If they removed loopholes then corporations and the wealthy will pay into the system more. I don't care how much money someone has if they pay their fair share...which in turn should mean the lower income brackets pays less of their gross allowing more net. Win win. Right now though that is NOT being done.How do you fix this inequality? I like competition and being able to make more if I am clever and resourceful, but I dont want a society where 1% controls 95% of the wealth either. I would prefer some spread of wealth, just not where I have to genuflect to the waltons everytime they walk by.
sonicare
6 Waltons are wealthier than 30% of Americans
This topic is locked from further discussion.
What they do is exactly influencing your ability to be free against your will. By becoming so big they greatly limit the capacity of small businesses to become competitive. Small businesses can't handle such low prices so they start to disappear. That is ONE instance where they limit people's freedoms(the small business owners who want to become competitive but it is not possible in this environment which goes against their will). I couldn't care less about your own definition of freedom which I find incredibly naive if you don't consider having a huge control over the market as limiting people's freedoms. Freedom is not the right to become/remain competitive in a market in which a business can't compete.[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="thegerg"] Exactly, if a government is pursuing you in a manner which influences your ability to be free against your will, they are limiting your freedom. Wal-Mart, though, is not doing this. Freedom is not the ability to purchase what you want, from whom you want, for the price you want. Freedom is not the right for a business to remain profitable in a market in which it is not competitive. Freedom is not the right to have the choices you make facilitated by others. Please answer this question: What of your freedoms is Wal-Mart limiting?thegerg
Again, please answer this question: What of your freedoms is Wal-Mart limiting?
It seems that the problem here is that you think not getting what you want is a limitation to your freedom. That's childish.
The government is also limiting to to get you what you want which is to be unattached to it. How is that less childish then?[QUOTE="thegerg"]Freedom is not the right to become/remain competitive in a market in which a business can't compete.[QUOTE="kuraimen"] What they do is exactly influencing your ability to be free against your will. By becoming so big they greatly limit the capacity of small businesses to become competitive. Small businesses can't handle such low prices so they start to disappear. That is ONE instance where they limit people's freedoms(the small business owners who want to become competitive but it is not possible in this environment which goes against their will). I couldn't care less about your own definition of freedom which I find incredibly naive if you don't consider having a huge control over the market as limiting people's freedoms.kuraimen
Again, please answer this question: What of your freedoms is Wal-Mart limiting?
It seems that the problem here is that you think not getting what you want is a limitation to your freedom. That's childish.
The government is also limiting to to get you what you want which is to be unattached to it. How is that less childish then?If you don't want to be attached to a government then you have to leave the area that is governed.I say focus on cooperation and not competition. Make people think about communities and not on nuclear families or individuals. By your community being well you are well. Make people's wellness depend on the other people's wellness. Once you can think of only your and your immediate family wellness then someone can screw everybody else build a house with a huge wall and live isolated from the world they are taking advantage of. When the consequences of your actions get more direct effects on your community and, therefore, on you, then I think things could change because you have no other way but to care for others.How do you fix this inequality? I like competition and being able to make more if I am clever and resourceful, but I dont want a society where 1% controls 95% of the wealth either. I would prefer some spread of wealth, just not where I have to genuflect to the waltons everytime they walk by.
sonicare
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="thegerg"] Freedom is not the right to become/remain competitive in a market in which a business can't compete.The government is also limiting to to get you what you want which is to be unattached to it. How is that less childish then?If you don't want to be attached to a government then you have to leave the area that is governed.Again, please answer this question: What of your freedoms is Wal-Mart limiting?
It seems that the problem here is that you think not getting what you want is a limitation to your freedom. That's childish.
LJS9502_basic
There is no place in this world without a government. The only way would be possibly Antartica. Of course you are free to go to Antartica and freeze to death that's true freedom :roll:
If you don't want to be attached to a government then you have to leave the area that is governed.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] The government is also limiting to to get you what you want which is to be unattached to it. How is that less childish then?kuraimen
There is no place in this world without a government. The only way would be possibly Antartica. Of course you are free to go to Antartica and free to death that's true freedom :roll:
I'm not the one whining about having to live under a government...you are. Pack warm clothes.[QUOTE="z4twenny"][QUOTE="thegerg"]nor does Wal-Mart have the lawful ability to limit one's freedom. LJS9502_basic
surely in the history of america, no business has EVER given funds to politicians.....
