Always low prices! Hey, why are we unemployed? Hey, why do our neighborhoods suck? Hey, why is the dollar toast? Hey, won't anyone buy my house?

August 05, 2008

Always low prices! Hey, why are we unemployed? Hey, why do our neighborhoods suck? Hey, why is the dollar toast? Hey, won't anyone buy my house?

38 comments:

Anonymous said...: waaahhhhh

wahhhhhhh

wahhhhhhh

I've got a 9th grade education and Walmart is the best job I can get. But I demand to be paid $100K a year to stock shelves. And since they only pay me $15K a year they must be an evil company. I'll call up a San Francisco film maker and cry my story to him. Then walmart will be put out of business and I'll be back on welfare where I belong.

wahhhhhhh

wahhhhhhh

wahhhhhhh; August 05, 2008 12:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Before you lefties get all bent out of shape, I'm not here trying to defend Wal-Mart. I'm just trying to get a logical explanation as to how Wal-Mart harms the economy.

Doesn't Wal-Mart provide low-cost staples to impoverished rural areas? Now all these poor hicks can pay $3.50 for a box of cereal at Wal-Mart instead of $4.50 at Cletus's General Store. Granted, this isn't very good for Cletus, but Cletus's loss is more than made up for with the economic benefit to the community as a whole, in the form of lower-priced goods and more jobs.

This brings us to the "lack of a living wage." Where were all these people working before Wal-Mart rolled into town that they were doing so well? How has Wal-Mart foreclosed on their other money-making opportunities? Aren't they more free now to save money and invest in their own ventures elsewhere now that they have a cheap, reliable source of staple goods?

I'm not totally closed off to the idea that Wal-Mart may be economically harmful to some communities or to the United States in general. I'm just not satisfied with the explanations I've heard so far. They sound to me more like mindless slogan-shouting and bewailment of the fact that Wal-Mart provides goods more cheaply and efficiently than the Mom and Pop stores that it runs out of business.

I agree that the blue-collar, white trash, Bog Box, redneck, fat ass, overconsumption culture associated with Wal-Mart is disgusting. I also agree that I personally would rather shop at a smaller, more modest store. However, I cannot see forcing the economic inefficiencies of these smaller stores onto communities -- especially poor communities -- in the name of what?; August 05, 2008 1:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Nice to see the American Dream is still alive and well.

Visit Wal Mart today. They have plenty of cheap underwear and chinese made lead toys perfect to spend your rebate (welfare bribe) check...

Is this a Great Country or What?

Enjoy the Die Off Jane Six Pack, you fat, obese disgusting PIG.

Vote for George Bush 3rd term!; August 05, 2008 2:40 PM
Anonymous said...: You like to bash Walmart but Walmart is the only affordable alternative to many Americans since we deindustrialized and moved manufacturing over seas. Also people need to feed their families and if Walmart is the only employer they can work for should they be ridiculed? Do some of these people have IQs below 90? Sure they do but not all of us were born geniuses or well connected. President Bush is a great example of a connected individual who's best opportunity if he hadn't been born lucky would have been assistant manager at Walmart.; August 05, 2008 3:05 PM
Anonymous said...: The right wingers are starting to invade housing panic!; August 05, 2008 4:37 PM
Anonymous said...: One section of the extended family moved down to Texas during the last housing bust in the late eighties, picked up their (real) mansions for pennies on the dollar! All computer geeks on that end, worked out of their homes, so they didn't have to worry about local employment (which was none, so they said!)

Anyway, the one aunt was up for Christmas a few years ago and she related one of her Texas topics of interest. Seems that there were three close thriving towns forming more or less a triangle near where she goes regularly to visit a friend. No big chain stores anywhere, just long established mom-and-pop stores on the main streets.

Wal-Mart decides to drop a super center on an empty desert lot right in the middle of the triangle.
This devastated the three main streets. They became ghost towns, as all the local stores fold, being unable to compete with the big W.

A year or two down the road, Wal-Mart central command decides that the new store isn't making ENOUGH money and closes it (Wal-Mart Demographics Dept: Oops! Our Bad!)

