Wal-Mart and Corporate Greed

[Narz]

--So how in the heck would I get my food if not from a supermarket?

To answer your question, I would say, in the ways you've just said you do. Choose Whole Foods for example, or any other non-behemoth that does play by the rules, respects the environment, provides sustainable choice for consumers, honours their labour force, and brings tangible benefit to local communities and not the distant, uber rich city folk.

Better idea is to aviod supermarkets as much as possible. I only go maybe once or twice a month.

Impossible?

Produce & fish = farmer's market
Bulk stuff = online

Whole Foods is for the rich and in many ways is as bad as Walmart, taking advantage of people who want to be healthy by selling them slightly better quality food (or often not, much of their produce & dry goods are not even organic, yet their prices are far higher than regular chain groceries) at a much higher price. I agree Trader Joe's is far superior.

A friend was telling me about how in Ukraine (where his wife is from) grocery stores have been closing in large numbers. Mostly due to robbery (one robbery and the store may fold, their profit margins are so low that the bad publicity of a robbery may disuade people to go).

A better solution is farmer's markets, either indoors or out. He says they often continue late into the night and carry not only produce & meat but also plenty of canned & dry goods. It's alot less practical to rob an outdoor market since the money is not concentrated in a few registers (and some of the vendors may have guns themselves).

He says many of the people prefer the decentralized outdoor markets anyway and it's obviously for better for the economy than a mega-mart with an owner or two, a few well paid managers and a bunch of poorly paid stockers and cashiers.

The US may not have markets like that everyday, until late into the night but we do have the Internet. Like I said, I go to Trader Joe's about twice a month & get everything else at farmer's markets or online.

BTW, Ram, Whole Foods is hardly a "non-behemoth".

 

[Urederra]

Depth: Into which areas of an economy do they provide this financial benefit? In short, who benefits? It's largely focused into two areas. Firstly, they provide financial benefits to their shareholders, in the manners one would expect shareholders to benefit. These parties are overwhelmingly large investment banks and private equity firms in the case of supermarkets such as Tesco (source 1 & source 2). Secondly, they provide benefit to the government through large corporate taxation. Whilst one might say that this gets redistributed to the wider population through public services, there are some important mitigating factors to consider here; their resulting political influence over planning permissions and labour laws being the foremost worthy of mention. More on those below.

You forgot that lower prices benefits economically all the customers that buy at the supermarkets.

~ Socially speaking, they have had a negative impact on communities, with diversity and independence of enterprise suffering in their shadow (see this article). It's not just 'mom and pop' shops they take out of business. I don't want to reiterate the points in my first post, but I'm sure you can see how their advantages in an imperfect and incomplete market come to bear. To write this off in favour of the aggregate financial benefits is missing crucial detail.

And Whole Foods, the supermarket chain you are patronizing, does not harm 'mom and pop' shops? How come? In my experience, Whole Foods does harm those shops more than Wal-mart does. The butcher shops people like my mother go sells meat of a quality comparable to or better than Whole Foods, with free range veal from the cattle the butcher of the shop feeds and slaughters. Wal-mart, on the other hand, mostly sells cheap, low quality merchandise. Traditional families that buy high quality food because it is in their culture or snobs who want to purge the sins they commit against mother nature are the ones who are changing the traditional 'mom and pop' shops to the Whole Foods hype-rmarket.

And still you are forgetting the economic benefits the consumers have by paying less for the merchandise they buy.

As the article linked above highlights, any benefits they do impart to local communities are superficial, transitory, token in their nature, paltry when compared to what they can do and have become an arm of their PR activities. So, whilst they benefit the City, they are not bringing benefit to local communities and I'm not willing to shrug this off as merely a demographic trend towards urban living, which again, isn't the full story.

And still you are forgetting the economic benefits the consumers have by paying less for the merchandise they buy.

Employment terms are worthy of scrutiny. You will probably be aware that supermarkets regularly come under fire for employment practices that push at the boundaries of the law. Walmart's position on unions is quite funky, to put it politely. Foremost amongst these practices are the temporary nature of their employment terms (many employment contracts are terminated after a year, when benefits become due) and the level of benefits afforded to employees (there are none of any significance to these temp. workers). As the article I linked to above demonstrates, many of their workers are only better of working for supermarkets such as Tesco because of government tax credit schemes. Without those tax credits, they're better off being unemployed.

A neighbour of mine has been working at Wal-mart for more than 3 years. What you describe may be a UK thing.

There is also the charge against such supermarkets of their employing underage, sweatshop labour. It takes watchdogs and investigative journalists to bring this to light. It's only when they do so that the supermarkets shift. Amoral indeed.

Most of the employees I see at the Wal-mart store I go look 'overage' rather than underage. Sweatshop labour? putting merchandise on the selves is sweatshop labour? Wow, just wow. And this happens only in Wal-mart or also in Whole Foods?

~ Environmentally speaking, no byproduct of the supermarkets' existence I can think of better illustrates this that the outbreak of Madcow Disease in the UK. Whether you eat meat or not, an interest in the influence on pricing that supermarkets present should lead you to consider this case.

A quick google search about the history of Wal-mart in the UK renders this:

ASDA is a chain of supermarkets in the United Kingdom offering food, clothing and general merchandise products. It became a subsidiary of the American retail giant Wal-Mart in 1999, and is currently the second largest chain in the UK after Tesco.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASDA

The mad cow disease spreaded in the UK before Wal-Mart did.