You'd have to provide the correlation that said funds caused limited freedom.....you're up.it's bribery.... it's buying someones voice to have it be your voice, not the voice of the people that it should be representing but the voice of the business. if you honestly believe otherwise you're the single most deluded person on gamespot (which at this point considering all your previous posts in various other threads wouldn't surprise me)
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]If you don't want to be attached to a government then you have to leave the area that is governed. LJS9502_basic
There is no place in this world without a government. The only way would be possibly Antartica. Of course you are free to go to Antartica and free to death that's true freedom :roll:
I'm not the one whining about having to live under a government...you are. Pack warm clothes. I'm not the one saying I have the freedom to live without a government or to live without depending on big economic conglomerates. The point is that we are all dependent and attached to those and they control our lives in similar ways.You'd have to provide the correlation that said funds caused limited freedom.....you're up.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="z4twenny"]
surely in the history of america, no business has EVER given funds to politicians.....
z4twenny
it's bribery.... it's buying someones voice to have it be your voice, not the voice of the people that it should be representing but the voice of the business. if you honestly believe otherwise you're the single most deluded person on gamespot (which at this point considering all your previous posts in various other threads wouldn't surprise me)
I asked for your examples....so far you have given me nothing but histrionics. Anything substantial to mention?[QUOTE="z4twenny"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] You'd have to provide the correlation that said funds caused limited freedom.....you're up.LJS9502_basic
it's bribery.... it's buying someones voice to have it be your voice, not the voice of the people that it should be representing but the voice of the business. if you honestly believe otherwise you're the single most deluded person on gamespot (which at this point considering all your previous posts in various other threads wouldn't surprise me)
I asked for your examples....so far you have given me nothing but histrionics. Anything substantial to mention? Actually I think that is very substantial and evident. Whoever think that doesn't happen must be living under a rock.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="kuraimen"]I'm not the one whining about having to live under a government...you are. Pack warm clothes. I'm not the one saying I have the freedom to live without a government or to live without depending on big economic conglomerates. The point is that we are all dependent and attached to those and they control our lives in similar ways.I don't know about you but Walmart does not control my life. Whether I shop there or not is my choice. Something you are having trouble differentiating from the looks of your posts in this thread with thegerg. I don't usually agree with him but your points are weak in your argument and you've avoided his questions a few times now. You are making him look good here.....There is no place in this world without a government. The only way would be possibly Antartica. Of course you are free to go to Antartica and free to death that's true freedom :roll:
kuraimen
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="z4twenny"]I asked for your examples....so far you have given me nothing but histrionics. Anything substantial to mention? Actually I think that is very substantial and evident. Whoever think that doesn't happen must be living under a rock.That's just another histrionic shallow but empty point. I asked for examples....I'm waiting for them. It matters not what I think. He posited a statement and he should be able to back it up. And stating that everyone should know that is not considered a counterpoint. It's a failure. It basically says I don't know....so I'm going to accuse the other individual of not knowing. Lame.it's bribery.... it's buying someones voice to have it be your voice, not the voice of the people that it should be representing but the voice of the business. if you honestly believe otherwise you're the single most deluded person on gamespot (which at this point considering all your previous posts in various other threads wouldn't surprise me)
kuraimen
I'm not the one saying I have the freedom to live without a government or to live without depending on big economic conglomerates. The point is that we are all dependent and attached to those and they control our lives in similar ways.I don't know about you but Walmart does not control my life. Whether I shop there or not is my choice. Something you are having trouble differentiating from the looks of your posts in this thread with thegerg. I don't usually agree with him but your points are weak in your argument and you've avoided his questions a few times now. You are making him look good here..... Looking bad in your eyes is a compliment for me. But anyways you think you are not getting controlled because you can choose not to buy there? Naivety at its finest. Walmart's influence or any other conglomerate's influence for that matter goes far beyond you deciding or not deciding whether you buy or not from them.[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I'm not the one whining about having to live under a government...you are. Pack warm clothes.LJS9502_basic
