Political Crossfire Forums

Free Thinkr · Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 5:12 pm Post subject:

ubikk wrote: Quote: Walmart haters are always telling me how Costco's model is superior. If that's the case, its but a matter of time before Walmart gives up the ghost and Costco takes the reigns; if the market is allowed to operate freely, of course.

That's the $64 question. Is the market operating freely? Or is Walmart distorting the market?
Walmart can't distort the market. That's like saying Michael Jordan distorted the NBA. I'm talking about government intrusions that give an unfair advantage to Walmart.

beachbum bob · Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 5:16 pm Post subject:

Free Thinkr wrote: ubikk wrote: Quote: Walmart haters are always telling me how Costco's model is superior. If that's the case, its but a matter of time before Walmart gives up the ghost and Costco takes the reigns; if the market is allowed to operate freely, of course.

That's the $64 question. Is the market operating freely? Or is Walmart distorting the market?
Walmart can't distort the market. That's like saying Michael Jordan distorted the NBA. I'm talking about government intrusions that give an unfair advantage to Walmart.

which allows walmart to distort the market.....

Free Thinkr · Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 5:18 pm Post subject:

beachbum bob wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: ubikk wrote: Quote: Walmart haters are always telling me how Costco's model is superior. If that's the case, its but a matter of time before Walmart gives up the ghost and Costco takes the reigns; if the market is allowed to operate freely, of course.

That's the $64 question. Is the market operating freely? Or is Walmart distorting the market?
Walmart can't distort the market. That's like saying Michael Jordan distorted the NBA. I'm talking about government intrusions that give an unfair advantage to Walmart.

which allows walmart to distort the market.....
No. If the NBA passed a rule that allowed Michael Jordan to travel, would we consider it Jordan who distorted the NBA? No, it would be the NBA that distorted itself. Such is the case with the government.

bob.appleyard · Joined: 15 Oct 2005 Posts: 9056 Location: Manchestar, innit

now kids, walmart's bad, m'kay?

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 9079

bob.appleyard wrote: now kids, walmart's bad, m'kay?

Their smiley logo is evil, too.

ubikk · Joined: 27 Jul 2006 Posts: 2357

Free Thinkr wrote: If Walmart's business model doesn't work, good, the market will do it in. If its business model does work, that's good too. Either way, let the market do its thing.

Only if the market is operating correctly. My assertion is that Walmart has changed the nature of the market.

ubikk · Joined: 27 Jul 2006 Posts: 2357

perdidochas wrote:
Well, actually, I think the opposite has occurred. IMHO, Target has caused Wal-Mart to upscale.

Walmart is upscaling because they want people with higher incomes to shop at their stores. Seems people on low incomes can't afford to buy enough stuff to suit them (how about that??).

Last time I was in a Walmart, which was back in June, I wouldn't exactly call what I saw "upscale". It looked like an over-sized dollar store. I was traveling and needed a high quality bike lock, like a "Krypto" brand. They usually run about $30-$40. Walmart had a cheap facsimile for $10. Probably something they had commissioned for their stores. It's a piece of junk. I was ready and willing to pay more for the real item.

perdidochas wrote: My point is that competition works.

My point is that competition has been severely compromised by allowing too few companies to get too large.

Harbinger · Joined: 23 Apr 2006 Posts: 791 Location: California

Free Thinkr wrote:
gavnook wrote:
Wal-mart haters irriate me. I wonder is Sears experienced this kind of negativity when it was the big dog.

Of course, Sears isn't the big dog anymore, and someday Wal-mart won't be either.

Yes, especially irritating are those who criticize Walmart's business model and claim that other models are superior, while at the same time claiming that Walmart is some kind of omnipotent force. If Walmart's business model doesn't work, good, the market will do it in. If its business model does work, that's good too. Either way, let the market do its thing.
The issue for me isn't whether WalMart's business model is "superior" to others or not. It has made them very succesfull so, it obviously works for them. The issue is whether it works for the economy as a whole. Because of WalMart's business model, other businesses never get the chance to be successful. That's where economic policy should step in to help.

The problem is too much growth. I recognize that SOME growth in the productions side of the economy is necessary to achieve maximum efficiency in the production of durable goods but, growth in the retail side of the economy is just an anti-competative strategy. (When retailers are allowed to grow, they build lots of big stores and use their massive floor and shelf space to negotiate higher volumes of goods from producers at much lower prices than their neighbors. That is WalMarts business model. The saticfaction of the consumer is not a part of the process so, it doesn't mean the market is "doing it's thing". Consumers are oblivious of why WalMart prices are so low and how they may be effecting thier local economies by choosing to spend their money at WalMart rather than at other local retailers.) Therefore, IMO, all business in the retail sector should be small businesses. This would be the simplest and fairest way to maximize competition and preserve opportunity for individuals and families to run their own stores. But, to make this work, one more regulation would be necessary and that would be to prohibit producers from engaging in volume discounting their wholesale prices.

ubikk · Joined: 27 Jul 2006 Posts: 2357

Quote: herefore, IMO, all business in the retail sector should be small businesses.

I'm not sure they all have to be small, but it would be nice if they didn't let any one too big.

Nathyn · Joined: 25 Sep 2005 Posts: 11866 Location: The Pirate Bay

ubikk wrote: A "Monospony" is defined as a market situation in which one buyer exerts a disproportionate influence on the market.

Walmart has gained increasing monopsonistic powers over the market in recent years and as such is the subject of much criticism. Companies that have refused to bend to walmart's demands to meet prices have suffered severe damage. One good example is Rubbermaid, who refused to cheapen the quality of their storage containers to meet Walmart's price requirements.

Walmart stopped carrying them and they instantly lost over 60% of their market and had to lay off thousands of people and close plants. Rubbermaid was an American company who had grown substantially in the last 20 years. The plants they closed were all previously profitable American plants.

Should one retail company have the right to dictate how products are made that are to be sold in its stores? It's not that Rubbermaid's products weren't selling, they were, and making a profit. It was that Walmart couldn't make enough profit re-selling them and wanted Rubbermaid to make them more cheaply.

What effect does this have on the creativity and ingenuity of American Businesses? Can we really do our best in the world market if we have to make Walmart happy here to stay in business? Walmart is not everywhere yet...

What effect does it have on consumers? Maybe I want to pay an extra 50 cents for a better container? What if I want one made in the USA? Who's to tell me I HAVE to settle for something cheaper or foreign? Where's my choice?

In many towns, Walmart is becoming a monopsonistic market for people's labor and people who used to work at many different local stores are now forced to apply at Walmart.

What are your thoughts?
marxist bulls**t

ubikk · Joined: 27 Jul 2006 Posts: 2357

Nathyn wrote:
marxist bulls**t

Did Marx write about monopsony?

gavnook · Joined: 18 Jan 2006 Posts: 2143 Location: Arizona

Harbinger wrote: Free Thinkr wrote:
gavnook wrote:
Wal-mart haters irriate me. I wonder is Sears experienced this kind of negativity when it was the big dog.

Of course, Sears isn't the big dog anymore, and someday Wal-mart won't be either.

Yes, especially irritating are those who criticize Walmart's business model and claim that other models are superior, while at the same time claiming that Walmart is some kind of omnipotent force. If Walmart's business model doesn't work, good, the market will do it in. If its business model does work, that's good too. Either way, let the market do its thing.
The issue for me isn't whether WalMart's business model is "superior" to others or not. It has made them very succesfull so, it obviously works for them. The issue is whether it works for the economy as a whole. Because of WalMart's business model, other businesses never get the chance to be successful. That's where economic policy should step in to help.

In any field, inferior business models never get to succeed. Why do you think they should?

Harbinger wrote:
The problem is too much growth. I recognize that SOME growth in the productions side of the economy is necessary to achieve maximum efficiency in the production of durable goods but, growth in the retail side of the economy is just an anti-competative strategy. (When retailers are allowed to grow, they build lots of big stores and use their massive floor and shelf space to negotiate higher volumes of goods from producers at much lower prices than their neighbors. That is WalMarts business model. The saticfaction of the consumer is not a part of the process...

What? If Wal-mart's customers weren't satisfied with their purchases, they would stop going to Wal-mart. By what other standard can you determine customer satisfaction?

Harbinger wrote: ...so, it doesn't mean the market is "doing it's thing". Consumers are oblivious of why WalMart prices are so low and how they may be effecting thier local economies by choosing to spend their money at WalMart rather than at other local retailers.) Therefore, IMO, all business in the retail sector should be small businesses. This would be the simplest and fairest way to maximize competition and preserve opportunity for individuals and families to run their own stores. But, to make this work, one more regulation would be necessary and that would be to prohibit producers from engaging in volume discounting their wholesale prices.