Besides, a quick scan in the Whole Foods web page renders this:

Spoiler too long :

Whole Foods Market Issues Allergy Alert On Undeclared Nuts In 365 Organic Everyday Value Swiss Dark Chocolate Bars

AUSTIN, Texas (July 31, 2007). Whole Foods Market® is recalling 365 Organic Everyday Value™ Swiss Dark Chocolate Bars because they may contain undeclared almonds. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to nuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

These products were distributed to and sold at Whole Foods Market stores in the following states: Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington DC, and Wisconsin.

365 Organic Everyday Value Swiss Dark Chocolate Bars are sold in red and white wrappers with a picture of chocolate pieces and the Swiss countryside on the front. The recalled chocolate bars have a lot code that begins with the characters L71423 followed by a four digit time stamp between the times of 11:33 and 12:15, which is found on the back of the wrapper. If the coding on the package is illegible the product should also be returned. No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the product containing almonds was distributed in packaging that did not reveal the presence of nuts. Subsequent investigation indicates the problem was caused by a temporary breakdown in the producer’s packaging processes.

Whole Foods Market® issues Class 2 Recall in United Kingdom of Fresh & Wild Organic Everyday Value™ Hummus and Chilled Pizzas

Whole Foods Market is recalling Fresh & Wild Organic Everyday Value™ Hummus (Barcode 5-051246-260180), Black Pepper Hummus (Barcode 5-051246-260197), Roasted Red Pepper Hummus (Barcode 5-051246-260203) and Tomato & Aubergine Meze (Barcode 5-051246-260210) all with a Best Before End Date of 12/07/07 (dd/mm/yy) and Fresh & Wild Organic Everyday Value™ Margherita Pizza (450g) (Barcode 5-051246-290002), Margherita Pizza (160g) (Barcode 5-051246-290026), Margherita Pizza (500g) (Barcode 5-051246-290064), Goats' Cheese & Red Pepper Pizza (160g) (Barcode 5-051246-290019), Goats' Cheese & Red Pepper Pizza (500g) (Barcode 5-051246-290057), Pepperoni Pizza (160g) (Barcode 5-051246-290033), Pepperoni Pizza (500g) (Barcode 5-051246-290071), Pizza Base (250g) (Barcode 5-051246-290040), and Spelt Pizza Base (250g) (Barcode 5-051246-290163) all with a Best Before End Date of 10/07/07 (dd/mm/yy). All products were recalled due to temperature control abuse by the manufacturer. As a result, the company has removed these products from all stores and has put additional safety measures in place. No confirmed illnesses have been reported to date.

No other Whole Foods Market Private Label products have been affected by this recall. The Fresh & Wild Organic Everyday Value™ products are only sold in Whole Foods Market stores in the United Kingdom.

Consumers who have purchased any of these Fresh & Wild Organic Everyday Value™ products can return them to Whole Foods Market for a full refund. Questions may be directed to the Company by calling +44 207 368 6125 or via email at uk.private.label@wholefoods.com

Robert’s American Gourmet Food, Inc. conducts nationwide recall of Veggie Booty because of possible health risk.

Robert’s American Gourmet Food, Inc. of Sea Cliff, New York is recalling Veggie Booty Snack Food all lots and sizes , UPCs (0-15665-60915 & 0-15665-60122) because it has the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.
Read the FDA Press Release

You see? Nobody is free of these problems.

But there's more here. International food transportation (instead of local production) and waste created by their excessive, unnecessary packaging being passed onto consumers both rank high amongst the concerns of environmental groups.

Sure you can find some examples in where we agree, but, can you find places where they sell locally grown bananas or pineapples in the UK? or your solution is not to eat bananas? Are you talking about apples? Are Wal-mart or Whole Foods, the hype-rmarket you are patronizing, not buying apples grown in the UK?

As for the brain drain, we're talking retailers here dude. Whilst they are not exactly idiots, shopkeepers aren't the high-flyers who take off to the cities either. But even these folk, the mid-altitude flyers if you like, are questioning whether they have a livelihood in their hometowns. Supermarkets are fully to blame for these cases.

I don't get what you are trying to say here. Do you hang out with chics at the butcher very often?

So, is time money? Or is it quality family experience? Please make up your mind.

Time is quality family experience. Mom spends less time shopping by herself and more with the family. She still spends time at the Butcher and at the local greengrocers, though.

To answer your question, I would say, in the ways you've just said you do. Choose Whole Foods for example, or any other non-behemoth that does play by the rules, respects the environment, provides sustainable choice for consumers, honours their labour force, and brings tangible benefit to local communities and not the distant, uber rich city folk.

And how Whole Foods does these things exactly? Which rules are you talking about? What Whole Foods does to respect the environment that Wal-Mart doesn't? Are their goods being transported in amish carriages, or in trucks? What is that sustainable choice you are talking about? and how do they honour their employees? Do they get paid as much as a surgeon or they put a red carpet under their feet? And what benefits to local communities are you talking about? Precisely the uber rich city folk is the only one that can afford to go to Whole Foods here, there are only two Whole Foods hype-rmarkets in Minnesota and both of them are in the twin cities.