Actually I think that is very substantial and evident. Whoever think that doesn't happen must be living under a rock.That's just another histrionic shallow but empty point. I asked for examples....I'm waiting for them. It matters not what I think. He posited a statement and he should be able to back it up. And stating that everyone should know that is not considered a counterpoint. It's a failure. It basically says I don't know....so I'm going to accuse the other individual of not knowing. Lame. There are many examples in this thread alone. Do you think people here still believe you are interested in facts or evidence? Your way of debating speaks highly as to how you are not interested on anything but your own opinion.[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] I asked for your examples....so far you have given me nothing but histrionics. Anything substantial to mention?LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I don't know about you but Walmart does not control my life. Whether I shop there or not is my choice. Something you are having trouble differentiating from the looks of your posts in this thread with thegerg. I don't usually agree with him but your points are weak in your argument and you've avoided his questions a few times now. You are making him look good here..... Looking bad in your eyes is a compliment for me. But anyways you think you are not getting controlled because you can choose not to buy there? Naivety at its finest. Walmart's influence or any other conglomerate's influence for that matter goes far beyond you deciding or not deciding whether you buy or not from them. You really do need to provide some substantive content in your posts. Thus far you spew only an opinion. Which would be fine if you added some facts to why you reached said opinion. But you do not. Seems your posts come down to an appeal to emotions fallacy and not much more. Oh....and we can add an ad hominem in this one.;)[QUOTE="kuraimen"] I'm not the one saying I have the freedom to live without a government or to live without depending on big economic conglomerates. The point is that we are all dependent and attached to those and they control our lives in similar ways.kuraimen
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]That's just another histrionic shallow but empty point. I asked for examples....I'm waiting for them. It matters not what I think. He posited a statement and he should be able to back it up. And stating that everyone should know that is not considered a counterpoint. It's a failure. It basically says I don't know....so I'm going to accuse the other individual of not knowing. Lame. There are many examples in this thread alone. Do you think people here still believe you are interested in facts or evidence? Your way of debating speaks highly as to how you are not interested on anything but your own opinion.I'm not interested in side conversations between different individuals. I asked the dude I quoted to provide examples of his statement. He did not. You made it your business to jump into the conversation ass backwards. If you want to take up someone's argument then you best have some examples when they are asked...and not try to weasel your way out of providing them....which the two of you did. Now...either provide the examples I asked or butt out.[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Actually I think that is very substantial and evident. Whoever think that doesn't happen must be living under a rock.kuraimen
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I don't know about you but Walmart does not control my life. Whether I shop there or not is my choice. Something you are having trouble differentiating from the looks of your posts in this thread with thegerg. I don't usually agree with him but your points are weak in your argument and you've avoided his questions a few times now. You are making him look good here.....Looking bad in your eyes is a compliment for me. But anyways you think you are not getting controlled because you can choose not to buy there? Naivety at its finest. Walmart's influence or any other conglomerate's influence for that matter goes far beyond you deciding or not deciding whether you buy or not from them. You really do need to provide some substantive content in your posts. Thus far you spew only an opinion. Which would be fine if you added some facts to why you reached said opinion. But you do not. Seems your posts come down to an appeal to emotions fallacy and not much more. Oh....and we can add an ad hominem in this one.;)LJS9502_basic
Yeah sure LJ, I find more intellectual stimulation talking to a leaf than in all my conversations with you put together. Not gonna waste more time there. ;)
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I don't know about you but Walmart does not control my life. Whether I shop there or not is my choice. Something you are having trouble differentiating from the looks of your posts in this thread with thegerg. I don't usually agree with him but your points are weak in your argument and you've avoided his questions a few times now. You are making him look good here..... Looking bad in your eyes is a compliment for me. But anyways you think you are not getting controlled because you can choose not to buy there? Naivety at its finest. Walmart's influence or any other conglomerate's influence for that matter goes far beyond you deciding or not deciding whether you buy or not from them. con·glom·er·ate business organization involved in many areas: a large business organization that consists of a number of companies that deal with a variety of different business, manufacturing, or commercial activities[QUOTE="kuraimen"] I'm not the one saying I have the freedom to live without a government or to live without depending on big economic conglomerates. The point is that we are all dependent and attached to those and they control our lives in similar ways.kuraimen
walmart is a retailer, that is their enterprise, they are not a "conglomerate". if they manufactured for the purpose of supplying other consumer end businesses they may well fit into the loosest use of the word, but lets ignore that little detail. are you assuming businesses do not seek their own means, that they do not compete? that they all get together in order to plot the most abstract methods to control your life?
