And the market is only cold because people support them that way. Simple supply and demand.
If the people don't demand it, no one will supply it.

When people only support fair labor practices, than that's all that will be offered.

Until then, unscrupulous businesses will continue.

I'm not holding my breath btw, I'm just saying as a species we could change things, and that we are part and parcel of what happens.

I don't want it on my head no matter what, so I don't participate.

[Truth Warrior]

Okay, then change it to "when".

"Go out of business" is the point, if they want to stay in business, then they would have to change.

And they're only cold because people support them that way. Simple supply and demand. If the market doesn't demand it, no one will supply it.

When people only support fair labor practices, than that's all that will be offered.

Until then, unscrupulous businesses will continue.

I'm not holding my breath btw, I'm just saying as a species we could change things, and that we are part and parcel of what happens.

I don't want it on my head no matter what, so I don't participate.

Do you run your entire life on IF and SHOULD?

How about IS? AKA REALITY.

So just tell your friends and don't shop there. Problem solved.

[familydog]

Does Wal-Mart still purchase goods made in sweatshops? If so, seems like a perfect reason not to "kill" the company.

[Truth Warrior]

Does Wal-Mart still purchase goods made in sweatshops? If so, seems like a perfect reason not to "kill" the company. Have at it. :D

[Mark]

Do you run your entire life on IF and SHOULD?

How about IS? AKA REALITY.

So just tell your friends and don't shop there. Problem solved.

The reality is, when someone shops there, then they're part of the problem. Period. And point.

And out, because I'm not going to waste time discussing with someone who continually attempts to justify such wickedness.

Especially when their own signature contradicts their argument.

"Any compromise between good and evil, only works to the detriment of the good and to the benefit of the evil."

Think about it.

[Truth Warrior]

The reality is, when someone shops there, then they're part of the problem. Period. And point.

And out, because I'm not going to waste time discussing with someone who continually attempts to justify such wickedness.

Especially when their own signature contradicts their argument.

"Any compromise between good and evil, only works to the detriment of the good and to the benefit of the evil."

Think about it.
Done.

Voluntary is good. Violence, force and coercion is evil. ;)

Think about it.

[TruthisTreason]

The reality is, when someone shops there, then they're part of the problem. Period. And point.

[/B]

In your eyes. ;)

Wal-Mart brings products to us at a cheaper price, then would we have to pay at the "mom and pop" shop. If the mom and pop can't compete by lowering prices or improving service, they need a new business because the one they had is out of touch.

I'd be curious to those who are opposed to Wal Mart saving us money by having cheaper prices, are you also in favor of tariffs on things such as Chinese steel, in order to make American steel competitive?

[ThePieSwindler]

The reality is, when someone shops there, then they're part of the problem. Period. And point.



Well damn, spectacular argument. I'm converted! Wal-mart is EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL!!!!

[familydog]

Have at it. :D

My sarcasm is evasive I guess. :p

Before we even discuss what Wal-Mart does to it's employees here, we ought to discuss what kind of monstrous activities it supports by buying sweatshop-made goods.

Contrary to popular libertarian belief, much of the sweatshops in the world have nothing to do with "free markets" and "liberty of contract." Also contrary to popular libertarian belief, boycotting a company that takes advantage of sweatshop labor does not hurt the poor that work there in most situations.

Besides, Wal-Mart likes to eliminate competition. When competition is eliminated, there is no capitalism. Adam Smith 101. :)

[Truth Warrior]

My sarcasm is evasive I guess. :p

Before we even discuss what Wal-Mart does to it's employees here, we ought to discuss what kind of monstrous activities it supports by buying sweatshop-made goods.

Contrary to popular libertarian belief, much of the sweatshops in the world have nothing to do with "free markets" and "liberty of contract." Also contrary to popular libertarian belief, boycotting a company that takes advantage of sweatshop labor does not hurt the poor that work there in most situations.

Besides, Wal-Mart likes to eliminate competition. When competition is eliminated, there is no capitalism. Adam Smith 101. :)

The market place can be a very cold and heartless "mother". ;)

[familydog]

The market place can be a very cold and heartless "mother". ;)

If you're talking about a closed market in the mold of communism, I suppose you're correct.

[TruthisTreason]

Besides, Wal-Mart likes to eliminate competition. When competition is eliminated, there is no capitalism. Adam Smith 101. :)

Target
K-Mart
etc.

don't qualify as competition? Wal-Mart eliminate the competition that aren't economically effective in the present day market. Much like Fannie May and Freddie Mac, bad businesses should fail. Mom and pops have to re align their business or move to a new sector in the economy.

Wal-Mart should follow all labor laws in all countries they have businesses in. And if they break the law, they should be held to it. I believe that is the case.

[Truth Warrior]

If you're talking about a closed market in the mold of communism, I suppose you're correct.
Nope, communism plays in the market place too. It just doesn't play well. ;)

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

Target
K-Mart
etc.

don't qualify as competition? Wal-Mart eliminate the competition that aren't economically effective in the present day market. Much like Fannie May and Freddie Mac, bad businesses should fail. Mom and pops have to re align their business or move to a new sector in the economy.


There really is no choice in the products offered; it is all disposable, made in China, and in many cases the exact same stuff.

For those on a shoestring budget, buying something that lasts makes good economic sense. The stuff in the large box stores is designed to break or wear out. When you spend three times the money on something, it usually lasts much more than three times as long, and is often covered by a manufacturer guarantee that is good even after it officially expires.

Social Engineer,
I like your idea. The naysayers do not have to participate. As a producer of real goods, I often barter for other real goods or services. In a strong local economy, we must place some value on our production often considering need more than comparative dollar value. If we can connect with others that, "get it", we can collectively have more federal reserve notes available for what we cannot provide within the community.

[enjerth]

It may not be politically correct, but children working hard is NOT a bad thing! As long as there is not some kind of REAL abuse, children working for a little bit of money is not a bad thing.

I had a few opportunities when I was a child to work. Once I got around $2/day. I was overjoyed to have $10 at the end of a week. And that was HERE IN THE GOOD OLD USA, where $10 is nothing.

Everyone who opposes children making a buck in CHINA because it's unethical should reconsider. They are likely living healthier lives because of the OPPORTUNITY to work and have money, to buy food and clothing and, on occasion, get medical care.

Some woman can't afford a tooth brush? If she has a job and makes money, she's better off than if she didn't. Besides, that's the wrong way to describe the situation. If she has money, but doesn't spend it on a tooth brush, then she has decided NOT TO afford (not "can't afford") the tooth brush. But without the paying job, she wouldn't have the opportunity to choose. But she's making money and making decisions on how to spend the money in MORE IMPORTANT ways than on a tooth brush.

All retailers do this: take goods and resell them at a higher price. There is nothing wrong with that. It benefits the workers who produce the goods and it benefits the consumers who need the goods.

The real problem is a free global economy. I won't call it evil, but it is a problem to us. Borders have kept economies apart for so long, and now with the inequality in economies is draining us of wealth. That's what you get when you open the dam.

Wal-Mart is not the problem. They were just one of the first national retailers to take advantage of free trade. What we need to do is make an effort to show a great deal of opposition to free trade and globalization.

A sparse network of like-minded people cannot overcome this. You would need to create a community of people living in harmony, producing and consuming goods locally. You will not have much success without the ability to buy locally, building your own local economy instead of spread out amongst many different local economies that all thrive on cheap goods.

The cost of living here is low, and so are wages. I likely wouldn't be able to afford many products made in the US, even if it's by liberty supporters. Unless their cost of living was low like my own.

But having a community with it's own balanced, self-sustaining economy is something I really would like to be a part of. Because the US is doomed by it's own policies and cannot sustain itself, and all communities without balanced, self-sustaining economies are doomed with it. I don't want to be one of the hundreds of millions of people fighting just to hold on to life when it all comes crashing down and there's no local support, just other helpless people like myself who relied on Wal-Mart.

[Truth Warrior]

It may not be politically correct, but children working hard is NOT a bad thing! As long as there is not some kind of REAL abuse, children working for a little bit of money is not a bad thing.

I had a few opportunities when I was a child to work. Once I got around $2/day. I was overjoyed to have $10 at the end of a week. And that was HERE IN THE GOOD OLD USA, where $10 is nothing.

Everyone who opposes children making a buck in CHINA because it's unethical should reconsider. They are likely living healthier lives because of the OPPORTUNITY to work and have money, to buy food and clothing and, on occasion, get medical care.

Some woman can't afford a tooth brush? If she has a job and makes money, she's better off than if she didn't. Besides, that's the wrong way to describe the situation. If she has money, but doesn't spend it on a tooth brush, then she has decided NOT TO afford (not "can't afford") the tooth brush. But without the paying job, she wouldn't have the opportunity to choose. But she's making money and making decisions on how to spend the money in MORE IMPORTANT ways than on a tooth brush.

All retailers do this: take goods and resell them at a higher price. There is nothing wrong with that. It benefits the workers who produce the goods and it benefits the consumers who need the goods.

The real problem is a free global economy. I won't call it evil, but it is a problem to us. Borders have kept economies apart for so long, and now with the inequality in economies is draining us of wealth. That's what you get when you open the dam.

Wal-Mart is not the problem. They were just one of the first national retailers to take advantage of free trade. What we need to do is make an effort to show a great deal of opposition to free trade and globalization.

A sparse network of like-minded people cannot overcome this. You would need to create a community of people living in harmony, producing and consuming goods locally. You will not have much success without the ability to buy locally, building your own local economy instead of spread out amongst many different local economies that all thrive on cheap goods.

The cost of living here is low, and so are wages. I likely wouldn't be able to afford many products made in the US, even if it's by liberty supporters. Unless their cost of living was low like my own.

But having a community with it's own balanced, self-sustaining economy is something I really would like to be a part of. Because the US is doomed by it's own policies and cannot sustain itself, and all communities without balanced, self-sustaining economies are doomed with it. I don't want to be one of the hundreds of millions of people fighting just to hold on to life when it all comes crashing down and there's no local support, just other helpless people like myself who relied on Wal-Mart.

Read the GATT first, then just maybe we can talk about a "free global economy" ( so called ). :p

[enjerth]

Read the GATT first, then just maybe we can talk about a "free global economy" ( so called ). :p

Right. What we have is not a fully free global economy. But it does cross a few borders, which makes it at least semi-global. And I believe we are headed towards more globalization.

[Truth Warrior]

Right. What we have is not a fully free global economy. But it does cross a few borders, which makes it at least semi-global. And I believe we are headed towards more globalization. What we have is merely government controlled, regulated, taxed and managed, etc., etc., etc. economies globally.

[TruthisTreason]

There really is no choice in the products offered; it is all disposable, made in China, and in many cases the exact same stuff.




I bought this at Wal-Mart, it was made it China. I don't think it's "disposable".
http://i.walmartimages.com/i/p/00/84/25/69/00/0084256900027_215X215.jpg

I guess we need to be more "specific" about what products one is referencing.

[enjerth]

What we have is merely government controlled, regulated, taxed and managed, etc., etc., etc. economies globally.

Well, I'm glad you could pick out one phrase to comment on from my whole post.

In case you don't get my drift, I don't think it's taxed enough. The inequality of economic circumstances dictates the need for more tarrifs, because it's costing us everything. Jobs and wealth are being exported to the lowest bidder. We can't let that continue.

[Truth Warrior]

Well, I'm glad you could pick out one phrase to comment on from my whole post.

In case you don't get my drift, I don't think it's taxed enough. The inequality of economic circumstances dictates the need for more tarrifs, because it's costing us everything. Jobs and wealth are being exported to the lowest bidder. We can't let that continue. The rest of your whole post I pretty much liked. :D Corps pay NO taxes the customers pay for EVERYTHING.<IMHO> :rolleyes:

[familydog]

Target
K-Mart
etc.

don't qualify as competition? Wal-Mart eliminate the competition that aren't economically effective in the present day market. Much like Fannie May and Freddie Mac, bad businesses should fail. Mom and pops have to re align their business or move to a new sector in the economy.

Wal-Mart should follow all labor laws in all countries they have businesses in. And if they break the law, they should be held to it. I believe that is the case.

Unfortunately is isn't that simple. :(

There are more Wal-Marts than K-Marts and Targets in this country. Wal-Mart likes to prey on rural areas where the only businesses are mom and pops. These small businesses can't survive if Wal-Mart provides the same goods or services that they do at rock bottom prices. Thus, competition is eliminated. Even if there is a K-Mart, often times they can't compete with a Super Wal-Mart. Several towns I am familiar with in Northwest PA had K-Marts but they closed soon after Wal-Mart moved in. Even the K-Marts simply couldn't compete.

[Truth Warrior]

Unfortunately is isn't that simple. :(

There are more Wal-Marts than K-Marts and Targets in this country. Wal-Mart likes to prey on rural areas where the only businesses are mom and pops. These small businesses can't survive if Wal-Mart provides the same goods or services that they do at rock bottom prices. Thus, competition is eliminated. Even if there is a K-Mart, often times they can't compete with a Super Wal-Mart. Several towns I am familiar with in Northwest PA had K-Marts but they closed soon after Wal-Mart moved in. Even the K-Marts simply couldn't compete. Didn't Sears buy K-Mart? Or am I just having another senior moment? :)

[TruthisTreason]

Unfortunately is isn't that simple. :(

There are more Wal-Marts than K-Marts and Targets in this country. Wal-Mart likes to prey on rural areas where the only businesses are mom and pops. These small businesses can't survive if Wal-Mart provides the same goods or services that they do at rock bottom prices. Thus, competition is eliminated. Even if there is a K-Mart, often times they can't compete with a Super Wal-Mart. Several towns I am familiar with in Northwest PA had K-Marts but they closed soon after Wal-Mart moved in. Even the K-Marts simply couldn't compete.