Did I say that? Nope. Remember, my primary focus in entering the thread was on maintaining choice. Real choice and sustainable choice.

I really need an explanation about that sustainable choice thingie of yours.

The butcher and the baker go out of business dude. Read the articles I linked to above. If they gain employment with the supermarket (which becomes just one butcher and baker where once there were many) that put them out of business,

I am sure that Wal-mart and Whole Foods employs more than one butcher and one baker per superstore. Some jobs are lost? yeah, that is a pity, but can you/we afford paying a full salary to a local butcher who only works a couple of hours a day and spends the rest of the day looking at the window to see if a new customer gets in?

they lose their self-autonomy and independence, they can no longer provide the community functions they used to

Appart from selling meat, what community functions are you talking about? gossiping? I don't want to know how bad my neighbour's haemorrhoids are, thanks.

 

[luiz]

I'm so sick of both sides accusing the other of being rich as if that constitutes a grand refutation.

socialist: "OMG YOU MUST BE A TRUST FUND BABY CHILD OF PRIVILEGE WHO HAS NEVER EXPERIENCED THE CRUSHING WEIGHT OF CORPORATE AMERICA ON THE SMALL TOWNZ"

capitalist: "OMG YOU LIMOUSINE LIBERAL! GET OUT OF YOUR IVORY TOWER! WE CANT ALL PAY 20X MORE TO SHOP AT A STORE WERE THE BAGGERS MAKE $250,000 A YEAR!"

It's amazing the degree to which posters, even ones that I've come to intellectually respect, resort to such idiocy whenever the discussion turns to issues of political ideology.

There is nothing wrong with beign rich. It is something good! But two things are wrong:

-Pretending to be "for the poor" while at the same time voicing a strongly elitist opinion (hypocrisy)
-Wanting to make universal a behaviour that requires some wealth.

The criticism of "champagne socialism" is based on the inherent contradiction of that condition, not in the fact that they have money. Don't simplify my argument and than say it is idiocy.

 

[Phlegmak]

Personally, I love places like Whole Foods. There are several clones, like Trader Joe's, Wild Oats, Amish (in NYC), and Andronico's. I'm in the group of people wealthy enough to spend as much as I want and not care about it. However, I must admit that it would be much nicer if they weren't so expensive. Trader Joe's might be slightly cheaper than Whole Foods, but I lump the two together due to the products that are significantly different than what can be bought at a major supermarket chain. Whole Foods probably has the best selection of sweets I've ever seen. Amish has a good selection of products but the prices are out of this world; they're like 50% higher than Whole Foods's.

 

[luiz]

Personally, I love places like Whole Foods. There are several clones, like Trader Joe's, Wild Oats, Amish (in NYC), and Andronico's. I'm in the group of people wealthy enough to spend as much as I want and not care about it. However, I must admit that it would be much nicer if they weren't so expensive. Trader Joe's might be slightly cheaper than Whole Foods, but I lump the two together due to the products that are significantly different than what can be bought at a major supermarket chain. Whole Foods probably has the best selection of sweets I've ever seen. Amish has a good selection of products but the prices are out of this world; they're like 50% higher than Whole Foods's.

Of course there is absolutely nothing wrong at liking Whole Foods. It's great that people who have the resources have the choice of shopping at places that offer higher quality.

But to suggest that everyone should choose Whole Foods and the likes over regular supermarkets, or even worse, assuming a "holier than thou" attitude is just plain wrong.

 

[C~G]

There is nothing wrong with beign rich. It is something good! ... Don't simplify my argument and than say it is idiocy.

Luiz actually saying what you just said might have approved Fifty's point.

But then again what I know since I'm just socialist since I have sometimes dared to even suggest there might be in place some kind of regulation by the government (even something that might be considered just arbirtary rules and social engineering) for everything to run smoothly for generations to come.

In generally I see when these things are discussed that people get their ideological nickers twisted and after all it doesn't have to do anything with economics or what kind of reasonable options there are to change things. It's all about principles when it goes to political ideology. It's like they would have to give up all their money and whole soul to the point people are ready go to grave before they could reconsider their position.

People see themselves as reasonable but they are carrying faith. The religion is there and the god and prophets also.
Look no further than this forum and you find them.
People can be as blind to an ideology as they are to religion.

Just pointing this out, not saying I'm better than others in this regard.

 

[Godwynn]

In generally I see when these things are discussed that people get their ideological nickers twisted and after all it doesn't have to do anything with economics or what kind of reasonable options there are to change things. It's all about principles when it goes to political ideology. It's like they would have to give up all their money and whole soul to the point people are ready go to grave before they could reconsider their position.

I agree with this statement. It is total-free-unregulated-market v. abolishing-corporations-and-Wall St. most of the time. I see this with politics as well.

 

[Rambuchan]

Who's parroting old mantras?

You are. And the mantra is "you are free to not shop there", which we hear time and time again. If you had paid attention to the message of my first post and, more importantly, the little newsflash that followed it, then you would understand both how regulation is needed to preserve this choice and how disingenuous your mantra is dear fellow. If there's something wrong with my description of corporate expansion via take overs leading to reduced choice if not regulated, then please correct me. As an ardent supporter of these corporations you seem to lack some pretty basic understanding of their acquisitive nature and activities. I thought you would have known about this stuff.

Is there anything older than bashing large corporation with no real reason?