Now the populaces of the three towns are left with NOTHING, no downtowns, and no Wal-Mart. My aunt said it was just disastrous for the area.

My aunt's story was an example of "economic evolution." Nobody in Wal-Mart said: Hey lets economically destroy an area just for kicks!" But I'm sure that nobody at Wal-Mart gave a damn when they did.

Wal-Mart was the proverbial fox in the hen house for this area. Eating everything until there was nothing left and then dying from starvation itself when all the hens were consumed.

Now, does this make me hate Wal-Mart? Not really sure. Wasn’t it just as much fault that the three main streets had carved for themselves such a tight, restrictive economic “ecological niche” that the ripples from a rock in the pond, as it were, could not be tolerated, or survived?

Just a thought.; August 05, 2008 4:41 PM
Anonymous said...: "I also agree that I personally would rather shop at a smaller, more modest store. However, I cannot see forcing the economic inefficiencies of these smaller stores onto communities -- especially poor communities -- in the name of what?"

OK, I'll go for it. Why should I buy a pound of tomatoes for $1.46 at Wal-Mart when I can go to the local fruit market and get the same for 89 cents? Wally World isn't always about cheap prices, and I typically get better deals elsewhere. Besides, I don't have to deal with as many crowds.; August 05, 2008 4:54 PM
Anonymous said...: There should be a National Retailers' Association that colludes on pricing . . . making 6% retail fee mandatory across the nation. America will be a great place when people sell each other stuff at prices artificially jacked up above free market clearing prices. Efficient distributors making goods available to people at lower prices should be banned! America should be free, but there needs to be regulations to safeguard my "fair" 6%!

Tongue firmly in cheek of course.; August 05, 2008 6:12 PM
Anonymous said...: "...Before you lefties get all bent out of shape..."

When you preface a long-winded counter-rant like that, rest assured that a whole lot of people are chuckling, not huffing.

Of course most recognize the brutal economic reality, which brings us right to the central question: Should the richest, most powerful in the world face any obligation/regulation?

Before you knee-jerk, consider how well that worked out in realty mortgage.; August 05, 2008 6:33 PM
Anonymous said...: "Walmart is the only affordable alternative to many Americans since we deindustrialized and moved manufacturing over seas"

So how is NOT partly WalMart's fault when it's business practices encourage deindustrialization and moving over seas.

I'm proud to have never set foot in a WalMart.; August 05, 2008 6:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Is Target or Best Buy any better? Isn't their junk also made in China? The reason the leftards hate WalMart is because it is more efficient and makes more money and doesn't support their leftwing causes.; August 05, 2008 6:54 PM
Anonymous said...: The Best Buy Geek Squad make less than WalMart clerks.; August 05, 2008 6:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Why?

* Because of ultraliberal policies that treat slackers and lazya$$ people like victims.

* Because of the ultraliberal policy of bringing millions of illiterate illegals into the US, so they can inflate unions and minority groups that vote for Democrats, while the hard-working American gets taxed to the wazoo and see their wages depressed to subsidize this Democratic fiesta. Meanwhile, the super Democrat John Edwards is partying with his butt-ugly mistress at the luxury Beverly Hilton, as his used wife dies of cancer at home. And he does that immediately after having meetings re: the homeless in LA...ohhhhh, how considerate, how concerned for the welfare of the homeless, Edwards.

* Because of ultraliberal policies that reward irresponsible people who breed like flies (i.e., the socialist policy of forcing singles pay school for out-of-control breeders through high property taxes, section 8, food stamps).

* Because of corrupt liberal unions that have high school dropouts earning six-figure incomes just for pressing buttons in a machine or by waxing the firetruck all day or posing in sleazy calendars for fat chicks.

* Because of idiots like Jimmy Carter who brings 130,000 Cubans from Castro's prisons, overnight, into Florida, so they can destroy the state with rampant fraud, scams, drug dealing, and parasitic welfare, as they breed like flies.

* Because many minorities breed like flies and dump their babies on honest taxpayers.

* Because, thanks to ultraliberals, we have become a nation of whiners and pu$$ies.

