For my Libertarian friends

stonebeard wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: stonebeard wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: I don't understand why people don't like Walmart. .... Equality 7-2521 wrote: I don't shop there much myself because I chose to support small local businesses, but that doesn't mean I have some objection to Walmart. Most people are not nearly as gung-ho about entrepreneurship and praising the successful company as you appear to be. If a huge store comes into town (even if there is demand for it) and causes several shops to either close, alter business practices, whatever, and I see places that have charm have to struggle to compete with this endless resource machine...it gets me riled. I wouldn't only blame Wal-Mart, but also fickle people who value a few cents over charm, spontaneity, neighborliness, and not having a drab monolith of a building cover a ton of real estate. Just because a company can do well doesn't mean I can't get pissed at it for existing, especially when it exists everywhere. If everyone shared your sentiment these small ma and pa shops would stay in business. Walmart doesn't force small companies out of business, consumers do. I wonder if that's entirely true. Meaning that who can argue Wal-Mart is a juggernaut of a corporation? And maybe it's just so big and pervasive that at this point,resistance is futile, so to speak. Which is not to say if no one shopped there anymore it wouldn't die, because it would. But Wal-Mart is probably a force that can create demand for itself just by deciding to be in a place. I doubt a lot of the places it created stores (after it got its company into serious expansion and profit mode) really needed the services it could provide. Even still, the consumers are mostly to blame, and some of them really do need the lower prices. But I'm betting these people are outweighed by lazy people who just care about getting all their buying done in one place, in as little time as possible, alternatives be damned. Like these middle class soccer moms need to worry about saving $5.00 on a $200 purchase. Then there are always the college kids who want to buy super soakers for whatever reasons, but they're in the minority.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: stonebeard wrote: Epignosis wrote: stonebeard wrote: Epignosis wrote: stonebeard wrote: But I'm betting these people are outweighed by lazy people who just care about getting all their buying done in one place, in as little time as possible, alternatives be damned. So you would rather I waste gasoline driving all over town? Depends on the town. I don't think it's too much to ask to drive an extra mile or two to support a local business.I would actually start to wonder if you liked going to Wal-Mart if it sounds like such a hassle. Then you'd be a robot. I don't support businesses because they're local.  I support them because they offer me quality goods and services at the best price. Well that is your problem then. If the reasons I gave to show why I don't like Wal-Mart aren't compelling to you then you'll apparently love it when one ginormous, tasteless, and grey bob of a store replaces everything else in the commercial landscape. It should be a shopper's paradise for you, what with shampoo for $1.99 instead of $2.50! Has your family never had to live where that extra $.50 is a significant difference? You're taking such a high and mighty privileged position mocking people who attempt to save money.

When $.50 makes that much of a difference, you don't buy shampoo. And yes I have saved pennies as well I could. I am mocking people who can afford expensive things but prefer to shop where they can exercise their laziness.

There is no imperative here at all. I just question someone's values a little when, given a mom-and-pop store that has something they want for maybe $.20 more than Wal-Mart, they decide not to support the store, or even go out of their way to make a point of not going there because the price is a little too high. I live in a city dotted by these little stores, and I sure wouldn't go to each of them if I needed food, and lumber, and a DVD all at once, but at the same time avoiding purchasing things at each of them from time to time when they have stuff you want just because it's a few cents or dollars more (and often far cheaper than Wal-Mart mind you. Just look at the CDs and DVDs) is a little frown-worthy.

And I'm thinking we're treating Wal-Mart as being on the cheap side with food only, which may be true. A lot of different small businesses sell things like electronics, clothes, and bath items, often at cheaper prices. Wal-Mart is not some magical cheapness vortex. It is a magical convenience vortex.


Edited by stonebeard - July 18 2010 at 17:17

thellama73 wrote: Different people value things differently, Stonebeard, and it is possible to compete in areas other than price. With the capitalist system, those who prefer small store atmosphere and individual attention can spend their money at those places and support them, whereas those who are strapped for cash can shop at wal mart and save a buck o five. That's the beauty of it. As long as someone is willing to pay for a thing, it will be provided for you. Hallelujah!

Yeah? Will it? How much longer will that beauty be around?
I sure hope we never see a truly free market system, because wouldn't that, eventually, lead to the cheaper way ALWAYS taking the crown? Thus the death of the small store?


Edited by JJLehto - July 18 2010 at 19:16

Yeah, got that.
If you are willing to pay then it will always be there, but in a completely free market wouldn't the prices of said places end up going up and up until even those that prefer it can't afford them/would have to be insane to pay such prices?

I assume you'll say "thats their choice and if they want it that bad theyll pay it" but cmon...well being will eventually have to put ahead of their ideas. As wal mart (to use the best example) continues wouldnt it drive the price up for mom and pop stores? Thus, they will be forced out of business? You say a true free market is beautiful because we have choice, but it seems to me completely left to its own it would eliminate our choices.
I may be wrong, but it seems like a logical result to me


Edited by JJLehto - July 18 2010 at 19:25

Ignorance I suppose?
I was thinking that as wal mart pushes more places out of business (since most consumers will take cheap over anything else) that wouldn't those places have a smaller base and have to raise prices to make profit? Maybe I'm grossly distorting some theory, after all I'm liberal what do I know about economics?

Well I hope you're right. You talk about having options, and mom and pop stores always being around, as long as those stay true then fine. I'm happy.






Edited by JJLehto - July 18 2010 at 19:34

If you want to have a viable, successful business, then you must compete.

A business isn't guaranteed.  You have to a) offer something people can't get anywhere else, or b) offer it in a way that appeals to consumers more than it would anywhere else.

And in case you don't know, the first Wal-Mart was a Mom & Pop store:




And how did Sam Walton compete in this capitalistic world?

Why, he lowered prices (see option b):

At some point Sam Walton made the decision to achieve higher sales volumes by keeping sales prices lower than his competitors by reducing his profit margin.

So you anti-capitalists who whine about huge companies and how much money they make...Sam Walton made that impressive fortune by lowering his profit margin.

In all seriousness JJ, I really enjoy debating with you. I hope you won't interpret my occasional snarkiness as directed at you. I think you're an interesting guy.

Well then you could very easily be wrong about what you just said from my standpoint

Was gunna go on clarifying what I said but f*ck it, we all have opinions if you dont believe me I'm not wasting my time. But I must say...when I say I am not anti capitalist I am pretty sure I mean it You guys may think Im wrong since regulation and all is bad, but I do beleive capitalism is the best system out there.

You may think I'm out there...I am not calling for a doing of away of capitalism, there are socialists, communists etc out there that do!

JJLehto wrote: Well then you could very easily be wrong about what you just said from my standpoint Was gunna go on clarifying what I said but f*ck it, we all have opinions if you dont believe me I'm not wasting my time. But I must say...when I say I am not anti capitalist I am pretty sure I mean it You guys may think Im wrong since regulation and all is bad, but I do beleive capitalism is the best system out there. You may think I'm out there...I am not calling for a doing of away of capitalism, there are socialists, communists etc out there that do!