You can do better than this flimsy characterisation luiz. And you can always go back and read the reasons I gave, rather than bypassing them and saying there are none when it's plain for anyone else to read them and see that you're just ranting and aping the worst that CFC OT has to offer.

If they killed off all competition that's because consumers chose to shop there instead of the competition. Chose. Understand?

This is too simplistic and you know it. I've pointed out how and why already. When you're ready to deal with those points I have put to you, instead of repeating your debunked mantas, then by all means let's discuss them.

If there is no fiscalization they will do it anyways to maximize their profits, regardless if the buyer is a mega-corporation or a mom and pop shop. Here in Brazil it is actually much safer to buy meat at a large supermarket than at a small grocery, since small producers will constantly sell low quality meat that may pose a serious health hazard.

You are obviously not familiar with the buying tactics of large supermarkets are you? It's detailed in the OP for you. In short - find a supplier, buy in massive bulk, make them dependent on you as a buyer, then demand much lower prices. The supplier has to either do so, or go out of business, or put their business in jeopardy hunting for buyers to replace the majority of the income that you, as a bulk buying supermarket, represent. This is something that your 'mom and pop shops' and others that stay out of such supermarket relations do not have to experience.

Also, it is plainly apparent that there are geographical and cultural differences at play here. Much of what we see in the UK doesn't happen in Brazil, or America, and vice versa. I am describing what happens in the UK and those entities connected to Madcow disease (aka BSE) were all connected to supplying supermarkets. It wasn't the mom and pops who were feeding their cattle super cheap human and animal remains.

If the people want to buy their products, and if the old owners want to sell their terrains to those supermarkets, than it's all about choice. Communities change, get over it.

For the umpteenth time, please move beyond these simplistic, idyllic understandings of how choice works in what is ultimately an imperfect market. You are capable of much more. As for the purchase of terrain, I've even elaborated and provided links to studies showing how planning permission processes are bypassed or distorted by supermarket lobby groups.

Maybe you think that when a mosque is built in London it is "distorting" the traditional english community? Hum?

Sorry but what has this to do with anything here? Do I need to remind you that Muslim and Christian places of worship are not in competition with each other?

Socialists, much like fascists, are just a bunch of reactionaries.

This contributes nothing to the debate we're having here.

Because it charges more for the same?

Simplistic again, and not exactly the whole truth. It's not always cheaper at the supermarket. There are a number of posts in this thread dealing with this precise matter already. Please, go read them.

Yeah, it is a real shame that those supermarket behemoths put a gun on people's heads and forced them to stop going down to the local market.

Cheap man, really cheap. It's not a gun to the head, but the choice is indeed eroded over time. Take the long view brother. The article I linked to in response to Jericho explains this process as it happens in the UK. You would do well to read it instead of coming out with these cheap characterisations.

Here we have it again, folks, a socialist telling people what they enjoy. That's a pretentious moron.

I won't be entertaining this sort of response any longer. We aren't in the playground.

Apparently, most people don't care. So if you like democracy, if you respect the "will of the people", learn to deal with it.

You can understand that democracy is ideally founded upon genuine choice and good information on those choices right? So is what you are describing. But the ideal doesn't exist in the retail sector (nor in democracy), so we must regulate to bring it as close to the ideal as possible.

Yes, only you know what makes me happy, oh wise one! Please enlighten me! Please forgive me for beign a stupid commoner who shops at large supermarkets!

Oh, I wish I could be a sophisticated wine-drinking socialist like you who shops at the local market! I'm so envious!

Let's hear Rambuchan and the rest of the CFC intelligentzia, folks! They know what makes us happy!

Now you're just being a dick.

 

[The Yankee]

I agree with this statement. It is total-free-unregulated-market v. abolishing-corporations-and-Wall St. most of the time. I see this with politics as well.

Well, if you give even a single inch, then the other side wins and the Apocalypse begins!

Amish has a good selection of products but the prices are out of this world; they're like 50% higher than Whole Foods's.

Ouch, just ouch. Though if Whole Foods does have that selection of sweets, it may be worth a visit next time I'm by Union Square. Still, none of those places are near me and I'm usually trying to buy the cheapest items possible. But that's my situation and I wouldn't get in the way of someone that wants to pay through their nose at another place.

 

[luiz]

You are. And the mantra is "you are free to not shop there", which we hear time and time again. If you had paid attention to the message of my first post and, more importantly, the little newsflash that followed it, then you would understand both how regulation is needed to preserve this choice and how disingenuous your mantra is dear fellow. If there's something wrong with my description of corporate expansion via take overs leading to reduced choice if not regulated, then please correct me. As an ardent supporter of these corporations you seem to lack some pretty basic understanding of their acquisitive nature and activities. I thought you would have known about this stuff.

And who said Walmart (or Microsoft, Exxon, the list goes one) does not follow regulations (too much one could say) and the law?

I do know that Walmart managed to offer low prices for a variety of goods, which in turn made it very appealing to alot of people and above all those of limited income, and they chose to take their business there. I really don't see anything wrong with it.

You can do better than this flimsy characterisation luiz. And you can always go back and read the reasons I gave, rather than bypassing them and saying there are none when it's plain for anyone else to read them and see that you're just ranting and aping the worst that CFC OT has to offer.

You were the one who plainly stated that those who disagreed with you (who you named) were doing nothing but "repeating old mantras". That's a flimsy characterization, and a fair reply is that there is no older mantra than bashing large corporations. And while that may not be really the oldest one, it sure as hell is old.

You are obviously not familiar with the buying tactics of large supermarkets are you? It's detailed in the OP for you. In short - find a supplier, buy in massive bulk, make them dependent on you as a buyer, then demand much lower prices. The supplier has to either do so, or go out of business, or put their business in jeopardy hunting for buyers to replace the majority of the income that you, as a bulk buying supermarket, represent. This is something that your 'mom and pop shops' and others that stay out of such supermarket relations do not have to experience.

And you think that are the practices of only large supermarkets? Have you ever thought about how steel companies do business? Everybody wants to have the upper hand with the supplier, that is business 101 for you.

If the supplier is smart he will keep a diverse base and use wisely the huge ammount of money that Walmart's massive bulks of orders.

Plus, it's not as if most companies who provide Walmart are complaining. Most are in excellent shape thanks to them.

Also, it is plainly apparent that there are geographical and cultural differences at play here. Much of what we see in the UK doesn't happen in Brazil, or America, and vice versa. I am describing what happens in the UK and those entities connected to Madcow disease (aka BSE) were all connected to supplying supermarkets. It wasn't the mom and pops who were feeding their cattle super cheap human and animal remains.

And it wasn't Walmart either, since it wasn't even in the UK when the disease first appeared.

Some people will abuse the system if they feel they can get away with it, regardless of who the buyer is. Ideally, the retailers, consumers and curts should be able to deal with it, but since that's probably not a very efficient solution some government fiscalization is welcome (see, I'm not a radical).

For the umpteenth time, please move beyond these simplistic, idyllic understandings of how choice works in what is ultimately an imperfect market. You are capable of much more. As for the purchase of terrain, I've even elaborated and provided links to studies showing how planning permission processes are bypassed or distorted by supermarket lobby groups.

I don't even agree with bureaucracy involved in just authorizing a damn building, so your links mean nothing to me.

You say my vision is simplistic yet you don't go further.
Doesn't the previous owner of the terrain have the right to sell it to whoever he pleases?
Don't shoppers have the right to shop wherever they please?

Sorry but what has this to do with anything here? Do I need to remind you that Muslim and Christian places of worship are not in competition with each other?

A mosque does not fit the "traditional english community". If you believe that is a value worth protecting, you should oppose things that don't fit and indeed change it's nature.

Simplistic again, and not exactly the whole truth. It's not always cheaper at the supermarket. There are a number of posts in this thread dealing with this precise matter already. Please, go read them.

Cool, and I bet the consumers know that and will shop there. And so it won't go out of business and thus the whole complaint is pointless. And indees you are right, Walmart is not the best at everything and that's why there is plenty of competition left. Great, isn't it?

Cheap man, really cheap. It's not a gun to the head, but the choice is indeed eroded over time. Take the long view brother. The article I linked to in response to Jericho explains this process as it happens in the UK. You would do well to read it instead of coming out with these cheap characterisations.

If the process "erodes" it is only because the consumers have systematically chosen, over along period of time, to take their business to the large supermarkets.

Really, I don't see the problem.

I won't be entertaining this sort of response any longer. We aren't in the playground.

Well before you take the high road you might consider checking your first post to which I replied.

You can understand that democracy is ideally founded upon genuine choice and good information on those choices right? So is what you are describing. But the ideal doesn't exist in the retail sector (nor in democracy), so we must regulate to bring it as close to the ideal as possible.

We already regulate (excessively I'd say).

I think people are not (that) dumb and generally know what is bet for them. If they feel that a supermarket is a good place to shop I don't think it is the job of a regulating body composed of a handful of guys to tell them they're wrong.

Your argument is centered around the notion that the people are so stupid that they don't know what is best for them. If this is true, I don't want a democracy!

Now you're just being a dick.

As opposed to the well-thought, unprovokative phrase to which I was replying?

To close my argument, I'd like to point out that it is proven that Walmart and the likes increased the purchasing power of the poorer segments of society (and this is fairly self-evident). This is what matters.

At the end of day, maybe "traditional" business have been killed off. Maybe the face of the city changed. But people are able to get more for their money, quality of life objectively improved.

 

[Phlegmak]

Well, if you give even a single inch, then the other side wins and the Apocalypse begins!



Ouch, just ouch. Though if Whole Foods does have that selection of sweets, it may be worth a visit next time I'm by Union Square. Still, none of those places are near me and I'm usually trying to buy the cheapest items possible. But that's my situation and I wouldn't get in the way of someone that wants to pay through their nose at another place.

Last time I was in Manhattan, I saw a place near Union Square called "Wholesome Foods". I hope that's not what you're thinking. I haven't been in Wholesome Foods so I don't know what it is. The Whole Foods I go to is in Red Bank, here:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=...92999&spn=0.056221,0.105743&z=13&iwloc=A&om=1

EDIT: Nevermind. The place I saw isn't at Union Square. In fact, I wasn't near there last time in Manhattan.

In my opinion, it seems like 20% to 25% of the items in the Red Bank Whole Foods are sweets.

 

[DBear]

Maybe the fact that they like to install stores in locations irrespective of what the local community want.