* Because when everything else is falling apart in the ultraliberal California, their priorities are gay marriage and amnesty to illiterate illegals who breed like flies and will be sucking welfare from all those code-mokeys while sending cash to Mexico.

Iraq war is sure bad and a scam put together by shady group who created Bushco and now brings you Hussein, Nevertheless, it's still temporary. On the other hand, these ultraliberal policies are embedded in the US forever. Once you give millions of citizenships to illiterate out-of-control breeders, to hundreds of thousands of thugs from Cuba's prisons, once you form corrupt unions, once you install socialist welfare programs that tax you to death so Democrats can transfer money from the middle-class, they're all here to stay to punish all the responsible hard-working Americans, FOREVER.

And don't forget, from the great Sir Charles Barkley:

"Poor people have been voting Democrat for over 50 years... and they're still poor."

No, I'm not a Republican, both parties suck a$$.; August 05, 2008 7:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Anon 6:33 said . . .

"Should the richest, most powerful in the world face any obligation/regulation?

Before you knee-jerk, consider how well that worked out in realty mortgage."
------------

What does that have to do with anything? It goes nowhere near explaining how Wal-Mart could be economicalyy harmful to anyone.

What "obligation/regulation" do you propose? What concievable parallel does Wal-Mart have with the mortgage industry?; August 05, 2008 7:24 PM
Anonymous said...: "Of course most recognize the brutal economic reality, which brings us right to the central question: Should the richest, most powerful in the world face any obligation/regulation?

Before you knee-jerk, consider how well that worked out in realty mortgage."

Exactly! Housing/Mortgage-lending industry is one of the most regulated and government-supported industry. How well did it all work out, exactly? Those with political connections get paid $30 million to $100+ million bonuses so that the companies like Fredie and Fannie get bailed out by the tax payer to the tune of $300 billion to $1 Trillion+. Super rich bond investors laughing all the way to the bank taking that payout from a 0.01% insurance premium. And you here wonder why executives are paid thousands times more than line workers . . . and why manufacturing is being replaced in this country by financing. LOL; August 05, 2008 7:44 PM
Anonymous said...: "So how is NOT partly WalMart's fault when it's business practices encourage deindustrialization and moving over seas."

Except it doesn't. Government fiscal and monetary policy of heavy taxing and regulation, creating money out of thin air, handing it out to favored groups and forcing everyone else to accept it. How can any manufacturing employer compete against financial industry employer when the former gets ripped off by the government to pay for the latter? Deindustrialization is the natural consequence of government favoritism towards the financial industry at the expense of manufacturing industry.; August 05, 2008 8:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Kieth; I just shoped at walmart yesterday I bought some generic lycra jerseys for mountain biking priced at $6.00 each a similiar jersey made in china with a specialized or some other cycling brand name minimum of $50. So i bought 3 jerzees 6 pairs of socks for 6 bux and i even bought 3 pairs of lycra shorts for 6 bux a peice. Sure i had to listen to the screaming kids and get hit up for donations to some help organization at the front door, and nobody wth the "How May I Help You" blue vests actually around to help me, but I paid 42 bucks total for my clothes.When our dollar has become half of what it was and work being slow where should I shop?; August 05, 2008 10:45 PM
Anonymous said...: "America will be a great place when people sell each other stuff at prices artificially jacked up above free market clearing prices. Efficient distributors making goods available to people at lower prices should be banned!"

It would be nice if there was a functioning free market in the US. Instead, small business gets taxed to death so state and county governments can subsidize big box stores.

How well would WalMart do in a true free market? I bet poorly.

http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/corporate_subsidy/walmart.cfm; August 05, 2008 11:24 PM
Anonymous said...: "Where were all these people working before Wal-Mart rolled into town that they were doing so well? How has Wal-Mart foreclosed on their other money-making opportunities?"

That's pretty obvious. They had manufacturing jobs that paid better than minimum wage. Then that job moved to China and those folks became unemployed. Now they're supposed to be thankful that WalMart is paying them minimum wage and that they can buy cheap crap from China? Get a grip dude. Maybe you should turn on your brain before you start writing. It's really not that difficult to figure those interactions out.
I sincerely hope that energy gets so expensive over the next few years that is simply becomes too expensive to ship crap all over the world.; August 05, 2008 11:53 PM
Paul E. Math said...: Is Wal-mart perfect? No. Any company that big needs to be watched like a hawk.