Even in small town you'll find competition. Example in the small town I live near. There is a Payless shoe store across the street from a brand new Wal Mart. How can Payless compete selling shoes with Wal Mart in a town with the population under 10,000? There are also a few other shoe stores who specialize in different shoes (redwing boots example) that have competed with Wal mart for over 20 years.

[KenInMontiMN]

I'd be curious to those who are opposed to Wal Mart saving us money by having cheaper prices, are you also in favor of tariffs on things such as Chinese steel, in order to make American steel competitive?

Of course I support tariffs, as does Dr. Paul. They should be applied most heavily towards trade partners wildly out of import/export balance, and not applied towards trade partners in reasonable balance at all. America must produce again or collapse. You can't run wild imbalances indefinitely without bleeding out ownership of America. Tariffs should be set and regulated according to ongoing trade figure updates, and industry-blind, applied equally to all products across the board from such an imbalanced trading partner, so as not to be treated as pork by congress for particular industries in a powerful legislator's district. Politicians should have no say whatsoever in the levying and level of such a regulatory control system that keeps America thriving. It should run on autopilot according to continuously updated trade figures. What constitutes an imbalance is open to debate, but up until the late 1990's, before we lost all handle on overall trade balance, overall import/export ratio dollar figures generally stayed around or below 1.25

[Petar]

BTW, I signed up for the program. I just don't agree with the anti-Walmart rants.

Ok, we can disagree about Walmart.

I can consider it a blight, and dream of the day that businesses that support liberty can swallow it up, and you can consider it a pointless target I guess.

I really do appreciate that we can work together on the main premise of my project though, thank you for signing up!

[familydog]

Even in small town you'll find competition. Example in the small town I live near. There is a Payless shoe store across the street from a brand new Wal Mart. How can Payless compete selling shoes with Wal Mart in a town with the population under 10,000? There are also a few other shoe stores who specialize in different shoes (redwing boots example) that have competed with Wal mart for over 20 years.

Pfft. That's not a small town. When you live in a county where the deer population outnumbers the human population, then you have small towns. :p

[porcupine]

I like Wal-Mart. Free trade is good.

[SLSteven]

Of course I support tariffs, as does Dr. Paul. They should be applied most heavily towards trade partners wildly out of import/export balance, and not applied towards trade partners in reasonable balance at all. America must produce again or collapse. You can't run wild imbalances indefinitely without bleeding out ownership of America. Tariffs should be set and regulated according to ongoing trade figure updates, and industry-blind, applied equally to all products across the board from such an imbalanced trading partner, so as not to be treated as pork by congress for particular industries in a powerful legislator's district. Politicians should have no say whatsoever in the levying and level of such a regulatory control system that keeps America thriving. It should run on autopilot according to continuously updated trade figures. What constitutes an imbalance is open to debate, but up until the late 1990's, before we lost all handle on overall trade balance, overall import/export ratio dollar figures generally stayed around or below 1.25

Are you serious?

[RickyJ]

Wal-Mart is only a symptom of the problem. They are not the problem themselves. The problem is people who have no problem buying foreign made products that put Americans out of jobs. Patriotism is dead in America despite the 9/11 inside job.

[TruthisTreason]

Of course I support tariffs, as does Dr. Paul.

Got a link? For Dr. Paul supporting Tariffs.

[RickyJ]

Got a link? For Dr. Paul supporting Tariffs.

He supports the Constitution so he supports tariffs.

[Truth Warrior]

Ron is PRO FREE MARKET.

[familydog]

Ron is PRO FREE MARKET.

Then he wouldn't shop at stores which buy from sweatshops right? ;)

[Truth Warrior]

Then he wouldn't shop at stores which buy from sweatshops right? ;) You'll need to ask Ron about that one. ;) I'm not his spokesman.

[RickyJ]

Then he wouldn't shop at stores which buy from sweatshops right? ;)

Of course he wouldn't. Being free market doesn't mean you have to be unpatriotic. You can still buy American if you want to.

[Truth Warrior]

As frugal as Ron is, I'll SWAG WalMart, etc. Also, he's not anti-China. ;)

[KenInMontiMN]

Got a link? For Dr. Paul supporting Tariffs.

If you ever browsed the issues sections of RonPaul08.com thoroughly, the official campaign website had it up there. Now that the site has been taken down you can still pick up a lot of those positions on Wikipedia:
"Rather than taxing personal income, which he says assumes that the government owns individuals' lives and labor, he prefers the federal government to be funded through excise taxes and/or uniform, non-protectionist tariffs.[72]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Lower_taxes_and_sm aller_government

The details I put forward about how to best apply tariffs are my own, I would apply them uniformly to all imports from any particular trading partner, but would impose higher tariffs on partners way out of balance down to none at all on trading partners with balanced trade numbers with us. If the longterm effects of continuous trade imbalances are not yet clear, then the message of responsible choices in the area of debt is apparently gotten lost somewhere as well.


Tariffs applied uniformly with a trade partner for the purposes of moving toward reasonable trade balance is not protectionism, any more than maintaining national defense is. A complete lack of either will eventually leave a nation in ruins. Such policy is about simple long-term survival. Protectionism is an overused term that properly refers to the practice that is still quite common among many of our supposed free trade partners involving not allowing imports to compete with domestic products at all in particular industries. In no case would I encourage real protectionism of that sort.

And don't get me wrong, I don't support 'killing Walmart.' I do support, on the other hand, favoring smaller local business entities in the way of support even when that costs a bit more. The whole concept of opening up everything in unlimited fashion and to an unlimited degree regardless of its impact on America is exactly the stuff the CFR internationalist is made of. We're about America first here, what's best for the massive corporations falls well down the list of priority, and in fact it is a proper and historical mandate of Federal gov't to watch for monopolism and nip that stuff in the bud through regulatory action.

[Truth Warrior]

RonPaulLibrary.com (http://www.ronpaullibrary.com/)

[KenInMontiMN]

Thanks Truth Warrior. It's telling that here:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=940
Dr. Paul describes free trade as 'low tariffs.' As opposed to either tremendously high tariffs, unevenly applied tariffs for certain industries, or for that matter non-existent tariffs. He clearly recognizes tariffs as one possibility already constitutionally mandated that is a perfectly acceptable and preferable alternative for reducing or eliminating income taxes on individuals.

Free trade doesn't require tremendously complicated and lengthy trade agreements, just low tariffs in Paul's own words. When a nation like China uses unpaid prison labor to produce product destined for here, we have every right to question whether free trade is even something we want with that nation, whether high tariffs might not be in order.

[TruthisTreason]

Thanks Truth Warrior. It's telling that here:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=940
Dr. Paul describes free trade as 'low tariffs.' As opposed to either tremendously high tariffs, unevenly applied tariffs for certain industries, or for that matter non-existent tariffs. He clearly recognizes tariffs as one possibility already constitutionally mandated that is a perfectly acceptable and preferable alternative for reducing or eliminating income taxes on individuals.

Free trade doesn't require tremendously complicated and lengthy trade agreements, just low tariffs in Paul's own words. When a nation like China uses unpaid prison labor to produce product destined for here, we have every right to question whether free trade is even something we want with that nation, whether high tariffs might not be in order.

Your link also says this.
" If foreign governments want to hurt their own citizens with protectionist tariffs, let them. But let us set a good example here, and show the world an honest example of true free trade. "

I don't think this link proves Dr. Paul supports tariffs on Chinese goods. The article is referencing Nafta and Cafta. You may be right, but I don't think this link is a good conclusive piece. I'd be interested in seeing some more from him on this.

[KenInMontiMN]

Your link also says this.
" If foreign governments want to hurt their own citizens with protectionist tariffs, let them. But let us set a good example here, and show the world an honest example of true free trade. "

I don't think this link proves Dr. Paul supports tariffs on Chinese goods. The article is referencing Nafta and Cafta. You may be right, but I don't think this link is a good conclusive piece. I'd be interested in seeing some more from him on this.

Yes, free trade can exist between real trading partners on reasonably equal footing, always a good example to set. Pretending free trade, on the other hand, with partners completely bankrupt in the area of personal liberty and responsibility that we are fighting so hard for, is absolute depravity. There is no possible excuse for treating the Chinese in particular as a legitimate trading partner. None whatsoever.

[kombayn]

Eat my ass with this topic. Wal-Mart puts people to work and helps poverty-stricken areas with employment. This Wal-Mart bullshit will be better served on the Obama Forums, not here. We're free-market supporters, remember?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65aLfKke7IM

One of the best shows on television. Watch it, learn it, love it.

[123tim]

Of course I don't. I don't think WalMart is FORCING anybody to do anything. That's the government's job. ;)

Thank you for bringing this up. :)
(Note) The "You" that I talk about below refers to all of us. Not directly to Truth Warrior.

Wal-Mart does use force. They've reversed the law of supply and demand and now tell the Manufacturer what to charge for a product. Price is no longer dictated by supply or demand...It's dictated by Wal-Mart telling the manufacturer that they're the only buyer in town. If you don't sell the product cheaper then you're out of business. Sounds great if you shop at Wal-Mart, but not so great if you work in a factory and need to feed your family.

Think of it this way. One small man in a small town grows food and sells it to small people for a fair price. The small man makes a fair profit and the customers are happy because they have a good product. Everyone is happy. However, you're a big man and you just moved into the area. You tell the small man that you're going to beat him up if he doesn't sell you the food at slave wages - He has to do this because you'll beat him up if he doesn't. You grow even bigger. The small man and his family nearly starve to feed you.

This is my own crude analogy of Wal-Mart and this country.
You (in my analogy) are the small man.
Our country is the family of the small man and Wal-Mart is the big man.

If Wal-Mart doesn't scare you then I don't know what will. Wal-Mart is killing off all competition. They've done it both fairly and unfairly. It's obvious that they intend to expand into every aspect of the fabric of our society. Wal-Mart has it's own factories, farms, (and probably soon) health care facilities.

What will you do when Wal-Mart is the only place to Work, Shop, or Eat?
What will Wal-Mart do to you then?

Here is an article about Wal-Mart forcing lower prices:
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html

This article has 9 pages.

[Truth Warrior]

Thank you for bringing this up. :)
(Note) The "You" that I talk about below refers to all of us. Not Truth Warrior.

Wal-Mart does use force. They've reversed the law of supply and demand and now tell the Manufacturer what to charge for a product. Price is no longer dictated by supply...It's dictated by Wal-Mart telling the manufacturer that they're the only buyer in town. If you don't sell the product cheaper then you're out of business. Sounds great if you shop at Wal-Mart, but not so great if you work in a factory and need to feed your family.

Think of it this way. One small man in a small town grows food and sells it to small people for a fair price. The small man makes a fair profit and the customers are happy because they have a good product. Everyone is happy. However, you're a big man and you just moved into the area. You tell the small man that you're going to beat him up if he doesn't sell you the food at slave wages - He has to do this because you'll beat him up if he doesn't. You grow even bigger. The small man and his family nearly starve to feed you.

This is my own crude analogy of Wal-Mart and this country.
You (in my analogy) are the small man.
Our country is the family of the small man and Wal-Mart is the big man.

If Wal-Mart doesn't scare you then I don't know what will. Wal-Mart is killing off all competition. They've done it both fairly and unfairly. It's obvious that they intend to expand into every aspect of the fabric of our society. Wal-Mart has it's own factories, farms, (and probably soon) health care facilities.

What will you do when Wal-Mart is the only place to Work, Shop, or Eat?
What will Wal-Mart do to you then?

Here is an article about Wal-Mart forcing lower prices:
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html

I've personally seen the manufacturer's reps lined up out the door in Bentonville, AR to BEG WalMart to carry their products. Walmart says, "OK, these are the conditions, agree to them or .................. NEXT! " It's my first hand understanding that's pretty much a typical daily occurrence.

Where's the FORCE? :rolleyes:

[Truth Warrior]

Hell, I'd much rather be governed by Microsoft and WalMart than those corrupt inept incompetent sock puppet clowns in D.C.! :p

[angelatc]

I would not cheer for modernized fascism. Besides the domestic problems that are exacerbated by Americans all shopping at Wal-Mart, I would love to see Wal-Mart lose all of its American business for the simple fact that China is fascist, and it's immoral that we sponsor fascism. Maybe then China's government would adopt greater liberty, if we'd only give them money in that case. Nonetheless, it is our domestic issues that we need to focus on first, and the fact of the matter is that we as a people could make much better use of the money we spend on Wal-Mart, if we'd only use it to support liberty instead.

It is absolutely clear you know nothing about retail, wholesale or supply and demand. Price is a factor in the equation! Wal-Mart hasn't changed that. Buyers and sellers have negotiated prices since cavemen traded dry firewood for animal skins. Do you really think that the sellers used to go in and demand a set price for their goods? That's freaking laughable!

