About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2


Post 40

Friday, February 25, 2005 - 11:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Max writes:
I also think that there'd be several better places for Wal-Mart, then in the middle of a retirement-colony.
Quite so, but no one has suggested otherwise. My impression was that Nicole's example was of a WalMart outside but next to the community. So the question becomes, were the prices of the peripheral properties less than those more near the center? If so, then the lower price reflected the possibility of greater interference from outside the development. You get what you pay for.
A Wal-Mart moved into the town I live in and they tried the same approach as in the US, but the German competitors fought it off easily.
How did they fight it off? Did the German competitors use German laws?
And this is one of the reasons, why I believe that something like Wal-Mart is a creation by government-funding and intrusion rather than private business.
In other words, you don't have any facts, just anecdotal analogies.

Post 41

Friday, February 25, 2005 - 1:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I thought Nicole's post was great..

There's just no question that using the goverment is part of Walmart's business plan  And it's especially, since they are already wealthy. They do censor products, or require censorship because they are so huge. But I do think a lot of Objectivists would be quick to forgive these things, out of some sense of 'company love' - as though a big company doing something is okay, whereas a person doing a smiliar thing would be wrong.


Post 42

Friday, February 25, 2005 - 1:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Lee said:

But I do think a lot of Objectivists would be quick to forgive these things, out of some sense of 'company love' - as though a big company doing something is okay, whereas a person doing a smiliar thing would be wrong.

I wouldn't forgive them for it (Using the government that is). But I also don't buy into "company hate" as if all big companies can't do the things individuals can do without it being wrong. Corporate bashing is in these days. If we a capitalist society we wouldn't have the government interference problem. I personally hate Wal-Marts censorship, but the market seems to like it. If the artists want to be sold at Wal-Mart, then they'll have to except Wal-Mart terms. I say buy it elsewhere and send the message that way.

Ethan

EDIT for clarity in parentheses

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 2/25, 2:25pm)


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 43

Friday, February 25, 2005 - 2:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What is wrong with Wal-Mart deciding what things they want to sell?  It is their money, not anyone else's, and nobody is forcing anyone to do business with them.  That's like criticizing the kid who only sells lemonade on his lemonade stand when they want him to sell them apple juice.  If you think you can do a better job than Wal-Mart, then go for it.  I'll even invest in your stock.  If not, shop somewhere else.  Until then, I'm a proud Wal-Mart shareholder and the windfall from the stock never fails to bring a smile to my face.


Post 44

Friday, February 25, 2005 - 2:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I agree completely Byron. They sell what they want and people buy it. lots and lots of people.

Ethan


Post 45

Friday, February 25, 2005 - 2:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
But - Walmart doesn't WANT a capatilist society.

And I'm not convinced that 'the market' wants censored books or music. Do I think Walmart should be forced to sell john Stewart's book? no. Do I think it's stupid that they don't sell it because of naked supreme court justices? Yes, I do - and it sucks that they have the clout where it makes a difference in the market. 

You know why people bash big companies? Because big companies do a lot of bad things, that's why. But they often get away with them because they are so big. Corporate criminals are often doing things - like fraud, for example - on such a large scale that I don't even know how to punish them. What should the jail term be for someone at Enron? A million years?


Post 46

Friday, February 25, 2005 - 2:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Lee,

Criminals should be punished. Period.

Do I think Walmart should be forced to sell john Stewart's book? no. Do I think it's stupid that they don't sell it because of naked supreme court justices? Yes, I do
It's your right to think their stupid.

it sucks that they have the clout where it makes a difference in the market. 
There customers give them the clout by buying things from them. They sell what they want. no one is FORCED to buy from them, but they do. Therefore, you should be angry at the people who shop there instead of picking on Wal-Mart as a convenient and cool scape-goat. It's cool to hate big companies. It's cool to hate the succesful.

You know why people bash big companies?
Yes. Do you? Most compnies aren't Enron, but the Ward Churchill and most of the other liberals would have you  think they were.

Ethan

 


Post 47

Friday, February 25, 2005 - 2:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I see good reason for Nicole's objection given that the company has a history of using eminent domain to build on properties that owners did not want to sell in areas where they are not wanted. In fact, Wal-mart has a history of using government power.

(all sources found by searching Google news for Wal-Mart, eminent domain)

In Denver, CO they sought to use eminent domain to evict two Asian grocers, a dim-sum restaurant, a barber shop, martial arts center, and many other small businesses at considerable taxpayer expense to the tune of $10 million dollars.

They are also attempting (or already have) use of E.D. in Odgen, Utah; Elizabethtown, PA; Rockford, IL; Saline County, KS

I believe a strong argument can be made for the use of tax credits given that the retail chain pays a hefty amount of them, and if they buy property next to my home without stealing it, I will not complain. However, when any company uses eminent domain to take property from owners that do not wish to sell, I can only call it stealing. I think that Wal-mart is every bit as immoral as the UFCW which uses the government to force companies to deal with them. But don't get me started on the UFCW. Damn looters!!

Adam


Post 48

Friday, February 25, 2005 - 3:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam,

I did not know that! I'm off to read on that. If it's true, then they should be stopped and punished. It's one thing to try and get back the money the governemnt bilks from individuals and corporations and another to get them to seize people's property for you. *sigh*

Ethan


Post 49

Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 10:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You call the European market not a free-market and... you are, of course, right. But It is a limited-free-market (as is the US and every other country with an restrictive government) and when it comes to retailers it is in the sense free that it grants all retailers the same rights.
The exampel I took was one from a comune, where there is no chance to get subsidies or other legal actions against Wal-Mart. I didn't see a trial against Wal-Mart, or that Wal-Mart got something denied (and I followed it quite eagerly). Wal-Mart bought the place from a former bankrupt retailer called "Wertkauf" and tried to turn it into a super-center and then to expand. But unlike in other countries (f.e. France), they got no help from the government.
And they had to fight competitors like Aldi and Lidl, who are in the low-price segment for years and fought each other. So, it was the first time, I think, that Wal-Mart had to fight on its own and guess what: All three of them are still their, each with its share of costumers and I think that won't change in the foreseeable future.

This is why I doubt that Wal-Mart got the position it has now only through private means. I don't dispute that they have to take the politics into this, but I say that their cause is subsided by politics and it might have been different, if there weren't such cooperations between politics and private enterprises.
I just wanted to illuminate this point of the whole debate, that monopolies are almost always a product of the government, rather than free-market.

@Rick:

Seeing that Wal-Mart had bought the land from the government, I think that the citizens have a right to apply for help from the government. If the government didn't sell land, those people would have bought or acquired long before and something like that would not have happened.
So, I believe that the argument about private property rights in closed neighbourhood, doesn't count and should be viewed from all perspectives.
The government has sold land, which the retired people could not buy, because they probably were not allowed to do so. This is what I think is the tricky part about it.

See above about the issue regarding my German example. No law-suits involved, they just tried to fight each other with low-price means and finally reached an agreement of some sort (but I think it is an uneasy peace, as it is always between private businesses),

No, the fact that the state has payed billions in the time of Wal-Marts expansion is enough to satisfy it, because it is a crucial payment, that allowed the rise of Wal-Mart. (http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/24/news/fortune500/walmart_subsidies/)
Everything that happened subsequently is only the consequence of this political intervention...

(Edited by Max on 2/26, 10:45am)


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 50

Monday, February 28, 2005 - 10:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Thanks everyone for the interesting posts and discussion. I hope it’s not too late for me to jump in with my own thoughts on all that has been said so far.

 

I asked, “What’s not to like?” and I’d say Adam gives a pretty good answer. Wal-Mart’s use of eminent domain is unconscionable, and throws into stark relief why our incompetent Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kelo v. New London is such a setback for those who believe in absolute property rights. (Although I would like to know more of the particulars. I doubt this is the case, but if any of the businesses that were evicted had tried to use other laws to block Wal-Mart, I’d say it threw them into a moral limbo where they got what was coming to them.)

 

I’m less sympathetic to some of the other objections that have been raised:

 

First, regarding subsidies, I’d say some of the actions cited in the article referenced by Chris are indeed unjust. But the list of “subsidies” includes free land (which the government never should have owned in the first place, and so much the better if a private company wrests it away from them), rebates on taxes (that should never have been levied), and road infrastructure (which, seeing as how the government has arrogated to itself the task of building roads, hardly qualifies as a “subsidy”).

 

Max’s contention that all of Wal-Mart’s gains are ill-gotten, because of an estimated $1 billion in subsidies, is absurd when considered in light of the fact that their annual revenues top $300 billion. As Ethan pointed out, they paid $5 billion in taxes in one year alone. What’s more, we have no estimate of the damages in lost revenues, inflicted in cases like Englewood and The Bronx, where Wal-Mart was barred from doing business, and I believe we must fairly account for that in debating whether or not Wal-Mart is just another pig suckling at the government’s teat. Subsidies can give businesses an edge over their competitors; they cannot provide them with the innovations that have allowed Wal-Mart to increase inventory turnover, keep its operations lean, and reduce profit margins while still growing the company and keeping shareholders satisfied.

 

“Wal-Mart creates additional sound/light pollution.” I tend to side more with Byron that property rights, if they’re to have any meaning at all, must be absolute. Do I think there should be some provisions for the owners of properties adjacent to large, noisy stores? Yes, and I think there’s plenty of room for debate on this subject. What I don’t buy into is this silly notion that if I buy a house next to an empty field, somehow I’m entitled to have that field remain completely empty and unchanged, forever. Landscapes and communities are changed by the people who own them. You want to be surrounded by fields of wheat are far as the eye can see and the ear can hear? There are two options: buy enough property to be sure those fields will stay that way forever; or, get a government to use its police power to dictate the terms by which others can use that property. But there are no middle grounds between property rights and so-called “community planning” here.

 

“Downtown stores provide better quality-of-life than Wal-Mart.” In my experience, it just isn’t so. In my old hometown of Kalispell, I used to have to order all my computer software and hardware by mail (back in the days of 2-to-4 week shipping) because the local computer stores had shit for price and selection. All that changed when Wal-Mart came to town, and these “Mom-and-Pop’s” couldn’t leverage their status as one of two computer stores, in a town of 17,000, to provide crappy service to their customers. So I thank Wal-Mart for making Kalispell, and lots of other towns like it, places where you can actually buy what you’re trying to find. Ditto for music. Downtown music stores here in Missoula reek with incense and are festooned with psychedelic tapestries, Eastern mystic icons, and left-wing bumper stickers. When I’m browsing the aisles at Wal-Mart, I’m not assailed on all sides by the many accoutrements of hippie burnout culture. There are some downtown businesses—bars, coffee shops, specialty shops—that can survive the entry of a Wal-Mart, because they provide a real value to their customers and keep attracting them even after a big retailer moves in. For the others, who can’t compete… well, I say, welcome to the free-market. You don’t get to change the rules of the game just ‘cause you start losing all of a sudden.

 

“Wal-Mart is dumpy and its employees and customers are dumb.” Perhaps I’ve somehow hit upon the one good Wal-Mart in the country, but I’ve never had a problem with finding what I need or getting help from employees here. The local Wal-Mart is cleaner than its competitors, Albertson’s and Walgreens (although the Target is more appealing, but also more expensive). And I never seem to notice the customers, nor do I particularly care about their levels of intelligence, as I’m focused on finding the next thing on my shopping list, and all other concerns seem to just fade into the background. I’m not always satisfied with the length of the lines at Wal-Mart—they always seem to have just the right amount of tellers for me to have to wait about 5 minutes—but the wait is usually no worse than at other retailers, and if it is, the extra wait is more than compensated for by the extra savings at checkout. Sorry, but for me, quality of life doesn’t include shopping alongside a cross-section of bright, well-dressed doctors, lawyers, and university profs.

 

“If Wal-Mart wants to help out lower income people, why don’t they build in the inner cities?” Usually, because they’re barred by the union-bought thugs who sit as aldermen and councilmen in these urban areas.

 

There was a great documentary on CNBC last night on this subject, and they spoke a little about Sam Walton and how he built this retail empire. One of Walton’s business associates relayed a story from Wal-Mart’s early days, when he and Walton were flying to a meeting in Walton’s two-seater aircraft. They passed over a Wal-Mart store with a sparse parking lot, and Walton was so distraught he landed the plane at the nearest airport and went running to the store to ask the manager why there were no cars in the lot. After being reassured that a school event had emptied the store for a moment, Walton explained to his associate that he had simply had to land, to find out whether there was something wrong with the way Wal-Mart was running its business. This dedication—started by Sam Walton and maintained by Wal-Mart’s current management—was the edge they needed to come out on top. Even after the discussion of eminent domain and subsidies, I still maintain that, on balance, Wal-Mart’s ruthless pursuit of cost-cutting and productivity improvements has been a huge boon to America and American businesses.


Post 51

Tuesday, March 1, 2005 - 3:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
@Andrew:

Ok, I grant that it might seem to be out of proportion. But think it my way, we have a regional Retailer, who is competing well, but doesn't succeed to leave the region. Then the state gives out 1 Billion in subsidies and suddenly the retailer has the means to succeed. I grant that the inovative concept of the business is certainly one reason, but hadn't any private investors done that?
And would Wal-Mart be that big if there were no state-sponsor?
(Remember, when I read it correctly, Wal-Mart got the subsidies when it was fairly small)

Yes, free land-rights are a thing that the state shouldn't have held in the first place, but who else would have had them then?
Yes, indeed, the very men from the community that tried to get the Wal-Mart out of their neighbourhood. So, there hadn't been the problem in the first place.
This is my idea of it and I think it is rather consistent, because it involves the true to the basic form of Libertarianism.

Your thoughts?


Post 52

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 9:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Chris raises a really important point.. Walmart has an entire department devoted to doing nothing but getting every goverment subsidy that they possibly can, including free land. WalMart is, like fast food restaurants, really in the real estate business. They don't have an entire department trying to get a free market economy."

Most companies would prefer to have a free market, but as long as their competitors are getting subsidies, they must get them as well, if they wish to compete.  It's called "The Tragedy of the Commons."  So don't blame Wal-Mart, they didn't build the system, they're just doing their best to live within it.  We, the people, are the ones who need to take the initiative to ensure that the current system is overthrown/overhauled. 

Down with Socialism!!!

Fox


Post 53

Monday, October 17, 2005 - 10:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I just worked there for a year. It is an extremely abrasive environment. When I comp shopped -- Target seemed like a serene library. It depressed me but the one wonderful factor was the cache of surviving employees: Addy who shipped things back to his family (wife and kids) in Ghana, Raj, the old Indian army colonel....

Over all every day was an overstimulated nightmare.

-- my comic immortalizing my experience.

Regards

Sunshine

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2


User ID Password or create a free account.