Euro has noting to do with capitalism. Capitalists like Milton Friedman was actively against it. China and Russia are capitalist really. And people being rich is not a bad thing. You pull numbers out of your ass to make it look worse than it is. In fact people being rich is a good thing. I don't know what these guys works with but they probably would never get those money without creating alot of jobs for people. And the more they spend from their fortune the richer society will become.Link: http://news.yahoo.com/six-waltons-more-wealth-bottom-30-americans-182819449.html
Yep..."free" market capitalism at it's finest. America's middle class is gone, the euro is about to tank and China/Russia have the Western world by the balls but at least Sam Walton's great grandchildren are doing fine.
Also, this is a pretty good video to watch if you are interested in this topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIcqb9hHQ3E&list=LLDNAGDk92Yws6AG4MfkiFFQ&index=2&feature=plpp_video
chandlerr_360
You really do need to provide some substantive content in your posts. Thus far you spew only an opinion. Which would be fine if you added some facts to why you reached said opinion. But you do not. Seems your posts come down to an appeal to emotions fallacy and not much more. Oh....and we can add an ad hominem in this one.;)[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Looking bad in your eyes is a compliment for me. But anyways you think you are not getting controlled because you can choose not to buy there? Naivety at its finest. Walmart's influence or any other conglomerate's influence for that matter goes far beyond you deciding or not deciding whether you buy or not from them. kuraimen
Yeah sure LJ, I find more intellectual stimulation talking to a leaf than in all my conversations with you put together. Not gonna waste more time there. ;)
Mostly because you can never directly respond to posts.Looking bad in your eyes is a compliment for me. But anyways you think you are not getting controlled because you can choose not to buy there? Naivety at its finest. Walmart's influence or any other conglomerate's influence for that matter goes far beyond you deciding or not deciding whether you buy or not from them. con·glom·er·ate business organization involved in many areas: a large business organization that consists of a number of companies that deal with a variety of different business, manufacturing, or commercial activities[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I don't know about you but Walmart does not control my life. Whether I shop there or not is my choice. Something you are having trouble differentiating from the looks of your posts in this thread with thegerg. I don't usually agree with him but your points are weak in your argument and you've avoided his questions a few times now. You are making him look good here.....
surrealnumber5
walmart is a retailer, that is their enterprise, they are not a "conglomerate". if they manufactured for the purpose of supplying other consumer end businesses they may well fit into the loosest use of the word, but lets ignore that little detail. are you assuming businesses do not seek their own means, that they do not compete? that they all get together in order to plot the most abstract methods to control your life?
I don't think he understands competition at all. Nor consumer decision making.Looking bad in your eyes is a compliment for me. But anyways you think you are not getting controlled because you can choose not to buy there? Naivety at its finest. Walmart's influence or any other conglomerate's influence for that matter goes far beyond you deciding or not deciding whether you buy or not from them. con·glom·er·ate business organization involved in many areas: a large business organization that consists of a number of companies that deal with a variety of different business, manufacturing, or commercial activities[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I don't know about you but Walmart does not control my life. Whether I shop there or not is my choice. Something you are having trouble differentiating from the looks of your posts in this thread with thegerg. I don't usually agree with him but your points are weak in your argument and you've avoided his questions a few times now. You are making him look good here.....
surrealnumber5
walmart is a retailer, that is their enterprise, they are not a "conglomerate". if they manufactured for the purpose of supplying other consumer end businesses they may well fit into the loosest use of the word, but lets ignore that little detail. are you assuming businesses do not seek their own means, that they do not compete? that they all get together in order to plot the most abstract methods to control your life?
When I say that I'm talking about corporations and conglomerates interchangeably. In the end their influence is similar. I'm in no way singling Walmart out they are just one of the most evident examples.[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]con·glom·er·ate business organization involved in many areas: a large business organization that consists of a number of companies that deal with a variety of different business, manufacturing, or commercial activities[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Looking bad in your eyes is a compliment for me. But anyways you think you are not getting controlled because you can choose not to buy there? Naivety at its finest. Walmart's influence or any other conglomerate's influence for that matter goes far beyond you deciding or not deciding whether you buy or not from them. kuraimen
walmart is a retailer, that is their enterprise, they are not a "conglomerate". if they manufactured for the purpose of supplying other consumer end businesses they may well fit into the loosest use of the word, but lets ignore that little detail. are you assuming businesses do not seek their own means, that they do not compete? that they all get together in order to plot the most abstract methods to control your life?