Yeah, that explains why you can't go 5 miles in Vermont without seeing a Wal-mart

 

[skadistic]

Just some perspective. Here is a short list of competition in my area that consumers can chose the shop at instead of Wal*mart.

BJ's
Target
C-mart
Kmart
Sears
Kohl's
Boskov
Best Buy
Circuit City
Toy-r-us
Giant
Safeway
Shoppers Food warehouse
Food Lion
Weis
Rite-aid
Walgreens

And the list goes on and on.

 

[Whomp]

Moderator Action: Luiz and Rambuchan--Just because you ask to be flamed doesn't allow you to flame. Just relax, take a breath and let the veins in your foreheads recede.

 

[The Yankee]

Just some perspective. Here is a short list of competition in my area that consumers can chose the shop at instead of Wal*mart.

BJ's
Target
C-mart
Kmart
Sears
Kohl's
Boskov
Best Buy
Circuit City
Toy-r-us
Giant
Safeway
Shoppers Food warehouse
Food Lion
Weis
Rite-aid
Walgreens

And the list goes on and on.

But they're all big evil corporations!

Though I'll bet you have a fair share of smaller stores or specialty stores.

In my opinion, it seems like 20% to 25% of the items in the Red Bank Whole Foods are sweets.

I'd never find my way to that branch without a car. But, given the nature of the area around the Union Square store, I'd say chances are good that they'd have a similar ratio.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Well, for once I can see my viewpoints well represented - thanks a lot messieurs Ram and Princep. But just a few remarks, mostly off-topic.

At least we agree on guns.

Do one for the Democrats and see how that turns out.

Sorry, but I am not Barry Deutsch and I don't care a fig about American partisan politics. As far as I am concerned, USA is in effect a one party state.
The point with the cartoon I think, is to show the preferances of mock-libertarians, and presumably that the Republicans love Big Business even more than the Big Business loving Democrats.

I'm an economist.

Don't worry about that, I will try to keep it simple for you.

And at Luceafaral, you have to have property rights for a functioning capitalist economy.

Oh dear, it looks like you forgot one word, so I fixed it for you. But please don't make that a habit. If you were one of my students, you would have left me with no choice but to flunk you, all the more for this:

"Problem of the Commons" Hello?

Sigh again.
My dear chap, that is a controversial topic, not a natural law. I suppose you can intimidate certain individuals with that sort of catch phrases, but I am neither one of your resident teenage groupies nor some scared "liberal".
That said, the term "functioning" is interesting in this context. What does it mean? For what purpose? For whom? I think quite a lot of the people in this world would be reluctant to say that the current hegemonic economic system is "functioning".
I could very well present argumentation against this, but there are straying off-topic and then it is straying off-topic.This would indeed be the last mentioned.
But it illustrates what I see as a problem with economists.
As I see it, economists are in about the same position as theologists were in pre-Enlightenment times. With that I mean that they, being intellectuals who based their ideas on partly unreality, serve as powerful ideologists for the power elite and preservation of status quo. However, since both professions also deal with reality and topics important for everybody, sometimes the heretics within their group will produce important and progressive ideas.
Speaking especially about economists, many of them seem to be enamoured with rationalist philosophy. The beauty about that is that you can build all those lovely castles in the air and you don't have to worry to much about the dirty realities most of us are forced to live with.And then you can just "rationalize structures", "modernize" and make things more "efficient" nonregarding the human costs, which are quite distraous to use an understatement.
But I must really wonder how a truly excellent philosopher, Adam Smith, would have reacted if he had seen what has been said and done in his name. I don't think he would have been amused.
And I happen to be a historian. One of my fields are the Thirty Year's War.That is a pretty scary topic. However, I am less afraid of the whole marauding army of Wallenstein than I am of a couple of Chicago boys roaming freely with their Washington consensus.

I'm so sick of both sides accusing the other of being rich as if that constitutes a grand refutation.

Kai sy, teknon??
I mean, a few of the other posters in this thread are just running true to form, and I have been a member on this board long enough to know that I should always be prepared for the worst from the little stormtroopers of the divine capital. But Fifty, I don't expect you to plunge down to their level.
First of all, I never "accused" anybody of being rich. I never considered being rich as an inherent crime. I thought you, being familiar with both my posts and with practical philosophy were aware of this.

socialist: "OMG YOU MUST BE A TRUST FUND BABY CHILD OF PRIVILEGE WHO HAS NEVER EXPERIENCED THE CRUSHING WEIGHT OF CORPORATE AMERICA ON THE SMALL TOWNZ"

I am sorry to see this, because it is a case of intellectual dishonesty. If you want to use any terms of mine feel free, but please do not misrepresent them.
- I never said people shouldn't shop in supermarkets. In fact I do most of my shopping there myself. As a matter of fact i am quite sceptical to "fair trade", "conscious shopping" and all that jazz. I think that other methods are required to change the miserable conditions of today's world.
- What I am saying however, is that political ideologies to a large extent is based on your social and economic status (And yes Virginia, there is such a thing as a class society).
Why do you think your own country's guilded elite poured money on your current president and his democrat rival rather than on Ralph Nader or any socialist? Why do you think my country's guilded elite pours money over the Conservatives and not my Reds? Why do you think Hitler was supported by Big Business? Why do you think most millionaires support "the free market"? Do you want me to go on?
Politics is not a game.
Politics is not a seminary.
Politics is a struggle. For power. For scarce commodities.Most of the privileged are smart enough to figure that out. So is most of the rabble. The last mentioned group has fewer ressources available though, and as a consequence will have more difficulties to find and support their true representatives.But that might change.

capitalist: "OMG YOU LIMOUSINE LIBERAL! GET OUT OF YOUR IVORY TOWER! WE CANT ALL PAY 20X MORE TO SHOP AT A STORE WERE THE BAGGERS MAKE $250,000 A YEAR!"