I dare you to go invent a product and then try to get it on a retailer's shelf without a mind-blowing budget.

Most retailers charge tens of thousands of dollars in slotting fees. That's a fee to get the store to put your item on your shelf. So not only do you have to come up with enough cash to hire workers, buy inventory, rent space, etc etc, you have to freaking pay the big chains a lot of money to buy your product. That's the system responsible for upsetting the simple supply and demand chain! Wal-mart simply knows their customer base. Using your theory, I should be able to go to Bed Bath and Beyond and demand they carry dog food. It shouldn't matter that their customers aren't shopping for dog food.

Want to guess who doesn't charge slotting fees? Want to guess who has the most stringent ethics policy (and surveillance system) in the retail buying world?

Try to get in to see a buyer at almost any major retailer to show them the widget you want to sell. You'll soon find you have to already have a relationship, or pay an agent, just to get them to look at you product. Want to guess how simple it is to see a buyer at Wal-Mart? They're in the phone book. Call the front desk and make an appointment.

[angelatc]

I've personally seen the manufacturer's reps lined up out the door in Bentonville, AR to BEG WalMart to carry their products. Walmart says, "OK, these are the conditions, agree to them or .................. NEXT! " It's my first hand understanding that's pretty much a typical daily occurrence.

Where's the FORCE? :rolleyes:

As per my above post, I've actually been in that position. Wal-Mart knows exactly what their customers will buy and what their customers will pay for it. They look at your widget, they tell you what it will sell for and how much they will pay for it. If you can make it profitable, then you have a huge customer. Essentially they've done your market research for you.

Levis blue jeans is an example. The company was bankrupt. On the verge of closing the doors. They went to Wal-Mart to get Levis in the stores. WalMart said "You idiots - trying to sell farm quality denim to college students and soccer Moms is retarded. Make a cheaper jean - use thinner fabric and less stitching - and the Wal-Mart customers will buy them."

So did Wal-Mart kill Levis or save them? The people that work there seem to think it was a good decision to stay in business.

[familydog]

Where's the FORCE? :rolleyes:

Buying products that support slave labor? ;)

[Truth Warrior]

As per my above post, I've actually been in that position. Wal-Mart knows exactly what their customers will buy and what their customers will pay for it. They look at your widget, they tell you what it will sell for and how much they will pay for it. If you can make it profitable, then you have a huge customer.

Levis blue jeans is an example. The company was bankrupt. On the verge of closing the doors. They went to Wal-Mart to get Levis in the stores. WalMart said "You idiots - trying to sell farm quality denim to college students and soccer Moms is retarded. Make a cheaper jean - use thinner fabric and less stitching - and the Wal-Mart customers will buy them."

So did Wal-Mart kill Levis or save them? The people that work there seem to think it was a good decision to stay in business.

As I sit here, as usual, in my Legend Gold Wrangler jeans, bought on sale from Target. ;) :D

[angelatc]

As I sit here, as usual, in my Gold Legend Wrangler jeans, bought on sale from Target. ;) :D

You can still buy "good" Levis. I suspect the money from the Wal-Mart sales subsidizes their continued production.

The article from Fast Company makes a case for protectionism, in that we Americans want clean air, clean water and decent wages, but we don't want to pay for products produced with those methods.

[angelatc]

Buying products that support slave labor? ;)

No, low wage labor. Supply and demand. As demand for labor goes up, wages will rise. Not supporting those workers is cruel.

[Truth Warrior]

Buying products that support slave labor? ;) I didn't realize that products supported slave labor. Take your beef up with the manufacturers. They're the slave labor ( so called ) employers / overseers. :p :rolleyes:

Geeze, next you'll probably be blaming the voters for Iraq, etc., etc. . ;) :D

[familydog]

No, low wage labor. Supply and demand. As demand for labor goes up, wages will rise. Not supporting those workers is cruel.

Unfortunately that is not the case with many of these sweatshops. Governments often force poor people to work for these corporations. Not only that but their land is stolen as well. So it is literally slave labor. Few sweatshops are like the ones in Hong Kong where one could easily make the case that they are helping the poor.

By boycotting companies that use this government-backed slavery, we only hurt the government because they are getting kick backs. We don't hurt the poor themselves.

[Truth Warrior]

Unfortunately that is not the case with many of these sweatshops. Governments often force poor people to work for these corporations. Not only that but their land is stolen as well. So it is literally slave labor. Few sweatshops are like the ones in Hong Kong where one could easily make the case that they are helping the poor.

By boycotting companies that use this government-backed slavery, we only hurt the government because they are getting kick backs. We don't hurt the poor themselves. Ah yes, governments FORCE. ;) That does seem to ring a bell. :D

[angelatc]

Unfortunately that is not the case with many of these sweatshops. Governments often force poor people to work for these corporations. Not only that but their land is stolen as well. So it is literally slave labor. Few sweatshops are like the ones in Hong Kong where one could easily make the case that they are helping the poor.

By boycotting companies that use this government-backed slavery, we only hurt the government because they are getting kick backs. We don't hurt the poor themselves.

What country, specifically, are you talking about? Because China's standard of living seems to be dramatically improving as a result of the crap we buy from them.

While Cuba, OTOH, doesn't seem to be faring as well.

[familydog]

Ah yes, governments FORCE. ;) That does seem to ring a bell. :D

Yes. Companies here that buy their goods from these government slave labor camps are supporting force. ;)

[familydog]

What country, specifically, are you talking about? Because China's standard of living seems to be dramatically improving as a result of the crap we buy from them.

While Cuba, OTOH, doesn't seem to be faring as well.

There is a pretty good article on this topic--from a libertarian.

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/19_3/19_3_2.pdf

[Truth Warrior]

Yes. Companies here that buy their goods from these government slave labor camps are supporting force. ;) As are the US voters.<IMHO> ;)

[familydog]

As are the US voters.<IMHO> ;)

That's a whole other topic. :p

[Truth Warrior]

There is a pretty good article on this topic--from a libertarian.

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/19_3/19_3_2.pdf

Just too bad that NO ONE is THE spokesman for the libertarians. ;) :D

[Truth Warrior]

That's a whole other topic. :p Do US voters buy things from Wal Mart? :D

[KenInMontiMN]

Simple solution, get back to constitutionally sound regulatory tools that can be applied to achieve corrections in positive directions. Foolishness to expect corporations to do anything other than to seek the best short-term bottom line in completely amoral fashion, more true the bigger and more monopolistic they are allowed to grow.

The long term bottom line is a completely bankrupt USA privately, to match the public picture. Nevertheless we have statements here that strongly support such directions and even advocate that we'd all be better off under multinational corporate rule. Presumably with whatever constitutional protections they wished to allow on any given day. Don't imagine for a moment, people, that the globalist internationalists aren't seeded even into this forum.


Hell, I'd much rather be governed by Microsoft and WalMart than those corrupt inept incompetent sock puppet clowns in D.C.! :p

Welcome to RPF, Mr. David Rockefeller? The sock puppet clowns are merely representing corporate internationalism well, as we both know. Stop pretending massive growing debt, public and private, isn't right atop the agenda in the march towards eventual collapse of sovereignty and the insolvency of the USA. A fiscally sound USA, producing in a manner that it pays its bills in timely fashion and lives within its means, is the single greatest obstacle to the internationalists on the planet. So far they're winning the war in spectacular fashion. This movement is all about turning that around.

[Truth Warrior]

Simple solution, get back to constitutionally sound regulatory tools that can be applied to achieve corrections in positive directions. Foolishness to expect corporations to do anything other than to seek the best short-term bottom line in completely amoral fashion, more true the bigger and more monopolistic they are allowed to grow.

The long term bottom line is a completely bankrupt USA privately, to match the public picture. Nevertheless we have statements here that strongly support such directions and even advocate that we'd all be better off under multinational corporate rule. Presumably with whatever constitutional protections they wished to allow on any given day. Don't imagine for a moment, people, that the globalist internationalists aren't seeded even into this forum.



Welcome to RPF, Mr. David Rockefeller? The sock puppet clowns are merely representing corporate internationalism well, as we both know. Stop pretending massive growing debt, public and private, isn't right atop the agenda in the march towards eventual collapse of sovereignty and the insolvency of the USA. A fiscally sound USA, producing in a manner that it pays its bills in timely fashion and lives within its means, is the single greatest obstacle to the internationalists on the planet. So far they're winning the war in spectacular fashion. This movement is all about turning that around.

Simple eh? How ya gonna do it and get there?

Hey, you're merely singing to the preacher here, Dude. BTW, who is your sock puppet clown, vote choice? ;) BTW, I don't include Ron in that description.

[angelatc]

There is a pretty good article on this topic--from a libertarian.

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/19_3/19_3_2.pdf

She doesn't refute any point I made. She is wrong.

And like I said, the Chinese standard of living is improving as a result of our trade. The same is true in Indonesia. It is not true in Cuba.

Where's her example of success? I missed that.

Look, she has a cute feel-good theory, but in practice the way to truly empower people is to give them jobs and pay them.

If we pull all the products from Burma off the shelves, as in the Berkley example, what motivation does the government have to even feed the people?

I don't see a single examples of successfully boycotting sweatshops in her rant. All she does is defend the motivation.

[TruthisTreason]

Yes, free trade can exist between real trading partners on reasonably equal footing, always a good example to set. Pretending free trade, on the other hand, with partners completely bankrupt in the area of personal liberty and responsibility that we are fighting so hard for, is absolute depravity. There is no possible excuse for treating the Chinese in particular as a legitimate trading partner. None whatsoever.

Like I said do you have any links to Ron Paul supporting the position you are supporting? I don't think your link "seals the deal".

I've been under the impression that Ron Paul supports FREE TRADE.

[Petar]

Eat my ass with this topic. Wal-Mart puts people to work and helps poverty-stricken areas with employment. This Wal-Mart bullshit will be better served on the Obama Forums, not here. We're free-market supporters, remember?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65aLfKke7IM

One of the best shows on television. Watch it, learn it, love it.

Eat your ass???

You vile little piggy.

Is it ok if I just respond intelligently to you? I hope that will satisfy you instead.

As far as direct employment goes, Walmart provides Americans with low paying retail service jobs, and relies on fascist government cooperation to provide them with slave labor for the actual manufacturing.

People keep saying that Walmart is improving the quality of life for Chinese peasants by providing this manufacturing work, and though I do believe this is probably true to a point, I also do believe that the fascist Chinese government that works hand in hand with Walmart to provide this labor, has absolutely zero interest in ever letting true free-market capitalism or individual liberty ever reach China.

Does anyone here really believe that the next step of the globalist agenda is to allow workers unions in China so that things can start to fully improve?

The next step in the globalist agenda is to destroy what free-markets that we have left here, so that we can become as fascist as China.

And where exactly within your vile little brain do you register me saying anything against free-market capitalism?

I am saying that we should use the free-market, compete with Walmart, take the money that they are making, and use it to fight against the globalist agenda instead.

And didn't anyone ever tell you that Pen and Teller is bullshit?

Duh.


It is absolutely clear you know nothing about retail, wholesale or supply and demand. Price is a factor in the equation! Wal-Mart hasn't changed that. Buyers and sellers have negotiated prices since cavemen traded dry firewood for animal skins. Do you really think that the sellers used to go in and demand a set price for their goods? That's freaking laughable!

I dare you to go invent a product and then try to get it on a retailer's shelf without a mind-blowing budget.

Most retailers charge tens of thousands of dollars in slotting fees. That's a fee to get the store to put your item on your shelf. So not only do you have to come up with enough cash to hire workers, buy inventory, rent space, etc etc, you have to freaking pay the big chains a lot of money to buy your product. That's the system responsible for upsetting the simple supply and demand chain! Wal-mart simply knows their customer base. Using your theory, I should be able to go to Bed Bath and Beyond and demand they carry dog food. It shouldn't matter that their customers aren't shopping for dog food.

Want to guess who doesn't charge slotting fees? Want to guess who has the most stringent ethics policy (and surveillance system) in the retail buying world?

Try to get in to see a buyer at almost any major retailer to show them the widget you want to sell. You'll soon find you have to already have a relationship, or pay an agent, just to get them to look at you product. Want to guess how simple it is to see a buyer at Wal-Mart? They're in the phone book. Call the front desk and make an appointment.


No, I was not actually saying that a given caveman would dictate exactly how many animal skins he would get for his fire wood.

And I see that you have experience in negotiating product "slotting" with large retailers, and though I find it mildly fascinating, I'm not sure what it really has to do with any of my points.

I'm just trying to say that it really sucks that a company called Walmart is able work hand in hand with a fascist dictatorship called China, so that they can use slaves to make really cheep crappy products, and then Walmarts little buddy Hillary Clinton can use her little buddy Bill Clinton to pass NAFTA, and make it that much easier for Americans to kiss their manufacturing and way of life goodbye.

I know that Walmart is just a symptom of this disease, I know that fascist American government policies like the Fed, the IRS, and NAFTA are at the root of it, but that is beside the point.

The point is that we can't print money like the Fed, we can't demand protection money from the public like the IRS, but what we can do is compete with Walmart in what free-market that we have left, and take as much money away from them as possible.

The simple fact of the matter is that this would just be a really good way for us to grow our whole movement, and also fund the political campaigning that we need to do in order to make the political changes that we need to make.