But otherwise, a company like Wal-mart can do a lot of good. They stretch the dollar of the poor and middle class (of which I am one) and thereby materially improve our standard of living.

Wal-mart does pay a decent wage - it is everything else that is expensive.

Wal-mart had nothing to do with the rise in real estate prices. And if Wal-mart made homes the real estate bubble would never have happened.

Wal-mart is not successful just because it imports inexpensive goods from China. It is successful because it has been innovative in adopting highly efficient business practices.

Wal-mart is putting mom-and-pop retailers out of business the same way Ford put carriage makers out of business. But there is still a BMW, Mercedes and Honda. And Bentley for that matter.

If China and other countries didn't artificially keep their currencies low then US manufacturing could compete with the rest of the world.

Change is scary but it can bring very good things.; August 06, 2008 1:38 AM
Anonymous said...: I just shoped at walmart yesterday I bought some generic lycra jerseys ... and i even bought 3 pairs of lycra shorts

Those shorts are sooo gay. Did you buy a lycra top to go with them, sissy boy? Call Bitterrenter.; August 06, 2008 2:09 AM
Anonymous said...: Roll back pricing depicts the typical apathetic American. Too lazy and self centered to see the big picture. His selfish support of China will slowly bleed America dry like Oil money going overseas. And what happens when the Chinese decide to flex their military muscle and leverage the supply of basics distributed by Walmart? What will Roll Back do when there is no stock on the shelves? Cry boo hoo to his politician and demand we make the goods here again. TOO LATE DUMMY; August 06, 2008 3:02 AM
Anonymous said...: Re.
No, I'm not a Republican, both parties suck a$$.

Adolph? I thought you blew your brains out in 1945!

The ignorance manifested in your rant does not warrent a dignified response.

All I will say is that I am a college educated, card carrying union member, make a satisfactory five figures not six figures a year, a registered Democrat who reads understands and respects the writings and philosopy of Ayn Rand.

There are many things wrong with our culture and economy but none of the problems or the solutions are as simple as you or your rant are.

May God forgive you for your hatred of his creation. I can't because you and people like you are a big part of the problem and always have been.; August 06, 2008 3:25 AM
Anonymous said...: To everybody with an open mind which is to say a mind cabable of complex thought and would like to know how WalMarts business practices are bad for the economy watch Mr. Greenwald's documetary. Some would say there is a liberal bias in the movie but it is a very interesting story.; August 06, 2008 3:32 AM
Anonymous said...: All you have to do is look at when the USA was functioning at its best ,and you will get the answer on how to cure the current ills of what happened .

I will give you a hint .The USA expanded when it had plentiful jobs and the Corporations didn't give us a song and dance that buying cheap goods at Wal Mart made up for the loss of jobs and fair wages .

Anybody that is stupid enough to think that a World as large as this one can function as one labor force
in competition with each other is crazy .
Some people blame the Unions for the Corporations and other business selling out the USA job force and manufacturing base ,and there might be some truth to that .
I know a lot of people that post here would of never dreamed that we would be buying all our products from a Commie country like China ,or giving up jobs to that
country .
Jobs make a Country function .The people spend money in the Country they have the jobs in .It's really a very simple concept .
The USA created a strong middle class that became the envy of the world.This was because of the expansion of employee rights and protections ,profit sharing, and
the livable wage concept .
Now maybe Wall Street thought that the Americans could live off of selling overpriced homes to each other ,while the Corporations made a killing having out-sourced slave labor ,but it didn't work ,did it .

So go on believing that the USA is a better place because of places like Wal Mart with the cheap crap that imported . I would venture to say that all the people that have to shop at Wal Mart ,because of their lower wage conditions ,are in that position because of the lack of job opportunities because of jobs and manufacturing going over seas.; August 06, 2008 6:42 AM
Anonymous said...: "How well would WalMart do in a true free market? I bet poorly."

And you'd lose money on your bet. Walmart's primary competitive advantage is its internal information system: its ability to restock each store depending on local consumer demand. Walmart has the largest private computer network in the world outside NSA.

I did an informal test recent at a store recently. They have an item that I like that usually stock 20 in a row in the store. I got the last 3 about a month ago. After they restocked the customary single row, I decided on the experiment, and cleaned out all they had at the store (17 total at the time). Three days later I went back to check, they restock the item to three rows totalling 60! three times as many as they usually stock! That's impressive response speed to market demand.

Walmart actually pays employees more than most of its direct competitors do (including Target).; August 06, 2008 7:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Anon 6:42am,

Funny you accuse China of being a commie country, then turn right around and advocate commie ideas such as "profit sharing" and "livable wage."

America was prosperous because Americans were productive. It had little to do with job protection or "profit sharing" or "livable wage" enforced by government. Every time government enforces "livable wage," there's another person not producing anything yet has to share in the fruit of labor.

Money is not wealth. Real Goods and Real Services are. Back in the 1920's, before the union received government sponsorship, people made 50 cents an hour. A car cost $200, i.e. 400hrs; a house cost $2500, i.e. 5000hrs. The worker did not meet income tax requirement; no payroll tax either. Today, an average income earner making $18/hr would have to work 2000hrs to pay taxes and buy an average $25,000 car; 15,000hrs to pay federal taxes and buy the house, probably 40,000hrs if you count the interest and property tax he has to pay over 30 years! Get that, 400hrs vs. 2000hrs, 5000hrs vs. 15,000-40,000hrs! Why such a huge increase in sacrifices demanded of the working stiff? Because all the government bureacrats enforcing "employee protection," "profit sharing," and "livable wage" have to take their share in the workers' fruit of labor, so do all the compliance managers on the corporate side, so do all the union bosses and labor relations lawyers, so do all the lobbyists greesying the wheels, so do all the politicians who want to attach pet projects and foreign wars to those "necessary" bills. That's why American middle class is being destroyed! Unions taking credit for the emergence of middle class in America? Don't make me laugh. The middle class existed in America since the days of Thomas Jefferson! The labor union is part and parcel of what is destroying middle class America: by reducing productivity, and robbing the productive workers to support the non-productive and counterproductive paper pushers.; August 06, 2008 7:19 AM
Anonymous said...: You are unemployed because:

(1) Minimum wage laws prevent you from working. If the price is low enough, almost everything that has positive value can find a buyer, but minimum wage laws actually ban unskilled people from working unless their value creation is above a certain threshold.

(2) Mandatory benefits and regulatory requirement makes it too expensive to hire you; that includes front-end cost of hiring you and the back-end cost of letting you go. Yes, you are not the only one getting paid for your work; the bureacrats enforcing regulations and company compliance officers have to be paid out of your labor too.

(3) Boom and bust cycle created by the government/CentralBank makes it a wrong time to have new hires.

(4) High taxes shift consumer demand to government consumption. Not every employer is cut out to be or is interested in being a government contractor. Apparently you are not the type the government wants to hire. Might be time to sharpen your skills to travel the world, meet interesting people, and then kill them!

(5) Past law enforcement against victimless "crimes" may have blemished your record, and making you a liability to potential employers.

(6) You may not want to work a legit job. The same law enforcement against victimless "crimes" have made some of the "crimes" far more profitable than they would have been in a free market.; August 06, 2008 7:46 AM
Anonymous said...: I don't think the main issue with Wal-Mart is cheap wages or cheap prices or imports from China. You don't have to work there, you don't have to buy there and you can go there and only buy the 3 things they sell made in the USA.

If Wal-Mart invents a better retail and distribution mousetrap and people choose it over their competition, so be it. People bought Britney Spears records, too.

Where Wal-Mart and all Big-Boxers cheat the system in ways none of us can choose to avoid is by getting huge tax breaks on development that make it impossible for smaller stores to compete. They bully municipalities into giving them land, money, etc.. They also oversaturating the market, evn if it means losing money temporarily, so that local competition dries up and they are the only ones left to cover the demand.

Even though I hate big box stores and go out of my way to shop at other places most of the time, I did not view them as immoral. However, after doing a little more research, I realized they do tilt the tables in ways that are unfair and harmful to communities.

A great book on this subject is Big Box Swindle by Stacy Mitchell. I have read the first half and have learned a lot so far.

See:
http://www.bigboxswindle.com/; August 06, 2008 10:35 AM
Anonymous said...: Yosaki,

The United States as a whole benefit from international trade by specializing in what we do well and importing goods that are most efficiently produced elsewhere. By increasing efficiency, international trade increases
the size of the economic pie available to the nation.
Granted, international trade
does adversely affect some industries and individuals, especially in the short run, but there are more than offsetting benefits to the rest of the economy.

Bottom line: When jobs are lost in one place through international competition, they are soon replaced somewhere else that makes more sense economically because the economy as a whole has improved. Business and industries that fall to international competition represent economic malinevstments that cannot stand up to the free trade light of day. Let's concentrate on what we do best, and leave he rubber dog poo to the Chinese.; August 06, 2008 1:39 PM
Anonymous said...: "Where Wal-Mart and all Big-Boxers cheat the system in ways none of us can choose to avoid is by getting huge tax breaks on development that make it impossible for smaller stores to compete. They bully municipalities into giving them land, money, etc.."

Is that a problem of the government? If the government can afford the "give aways," it should never have collected the tax to begin with. To the extent that the big box is able to get some concessions from the government, and pass some of it along to the consumer in the form of lower prices, that's a small relief for the local population from the oppressive government.

"They also oversaturating the market, evn if it means losing money temporarily, so that local competition dries up and they are the only ones left to cover the demand."

Or you can see that as the common practice of building out in anticipation of demand. Granted, at some point, Walmart may also face the Starbucks problem: over-building because it interprets increased demand as normal economic growth instead of seeing it as result of unsustainable FED monetary inflation,; August 06, 2008 2:24 PM
Anonymous said...: I went to Wal-Mart just the other night. Everything I bought was made in the USA. The way I see it, I'm supporting the kids working in the store and the people working in the factories making the products I bought.

www.buyamerican.com; August 06, 2008 10:04 PM
Anonymous said...: In response to reality .

Of course there has to be a balance between the employer and the employee .Corporations should be able to fire dead weight people who don't produce ,but at the same time employees should have some protections from being fired for no reason .

Its not a commie idea for employees to have profit sharing in that if the
Company is more productive ,than the employee shares in those profits .
Just because some Unions became insane with their demands ,does not mean that the concept of fair wages and jobs for Americans isn't a good one .
Your assuming that the only options are either the Corporations screwing American workers and going to the lowest bidder World labor force,or American workers screwing Corporations and not being productive and demanding more than they deserve .
The option is a good balance between the Corporations and labor .
You do not take into consideration the cost of living in the different countries ,in your endorsement of a
world labor force either .

And your crazy in your remark that
that the increase in employee protections and reasonable wage didn't go a long way toward building a strong middle class .

Your just a shill for the Corporations or a Commie or some rich dude who wants to take a bigger bite of the pie by abusing workers .

Your don't see that Wal Mart is
squeezing out any competition by their methods.Wait until Wal Mart gets rid of all competition and than see how they raise their
prices .

If you think that there isn't a benefit in a Country providing jobs for their workers which in turn the workers spend money in that Country
you have not considered that fair wage employees buy more products and expand the entire economy .

If America continues with your view ,than eventually it will become a poor Nation with nobody having jobs or people will be reduced to living like slave labor country workers do ,with the lions share going to the Rich greedy Corporations ,or the commie governments.

Fair wages ,based on the cost of living in a Country ,uplifts a Country in every way .

Your view of people must be that they are just little ants there for
the use of the Corporations and who cares if all these humans have anything ,in spite of being productive . The American worker was productive and they can be again ,but don't expect them to live on 2 dollars a hour ,while the CEO get 25 million a year ,while the stockholders gain based on exploiting human labor .; August 07, 2008 5:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Countries should have closed financial systems ,otherwise you get distortions . It find to trade with other Countries ,but onces you start mixing labor forces and money supply
you screw up the delicate balance of a financial system .