Do you understand what competition is? Wal-mart is successful because it is competitive, very competitive. So to introduce market restrictions aimed harming the business of larger retailers, you would be making the market less competitive.

I wonder, have you ever shopped in a family-owned retail store? You seem to think the world needs many more of them, but I can't imagine why. What's so great about them?

If your concern is that there's no way anymore for someone to start a small business from nothing, let me just say that you lack imagination. I've known people who've started their own business. I'll tell you about one guy, in particular. When his hours at work got cut from 48 to 40, he didn't want to take a pay cut. He had done work landscaping when he was young, so he started doing that on the side. One year later, he was still working his day job, but was making more money doing the landscaping. He had about 5 or 6 employees at that time. His initial capital consisted of a pick-up truck, trailer, a chainsaw, and some yard tools. He does mostly tree and large plant removal.

There are tons of ways to for a person to go into business with little or even no capital, but many find it easier to just have a job, and there's nothing wrong with that.

ubikk · Joined: 27 Jul 2006 Posts: 2357

gavnook wrote:
Of course, Sears isn't the big dog anymore, and someday Wal-mart won't be either.

Sears was never as big as walmart is now. All those local stores that walmart is closing were doing just fine when Sears was , quote, "big dog".

gavnook wrote: In any field, inferior business models never get to succeed. Why do you think they should?

If the free market is operating. I'm saying walmart is so large it's restricting the free market from operating. They can afford to come in and dump products at predatory prices until the competition is gone, and then begin to ratched them back up again. And you have to buy what THEY want to sell you. Not necessarily what you might want to buy.

Plus, they're buying power is so big that they've affected the supply-side of the equation. Now, if i want to start a competing store, I'm going to be stuck trying to sell a lot of the same products walmart has forced everyone to make for them to their specifications.

If I'm a small supplier, with a new product, walmart has no interest in me because I can't make a bazillion units. Only I've got no small businesses to try and sell my new product at because they're gone.

Æ · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 6782 Location: Taxatraz

Free Thinkr wrote: ubikk wrote: Quote: Walmart haters are always telling me how Costco's model is superior. If that's the case, its but a matter of time before Walmart gives up the ghost and Costco takes the reigns; if the market is allowed to operate freely, of course.

That's the $64 question. Is the market operating freely? Or is Walmart distorting the market?
Walmart can't distort the market. That's like saying Michael Jordan distorted the NBA. I'm talking about government intrusions that give an unfair advantage to Walmart.
Wal-Mart has habitually benefited by illegal immigrant worker welfare schemes that allow them to have lower prices than they could otherwise.

Free Thinkr · Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:07 am Post subject:

Aereus wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: ubikk wrote: Quote: Walmart haters are always telling me how Costco's model is superior. If that's the case, its but a matter of time before Walmart gives up the ghost and Costco takes the reigns; if the market is allowed to operate freely, of course.

That's the $64 question. Is the market operating freely? Or is Walmart distorting the market?
Walmart can't distort the market. That's like saying Michael Jordan distorted the NBA. I'm talking about government intrusions that give an unfair advantage to Walmart.
Wal-Mart has habitually benefited by illegal immigrant worker welfare schemes that allow them to have lower prices than they could otherwise.
Well, then address that. Don't try to ride that into "we need to take down businesses that are too successful." They're separate issues.

Æ · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 6782 Location: Taxatraz

Free Thinkr wrote: Aereus wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: ubikk wrote: Quote: Walmart haters are always telling me how Costco's model is superior. If that's the case, its but a matter of time before Walmart gives up the ghost and Costco takes the reigns; if the market is allowed to operate freely, of course.

That's the $64 question. Is the market operating freely? Or is Walmart distorting the market?
Walmart can't distort the market. That's like saying Michael Jordan distorted the NBA. I'm talking about government intrusions that give an unfair advantage to Walmart.
Wal-Mart has habitually benefited by illegal immigrant worker welfare schemes that allow them to have lower prices than they could otherwise.
Well, then address that. Don't try to ride that into "we need to take down businesses that are too successful." They're separate issues.
I made no such statement. The statement made was merely a presentation of fact neglected by others in this thread.

