|
Infinite growth (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
coercion implies the threat of violence krypt. What institution has the legal monopoly on this? Market monopolies don't become coercive until they buy politicians. Your anger should be focused on a government that can be bought...a government big enough to grant favors and subsidies to some groups at the expense of others. If politicians were tied and bound with the chains of the constitution, there would be little point in companies trying to buy them would there? |
For all your talk about competition, isn't a little hypocritical for you to disregard an obvious result of unregulated capitalism, allowing monopolies which crowd out all other competitors, raise prices, make unnatural profits, etc.
I don't care how good a government is, it can still be bought off. Which goes back to my problem with the "personhood" of corporations. You blaming government for the failures of capitalism is like blaming the police for you getting into a car accident because you were drunk. Their only fault is not catching you before you crashed. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
I love how people who complain about monopolies always have a solution that involves giving more power and influence to the ultimate monopoly..the only entity with a true legal right to use coercion, force, fraud, and physical violence. |
I love how people who complain about fraud or force have this immature notion that such issues are the domain of government alone. Business has never been known to exert force or to defraud the public!! Lols. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | | For all your talk about competition, isn't a little hypocritical for you to disregard an obvious result of unregulated capitalism, allowing monopolies which crowd out all other competitors, raise prices, make unnatural profits, etc. |
Modern example of a company doing all of these things? Wal-Mart seems to be the punching bag of many lefties who criticize monopolies...but you will notice they got where they are by offering LOW "cut-throat" prices that competitors can't match..and rather than raising prices after being dominant and attempting to "gouge" consumers, they maintain their dominance by keeping prices low. This is an example of mass buying power and a very efficient business model. I'm not denying they don't have the power to influence the market and "bully" wholesalers to give them what they want...but this is not a coercive power any way you look at it. The power of coercion resides solely with the state..and for that reason alone you should be much more suspicious of federal power than those who gain power by satisfying public demand. The market punishes irrationality krypt. If Walmart ceased offering people what they desired, their profits would drop. If they started jacking up prices to above market rates, they would invite people to seek alternatives at other stores and e-commerce sites like Amazon (who would be glad to take the business). It would mean a slow and painful death for the largest company on the planet.
As for corporate personhood, I don't think you realize the implications of removing it krypt.. Do you understand the reason it began in the first place? Do you realize that without the ability to form separate entities, every shareholder in a given venture could be held personally liable if management makes a bad decision? This means every shareholder could be sued for damages. Every share of stock you own is a potential guillotine hanging over your head that could become a lien against your house/car and other assets. The risk premium would shoot up like a rocket without corporate personhood and capital investment (along with every world stock market) would collapse. If you want to ban companies from contributing to political campaigns, that's another issue. A particular law could be passed to prevent that, but to remove personhood entirely would be disastrous.
| quote: |
I love how people who complain about fraud or force have this immature notion that such issues are the domain of government alone. Business has never been known to exert force or to defraud the public!! Lols. |
Difference is pk, when private individuals or companies commit these crimes, you can prosecute them for it. You have no recourse against a corrupt government.
Refuse to obey the government, they confiscate your property and put you in jail. If you attempt to defend your property and your life, they kill you.
Refuse to shop at Wal-Mart, the owner gives you a dirty look and walks away.
See the difference? ;) |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
Modern example of a company doing all of these things? Wal-Mart seems to be the punching bag of many lefties who criticize monopolies...but you will notice they got where they are by offering LOW "cut-throat" prices that competitors can't match..and rather than raising prices after being dominant and attempting to "gouge" consumers, they maintain their dominance by keeping prices low. |
you're so full of sometimes.
Whilst I agree with some (even many?) of your market opinions, the romanticism you bring the table sometimes just reeks of wanton naiveté:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/
Now, I really don’t expect you to watch it or anything, I just wanted to post a source that shows your assumption is completely, utterly and irrevocably incorrect.
your glasses are almost as pink as the socialists' (real socialists too, not your BS american types). you're too far attached to an idea to see the evidence right in front of you. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
I'm actually not inclined to defend walmart pk..since they are intertwined with the govt in so many ways..but they do offer far lower prices than any major competitor in America. I can tell you from personal experience that they destroy mall department stores when it comes to clothing prices, and easily beat retailers like Target and K-mart when it comes to more general goods..and the prices of groceries are also around 10% lower than the biggest grocer in America, Kroger Co. I read some of that PBS article, and their stock replenishment system described by John Lehman is fascinating.. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...ets/inside.html Minutes after an item is sold, a replacement is sent, and it's back on shelves the following day.. I don't care how much you hate them..You must admit this is awesome! :wtf:
I had to buy a pair of dress pants a few weeks back and grabbed them "on sale" for $40 at Kohls dept store.. Stopping by Wal-Mart on the way home I found the EXACT same thing (brand and size) for $15...frakkin crazy. Now you can come back with the "personal experience doesn't prove yadda yadda" argument..but I beg to differ. Their profits are a culmination of the "personal experience" of millions of customers who have discovered the same thing I have..that their prices on everything from food to plasma TVs are simply unmatched.
Do some people pay a price for this? Yep! Does the bigness and efficiency of Wal-Mart crowd out small businesses who can't compete on their level? Yep! Does Wal-Mart's demand for rock bottom prices limit the profits of their suppliers? Yep! Is this a bad thing for consumers? Nope! :) |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
I'm actually not inclined to defend walmart pk..since they are intertwined with the govt in so many ways..but they do offer far lower prices than any major competitor in America. I can tell you from personal experience that they destroy mall department stores when it comes to clothing prices, and easily beat retailers like Target and K-mart when it comes to more general goods..and the prices of groceries are also around 10% lower than the biggest grocer in America, Kroger Co. I read some of that PBS article, and their stock replenishment system described by John Lehman is fascinating.. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...ets/inside.html Minutes after an item is sold, a replacement is ordered and sent the way to the store..lol, awesome. :wtf:
I had to buy a pair of dress pants a few weeks back and grabbed them "on sale" for $40 at Kohls dept store.. Stopping by Wal-Mart on the way home I found the EXACT same thing (brand and size) for $15...frakkin crazy. Now you can come back with the "personal experience doesn't prove yadda yadda" argument..but I beg to differ. Their profits are a culmination of the "personal experience" of millions of customers who have discovered the same thing I have..that their prices on everything from food to plasma TVs are simply unmatched.
Do some people pay a price for this? Yep! Does the bigness and efficiency of Wal-Mart crowd out small businesses who can't compete on their level? Yep! Does Wal-Mart's demand for rock bottom prices limit the profits of their suppliers? Yep! Is this a bad thing for consumers? Nope! :) |
walmart has also succesfully created a population of lower income citizens to shop at its stores by:
1 - crowding out higher paying jobs at smaller retailers
2 - destroying a segment of US manufacturing jobs by demanding lower cost goods from SE Asia (90% of the sold in walmart comes from china - how is that good for america?) Walmart sells about 400 billion worth of manufactured in other countries. The Walmart sells contributes a substantial portion to the enormous trade imbalance.
3 - paying employees so little that the employees can shop nowhere but walmart.
The only reason so many people need to save money by shopping at walmart is because walmart directly or indirectly causes so many people to lose their jobs or downgrade to a lower paying position.
Most of all, walmart destroys any sense of community, and the stores are an absolute disaster from an urban planning and policy perspective.
I will never step foot inside of a walmart. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
Well jer, if you hold a utilitarian "greatest good for the greatest number" philosophy, you should be willing to overlook these drawbacks given the increased purchasing power they give to tens of millions of customers. But it is your prerogative if you want to boycott them. Every dollar spent is a sign of approval, and every dollar not spent is a vote of "no confidence".
Long live democracy. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
3 - paying employees so little that the employees can shop nowhere but walmart. |
lols! that's classic :stongue: |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
lols! that's classic :stongue: |
I actually found on a Wal-Mart hating site that their average wage last year for full time associates was $10.68/hr That's pretty damn good for an entry level job...$4/hr above federal minimum wage. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
Do some people pay a price for this? Yep! Does the bigness and efficiency of Wal-Mart crowd out small businesses who can't compete on their level? Yep! Does Wal-Mart's demand for rock bottom prices limit the profits of their suppliers? Yep! Is this a bad thing for consumers? Nope! :) |
lols. that link i gave you provides plenty of examples of how walmart is bad for consumers and suppliers.
indeed, in australia coles and woolworths do the same with farmers- their market dominance fleeces suppliers while providing very little in the way of savings for the consumer. the beneficiaries are the shareholders, nobody else. i fail to see the reasoning behind your support of one particular business, to the detriment of everyone else.
| quote: |
Supermarkets have bulked up. These days they’re retail superpowers who make money not just when we eat or drink but increasingly when we fill the petrol tank, play pokies or buy a hammer from the local hardware – and they’re quietly stalking pharmacies, newsagents and florists.
But food is their staple. Coles and Woolworth’s sell 70 per cent of the dry groceries and half the fresh food that Australians consume – among the highest concentrations of market power in the developed world.
Last month the competition watchdog the ACCC officially ticked this arrangement, insisting the market is working.
But the growth in supermarket muscle has come at a cost to many suppliers and small retailers. "Crippling" is how one industry analyst terms Coles’ and Woolies’ power over food producers; the regulator calls it "simply tough dealing".