No more Fed, No more IRS, no more NAFTA.

Either way, Walmart and the globalists (international fascists) will be defeated.

That my friend is the whole point.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I shop at K-Mart :)

[familydog]

She doesn't refute any point I made. She is wrong.

And like I said, the Chinese standard of living is improving as a result of our trade. The same is true in Indonesia. It is not true in Cuba.

Where's her example of success? I missed that.

Look, she has a cute feel-good theory, but in practice the way to truly empower people is to give them jobs and pay them.

If we pull all the products from Burma off the shelves, as in the Berkley example, what motivation does the government have to even feed the people?

I don't see a single examples of successfully boycotting sweatshops in her rant. All she does is defend the motivation.

Did you read the entire article?

The author's main point is simple. Contrary to what many free market advocates think, much of the sweat shops around the world are anything but free. The author's several examples are backed up by evidence that is sound. This evidence points to government supported or government directed kidnapping, land stealing, and forced labor in order for these sweat shops to operate and exist in the first place. If you can cite where the citations in the article are wrong and misleading, please say something.

Besides, I don't see how the government stealing your land and forcing you to work somewhere is empowering. :p

I think the article fits well within libertarian theory. It is sound enough to be in the Journal of Libertarian Studies. The article is about terrible government and what the terrible government does. The author does not suggest that there be government intervention, but boycotting companies that support kidnapping, murder, slavery, etc. only hurt the companies and the government--not the people working the shops.

Again, the article is pro-free market, which is why it points out how much of these sweat shops are anything but.

[123tim]

As per my above post, I've actually been in that position. Wal-Mart knows exactly what their customers will buy and what their customers will pay for it. They look at your widget, they tell you what it will sell for and how much they will pay for it. If you can make it profitable, then you have a huge customer. Essentially they've done your market research for you.

Levis blue jeans is an example. The company was bankrupt. On the verge of closing the doors. They went to Wal-Mart to get Levis in the stores. WalMart said "You idiots - trying to sell farm quality denim to college students and soccer Moms is retarded. Make a cheaper jean - use thinner fabric and less stitching - and the Wal-Mart customers will buy them."

So did Wal-Mart kill Levis or save them? The people that work there seem to think it was a good decision to stay in business.


You may be right. The company may be ok, but apparently not the people who actually do the work (in this country) according to the article that I posted.

"If Levi clothing is a runaway hit at Wal-Mart, that may indeed rescue Levi as a business. But what will have been rescued? The Signature line--it includes clothing for girls, boys, men, and women--is an odd departure for a company whose brand has long been an American icon. Some of the jeans have the look, the fingertip feel, of pricier Levis. But much of the clothing has the look and feel it must have, given its price (around $23 for adult pants): cheap. Cheap and disappointing to find labeled with Levi Strauss's name. And just five days before the cheery profit news, Levi had another announcement: It is closing its last two U.S. factories, both in San Antonio, and laying off more than 2,500 workers, or 21% of its workforce. A company that 22 years ago had 60 clothing plants in the United States--and that was known as one of the most socially reponsible corporations on the planet--will, by 2004, not make any clothes at all. It will just import them."

Does anyone know if the "2004" prediction in the article came true?

(Edit) I guess that I didn't have to ask....I Googled and instantly found this:
Levi's to Close Last U.S. Plants
Much of the work once done in this country has moved instead to cheaper contract factories in Asia and Latin America

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0926-03.htm

I was trying to keep an open mind about this and let you all try to convice me otherwise. Now I feel even more convinced that Wal-Mart will be the end of this country.
We will be slaves in the U.S.

[austin356]

NO!

I am a college student and in need the 15% in savings WM provides over the competition.

[123tim]

NO!

I am a college student and in need the 15% in savings WM provides over the competition.

I'm going to say this and be done.

I think that most people on this forum might be too young to understand what is going on with Wal-Mart.

I've tried for over 15 years not to buy Chinese products. I can't anymore because of people saying that they couldn't survive buying American products. Now everything is Chinese.

We (My family) make very little money and have done very well. We just don't buy many things that aren't necessary.

I think that everyone will get used to this because soon the U.S. won't produce anything..

[jcarcinogen]

I'm going to say this and be done.

I think that most people on this forum might be too young to understand what is going on with Wal-Mart.

I've tried for over 15 years not to buy Chinese products. I can't anymore because of people saying that they couldn't survive buying American products. Now everything is Chinese.

We (My family) make very little money and have done very well. We just don't buy many things that aren't necessary.

I think that everyone will get used to this because soon the U.S. won't produce anything..

When Sam Walton was alive, Walmart made an effort to sell American products. No matter how you feel about Walmart you have to agree that he'd be rolling in his grave knowing his company is the largest conduit to sell Chinese products.

[angelatc]

Did you read the entire article?

The author's main point is simple. Contrary to what many free market advocates think, much of the sweat shops around the world are anything but free. The author's several examples are backed up by evidence that is sound. This evidence points to government supported or government directed kidnapping, land stealing, and forced labor in order for these sweat shops to operate and exist in the first place. If you can cite where the citations in the article are wrong and misleading, please say something.



Of course I read the article. I am saying the solution she proposes, which is to boycott those products, in inhumane and ineffective. She does not provide a single historic example that proves otherwise.

[angelatc]

I'm going to say this and be done. I think that most people on this forum might be too young to understand what is going on with Wal-Mart. I've tried for over 15 years not to buy Chinese products. I can't anymore because of people saying that they couldn't survive buying American products. Now everything is Chinese. We (My family) make very little money and have done very well. We just don't buy many things that aren't necessary. I think that everyone will get used to this because soon the U.S. won't produce anything..

Wal-Mart is a symptom, not the cause. Look at what happened to the auto industry when Washington decided to put tariffs on imported cars, because the American companies were in trouble. They opened up auto plants here.

[angelatc]

You may be right. The company may be ok, but apparently not the people who actually do the work (in this country) according to the article that I posted.

"If Levi clothing is a runaway hit at Wal-Mart, that may indeed rescue Levi as a business. But what will have been rescued? The Signature line--it includes clothing for girls, boys, men, and women--is an odd departure for a company whose brand has long been an American icon. Some of the jeans have the look, the fingertip feel, of pricier Levis. But much of the clothing has the look and feel it must have, given its price (around $23 for adult pants): cheap. Cheap and disappointing to find labeled with Levi Strauss's name. And just five days before the cheery profit news, Levi had another announcement: It is closing its last two U.S. factories, both in San Antonio, and laying off more than 2,500 workers, or 21% of its workforce. A company that 22 years ago had 60 clothing plants in the United States--and that was known as one of the most socially reponsible corporations on the planet--will, by 2004, not make any clothes at all. It will just import them."

Does anyone know if the "2004" prediction in the article came true?

(Edit) I guess that I didn't have to ask....I Googled and instantly found this:
Levi's to Close Last U.S. Plants
Much of the work once done in this country has moved instead to cheaper contract factories in Asia and Latin America

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0926-03.htm

I was trying to keep an open mind about this and let you all try to convice me otherwise. Now I feel even more convinced that Wal-Mart will be the end of this country.
We will be slaves in the U.S.

Your argument is for protectionism. I'm ok with that. But I don't think that somehow forcing Wal-Mart to raise prices will help a damned thing.

I wonder if the Levis workers were unionized?

[TruthisTreason]

Wal-Mart is a symptom, not the cause.

+1

And no post on this thread proves otherwise. ;)

[familydog]

Of course I read the article. I am saying the solution she proposes, which is to boycott those products, in inhumane and ineffective. She does not provide a single historic example that proves otherwise.

I'm glad you did read the entire article. I'm just wondering why you missed the point of it.

Normal libertarian theory cites that sweat shops are beneficial to the poor. The poor choose to work there because it is the best situation for them. Their standard of living rises because they are able to work for more money than they could get otherwise. Thus, boycotting goods made from these sweat shops will only hurt these poor whose standard of living is effected by the goods they make. This is true in places like Hong Kong.

However, the article points out that much of these sweat shop workers in most other parts of the world do not choose to work there. Their governments kidnap them and force them to work as slaves. Their land is stolen to make these plantations and sweat shop. Their standard of living is worse off. Boycotting the goods that they are forced to make only hurts the governments that are responsible for such slave labor. What is inhumane is the governments actions. They are the ones being hurt by the boycott.

I'm going to take a wild guess. You would suggest that an 18th century British citizen would have been inhumane and cruel for boycotting clothes made with slaves in America? I mean, boycotting these clothes would hurt the African-American slaves whose standard of living is greatly increased by the generous slave traders and plantation owners that decided to "rescue" them from Africa and "borrow" their property in the process.

[krazy kaju]

I support Wal-Mart. I support anyone and everyone who is anti-union.

[danberkeley]

Wal-Mart wouldn't be able to hire companies that take advantage of the poor in corrupt countries if people didn't buy from them.

If Americans stopped buying Chinese made goods, guess who would buy them. The CHINESE! The fact that the Renminbi hasnt been made fully convertable has prevented the currency from appreciating against the US dollar. So dont worry about it. Once the Renminbi floats to where it should be, Americans wont be able to afford Chinese imports.


If people stopped buying from them, then Wal-Mart would have to change in order to survive.

And the people who shop at Wal-Mart would have to find more expensive means of finding their everyday needs.


So, no, my real beef is with the people who purchase Wal-Mart products that are created with essentially slave labor,
which encourages Wal-Mart to maintain their status-quo.

I dont remember the last time slaves were paid by definition. Try using a different word next time.


e.g. If no one bought stolen goods, then the market for stolen goods would dry up, and the incentive to steal goods would lessen dramatically.

If gov'ment stopped taxing and regulating American companies (small and big) to death, then there would probably be no need to for companies to go over seas or outsource.


And if people would quit buying products made by abused workers from Wal-Mart in order to save a few pennies,
there wouldn't be a market for the products.

So giving someone a job they were not entitled to is abuse?


The purchases show approval of Wal-Mart tactics, and allows them to continue.

What's wrong with penny pinching?



Yeah, they're fighting for those jobs because those are the only ones available because there's no incentive for companies to provide better ones because people buy from the companies that pay $3 for 14 hours of back-breaking labor.

What are you talking about? Factory jobs arent the only jobs being created in China. China has a fully developed stock market that didnt exist 20 years ago. It has a fully developed tourism industry. It has everything the USA had until the USA gov'ment wreck the entire economy.


They might keep a small family barely alive with those wages, but it's hardly "support" in the true sense of a decent life.

Again, what are you talking about? The Chinese have a saving rate of 45% percent. What's America's, -2%? China has one of the fastest-growing automobile markets and competes with Russia for first place. People are dropping their bike and getting into cars that consume gasoline that American's can barely afford.


Didn't you know? Slaves will fight for jobs if that's the only way they have to get food to eat in order to stay alive.

See above.


And I shouldn't have to tell you this, but the concept is universal among stores, regardless of brand name.

And BTW, companies are moving to places like Vietnam now because $3/day is higher than the even poorer will work for.

The movie posted earlier showed women in Bangladesh brushing their teeth with ashes on their finger because
they can't afford toothbrushes with what they're getting paid.

So what? That person probably didnt even brush her teeth before getting a job making stuff for Wal-Mart.


Is that better than starving to death? Yes. But does it make it right? No.

So helping people from starving to death is not right????


If people want to live an abundant lifestyle on the backs of the poor, that's their choice,
but I prefer to try and follow The Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Lol. I've read that book. Too bad you're misapplying it.


And take to heart the spirit behind the words, "What you have done to the least of them, you have done to me".

What caused conditions to change in America? Was it by supporting the same ol' same ol'?
Or standing up against the greed of those who took advantage?

As long as people support the way things are, they will never change.

Right is left. Left is right. Me win argument! Yay me!


Unfortunately is isn't that simple. :(

There are more Wal-Marts than K-Marts and Targets in this country. Wal-Mart likes to prey on rural areas where the only businesses are mom and pops.

The problem with your argument is that it is completely biased. How do you know Wal-Mart "likes to prey"? Did you ask it and did it respond with, "yes. me like to prey"? Also, "mom and pops" is a loaded term. I woudl call them "less efficient".


These small businesses can't survive if Wal-Mart provides the same goods or services that they do at rock bottom prices. Thus, competition is eliminated. Even if there is a K-Mart, often times they can't compete with a Super Wal-Mart. Several towns I am familiar with in Northwest PA had K-Marts but they closed soon after Wal-Mart moved in. Even the K-Marts simply couldn't compete.

So what. That means that Wal-Mart is providing goods and services more efficiently.


Yes, free trade can exist between real trading partners on reasonably equal footing, always a good example to set. Pretending free trade, on the other hand, with partners completely bankrupt in the area of personal liberty and responsibility that we are fighting so hard for, is absolute depravity. There is no possible excuse for treating the Chinese in particular as a legitimate trading partner. None whatsoever.

YEs. That's why you want to heavily tax Chinese imports. :rolleyes:


Thank you for bringing this up. :)
(Note) The "You" that I talk about below refers to all of us. Not directly to Truth Warrior.

You is I. I is you. We is them. Them is us.


Wal-Mart does use force. They've reversed the law of supply and demand and now tell the Manufacturer what to charge for a product. Price is no longer dictated by supply or demand...It's dictated by Wal-Mart telling the manufacturer that they're the only buyer in town. If you don't sell the product cheaper then you're out of business. Sounds great if you shop at Wal-Mart, but not so great if you work in a factory and need to feed your family.

"They're reversed the law of supply and demand.." lol. You obviously dont understand supply and deamn.


Think of it this way. One small man in a small town grows food and sells it to small people for a fair price. The small man makes a fair profit and the customers are happy because they have a good product. Everyone is happy. However, you're a big man and you just moved into the area. You tell the small man that you're going to beat him up if he doesn't sell you the food at slave wages - He has to do this because you'll beat him up if he doesn't. You grow even bigger. The small man and his family nearly starve to feed you.

"small man", "fair profit", "good product", "big man", "slave wages", "grow even bigger" (as oppsoed to growing smaller). what if the "small man" kept the food instead of selling it? perhaps his family wouldnt starve to death.


This is my own crude analogy of Wal-Mart and this country.
You (in my analogy) are the small man.
Our country is the family of the small man and Wal-Mart is the big man.

unfortunatelt for you yor analogy is flawed.


If Wal-Mart doesn't scare you then I don't know what will. Wal-Mart is killing off all competition. They've done it both fairly and unfairly. It's obvious that they intend to expand into every aspect of the fabric of our society. Wal-Mart has it's own factories, farms, (and probably soon) health care facilities.

"killing" competition? so you support ineffecient businesses?


What will you do when Wal-Mart is the only place to Work, Shop, or Eat?
What will Wal-Mart do to you then?

I'll say, "thank God I saved 49 cents on this toothbrush."


Here is an article about Wal-Mart forcing lower prices:
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html

This article has 9 pages.

The producers arent forced to sell to Wal-Mart. They choose to.


Hell, I'd much rather be governed by Microsoft and WalMart than those corrupt inept incompetent sock puppet clowns in D.C.! :p

Yup. We would never have a budget deficit.


I support Wal-Mart. I support anyone and everyone who is anti-union.

unions are such a scam.

[KenInMontiMN]

Like I said do you have any links to Ron Paul supporting the position you are supporting? I don't think your link "seals the deal".

I've been under the impression that Ron Paul supports FREE TRADE.

Ron Paul recognizes that free trade doesn't exist in any real sense, has had discussions on record to that effect in House hearings with Greenspan, and has gone on record supporting uniform low tariffs to fund Federal gov't more than once, as preferable to individual income taxes. He doesn't see that as contradictory to open and free trade between partners in position to trade on equal footing with one another, nor do I. If you never saw his position for tariffs on his campaign site you weren't looking.

If you don't understand that our growing external debt is every bit as deplorable and dangerous to our country's solvency and sovereignty as the national public debt is, then you're simply the private face of the spendthrifts in Washington.

[KenInMontiMN]

I'm glad you did read the entire article. I'm just wondering why you missed the point of it.

Normal libertarian theory cites that sweat shops are beneficial to the poor. The poor choose to work there because it is the best situation for them. Their standard of living rises because they are able to work for more money than they could get otherwise. Thus, boycotting goods made from these sweat shops will only hurt these poor whose standard of living is effected by the goods they make. This is true in places like Hong Kong.

However, the article points out that much of these sweat shop workers in most other parts of the world do not choose to work there. Their governments kidnap them and force them to work as slaves. Their land is stolen to make these plantations and sweat shop. Their standard of living is worse off. Boycotting the goods that they are forced to make only hurts the governments that are responsible for such slave labor. What is inhumane is the governments actions. They are the ones being hurt by the boycott.

I'm going to take a wild guess. You would suggest that an 18th century British citizen would have been inhumane and cruel for boycotting clothes made with slaves in America? I mean, boycotting these clothes would hurt the African-American slaves whose standard of living is greatly increased by the generous slave traders and plantation owners that decided to "rescue" them from Africa and "borrow" their property in the process.

Good post. A businessman in my community has his Chinese mfgr'ing partnership next door to the prison, not by any coincidence.

[TruthisTreason]

Ron Paul recognizes that free trade doesn't exist in any real sense, has had discussions on record to that effect in House hearings with Greenspan, and has gone on record supporting uniform low tariffs to fund Federal gov't more than once, as preferable to individual income taxes. He doesn't see that as contradictory to open and free trade between partners in position to trade on equal footing with one another, nor do I. If you never saw his position for tariffs on his campaign site you weren't looking.

If you don't understand that our growing external debt is every bit as deplorable and dangerous to our country's solvency and sovereignty as the national public debt is, then you're simply the private face of the spendthrifts in Washington.


By putting tariffs on imports, you are putting tariffs on exports. History proves that.

No link?:confused:

[KenInMontiMN]

The tariffs on would-be exports are already in place, in many places, through many more direct and less direct means. As far as the link goes, they took down the site, as you know. If you want direct confirmation e-mail the man himself for his response through his congressional office.

While I really don't consider it my responsibility to further educate you as to Dr. Paul's position on tariffs as stated throughout the campaign, you can if you wish get confirmation here as well from paragraph 12 in this pretty good feature Donald Luskin did on the Paul/Economics platform in the National Review:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2Q5MDM2NzZkNzU5ZDEwYTI3ODg5YjY2YWZlMjFkYTc=

...and while I'm in no position to speak for the Congressman directly, my sense is that he has a clear understanding that only in that theoretical utopian scenario espoused by ardent internationalists will there ever be the slightest hope for free trade to flow unchecked in all directions; further that he would never advocate the surrender of sovereignty and self-determination that would entail, either for the USA or for that matter foreign societies. If he did, he'd be right down in NY with so many of the rest lobbying for CFR membership in order to be that prominent agent of the internationalist bankers. So my best guess is that he sees those tariffs as a pragmatic offset to the fact that there is no free trade, only managed trade, and clearly understands, as do I, and as you should- if you care at all about the future of this country- the books, both in the private as well as the public sense, must be reasonably in balance over the long haul; red ink is the path to insolvency. Not too complicated to understand I hope.

[TruthisTreason]

The tariffs on would-be exports are already in place, in many places, through many more direct and less direct means. As far as the link goes, they took down the site, as you know. If you want direct confirmation e-mail the man himself for his response through his congressional office.

While I really don't consider it my responsibility to further educate you as to Dr. Paul's position on tariffs as stated throughout the campaign, you can if you wish get confirmation here as well from paragraph 12 in this pretty good feature Donald Luskin did on the Paul/Economics platform in the National Review:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2Q5MDM2NzZkNzU5ZDEwYTI3ODg5YjY2YWZlMjFkYTc=

...and while I'm in no position to speak for the Congressman directly, my sense is that he has a clear understanding that only in that theoretical utopian scenario espoused by ardent internationalists will there ever be the slightest hope for free trade to flow unchecked in all directions; further that he would never advocate the surrender of sovereignty and self-determination that would entail, either for the USA or for that matter foreign societies. If he did, he'd be right down in NY with so many of the rest lobbying for CFR membership in order to be that prominent agent of the internationalist bankers. So my best guess is that he sees those tariffs as a pragmatic offset to the fact that there is no free trade, only managed trade, and clearly understands, as do I, and as you should- if you care at all about the future of this country- the books, both in the private as well as the public sense, must be reasonably in balance over the long haul; red ink is the path to insolvency. Not too complicated to understand I hope.

Here is your link.

"Paul is an advocate of free trade — to a fault. He believes deeply in unrestricted trade between people and nations. Yet he votes against free-trade agreements such as NAFTA and CAFTA because he believes that trade is a right, not a gift for Congress to bestow in certain circumstances. Without such agreements, the reality is that trade is probably less free than it is with them. Is Paul a nut for letting the perfect be the enemy of the good? Perhaps, but for Paul it’s a point of principle. He told me, “I don’t call them free-trade agreements; I call them managed trade agreements.” Instead, Paul would like to see a simple policy of “low and uniform” tariffs for all products from all nations."


Put into context, who would argue? Nafta and Cafta or "low and uniform" tafiffs on both sides, that in the end would cancel each other out.:D Sounds like equal (free) trade.

[familydog]

The problem with your argument is that it is completely biased. How do you know Wal-Mart "likes to prey"? Did you ask it and did it respond with, "yes. me like to prey"? Also, "mom and pops" is a loaded term. I woudl call them "less efficient"

My argument may be biased, but there isn't anything factual wrong with it.

[Carole]

Be careful not to confuse Free trade with Managed trade.

[angelatc]

I'm glad you did read the entire article. I'm just wondering why you missed the point of it.

Normal libertarian theory cites that sweat shops are beneficial to the poor. The poor choose to work there because it is the best situation for them. Their standard of living rises because they are able to work for more money than they could get otherwise. Thus, boycotting goods made from these sweat shops will only hurt these poor whose standard of living is effected by the goods they make. This is true in places like Hong Kong.

However, the article points out that much of these sweat shop workers in most other parts of the world do not choose to work there. Their governments kidnap them and force them to work as slaves. Their land is stolen to make these plantations and sweat shop. Their standard of living is worse off. Boycotting the goods that they are forced to make only hurts the governments that are responsible for such slave labor. What is inhumane is the governments actions. They are the ones being hurt by the boycott.

I'm going to take a wild guess. You would suggest that an 18th century British citizen would have been inhumane and cruel for boycotting clothes made with slaves in America? I mean, boycotting these clothes would hurt the African-American slaves whose standard of living is greatly increased by the generous slave traders and plantation owners that decided to "rescue" them from Africa and "borrow" their property in the process.

Let me take a wild guess. You're perfectly willing to preach theory over fact.

I understand they don't have a choice about working there. I also understand that if the government has no reason to feed them, they won't.

I'm not going to comment on the slavery comment, because I am not dealing in hypotheticals. I asked simple for a single example of such a boycott actually improving the lives of the workers. I am still waiting.

[Unspun]

What????

Wal Mart is the epitome of free trade. I say buy EVERYTHING from Wal Mart! Well, almost.

They are pro free trade. Trading around the world will cause better friendships with other countries our government may "hate", such as China, and make it harder for them ever to start a war with them.

Wal Mart is anti trade Unions! How much more American can you get than that?

Wal Mart should be the official store of the Ron Paul movement. If anything to outrage the elites and pro-trade unionists that want you to hate Wal Mart.

Lew Rockwell talks about this very thing at about 7:15 into his latest podcast.

http://lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2008-08-24_026_from_the_dark_heart_of_dc.mp3

[danberkeley]

My argument may be biased, but there isn't anything factual wrong with it.

What was factual about your argument? Is it a fact that Wal-Mart "likes to prey" on "mom and pop" shops?

[familydog]

Let me take a wild guess. You're perfectly willing to preach theory over fact.

I understand they don't have a choice about working there. I also understand that if the government has no reason to feed them, they won't.

I'm not going to comment on the slavery comment, because I am not dealing in hypotheticals. I asked simple for a single example of such a boycott actually improving the lives of the workers. I am still waiting.

Either way it's theory. The burden of proof is not on this author or me.

This article doesn't deal with the rose colored glasses view of the world that libertarians like to deal with. This is a point in the article. Since normal libertarian theory doesn't apply, normal libertarian theory backed up by real world examples don't apply either. Also, the workers cannot simply leave if they want a better job or want better working conditions.

Thus, the normal libertarian theory that you're operating under can't possibly apply to these slave labor camps because the most important aspect to the theory is missing--the freedom to choose to work there.

"The condition of slavery prevents many of the workers from pursuing better jobs, even when manufacturers move to the country to take advantage of the cheaplabor. According to capitalist theory, the high profits made by corporations that manufacture their clothes in less-economically developed nations attract more entrepreneurs who want to further increase their profits, and these new entrants into the Burmese manufacturing market then have to bid up wages in order to entice workers to work for them. However, this logic only applies when workers are free to choose which jobs to work and receive the benefit of their productivity in the form of wages, which is not always the case in Burma. Here, the government is often paid by the multinational firms in order to utilize the labor of the prisoners. In such a situation the bidding up of the price of labor does not affect the incentives of the prisoner-workers. Rather, correct economic reasoning suggests that the politicians would respond to the increased demand for their cheap workers by raising the price that they (the government) charge for the labor. The upward movement in prices in turn provides the ruling classes with an incentive to enslave even more workers, ceteris paribus. As long as this upward movement in the price of labor allows corporations to maximize profit, they will continue to locate manufacturing in this nation, and this will lead, in a truly vicious circle, to still more enslavement of the population and little increase in the standard of living for the impoverished worker."

There is very few real world examples to back up this author's theory. That is the point he is trying to make. Since normal liberatian theory does not apply, we need to try new things. At the same time, continuing to buy goods from these workers only puts more money in the hands of the government. More money in the hands of the government makes them kill, steal, and kidnap more because they have an incentive. So maybe it is the people who support these governments actions that are cruel.

[Truth Warrior]

Ah, the statist myopia. :p

[angelatc]

Either way it's theory. The burden of proof is not on this author or me.



I take that to mean you actually can't name a single country where the "boycott the evil empire!" has worked, then.

I guess not requiring evidence of success is pretty much a prerequisite in dealing with theory vs reality.

[KenInMontiMN]

Sounds like equal (free) trade.

Sounds instead like an open statement to me, that if Mexico were to find itself bleeding out to us economically, tariffs to regulate that to some degree would be very much in their national interest.

And vice-versa. Managed trade agreements tend to allow for exploitation of third-world labor under conditions that do border on slave labor in many instances, for the purpose of supporting corporate bottom lines in the short term. Those corporate structures are already much too powerful and threaten national sovereignty worldwide, our own certainly included. Buck the Internationalist Corporate directives, as a government entity, and you will find yourself constantly labeled in their press as a rogue nation, part of a defined 'axis of evil.' The talk of massive improvements for the Chinese laborer, when distilled right down to the truth- the median Chinese laborer has seen about a doubling of his/her income from about $1 per day to $2 per day in rough figures, this century. Of course the American currency has fared poorly against their currency this decade, so adjust that downward it terms of actual buying power. Now it should be obvious why the Chinese can't invest more heavily into creating an actual consumer class out of those workers, which will never happen at $2/day incomes- the overwhelming majority of those dollars flowing into China in unprecedented fashion must invariably be invested into expanding US debt or the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. The best hope for the Chinese worker is that a more balanced trade ledger leads to the ability of chinese mfg. to actually reward that labor in a way that turns them into consumers of the world's goods. Wildly imbalanced trade can never possibly do that.

I'm always curious, though- those wearing blinders in regard to our severely expanding debt problems and the crumbling state are almost always advocates of free trade as managed today. What exactly brings you to a movement centered on 'America first,' getting our house in order, and adopting a more non-interventionist stance towards the rest of the world, when you could go here instead and be involved with an org about exactly that for which you advocate?:
www.cfr.org

I think a lot of people have a hard time with the diminished self-determination that Internationalism implies, and I applaud you for that. But you do have to understand that the way they are succeeding anyway is by luring so many into voting for them on a number of various pretexts. Their pseudo-free-trade is one of them, their press advocates for it constantly, all CFR 'sock puppets' if I may borrow the phrase, that we elect to office from either major party drums the line repeatedly, as though such a thing is or even should be possible in a world of soveriegn societies. Same is true for those hooked by other means involving Federally-mandated social direction such as legalized abortion declared a constitutional right without proper amendment making it so; the movement for Federal directive on definition of marraige should that occur without the necessary constitutional modifications. If no other lesson has been learned over the past several decades, learn this- Americans must stand together firmly against these various schemes that dissolve our self-determination, and we must stop letting them divide us. They advance the cause of internationalism and globalism. Its so important that we never lose completely the reins of self-determination on the most local levels possible, and that means never supporting Federal growth into constitutionally unsound direction, even when we agree with the particular change as to the specific issue, especially then since that's the lure to place and keep internationalists in power.

Always ask, on Federal matters- does this proposed change strengthen or weaken local self-determination? Does it strengthen or weaken Federal growth beyond traditional constitutional limits? Does it essentially unleash internationalists to put the various pieces of their agenda into place without getting the i's dotted and the t's crossed on getting the constitution modified first, as it was intended to be applied. It's that sort of national laziness that has led to the constitution becoming more and more meaningless across the past 90+ years or so. As voters we have allowed it instead of requiring invariably that the constitution as originally intended and interpreted be the law of the land until modified properly. The result is that we haven't amended the constitution in how long now? Various special agendas hardly even try to do that any more as designing the end-around play has come into vogue and never draws the yellow penalty flag anymore.

That is the key to being like-minded with Dr.Paul, and returning the country to its proper course where the people run the show and govt is bottom-up rather than top-down. Decide for yourself what sort of report card you'd give Dr. Paul regarding staying true to those sort of principles across the decades, then turn around and take a good look at your own self-grade you'd have to turn in on yourself each and every time you'd support a candidate or an issue that degrades our self-determination on the most local levels possible and turns more power and control over to the Federal gov't, an entity more or less in collusion with the Internationalist agenda these days.

NAFTA, CAFTA, & all other internationalist-managed trade agreements must go in the interest of self-determination, not to mention the nation's sovereignty and that of every other society on the planet.

[familydog]

I take that to mean you actually can't name a single country where the "boycott the evil empire!" has worked, then.

I guess not requiring evidence of success is pretty much a prerequisite in dealing with theory vs reality.

You don't get it. You yourself are basing your arguments on theory. That is why I keep using the term "normal libertarian theory." The author uses "capitalist theory."

In any case, you're still arguing an anti-liberty position. Let's pretend that boycotting government slave labor does hurt the slaves and not the government. It is a fact that the government is forcing people to be slaves. That is documented. The governments themselves admit that. Since you read the article I'm assuming you know that. So, I should keep buying the goods made by these slaves because it helps them have a better (slave) life.

So in essence, I must support government intervention in the economy because the government knows what is best for these people. Err...as long as it's not in this country.

[Truth Warrior]

You don't get it. You yourself are basing your arguments on theory. That is why I keep using the term "normal libertarian theory." The author uses "capitalist theory."

In any case, you're still arguing an anti-liberty position. Let's pretend that boycotting government slave labor does hurt the slaves and not the government. It is a fact that the government is forcing people to be slaves. That is documented. The governments themselves admit that. Since you read the article I'm assuming you know that. So, I should keep buying the goods made by these slaves because it helps them have a better (slave) life.

So in essence, I must support government intervention in the economy because the government knows what is best for these people. Err...as long as it's not in this country. Crap there, crap here. Same old crap. :p

[familydog]

Crap there, crap here. Same old crap. :p

Excellent argument. You've won me over. ;)

[Truth Warrior]

Excellent argument. You've won me over. ;) Yeah it worked on our familydog too. :D

[TruthisTreason]

Sounds instead like an open statement to me, that if Mexico were to find itself bleeding out to us economically, tariffs to regulate that to some degree would be very much in their national interest.

And vice-versa. Managed trade agreements tend to allow for exploitation of third-world labor under conditions that do border on slave labor in many instances, for the purpose of supporting corporate bottom lines in the short term. Those corporate structures are already much too powerful and threaten national sovereignty worldwide, our own certainly included. Buck the Internationalist Corporate directives, as a government entity, and you will find yourself constantly labeled in their press as a rogue nation, part of a defined 'axis of evil.' The talk of massive improvements for the Chinese laborer, when distilled right down to the truth- the median Chinese laborer has seen about a doubling of his/her income from about $1 per day to $2 per day in rough figures, this century. Of course the American currency has fared poorly against their currency this decade, so adjust that downward it terms of actual buying power. Now it should be obvious why the Chinese can't invest more heavily into creating an actual consumer class out of those workers, which will never happen at $2/day incomes- the overwhelming majority of those dollars flowing into China in unprecedented fashion must invariably be invested into expanding US debt or the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. The best hope for the Chinese worker is that a more balanced trade ledger leads to the ability of chinese mfg. to actually reward that labor in a way that turns them into consumers of the world's goods. Wildly imbalanced trade can never possibly do that.

I'm always curious, though- those wearing blinders in regard to our severely expanding debt problems and the crumbling state are almost always advocates of free trade as managed today. What exactly brings you to a movement centered on 'America first,' getting our house in order, and adopting a more non-interventionist stance towards the rest of the world, when you could go here instead and be involved with an org about exactly that for which you advocate?:
www.cfr.org

I think a lot of people have a hard time with the diminished self-determination that Internationalism implies, and I applaud you for that. But you do have to understand that the way they are succeeding anyway is by luring so many into voting for them on a number of various pretexts. Their pseudo-free-trade is one of them, their press advocates for it constantly, all CFR 'sock puppets' if I may borrow the phrase, that we elect to office from either major party drums the line repeatedly, as though such a thing is or even should be possible in a world of soveriegn societies. Same is true for those hooked by other means involving Federally-mandated social direction such as legalized abortion declared a constitutional right without proper amendment making it so; the movement for Federal directive on definition of marraige should that occur without the necessary constitutional modifications. If no other lesson has been learned over the past several decades, learn this- Americans must stand together firmly against these various schemes that dissolve our self-determination, and we must stop letting them divide us. They advance the cause of internationalism and globalism. Its so important that we never lose completely the reins of self-determination on the most local levels possible, and that means never supporting Federal growth into constitutionally unsound direction, even when we agree with the particular change as to the specific issue, especially then since that's the lure to place and keep internationalists in power.

Always ask, on Federal matters- does this proposed change strengthen or weaken local self-determination? Does it strengthen or weaken Federal growth beyond traditional constitutional limits? Does it essentially unleash internationalists to put the various pieces of their agenda into place without getting the i's dotted and the t's crossed on getting the constitution modified first, as it was intended to be applied. It's that sort of national laziness that has led to the constitution becoming more and more meaningless across the past 90+ years or so. As voters we have allowed it instead of requiring invariably that the constitution as originally intended and interpreted be the law of the land until modified properly. The result is that we haven't amended the constitution in how long now? Various special agendas hardly even try to do that any more as designing the end-around play has come into vogue and never draws the yellow penalty flag anymore.

That is the key to being like-minded with Dr.Paul, and returning the country to its proper course where the people run the show and govt is bottom-up rather than top-down. Decide for yourself what sort of report card you'd give Dr. Paul regarding staying true to those sort of principles across the decades, then turn around and take a good look at your own self-grade you'd have to turn in on yourself each and every time you'd support a candidate or an issue that degrades our self-determination on the most local levels possible and turns more power and control over to the Federal gov't, an entity more or less in collusion with the Internationalist agenda these days.

NAFTA, CAFTA, & all other internationalist-managed trade agreements must go in the interest of self-determination, not to mention the nation's sovereignty and that of every other society on the planet.

I'm not sure what you are arguing, now. If all of that was implied to me.

Ask Ron Paul is he supports free trade or managed trade? I support free trade.
And I support Wal-Mart!

[alaric]

what's wrong with wallmart?

by attacking wallmart, you're attacking a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. the fact that America can trade paper dollars for the import of real goods that can be sold for cheap in wallmart is a good thing for the time being. unfortunately, that system will come crashing down because it's not sustainable... so this is what you need to be attacking... not wallmart. they're just running a business, and they run the business very well. if you want America to start to produce things, they can't have the ability to print paper dollars instead of producing real goods.

very good point!

[TruthisTreason]

What????

Wal Mart is the epitome of free trade. I say buy EVERYTHING from Wal Mart! Well, almost.

They are pro free trade. Trading around the world will cause better friendships with other countries our government may "hate", such as China, and make it harder for them ever to start a war with them.

Wal Mart is anti trade Unions! How much more American can you get than that?

Wal Mart should be the official store of the Ron Paul movement. If anything to outrage the elites and pro-trade unionists that want you to hate Wal Mart.

Lew Rockwell talks about this very thing at about 7:15 into his latest podcast.

http://lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2008-08-24_026_from_the_dark_heart_of_dc.mp3

Thanks for the link. I'm glad to see Lew agrees. :D

[rockandrollsouls]

1.2 million people in America voted for Ron Paul, and if we all support each other economically, then we can start putting an actual dent into the exporter of Chinese fascism that is the Wal-Mart leviathan.

www.freemarketforliberty.com provides an easy way for us to do that, and once we create a thriving liberty oriented market place, then it will be easy to continuously funnel a portion of that circulating currency towards revived money bombs for liberty, because a tool will be added that will allow listing owners to show how much money they have donated to liberty candidates.

Then it will also be easy for us to keep growing our movement, because people will join just for the economic benefits, and then it will be easy for us to educate them as well.

So please support this initiative by listing your liberty supporting business today.

yes...let's kill an honest business that provides jobs and benefits to its employees and low cost goods to the rest of us. Moron.

[rockandrollsouls]

Sounds instead like an open statement to me, that if Mexico were to find itself bleeding out to us economically, tariffs to regulate that to some degree would be very much in their national interest.

And vice-versa. Managed trade agreements tend to allow for exploitation of third-world labor under conditions that do border on slave labor in many instances, for the purpose of supporting corporate bottom lines in the short term. Those corporate structures are already much too powerful and threaten national sovereignty worldwide, our own certainly included. Buck the Internationalist Corporate directives, as a government entity, and you will find yourself constantly labeled in their press as a rogue nation, part of a defined 'axis of evil.' The talk of massive improvements for the Chinese laborer, when distilled right down to the truth- the median Chinese laborer has seen about a doubling of his/her income from about $1 per day to $2 per day in rough figures, this century. Of course the American currency has fared poorly against their currency this decade, so adjust that downward it terms of actual buying power. Now it should be obvious why the Chinese can't invest more heavily into creating an actual consumer class out of those workers, which will never happen at $2/day incomes- the overwhelming majority of those dollars flowing into China in unprecedented fashion must invariably be invested into expanding US debt or the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. The best hope for the Chinese worker is that a more balanced trade ledger leads to the ability of chinese mfg. to actually reward that labor in a way that turns them into consumers of the world's goods. Wildly imbalanced trade can never possibly do that.

I'm always curious, though- those wearing blinders in regard to our severely expanding debt problems and the crumbling state are almost always advocates of free trade as managed today. What exactly brings you to a movement centered on 'America first,' getting our house in order, and adopting a more non-interventionist stance towards the rest of the world, when you could go here instead and be involved with an org about exactly that for which you advocate?:
www.cfr.org

I think a lot of people have a hard time with the diminished self-determination that Internationalism implies, and I applaud you for that. But you do have to understand that the way they are succeeding anyway is by luring so many into voting for them on a number of various pretexts. Their pseudo-free-trade is one of them, their press advocates for it constantly, all CFR 'sock puppets' if I may borrow the phrase, that we elect to office from either major party drums the line repeatedly, as though such a thing is or even should be possible in a world of soveriegn societies. Same is true for those hooked by other means involving Federally-mandated social direction such as legalized abortion declared a constitutional right without proper amendment making it so; the movement for Federal directive on definition of marraige should that occur without the necessary constitutional modifications. If no other lesson has been learned over the past several decades, learn this- Americans must stand together firmly against these various schemes that dissolve our self-determination, and we must stop letting them divide us. They advance the cause of internationalism and globalism. Its so important that we never lose completely the reins of self-determination on the most local levels possible, and that means never supporting Federal growth into constitutionally unsound direction, even when we agree with the particular change as to the specific issue, especially then since that's the lure to place and keep internationalists in power.

Always ask, on Federal matters- does this proposed change strengthen or weaken local self-determination? Does it strengthen or weaken Federal growth beyond traditional constitutional limits? Does it essentially unleash internationalists to put the various pieces of their agenda into place without getting the i's dotted and the t's crossed on getting the constitution modified first, as it was intended to be applied. It's that sort of national laziness that has led to the constitution becoming more and more meaningless across the past 90+ years or so. As voters we have allowed it instead of requiring invariably that the constitution as originally intended and interpreted be the law of the land until modified properly. The result is that we haven't amended the constitution in how long now? Various special agendas hardly even try to do that any more as designing the end-around play has come into vogue and never draws the yellow penalty flag anymore.

That is the key to being like-minded with Dr.Paul, and returning the country to its proper course where the people run the show and govt is bottom-up rather than top-down. Decide for yourself what sort of report card you'd give Dr. Paul regarding staying true to those sort of principles across the decades, then turn around and take a good look at your own self-grade you'd have to turn in on yourself each and every time you'd support a candidate or an issue that degrades our self-determination on the most local levels possible and turns more power and control over to the Federal gov't, an entity more or less in collusion with the Internationalist agenda these days.

NAFTA, CAFTA, & all other internationalist-managed trade agreements must go in the interest of self-determination, not to mention the nation's sovereignty and that of every other society on the planet.

You're foolish. Ever read a financial statement? Go look at their profit margin. You're pulling information out of your ass.

Corporations are bad, bottom line, money money money. Well, their financial statements are available for you to examine. How about, instead of running your mouth, you go and read them and see what the bottom line really looks like.

[Petar]

yes...let's kill an honest business that provides jobs and benefits to its employees and low cost goods to the rest of us. Moron.

Well hello my rude little friend, nice to meet you!

Yes, we should compete with Walmart in the free-market, and take away as much of their money as possible, for ourselves.

We are the people who want to reverse fascism in America, and Walmart is the leviathan whose only interest is to maintain its obscene profit margins, which are based on this fascism, and also based on full fledge Chinese fascism more so.

If we can compete with Walmart in the free-market, and take away as much of their money as possible, then we can use this money to change the fascist politics that we need to change in America.

If we just let Walmart keep making all of the money that it is making, then they are just gonna keep lobbying for more fascism, just like they did with their little pal Billary Clinton, via NAFTA.

Besides, I thought that making money in the free-market was absolute justification for any immoral business practice, lol.

So let's make some money!

duh

[KenInMontiMN]

You're foolish. Ever read a financial statement? Go look at their profit margin. You're pulling information out of your ass.

Corporations are bad, bottom line, money money money. Well, their financial statements are available for you to examine. How about, instead of running your mouth, you go and read them and see what the bottom line really looks like.

I'm fully aware of Walmart's tight profit margins, and have acquaintances who are in local mgmt positions with them. Corporations growing to monolithic size in near-monopolistic fashion is not a positive. Walmart has stayed in the black in large part through rapid growth, but that period of growth has drawn to a close. Eventually the market becomes saturated.

Never claimed Walmart was the real problem, the real problem is political choices that set the stage for a Walmart phenomonon at the expense of American family small business. I didn't jump into this thread to bash Walmart- but rather to stress the fact that runaway corporatism and international corporate power structures are dangerous, they do tend to absorb political power left unchecked and unregulated as near-monopolies. Free trade has been the banner that's been sold under. In the long run nothing's ever free.

Whether or not our movement can succeed hinges directly on how successfully we can turn away from the many hooks ready to be set, all of the temptations placed before us designed to keep us splintered a hundred different ways unless we're very disciplined in examining each and every issue from a standpoint of its effect on overall self-reliance, solvency, self determination not just here but elsewhere. And opening our neighbors' eyes to the same, and not glossing over all the dismal effects associated with the ground already given up in this war. In the end US self-determination and US constitutional protection is what's at stake, and no battle over any pettier issue that could divide us is worth losing the war over. Focus must be kept firmly on how policies and choices impact our constitutional foundation, and on how they impact our national economic health, especially in the area of debt growth today. Public & private as well. We have to stop supporting plays, some even springing up within this group, designed to skirt the constitution and negatively impact the nation's overall longterm economic health, as one more policy that ignores it and advances our own downfall. Immense international economic power structures eventually replacing Federal gov't that grew too bloated to survive by doing to much of the work of those power structures is no step forward for individual self-determination. We need to decentralize and weaken those sorts of things to the maximum extent possible on an ongoing basis or we surely will be swallowed up in the wake of their directions and carried along like it or not.

That is what the constitution empowers us to do; that is what Dr. Paul has devoted his political life towards; but in today's climate it can only happen if we all stick together with that focus, demand it from politicians on every level, never get lost in the temptation to use such concentrated powers to impose our own agenda despite that lure dangling constantly. We have to disintegrate that sort of thing regularly and religiously if local self-determination is our creed. We have to entrust our neighbors as well, locally and internationally, to their own self-deterministic choices in the bargain.

The latest example of our desensitization to unconstitutional excess from central power structures that springs to mind for me is the close 5-4 vote on the constitutionality of the DC gun laws. I can't think of any possible excuse for not demanding immediate impeachment of 4 justices who opined, despite their vow to uphold and defend, in a manner 180 deg counter to the constitution. And I'm neither a gun owner or regular user. I hear some people say that there are too many guns and the DC law is a good thing. It can't possibly be a good thing when enacting it ran counter to the constitution- that means that amending the constitution is step 1 for those who truly believe local gov't should be able to deny gun ownership. Letting that directive stand for 30 years or whatever it was exactly, unchallenged, should have never happened in the USA. But it's our own fault. If we don't stick together in near-unanimous fashion each and every time someone wants to bend the constitution into a new shape without engaging in the process to amend, in order to ramrod their agenda, and constitutional challenge takes decades if ever to come into fruition- then no surprise that will be the method in use for anybody with such an agenda. Amending the constitution is a lot of work, as it should be. And no surprise that Americans, even Americans in position of high power and under oath to uphold and defend, will make 'just a piece of paper' statements. That in and of itself labels the utterer as unfit for public office and ripe for impeachment. That didn't happen immediately when a president said that, and for that we can only blame ourselves for the fact that too many of us have grown too accustomed to holding exactly the same attitude on our pet issues, and actually supported letting the constitution bend to put our agenda in place, and hoping the courts would never apply it as intended.

This movement is first and foremost about uniting Americans to demand constitutional integrity, setting aside issue differences to do so, using that integrity to force a small and fiscally sound Federal gov't with sharply limited reach. If we can stand together with that lens as our focus we can't fail. If we continue to succumb to the continuous temptation to harness that centralized power against our political opponents we can't win, because this is a group and a message that pulls many together from different directions.

But when I read through these and other forums all I get is a barrage of, paraphrased:
I hate liberals, socialists
I hate fundamentalist christians, warmongering neocons
I hate inyoface gays
I hate family values people
I hate zionist jews
I hate unions
I hate amoral capitalists
I hate country music
I hate headbangin' metal
I hate internationalists
I hate anti-progressives
I hate the feds
I hate social entitlement spending
I hate military indusrtrial complex spending
I hate interventionists
I hate isolationists
I hate Islamofascists
I hate neocon fascists
...and so on ad nauseum.

We will label and hate away, human nature. To whatever extent we can set that stuff aside in this movement and keep the focus towards small and limited federal gov't powers well within constitutional bounds we can succeed in resurrecting the country we once had and actually stand a chance of even having a strong and solvent country down the road a bit. In failing to make that stuff take the back seat in priority we set ourselves up for failure, even partake actively in that failure by wanting those federal powers amassed for our own wielding, whether we can afford them or not, and help the country towards its impending economic demise.

[rockandrollsouls]

Well hello my rude little friend, nice to meet you!

Yes, we should compete with Walmart in the free-market, and take away as much of their money as possible, for ourselves.

We are the people who want to reverse fascism in America, and Walmart is the leviathan whose only interest is to maintain its obscene profit margins, which are based on this fascism, and also based on full fledge Chinese fascism more so.

If we can compete with Walmart in the free-market, and take away as much of their money as possible, then we can use this money to change the fascist politics that we need to change in America.

If we just let Walmart keep making all of the money that it is making, then they are just gonna keep lobbying for more fascism, just like they did with their little pal Billary Clinton, via NAFTA.

Besides, I thought that making money in the free-market was absolute justification for any immoral business practice, lol.

So let's make some money!

duh

You don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. Probably one of the reasons we don't see you in the economics section of the board. ;)

I don't think you know what a company like walmart is composed of. Aye, you're just one of those that thinks "hefty rich owner with a cigar in his mouth" when you hear the word "corporation."

[rockandrollsouls]

I'm fully aware of Walmart's tight profit margins, and have acquaintances who are in local mgmt positions with them. Corporations growing to monolithic size in near-monopolistic fashion is not a positive. Walmart has stayed in the black in large part through rapid growth, but that period of growth has drawn to a close. Eventually the market becomes saturated.

Never claimed Walmart was the real problem, the real problem is political choices that set the stage for a Walmart phenomonon at the expense of American family small business. I didn't jump into this thread to bash Walmart- but rather to stress the fact that runaway corporatism and international corporate power structures are dangerous, they do tend to absorb political power left unchecked and unregulated as near-monopolies. Free trade has been the banner that's been sold under. In the long run nothing's ever free.

Whether or not our movement can succeed hinges directly on how successfully we can turn away from the many hooks ready to be set, all of the temptations placed before us designed to keep us splintered a hundred different ways unless we're very disciplined in examining each and every issue from a standpoint of its effect on overall self-reliance, solvency, self determination not just here but elsewhere. And opening our neighbors' eyes to the same, and not glossing over all the dismal effects associated with the ground already given up in this war. In the end US self-determination and US constitutional protection is what's at stake, and no battle over any pettier issue that could divide us is worth losing the war over. Focus must be kept firmly on how policies and choices impact our constitutional foundation, and on how they impact our national economic health, especially in the area of debt growth today. Public & private as well. We have to stop supporting plays, some even springing up within this group, designed to skirt the constitution and negatively impact the nation's overall longterm economic health, as one more policy that ignores it and advances our own downfall. Immense international economic power structures eventually replacing Federal gov't that grew too bloated to survive by doing to much of the work of those power structures is no step forward for individual self-determination. We need to decentralize and weaken those sorts of things to the maximum extent possible on an ongoing basis or we surely will be swallowed up in the wake of their directions and carried along like it or not.

That is what the constitution empowers us to do; that is what Dr. Paul has devoted his political life towards; but in today's climate it can only happen if we all stick together with that focus, demand it from politicians on every level, never get lost in the temptation to use such concentrated powers to impose our own agenda despite that lure dangling constantly. We have to disintegrate that sort of thing regularly and religiously if local self-determination is our creed. We have to entrust our neighbors as well, locally and internationally, to their own self-deterministic choices in the bargain.

The latest example of our desensitization to unconstitutional excess from central power structures that springs to mind for me is the close 5-4 vote on the constitutionality of the DC gun laws. I can't think of any possible excuse for not demanding immediate impeachment of 4 justices who opined, despite their vow to uphold and defend, in a manner 180 deg counter to the constitution. And I'm neither a gun owner or regular user. I hear some people say that there are too many guns and the DC law is a good thing. It can't possibly be a good thing when enacting it ran counter to the constitution- that means that amending the constitution is step 1 for those who truly believe local gov't should be able to deny gun ownership. Letting that directive stand for 30 years or whatever it was exactly, unchallenged, should have never happened in the USA. But it's our own fault. If we don't stick together in near-unanimous fashion each and every time someone wants to bend the constitution into a new shape without engaging in the process to amend, in order to ramrod their agenda, and constitutional challenge takes decades if ever to come into fruition- then no surprise that will be the method in use for anybody with such an agenda. Amending the constitution is a lot of work, as it should be. And no surprise that Americans, even Americans in position of high power and under oath to uphold and defend, will make 'just a piece of paper' statements. That in and of itself labels the utterer as unfit for public office and ripe for impeachment. That didn't happen immediately when a president said that, and for that we can only blame ourselves for the fact that too many of us have grown too accustomed to holding exactly the same attitude on our pet issues, and actually supported letting the constitution bend to put our agenda in place, and hoping the courts would never apply it as intended.

This movement is first and foremost about uniting Americans to demand constitutional integrity, setting aside issue differences to do so, using that integrity to force a small and fiscally sound Federal gov't with sharply limited reach. If we can stand together with that lens as our focus we can't fail. If we continue to succumb to the continuous temptation to harness that centralized power against our political opponents we can't win, because this is a group and a message that pulls many together from different directions.