Free Thinkr · Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 10:19 am Post subject:

Aereus wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Aereus wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: ubikk wrote: Quote: Walmart haters are always telling me how Costco's model is superior. If that's the case, its but a matter of time before Walmart gives up the ghost and Costco takes the reigns; if the market is allowed to operate freely, of course.

That's the $64 question. Is the market operating freely? Or is Walmart distorting the market?
Walmart can't distort the market. That's like saying Michael Jordan distorted the NBA. I'm talking about government intrusions that give an unfair advantage to Walmart.
Wal-Mart has habitually benefited by illegal immigrant worker welfare schemes that allow them to have lower prices than they could otherwise.
Well, then address that. Don't try to ride that into "we need to take down businesses that are too successful." They're separate issues.
I made no such statement. The statement made was merely a presentation of fact neglected by others in this thread.
My point is that, by bringing this up in this thread, you're confusing the issue. The issue is not 'monopsonies,' but government intrusions into the market; at least in the case of Walmart anyways (though, let's face it, that's basically always the case).

Roy L · Joined: 17 Nov 2005 Posts: 1819

Free Thinkr wrote: Aereus wrote:
Wal-Mart has habitually benefited by illegal immigrant worker welfare schemes that allow them to have lower prices than they could otherwise.
Well, then address that. Don't try to ride that into "we need to take down businesses that are too successful." They're separate issues.
Agreed. Monopsony is to a great extent a red herring, IMO. The problem is that government has created a tax and regulatory environment that favors the largest (and most unscrupulous) operators. Is it simply WalMart's size that is the problem, or the fact that its army of lawyers and lobbyists are able to extract massive favors from governments, thwart the impartial administration of law, etc.? And would WalMart be so big if it had not been able to obtain tens of billions of dollars worth of land use favors, property tax abatements, etc. from local governments?

gavnook · Joined: 18 Jan 2006 Posts: 2143 Location: Arizona

ubikk wrote: gavnook wrote:
Of course, Sears isn't the big dog anymore, and someday Wal-mart won't be either.

Sears was never as big as walmart is now. All those local stores that walmart is closing were doing just fine when Sears was , quote, "big dog".

Perhaps you should read up on Sears. Wal-mart is a big company with many stores and has had big impact life in the United States. But it cannot compare, IMO, to the revolutionary impact of the early Sears catalog. For many, there was no other practical way to purchase many of the items offered, and if there was a way, it was probably substantially more expensive. So, in many cases, there really were no local stores for Sears to compete with.

ubikk wrote:
gavnook wrote: In any field, inferior business models never get to succeed. Why do you think they should?

If the free market is operating. I'm saying walmart is so large it's restricting the free market from operating.

What definition of free market are you using?

ubikk wrote:
They can afford to come in and dump products at predatory prices until the competition is gone, and then begin to ratched them back up again.

If that's true, good for them. But I sometimes shop at Wal-mart, and I never see anything selling at "predatory prices."

ubikk wrote:
And you have to buy what THEY want to sell you. Not necessarily what you might want to buy.

I don't have to buy anything I don't want EVER. Why would anyone ever buy something they didn't want? This only seems possible where a person is not in control of their own actions, which is a rather rare situation. By buying a thing, you demonstrate that you wanted it enough to give up it's price.

ubikk wrote:
Plus, they're buying power is so big that they've affected the supply-side of the equation. Now, if i want to start a competing store, I'm going to be stuck trying to sell a lot of the same products walmart has forced everyone to make for them to their specifications.

If I'm a small supplier, with a new product, walmart has no interest in me because I can't make a bazillion units. Only I've got no small businesses to try and sell my new product at because they're gone.

:cry1:

ubikk · Joined: 27 Jul 2006 Posts: 2357

gavnook wrote:
ubikk wrote:
Plus, they're buying power is so big that they've affected the supply-side of the equation. Now, if i want to start a competing store, I'm going to be stuck trying to sell a lot of the same products walmart has forced everyone to make for them to their specifications.

If I'm a small supplier, with a new product, walmart has no interest in me because I can't make a bazillion units. Only I've got no small businesses to try and sell my new product at because they're gone.

:cry1:

I notice you didn't comment intelligently on that statement. You just made fun of the author. What do you think about that concept? Is that or isn't that an example of a less than free market?