Examples "
(1) The global money supply coming into USA created excess cheap money that resulted in a real estate bubble .
(2)Global labor forces creates loss of jobs to USA workers and further serves to decrease income spendable in America .
(3)USA worker competition with world labor forces reduces standard of living for American worker based on "cost of living index' in USA verses some of the other countries
labor forces living in poor conditions .

You can go on and on with the list
but the rein of "FOX IN THE HEN HOUSE " drama of Globalism is playing out really bad for the majority of USA citizens ,while only a few are getting rich off of it .
When people call American Citizens spoiled brats ......they might be a fox in the Hen house . There was a lot of envy in this world for what America achieved . Now the forces are in play to undermine American and turn it into a piece of shit .
While it is true that the American Worker needs to get more productive
and the entitlement attitude need to go by the wayside ,America still needs to go back to a lot of the principals that it operated under in the past .

I have had enough of the Commie or the self-serving rich that are selling out America.; August 07, 2008 6:31 AM
Anonymous said...: YOSAKI

The big flaw in your theory about how world competition creates more
efficiently ,is that low cost labor creates a situation where all jobs go to the low cost bidders which is only good for the profit margins of the corporations and not for the Countries that lose jobs to the lower standard of living slave labor countries .

Sure its more efficient to have workers working for 2 dollars a hour with no benefits ,but is that good for the people ,or is it good for the corporations bottom line profits? Is it good to have millions of people living a sub-standard existence so the Corporations can get a greater profit for stockholders? Where does the money go ,in the hands of
human workers ,or more profits for billionaires .

You do not equate standard of living for such a place as the USA as being a high priority and that it is efficient to uplift people who will in turn become better citizens .

Do you think its efficient to receive products from China that are products that are sub-standard and the products of pollution and
salve labor and toxic in many cases .
Do you think it's cost effective to have a whole Nation like the USA to become poor because of the loss of jobs and the loss of manufacturing .
It's not very efficient to have a Country like America turn into a poor country for the majority ,while the other countries stay poor also because of the low wages .
Besides ,who said being cost effective was the highest goal. Keeping a Country in jobs and having self-sufficiency is a good idea in that different countries don't even have the same rules of law and standards of living .

You have to watch out for C&C ....
the COMMIES and the CORPORATIONS .

Different Countries can trade with each other ,but if nobody wants to buy my products ,why should I trade with other Countries . As a country I would be better off just being is a closed system .; August 08, 2008 5:15 AM
Anonymous said...: The problem with goods from low
wage Countries is it has created a monopoly.

In early USA history the railroads attempted to do away with their competition by lowering the prices .
Eventually the Railroad kingpin did away with their competition and than raised their prices because of no competition .

China makes cheap junk and has done away with America being able to compete . Now we lose our manufacturing and jobs and China and Wal Mart becomes a monopoly.Than they can do what ever they want with the prices .; August 08, 2008 5:38 AM
Anonymous said...: libtards hate walmart for one reason and one reason only:

it makes a big fat juicy profit. and to the liberal in america that is the greatest possible sin.

i love to shop at walmart. cheap as hell for one. and as an added bonus i know i'm pissing off some asshole obama fan.; August 13, 2008 10:01 PM
Anonymous said...: "President Bush is a great example of a connected individual who's best opportunity if he hadn't been born lucky would have been assistant manager at Walmart"

I'd say, if he were born poor, he'd have been on skidrow; perhaps if he were born ordinary middle class then Walmart might have sufficed. Realize, even managers at Walmart had to crawl up from somewhere and thereby, have some organizational talent (albeit average ability) but they still had some to get ahead.; August 15, 2008 7:05 PM

HousingPANIC - The Housing Bubble Blog with an Attitude Problem, 2005 - 2008

August 05, 2008

Always low prices! Hey, why are we unemployed? Hey, why do our neighborhoods suck? Hey, why is the dollar toast? Hey, won't anyone buy my house?

38 comments:

About Me

HP blogs & websites

Blog Archive