When I say that I'm talking about corporations and conglomerates interchangeably. In the end their influence is similar. I'm in no way singling Walmart out they are just one of the most evident examples.Nice attempt at a save there....[QUOTE="chandlerr_360"]Euro has noting to do with capitalism. Capitalists like Milton Friedman was actively against it. China and Russia are capitalist really. And people being rich is not a bad thing. You pull numbers out of your ass to make it look worse than it is. In fact people being rich is a good thing. I don't know what these guys works with but they probably would never get those money without creating alot of jobs for people. And the more they spend from their fortune the richer society will become. Actually they tend to get richer when things get worse like the last economic crisis showed, many corporations way more rich. One of the richest person in the world if not the richest is mexican (Carlos Slim) and Mexico's social problems and inequality are not the envy of anyone.Link: http://news.yahoo.com/six-waltons-more-wealth-bottom-30-americans-182819449.html
Yep..."free" market capitalism at it's finest. America's middle class is gone, the euro is about to tank and China/Russia have the Western world by the balls but at least Sam Walton's great grandchildren are doing fine.
Also, this is a pretty good video to watch if you are interested in this topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIcqb9hHQ3E&list=LLDNAGDk92Yws6AG4MfkiFFQ&index=2&feature=plpp_video
themajormayor
Are they the creators of Walmart? If they hadn't been so rich those 30% would be even poorer since they wouldn't have jobs(of all types) on wallmart. Secondly walmart is very cheap making those 30% even richer in real money!
[QUOTE="themajormayor"][QUOTE="chandlerr_360"]Euro has noting to do with capitalism. Capitalists like Milton Friedman was actively against it. China and Russia are capitalist really. And people being rich is not a bad thing. You pull numbers out of your ass to make it look worse than it is. In fact people being rich is a good thing. I don't know what these guys works with but they probably would never get those money without creating alot of jobs for people. And the more they spend from their fortune the richer society will become. Actually they tend to get richer when things get worse like the last economic crisis showed, many corporations way more rich. One of the richest person in the world if not the richest is mexican (Carlos Slim) and Mexico's social problems and inequality are not the envy of anyone.Mexico's social problems and inequality go far beyond this Carlos dude being wealthy. :lol:Link: http://news.yahoo.com/six-waltons-more-wealth-bottom-30-americans-182819449.html
Yep..."free" market capitalism at it's finest. America's middle class is gone, the euro is about to tank and China/Russia have the Western world by the balls but at least Sam Walton's great grandchildren are doing fine.
Also, this is a pretty good video to watch if you are interested in this topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIcqb9hHQ3E&list=LLDNAGDk92Yws6AG4MfkiFFQ&index=2&feature=plpp_video
kuraimen
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]con·glom·er·ate business organization involved in many areas: a large business organization that consists of a number of companies that deal with a variety of different business, manufacturing, or commercial activities[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Looking bad in your eyes is a compliment for me. But anyways you think you are not getting controlled because you can choose not to buy there? Naivety at its finest. Walmart's influence or any other conglomerate's influence for that matter goes far beyond you deciding or not deciding whether you buy or not from them. kuraimen
walmart is a retailer, that is their enterprise, they are not a "conglomerate". if they manufactured for the purpose of supplying other consumer end businesses they may well fit into the loosest use of the word, but lets ignore that little detail. are you assuming businesses do not seek their own means, that they do not compete? that they all get together in order to plot the most abstract methods to control your life?
When I say that I'm talking about corporations and conglomerates interchangeably. In the end their influence is similar. I'm in no way singling Walmart out they are just one of the most evident examples. the two are not interchangeable at all, a corporation is a legal entity, a conglomerate is the coming together of separate business pursuits. a corporation can be as small as one man, and a conglomerate must be at least two businesses that come from unrelated industries.Does tend to get overlooked that WalMart does, in fact, provide employment.Are they the creators of Walmart? If they hadn't been so rich those 30% would be even poorer since they wouldn't have jobs(of all types) on wallmart. Secondly walmart is very cheap making those 30% even richer in real money!
themajormayor
The point is that having rich people is not a necessary condition for a good society nor one is directly proportional to the other. Look at the US, they have never had so many rich people and their society is not looking very good.Are they the creators of Walmart? If they hadn't been so rich those 30% would be even poorer since they wouldn't have jobs(of all types) on wallmart. Secondly walmart is very cheap making those 30% even richer in real money!