But when I read through these and other forums all I get is a barrage of, paraphrased:
I hate liberals, socialists
I hate fundamentalist christians, warmongering neocons
I hate inyoface gays
I hate family values people
I hate zionist jews
I hate unions
I hate amoral capitalists
I hate country music
I hate headbangin' metal
I hate internationalists
I hate anti-progressives
I hate the feds
I hate social entitlement spending
I hate military indusrtrial complex spending
I hate interventionists
I hate isolationists
I hate Islamofascists
I hate neocon fascists
...and so on ad nauseum.

We will label and hate away, human nature. To whatever extent we can set that stuff aside in this movement and keep the focus towards small and limited federal gov't powers well within constitutional bounds we can succeed in resurrecting the country we once had and actually stand a chance of even having a strong and solvent country down the road a bit. In failing to make that stuff take the back seat in priority we set ourselves up for failure, even partake actively in that failure by wanting those federal powers amassed for our own wielding, whether we can afford them or not, and help the country towards its impending economic demise.

Here's another one. I hate people that write nonsensical, winded posts. You are bashing wal-mart and free market economics. It's not "runaway" corporatism. There's no such thing. It's runaway government, buddy. Government subsidizes. Government interferes. Government grants immunity. Government makes the decisions. Government oversteps its boundaries. Until you and others get that straight you're thinking ass-backwards.

[Petar]

You don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. Probably one of the reasons we don't see you in the economics section of the board. ;)

I don't think you know what a company like walmart is composed of. Aye, you're just one of those that thinks "hefty rich owner with a cigar in his mouth" when you hear the word "corporation."

Ok, so I "don't have a clue what I'm talking about", and I'm supposed to believe that solely because you just said so...

Wow, must be nice to be the arbitrary decider of all things!

Heh, could you please tell me how I could ever hope to gain this power for myself "oh great one"?

Also, I don't think that all corporations are evil, but I do agree with Ron Paul that fascism aka corporatism is not nice.

And call me crazy, but I would rather give my money to a company that isn't gonna use it to build a prison out of society.

[rockandrollsouls]

Ok, so I "don't have a clue what I'm talking about", and I'm supposed to believe that solely because you just said so...

Wow, must be nice to be the arbitrary decider of all things!

Heh, could you please tell me how I could ever hope to gain this power for myself "oh great one"?

Also, I don't think that all corporations are evil, but I do agree with Ron Paul that fascism aka corporatism is not nice.

And call me crazy, but I would rather give my money to a company that isn't gonna use it to build a prison out of society.

No one's telling you what to spend your money on. Here's how you can be as great as me...read walmart's financial statements, examine their ratios, and then tell me exactly how much money they are making that isn't retained earnings. Then you can provide some evidence that Walmart, itself, is lobbying the government. And, even if they are, show me where that is a problem. I can lobby the government if I want. You can too, but you might want to place the blame on your elected officials for doing things they aren't authorized to, not the business.

Again, you're thinking about it backwards. There is no such thing as corporatism. Business is business...it's your government that blurs all distinction between the economy and itself. Businesses don't have the power to do that. Your corrupt lawmakers do.

[BCR_9er]

I agree. My family does it's best not to shop at walmart. We probably only go about once every 1 or 2 monthes. I think this is pretty good. I have no idea how often other people go, but every time I go in there it is sooooo crowded. I just want to scream at these people. Especially when they complain about the economy...

[Petar]

No one's telling you what to spend your money on. Here's how you can be as great as me...read walmart's financial statements, examine their ratios, and then tell me exactly how much money they are making that isn't retained earnings. Then you can provide some evidence that Walmart, itself, is lobbying the government. And, even if they are, show me where that is a problem. I can lobby the government if I want. You can too, but you might want to place the blame on your elected officials for doing things they aren't authorized to, not the business.

Again, you're thinking about it backwards. There is no such thing as corporatism. Business is business...it's your government that blurs all distinction between the economy and itself. Businesses don't have the power to do that. Your corrupt lawmakers do.

Who says that there is only one way to attack a problem?

Walmart participates in the corporatist rape of America and also China, so why should we limit ourselves to attacking only the government side of the problem?

Why shouldn't we all decide to use free-market capitalism to compete with Walmart, and take Walmarts money as well?

We sure as hell can't print any money like the Fed, or collect protection money like the IRS.

And don't you think that this money would be useful for the movement?

We could use it to fund the political campaigning that we are gonna need to fund in order to make the political changes that we are gonna need to make.

No more Fed, no more IRS, no more NAFTA.

Not to mention, we would attract a hell of a lot more people to our movement.

And haven't you ever heard of using your money in a moral way?

Prostitution and gambling don't have to be illegal, but that does not mean that everyone should spend all of their money on these things to make society a better place.

Hillary Clinton was on the board of directors of Walmart, and Bill Clinton passed NAFTA.

Do I really need to go through Walmarts earnings with a fine tooth to comb to explain to you how that seems immoral?

It's the same kind of shit that you have with Dick Cheney and Halliburton, and quite frankly, not only does it make me hate these politicians, but it makes me hate these companies too.

And not to mention, when you call me a moron for no reason, and then pretend that you are smart, then that makes me fucking hate you too.

lol

[Truth Warrior]

This all kinda reminds me of the 70's, when Apple started calling itself the next IBM. :D IBM just shifted gears, with a new product and division, and just kicked Apple's butt. ;)

[coyote_sprit]

Uhh... what? Whose trying to be the next Walmart?

[Truth Warrior]

Uhh... what? Whose trying to be the next Walmart? The WalMart "killers" here. :D

It's that same kind of mindset that is going to "take over" the GOP. :rolleyes:

Yeah, right. ;)

[coyote_sprit]

The WalMart "killers" here. :D

It's that same kind of mindset that is going to "take over" the GOP. :rolleyes:

Yeah, right. ;)

Wait nevermind I just had a major facepalm and mindfuck.

You ever viewed a multi page topic for the first time and the person who posted above you was the first person to post on this page and you mistook it for a new topic?

Makes you feel dumb don't it?

[Truth Warrior]

Wait nevermind I just had a major facepalm and mindfuck.

You ever viewed a multi page topic for the first time and the person who posted above you was the first person to post on this page and you mistook it for a new topic?

Makes you feel dumb don't it?

It happens. ;)

Yep!

Yep!

:D

[revolutionman]

if you wanna hurt walmart go in there and distribute pro union propaganda to employees, and help them organize from the outside.

As far as free market economics is concerned there are varying opinions on the validity of unionization. Personally i think helping walmart employees get a fare wage and better benefits without lobbying for them is just dandy.

Forget about walmart, and their employment practices and their profit margin, and just consider the damage walmart does to the surrounding community, and also, walmarts prices are not that low anymore.

if you notice, WallyWorld moves in with low everyday prices, and as soon as the local competition goes bust, those low low prices start looking a lot like the prices you used to pay at the local dept store. Walmart is monopolizing, especially in the rural US where there is not even other corporations to compete with. the worst part is that our elected officials cater to this nonsense.

I say we should help the walmart employees unionize. That way, the employees get their fair share, and walmart doesn't have to get "killed" which would put a whole lot of people out of work and leave a whole lot more people with no place to shop. I'm aware of union corruption, but there is corruption in any organization. You simply have to consider that the benefits of unionizing walmart stores far outweigh whatever percent is lost to corruption.

I dunno if anyone else sees unionization the same way, but i'm open to other takes on the matter.

[Unspun]

if you wanna hurt walmart go in there and distribute pro union propaganda to employees, and help them organize from the outside.

As far as free market economics is concerned there are varying opinions on the validity of unionization. Personally i think helping walmart employees get a fare wage and better benefits without lobbying for them is just dandy.

Forget about walmart, and their employment practices and their profit margin, and just consider the damage walmart does to the surrounding community, and also, walmarts prices are not that low anymore.

if you notice, WallyWorld moves in with low everyday prices, and as soon as the local competition goes bust, those low low prices start looking a lot like the prices you used to pay at the local dept store. Walmart is monopolizing, especially in the rural US where there is not even other corporations to compete with. the worst part is that our elected officials cater to this nonsense.

I say we should help the walmart employees unionize. That way, the employees get their fair share, and walmart doesn't have to get "killed" which would put a whole lot of people out of work and leave a whole lot more people with no place to shop. I'm aware of union corruption, but there is corruption in any organization. You simply have to consider that the benefits of unionizing walmart stores far outweigh whatever percent is lost to corruption.

I dunno if anyone else sees unionization the same way, but i'm open to other takes on the matter.

Nope. I don't see unions that way.

I worked for a Union when I worked for AT&T. I also worked for them before. Yes, my pay was slightly better (by 50 cents per hour) and my pay increases were regular.

My problem with Unions is that people, once tenured, could not get fired no matter how bad of workers they are. Even if they weren't tenured it was still almost impossible to fire them if they sucked at their job. It creates inefficiency and costs the business greatly. They still got their pay raises, all their benefits (which were only slightly better than prior to the union coming in--and also what ever happened to pay raises because you deserved it?), and got to do a shitty job while I sat and worked my ass off because that's the way I was taught. I saw them progress throughout the company while I stayed right where I was. It was stupid.

Also it forced the company, by law, to give us better pay and better benefits which only hurt the customers. But, these benefits were often made irrelevant because our paid time off was cut, and our sick leave was made so you couldn't be sick almost at all, and we no longer got free phones or free service from AT&T, so where they made better concessions (barely) in one area they took away what we had in another area.

Plus having a business being forced to do something because a federal and state government protected trade union (racketeering if you ask me) is not something that should be promoted in a "free market economy". It doesn't help workers, it doesn't help customers, and it certainly doesn't help businessmen who worked their asses off to have what they have. It's unfair, immoral, and unjust.

In conclusion, Wal Mart are heroes for not allowing Unions to come in.

[rockandrollsouls]

Who says that there is only one way to attack a problem?

Walmart participates in the corporatist rape of America and also China, so why should we limit ourselves to attacking only the government side of the problem?

Why shouldn't we all decide to use free-market capitalism to compete with Walmart, and take Walmarts money as well?

We sure as hell can't print any money like the Fed, or collect protection money like the IRS.

And don't you think that this money would be useful for the movement?

We could use it to fund the political campaigning that we are gonna need to fund in order to make the political changes that we are gonna need to make.

No more Fed, no more IRS, no more NAFTA.

Not to mention, we would attract a hell of a lot more people to our movement.

And haven't you ever heard of using your money in a moral way?

Prostitution and gambling don't have to be illegal, but that does not mean that everyone should spend all of their money on these things to make society a better place.

Hillary Clinton was on the board of directors of Walmart, and Bill Clinton passed NAFTA.

Do I really need to go through Walmarts earnings with a fine tooth to comb to explain to you how that seems immoral?

It's the same kind of shit that you have with Dick Cheney and Halliburton, and quite frankly, not only does it make me hate these politicians, but it makes me hate these companies too.

And not to mention, when you call me a moron for no reason, and then pretend that you are smart, then that makes me fucking hate you too.

lol

So I take it you won't be addressing my question and supporting your opinion with evidence? Hypothetical questions to make it seem like you know what you're saying? I can play that game, too.

Do I really need to show you the financials myself and make you look foolish? Do I really need to show you evidence of corrupt GOVERNMENT, not business? Do I have to tell you Corporations are owned by the shareholders, not a single person on the board? Do I have to tell you you're spewing nonsense, opinion, and rhetoric without providing any evidence? If you're gonna run your mouth be prepared to back it up, buddy.


"Forget about walmart, and their employment practices and their profit margin, and just consider the damage walmart does to the surrounding community, and also, walmarts prices are not that low anymore."

Can you provide evidence that shows me wal-mart does damage to the surrounding community, and please don't cite your butt because that's where that garbage statement came out of :rolleyes:

[TruthisTreason]

You pro-union and anit- wal-mart guys read this book. I've got a feeling you haven't.

http://jim.com/econ/

Shortcut to the union argument here. http://jim.com/econ/chap20p1.html

[Petar]

So I take it you won't be addressing my question and supporting your opinion with evidence? Hypothetical questions to make it seem like you know what you're saying? I can play that game, too.

Do I really need to show you the financials myself and make you look foolish? Do I really need to show you evidence of corrupt GOVERNMENT, not business? Do I have to tell you Corporations are owned by the shareholders, not a single person on the board? Do I have to tell you you're spewing nonsense, opinion, and rhetoric without providing any evidence? If you're gonna run your mouth be prepared to back it up, buddy.

I did address your question.

You implied that someone would have to go through Walmarts earnings reports in order to figure out if they were lobbying the government or not.

I brought up Walmarts close association to Billary Clinton and NAFTA to show you that corporatist assholes often engage in "off the books" forms of lobbying as well.

NAFTA is one of the government policies that hold down America so that Walmart can continuously rape it.

So even if Walmart itself had nothing to do with the government creation of this immoral law (which I do not tend to believe at all) since when is an immoral law considered moral justification for an action?

America is full of immoral laws that legally allow us to victimize each other constantly.

www.freemarketforliberty.com is merely a project to organize a market place for Americans who would like to invest their money and labor in a way that will help restore the Republic, as opposed to continuing to destroy it.