Of course I am not unbiased (nobody is ever), but I find this to be a slightly more fair representation of their viewpoints, at least with less copypasting...
Actually I find it ironic that a spoiled youngster ( Or more correctly, presumably spoiled. But if my memory doesn't serve me wrong this time also, I think he himself once stated that he belonged to the top 10% wealthy in Brazil. If this is proven untrue, this part will be edited accordingly, of course.) from one of the world's most unequal societies accuses people with egalitarian ideologies for being elitists.
On a personal level I find it bizarre, being born into poverty and having lived most of my life on a shoestring budget (And please everybody do me a favour and don't come with the idiotic argument that I would be rich in Sudan. I have to pay my bills and my rent in Norway. I am fully aware that I am globally privileged. But poverty is relative), even spent some time on the street due to unfortunate circumstances. But yes, I do enjoy an occasional Syrah (Champagne only on New Years' eve and my wedding anniversary though). So I guess that disqualifies me from any further political activities then ...

It's amazing the degree to which posters, even ones that I've come to intellectually respect, resort to such idiocy whenever the discussion turns to issues of political ideology.

So please go ahead and enlighten me.
How to you propose that I should argue to display unidiocy?
I answered the question of the OP. I also, for the umpteenth time, had to correct some misconception concerning a couple of political ideologies. I provided reading material to fill many a long winter evening to show why I am opposed to corporations and why I regard them as dangerous. What more do you expect from me? That I set music to it?
I suppose I should really open that socialist thread after all.

Socialists, much like fascists, are just a bunch of reactionaries.

If this wasn't the obvious winner of this years' Pot and Kettle award, I would have been insulted.
Fascism is in effect capitalism without the velvet glove.
My advice for you is to take a long, good lingering look in the mirror, have a crash course in labour history (and presumably not from mises.org or ohgeeunfetteredcapitalismissosmashing.com) and then come back and tell me who wants to turn the wheels of history back.

Oh, I wish I could be a sophisticated wine-drinking socialist like you who shops at the local market! I'm so envious!

You are still young. Incredibly young ,so please don't give up the hope; it can easily happen to you one day.After all, everything is possible in the wonderful world of capitalism, isn't it?

Let's hear Rambuchan and the rest of the CFC intelligentzia, folks! They know what makes us happy!

I am glad you finally figured that out!

 

[Fifty]

.
Speaking especially about economists, many of them seem to be enamoured with rationalist philosophy.

The more philosophy I read the less I like economics, but I'm not sure if modern economics can really be seen as having its issues based in classic rationalist philosophy. While the reliance on theorem-proof, high-on-mathematical-formalism-and-low-on-content approaches is certainly a part of the problem, IMO the biggest issue with economics is the conflict between that ol' ceteris paribus clause and some necessary conditions for a discipline to be scientifically respectable.

capital. But Fifty, I don't expect you to plunge down to their level.

Down to their level? Now that is unfair! I'm no socialist, but I'm no capitalist fanboy either. As you know, I find Rand to be completely bankrupt of good ideas, and standard libertarian (in the American sense) rhetoric to be rather silly. In terms of economics I bet I'm every bit as critical of it as you or anybody else, since my somewhat extensive readings in the philosophy of economics over the past few months has made me extremely suspicious of its methodology.

I am sorry to see this, because it is a case of intellectual dishonesty. If you want to use any terms of mine feel free, but please do not misrepresent them.

I wasn't attempting to represent your views. Note the all caps and annoying childish speech. I was hyperbolizing a characterization of what people on both sides do, namely committing an odd hybrid of tu quoque and guilt-by-association fallacies. While possessing a viewpoint that is also held by a large portion of some group laden with self-interested biases might be tangentially relevant, it certainly doesn't make that viewpoint wrong. I guess my point is that in a venue such as this, where we're just discussing the issue with nothing particularly huge at stake, it would be better to focus on distinct empirical claims rather than guilt-by-association. It may make sense to be suspicious of an ideology touted by people with obvious special-interests, but this ought to be a venue where we put such suspicions aside and attempt to discuss the issue independent of its association with some group.

So please go ahead and enlighten me.
How to you propose that I should argue to display unidiocy?

Don't stoop to their level. That their views may be representative of the mantras of the wealthy elite does not alter their legitimacy. It is certainly cause to be suspicious, and perhaps a good reason to make the default position be anti-corporate, but in a venue like this I think everyone would be more well-served by nuanced discussion of the relevant issues.

I answered the question of the OP. I also, for the umpteenth time, had to correct some misconception concerning a couple of political ideologies. I provided reading material to fill many a long winter evening to show why I am opposed to corporations and why I regard them as dangerous. What more do you expect from me? That I set music to it?
I suppose I should really open that socialist thread after all.

No, I think you did just fine (not that you need my approval). I think you're overestimating the degree to which my post was directed at you. It was just a general reply to what I see as continued use of Tu quoque and guilt-by-association fallacies in these sorts of discussion.

 

[Narz]

it would be better to focus on distinct empirical claims rather than guilt-by-association.

This would be good advice to follow yourself Fiftyson. Not referring specifically to this thread but in general.

 

[Fifty]

This would be good advice to follow yourself Fiftyson. Not referring specifically to this thread but in general.

As I said, being suspicious of people via their association with certain viewpoints is certainly founded, I just don't think it's founded in the venue I was discussing. I don think its founded when it comes to my spammy non-serious meanderings on raw forums and the like.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Well, this is indeed the Fifty I know and respect.

The more philosophy I read the less I like economics, but I'm not sure if modern economics can really be seen as having its issues based in classic rationalist philosophy. While the reliance on theorem-proof, high-on-mathematical-formalism-and-low-on-content approaches is certainly a part of the problem, IMO the biggest issue with economics is the conflict between that ol' ceteris paribus clause and some necessary conditions for a discipline to be scientifically respectable.

You make an interesting point here, and from apurely theoretical point of view I agree. However, being more orientated about the practical consequences in appointing economists as mandarins, I am even more concerned about what I mentioned.
And yes I have read your recent posts on the ask a Pope, sorry Economist thread. They are very good.

Down to their level? Now that is unfair! I'm no socialist, but I'm no capitalist fanboy either. As you know, I find Rand to be completely bankrupt of good ideas, and standard libertarian (in the American sense) rhetoric to be rather silly. In terms of economics I bet I'm every bit as critical of it as you or anybody else, since my somewhat extensive readings in the philosophy of economics over the past few months has made me extremely suspicious of its methodology.

I agree that I am a tad unfair, for which I most sincerely apologize, but what I was addressing was not the content but rather the rhetorical form. I was, am and will never be what your excellent president Jefferson called an aristocrat and I will never look down on people who shop in supermarkets.
But being quite seasoned in politics in real life, I just simply can't stand having my words twisted.

I wasn't attempting to represent your views. Note the all caps and annoying childish speech.

I have noticed. RL-issues aside, that is a reason why my post count is standing virtually on the spot.

I was hyperbolizing a characterization of what people on both sides do, namely committing an odd hybrid of tu quoque and guilt-by-association fallacies. While possessing a viewpoint that is also held by a large portion of some group laden with self-interested biases might be tangentially relevant, it certainly doesn't make that viewpoint wrong.

What you say is true, but. Big but.
In politics, there are rarely "right" and "wrong" in the abstract sense. It is "right" and "wrong" according to certain set goals. It is right and wrong concerning who has to carry the expenses for said goals, because it will always be expenses. And there will always be gains as well.
Because of this, I consider politics to be a battlefield. And one of the main tasks for any combattant then is to know the enemy. To expose his/hers motives. To struggle for the hegemony of language, that is to try to win the power of definition.
A bit off-topic, I can't possibly do this here. Most debates here are elite discourses. To simplify, and I admit that I am being a bit too simple here, either you have "conservatives" against "liberals" or you have "Americans" against "Europeans". Most of the time almost every poster resides cosily in what some sociologists call "the doxic chamber".
Consequently, if I ever should engage in such a debate, I just have to reconcile myself to the fact that I can't win it, preach for the converted and hope that I have inspired a few of those who haven't chosen side yet.
And yes, in the struggle Plato vs the sophists, I am firmly with the sophists.

I guess my point is that in a venue such as this, where we're just discussing the issue with nothing particularly huge at stake, it would be better to focus on distinct empirical claims rather than guilt-by-association.

That is probably true.
On the other hand, and besides what I brought up above, that such a debate would force me to only play away matches, I am also growing a bit weary of overgrown teenagers insulting whatever I stand for in boorish ways. I only have that much patience.
Also, keep in mind that empirical facts are not valued highly among certain individuals. They have already made up their mind and are not to be disturbed by facts (See the healthcare debates, for instance, which was just too mind-numbing to participate in).

It may make sense to be suspicious of an ideology touted by people with obvious special-interests, but this ought to be a venue where we put such suspicions aside and attempt to discuss the issue independent of its association with some group.

It ought to be. But for a number of reasons which I might get back to later, I think that that is practically impossible, unfortunately.

Don't stoop to their level. That their views may be representative of the mantras of the wealthy elite does not alter their legitimacy. It is certainly cause to be suspicious, and perhaps a good reason to make the default position be anti-corporate, but in a venue like this I think everyone would be more well-served by nuanced discussion of the relevant issues.

Again, that is an ideal situation. However I can't see how it is feasible in practice. And quite onestly, there are certain points of view, if said by people who are aware of their consequences, which I simply can't respect. After all, and perhapscontrary to what some believe, I am only a human being.

No, I think you did just fine (not that you need my approval). I think you're overestimating the degree to which my post was directed at you. It was just a general reply to what I see as continued use of Tu quoque and guilt-by-association fallacies in these sorts of discussion.

I see what you mean and I mostly agree.
In any case I am glad we sorted this out. Keep up the good work, you are a most valuable asset to this board.
PS: My apologies for yet another messy post. I am a bit in a hurry now and will probably have some editing to do later.