themajormayor
When I say that I'm talking about corporations and conglomerates interchangeably. In the end their influence is similar. I'm in no way singling Walmart out they are just one of the most evident examples. the two are not interchangeable at all, a corporation is a legal entity, a conglomerate is the coming together of separate business pursuits. a corporation can be as small as one man, and a conglomerate must be at least two businesses that come from unrelated industries. A corporate conglomerate then.[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]con·glom·er·ate business organization involved in many areas: a large business organization that consists of a number of companies that deal with a variety of different business, manufacturing, or commercial activities
walmart is a retailer, that is their enterprise, they are not a "conglomerate". if they manufactured for the purpose of supplying other consumer end businesses they may well fit into the loosest use of the word, but lets ignore that little detail. are you assuming businesses do not seek their own means, that they do not compete? that they all get together in order to plot the most abstract methods to control your life?
surrealnumber5
I do see how the term can be applied - as WalMart is known to be able to dictate ingredients, packaging, etc, in addition to being able to dictate prices to suppliers, and not the other way around. They are more than just a place of retail.the two are not interchangeable at all, a corporation is a legal entity, a conglomerate is the coming together of separate business pursuits. a corporation can be as small as one man, and a conglomerate must be at least two businesses that come from unrelated industries.
surrealnumber5
[QUOTE="themajormayor"][QUOTE="chandlerr_360"]Euro has noting to do with capitalism. Capitalists like Milton Friedman was actively against it. China and Russia are capitalist really. And people being rich is not a bad thing. You pull numbers out of your ass to make it look worse than it is. In fact people being rich is a good thing. I don't know what these guys works with but they probably would never get those money without creating alot of jobs for people. And the more they spend from their fortune the richer society will become. Actually they tend to get richer when things get worse like the last economic crisis showed, many corporations way more rich. One of the richest person in the world if not the richest is mexican (Carlos Slim) and Mexico's social problems and inequality are not the envy of anyone. Mexico has higher standard of living than both Russia and China. In any case what has this got to do with anything I said? Most companies performs worse during recessions they get poorer not richer. If they had become richer then it wouldn't be a recession in the first place. You see production is the result of consumption, investment, government spending etc. If companies gets richer that means more spending and investment and more production meaning more jobs meaning higher wage. You are simply wrong.Link: http://news.yahoo.com/six-waltons-more-wealth-bottom-30-americans-182819449.html
Yep..."free" market capitalism at it's finest. America's middle class is gone, the euro is about to tank and China/Russia have the Western world by the balls but at least Sam Walton's great grandchildren are doing fine.
Also, this is a pretty good video to watch if you are interested in this topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIcqb9hHQ3E&list=LLDNAGDk92Yws6AG4MfkiFFQ&index=2&feature=plpp_video
kuraimen
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Actually they tend to get richer when things get worse like the last economic crisis showed, many corporations way more rich. One of the richest person in the world if not the richest is mexican (Carlos Slim) and Mexico's social problems and inequality are not the envy of anyone.kuraimenMexico's social problems and inequality go far beyond this Carlos dude being wealthy. :lol: Who's saying otherwise? Did you start with your strawman arguments already?Then the bolded post made no sense.....
[QUOTE="themajormayor"]The point is that having rich people is not a necessary condition for a good society nor one is directly proportional to the other. Look at the US, they have never had so many rich people and their society is not looking very good. Yes unfortunately it is a necessary condition cause without some economic inequality there wouldn't be any incentive to work. That doesn't mean we should go for a society with 0% equality and no taxes etc but total economic equality will only lead to bad things. USA has the 4th highest standard of living in the world according to HDI. And the top 3 are not close to socialist/communistAre they the creators of Walmart? If they hadn't been so rich those 30% would be even poorer since they wouldn't have jobs(of all types) on wallmart. Secondly walmart is very cheap making those 30% even richer in real money!
kuraimen
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]I do see how the term can be applied - as WalMart is known to be able to dictate ingredients, packaging, etc, in addition to being able to dictate prices to suppliers, and not the other way around. They are more than just a place of retail. but their enterprise is only retail, but i understand the misuse, i am not trying to derail his argument with syntax, i am just tired of seeing the misuse. there are any number of other arguments that have already been used against histhe two are not interchangeable at all, a corporation is a legal entity, a conglomerate is the coming together of separate business pursuits. a corporation can be as small as one man, and a conglomerate must be at least two businesses that come from unrelated industries.
