Wal-Mart vs. The Morons

[LAM]

Those are two great examples of corrupt government. Wal-Mart shares some of the blame for accepting the money but it's the government who created/allowed the system to be what it is.

no corporation should EVER have more power than a government but that is the way our country has been functioning for some decades now.

the "society" that we have built in the US is very dysfunctional and self-destructive as greed, selfishness and excess have now become acceptable. until the math is changed in regards to wage inequality the US economy will get worst and worst annually, it's that simple. 30 years from now 50% of the labor force will still be making $40K a year and paying 2040 prices, good luck with that.

 

[jmorrison]

constantly changing tax and bankruptcy laws, using monetary policy and trade agreements and having politicians change legislation at state and federal levels to strictly benefit big corporations isn't capitalism it's fascism.

Just thought that needed to be spotlighted.

 

[Big Smoothy]

I call it Mao Mart.

Good one.

Cheap, low qaulity goods that are made in China.

"Prosperity."

 

[Big Smoothy]

Those are two great examples of corrupt government. Wal-Mart shares some of the blame for accepting the money but it's the government who created/allowed the system to be what it is.

But this is Wal-Mart's business strategy.

The specific strategy of Wal-Mart, and it's studied in MBA programs.

 

[GearsMcGilf]

Love them or hate them, their business model works. There have been cases of certain store managers forcing employees to clock out and continue working. But, that's not exclusive to wal mart. I've had mates that worked at other retail chains, where they will promote you to a mgr position. Then, you're working 60-75 hours/week and your pay comes out to $3-$4 per hour. I think people just love to hate on Wmart because they're so big and profitable.

In reality, it looks like they're not really doing anything that other retail chains aren't currently doing. They just do it much more efficiently. Ultimately, they do create jobs in many rural, impoverished parts of the world, where many locals wouldn't have jobs otherwise. It's not necessarily a good or bad thing, just business. I'm not praising them, and I don't think any private organization should be getting subsidies from tax payers, especially a giant profitable company like Wmart. But, I can't see where there presence has been all bad, particularly in some of the poor countries where they have set up shop. Even a shitty job is better than no job for many.

 

[troubador]

But this is Wal-Mart's business strategy.

The specific strategy of Wal-Mart, and it's studied in MBA programs.

I understand that but you can't legislate that Wal-Mart or anyone else change their moral beliefs or desires. The decisions are made by the government so that's where the fault lies. Wal-Mart can't simply decide that they will be subsidized; it takes someone in the government to allow it.

I've heard that hemp prohibition is a good example of how corrupt big business (petroleum) was able to lobby to get rid of hemp as a fuel source and ultimately competition. Even if this were true, who allowed it to happen? We should expect a business to follow some moral code but not the public servants? The determining factor is that it could not have happened without corrupt politicians; they were the ones with their finger on the trigger so to speak; big business just egged them on. Don't blame a corporation for adhering to a system that was created by government.

 

[LAM]

Even if this were true, who allowed it to happen? We should expect a business to follow some moral code but not the public servants? The determining factor is that it could not have happened without corrupt politicians; they were the ones with their finger on the trigger so to speak; big business just egged them on. Don't blame a corporation for adhering to a system that was created by government.

how sad is the society that we have created in the US when people only do what is required of them by law. what ever happened to doing the right thing with out being forced to.

there is only so much money in circulation annually. every year various corporations require more of that money and it gets pulled out of the economy and sits idle (not being used productively) as excess capital in various forms (stocks, bonds, etc.) this is why the GDP of EVERY OECD country has decreased since adopting neo-liberal economic policy's in the 80's. so every year the GDP "pie" decreases in size and so does the percentage or "slice" of national income that goes to labor. privatization decreases national GDP and the percentage of income that goes to labor. this is what every single paper from economists all over the globe show, not a one shows a positive effect on this.

since the 90's GDP growth in the US was mostly attributed to consumption fueled by consumer credit and 10's of billions of equity being pulled out of homes to fuel spending due to stagnant and decreasing wages in many sectors. every year the economy will only get worst and worst until wage inequality is reduced and real GDP growth is increased.

it's basic mathematics and it's mind boggling to me that people don't see this or understand the systemic problem caused by the low wage neo-liberal labor model. every time the dems got a tax cut for labor the gop demanded one for capital, nothing was every solved so the problem still exists today.