"It’s just eating my farm away, we’re just finished," says a despairing pumpkin grower whose produce retails for as much as 10 times the price he gets for it. He scoffs at the ACCC’s view that the gap between farm gate prices and the checkout isn’t growing.
Don’t like pumpkin? How about an ice-cream story to illustrate supermarkets’ throat-hold? Four Corners meets an ice-cream maker who buys a lot of milk – and bizarrely he gets it cheaper from his local supermarket than from the wholesale processor. Why? Because the wholesaler has to accept ultra low prices from the supermarket - and compensates by inflating his price to smaller buyers, says the ice-cream man.
Or try sausage. One sausage-maker explains the choice he made when the supermarket told him he had to cut his supply price or get kicked off the shelf: "The only way we would do that was by using lesser quality meat product... and adding soy proteins and what some people might call 'fillings' to extend the product." He then volunteers to Four Corners that he wouldn’t even eat the product himself.
Suppliers can reel off a list of punishing "rebates" – fees - that they must pay supermarkets for product promotions, to get paid on time, or just for the privilege and opportunity of supplying goods. But few are bold enough to do so publicly.
Like suppliers to the big supermarkets, minnow retailers are fed up – but more outspoken. Small liquor merchants can get some beer and wine cheaper from supermarket-owned retail grog barns than they can from wholesalers. Some refuse to see this as competition: "In the 36 years I’ve been in our two shops I’ve had 12 armed hold-ups, 11 with a gun and one with a machete, and the biggest predator we face is this company here."
While Coles’ and Woolies’ market clout can translate into cheap prices for consumers, there are fears it may threaten the survival of Australia’s food industry. As reporter Stephen Long reveals, these concerns are held by eminent people at the very top of the food chain. |
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/cont...08/s2348906.htm |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
I'm not supporting any business philosophically pk. What I support is leaving people the freedom to choose what they want..the freedom to dispose of their money in whatever way they believe will bring them the greatest benefit and happiness.
| quote: | | "It’s just eating my farm away, we’re just finished," says a despairing pumpkin grower |
despairing pumpkin farmers..lol
| quote: | | Don’t like pumpkin? How about an ice-cream story to illustrate supermarkets’ throat-hold? Four Corners meets an ice-cream maker who buys a lot of milk – and bizarrely he gets it cheaper from his local supermarket than from the wholesale processor. Why? Because the wholesaler has to accept ultra low prices from the supermarket |
This is basically what I said and I'm not denying any of this.. Suppliers are squeezed by these big companies so they can get cheap prices. Does it suck for the suppliers? Absolutely..but the business model of these companies demands that they force prices down so they can sell more goods to the masses. I can sympathize with the suppliers, and in a perfect world they would make extravagant profits and customers would still pay ridiculously low prices..but the world doesn't work that way. It may be a cliche but you really can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. Does the milk wholesaler make less money than he would like? Yes. Does this make life hard for his family? Probably...but his hardship enables thousands of other families to buy cheap milk products. And he is making some money off the transactions after all (even though he'd like more). Otherwise he wouldn't remain in business for long. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
I'm not supporting any business philosophically pk. What I support is leaving people the freedom to choose what they want..the freedom to dispose of their money in whatever way they believe will bring them the greatest benefit and happiness. |
yet you think businesses limiting the freedom of other businesses is somehow a good thing?
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
This is basically what I said and I'm not denying any of this.. Suppliers are squeezed by these big companies so they can get cheap prices. Does it suck for the suppliers? Absolutely..but the business model of these companies demands that they force prices down so they can sell more goods to the masses. I can sympathize with the suppliers, and in a perfect world they would make extravagant profits and customers would still pay ridiculously low prices..but the world doesn't work that way. It may be a cliche but you really can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. Does the milk wholesaler make less money than he would like? Yes. Does this make life hard for his family? Probably...but his hardship enables thousands of other families to buy cheap milk products. And he is making some money off the transactions after all (even though he'd like more). Otherwise he wouldn't remain in business for long. |
sorry mate but you're completely missing the point. i would have much less of an issue if these big companies were passing on the savings to the consumer. but the fact of the matter is that they're not. they are putting the sustainability of badly-needed farming at risk to boost their share price and/or dividends, and consumers are still being slugged with high prices at the checkout.
there is no need or incentive to pass on savings to consumers, because they have a strangehold on the marketplace and there is precious little choice.
...
i have no problems with businesses making profits and doing all the wonderful things that businesses do. but it bothers me no end when businesses become so large and influential that the traditional rules of capitalism and free markets cease to apply. |
|
|
|
|