Engrish_Major
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="themajormayor"]The point is that having rich people is not a necessary condition for a good society nor one is directly proportional to the other. Look at the US, they have never had so many rich people and their society is not looking very good. Yes unfortunately it is a necessary condition cause without some economic inequality there wouldn't be any incentive to work. That doesn't mean we should go for a society with 0% equality and no taxes etc but total economic equality will only lead to bad things. USA has the 4th highest standard of living in the world according to HDI. And the top 3 are not close to socialist/communist Who says that we should strive for a 0% inequality? I never said that. With increased inequality the standard of living falls and the middle class disappears, like it is starting to happen in the US. The most unequal countries are the ones with more social problems.Are they the creators of Walmart? If they hadn't been so rich those 30% would be even poorer since they wouldn't have jobs(of all types) on wallmart. Secondly walmart is very cheap making those 30% even richer in real money!
themajormayor
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]the two are not interchangeable at all, a corporation is a legal entity, a conglomerate is the coming together of separate business pursuits. a corporation can be as small as one man, and a conglomerate must be at least two businesses that come from unrelated industries. A corporate conglomerate then. aside from retail what business are they in? do they lay rail? do they drill for oil? what venture do they do that is not to support their retail[QUOTE="kuraimen"] When I say that I'm talking about corporations and conglomerates interchangeably. In the end their influence is similar. I'm in no way singling Walmart out they are just one of the most evident examples.kuraimen
Who's saying otherwise? Did you start with your strawman arguments already?Then the bolded post made no sense..... Yes it makes sense maybe you are not intellectually capable of making sense out of it without a strawman though.[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Mexico's social problems and inequality go far beyond this Carlos dude being wealthy. :lol:LJS9502_basic
But I believe that we could all agree that when a retailer has the ability to tell the producer how the products are to be produced, that is a bad thing. When this happens, more and more, it is approching a single entity controlling the means of production, which certainly does not benefit people who strive for free market principles.but their enterprise is only retail, but i understand the misuse, i am not trying to derail his argument with syntax, i am just tired of seeing the misuse. there are any number of other arguments that have already been used against his
surrealnumber5
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Then the bolded post made no sense..... Yes it makes sense maybe you are not intellectually capable of making sense out of it without a strawman though.No straw man. I took exactly what you said. You mention Mexico's social and economic problems and correlated it with the dude being rich. I dare say I'm not the only that saw that. Perhaps you are not intellectually capable of making sense when you post?[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Who's saying otherwise? Did you start with your strawman arguments already?kuraimen
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]But I believe that we could all agree that when a retailer has the ability to tell the producer how the products are to be produced, that is a bad thing. When this happens, more and more, it is approching a single entity controlling the means of production, which certainly does not benefit people who strive for free market principles. What are you exactly talking about here? It would help to see what clear example you are using.....but their enterprise is only retail, but i understand the misuse, i am not trying to derail his argument with syntax, i am just tired of seeing the misuse. there are any number of other arguments that have already been used against his
Engrish_Major
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]But I believe that we could all agree that when a retailer has the ability to tell the producer how the products are to be produced, that is a bad thing. When this happens, more and more, it is approching a single entity controlling the means of production, which certainly does not benefit people who strive for free market principles. post made me think about pizza, and how much i would hate not to have it my way. if there were anything close to a retail monopoly i may take issue, but it is not that way. maybe in 10 years we will have this talk again and i will see an issue but till marx's vision of the merchant class ruling like kings comes in to being, i doubt i will agree to any forceful call to actionbut their enterprise is only retail, but i understand the misuse, i am not trying to derail his argument with syntax, i am just tired of seeing the misuse. there are any number of other arguments that have already been used against his
Engrish_Major
But I believe that we could all agree that when a retailer has the ability to tell the producer how the products are to be produced, that is a bad thing. When this happens, more and more, it is approching a single entity controlling the means of production, which certainly does not benefit people who strive for free market principles. post made me think about pizza, and how much i would hate not to have it my way. if there were anything close to a retail monopoly i may take issue, but it is not that way. maybe in 10 years we will have this talk again and i will see an issue but till marx's vision of the merchant class ruling like kings comes in to being, i doubt i will agree to any forceful call to action I'm not talking about a retail monopoly. I'm talking about a retail outlet being so big that they can control the pricing and production of their suppliers. They are so large that economically, they have no choice but to bend to WalMart's will if there's a disagreement on something about their product.[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]
but their enterprise is only retail, but i understand the misuse, i am not trying to derail his argument with syntax, i am just tired of seeing the misuse. there are any number of other arguments that have already been used against his
surrealnumber5
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment