Since Grizz has branched out on to other forums, spreading the religion of "Wal-Mart Is Evil", I thought I would bring up this little exchange on ItsAllPolitics.com.

On this post, Grizz posts a link, showing the evil of Wal-Mart, by showing that it is undercutting the maker of premium pickles, Vlasic, and is trying to destroy them by cutting prices.

The article he mentions, The Wal-Mart You don't know, actually wishes to show that the Evil One is creating more disgusting practices by selling Vlasic pickles at such a reduced price, that they are hurting Vlasic. Here is a part of the article.



Now let's look at this for a minute. If Wal-Mart is selling the Vlasic pickles at the point where it is making $.01/gal, then it is due to it's efficiency and good business practices that allow it to make a profit, AND at the same time offer goods to those who are least able to afford things at a higher price. Right? Is Vlasic making less money, in actual terms, if they sell to Wal-Mart, or if they sell to Kroger? The mark up is the same. It is just that Kroger does not doo such a great job of being as productive as Wal-Mart. So where is Wal-Mart being unethical?

And if you go through the lengthy article, there is more here than just a rant about Wal-Mart. Granted, Wal-Mart is the central villian, but the REAL bad guys are things such as "outsourcing", "Loss of Overseas Jobs", "Unfair Competition", "Unfair Productivity", and worst of all things, the Evil "Free Trade", which is absolutely destroying the way of life of the average American, right? After all, these people are all for the "Little Guy", or so they say. But is they really are for the "little guy", they why are they so He!! bent on making the "little guy" fork over more or their less than prodigious wallet to support those who are not competing in the world market?

The point is simply this. What we have here is a combination of Special Interests, such as the Anti-Free-Trade groups, Socialists, Trade Unions, and others of like bent, who are trying to protect their own 'feather bed' that they have been wallering on for so long. And who is coordinating the efforts of these groups? Which major entity has all these groups contributing to them on a regular basis?

The Democrats, that's who! That is right, this is a concerted effort by the Democratic Party, that constantly proclaims itself the champion of the poor and downtrodden. Yet when the rubber meets the road, who do they REALLY favour? If you say, the ones with the most money, YOU WIN!!!

Screw the Little Guy. He's poor, and does not have the money to grease the wheels of the Jackasses. The only thing that the "little guy" is good for is to use as a "Front" to hide the others lurking in the rear.

So much for economic knowledge Grizzly. I can see that you are not learning a single thing about economics here, or anywhere for that matter. Congratulations!

Oh, one other thing. I am going to go to Wal-Mart tomorrow and check out these gallon pickles. I suspect that there is also something that is "conveniently" not being mentioned in this totally unbiased piece. and that is the "Vlasic" name here.

Wal-Mart usually sells items in bulk and labels them under the Wal-Mart name. this means that they contract with other companies to make their products, which are the same as the brand name, yet under the Wal-Mart name. This is how they conduct their business, just as other companies do also.

I suspect that the name on the Gallon jar will not be Vlasic. I can't promise this, but I would be willling to bet that.

In other words, by making this seem to be a head to head with the Vlasic name, the article is lying to us by omiting the truth form their point.

I will know tomorrow.

Hey Grizz, what do you think about that?

Here is what George Will, that bland Right Winger, who has never been accused of being dishonest, has to say: only bland and as exciting as grass growing.

However, he is correct, if anything else. And what is happening is a monumental attempt at a Left Wing Cluster "Foxtrot".

AND BELIEVE ME, IT IS,

SHAMELESS

By GEORGE F. WILL

IN 1786 the Annapolis Convention, requested by Virginia and attended by only four other states, called for a second gathering to revise the Articles of Confederation in order to strengthen the federal government. Some revision: The second meeting became the Constitutional Convention. It scrapped the Articles, partly because the Founders were alarmed by states legislating relief of debtors at the expense of creditors, often in ways not easily distinguished from theft.

Something not easily distinguished from theft recently occurred in Annapolis. In legislation ostensibly concerned with any company with 10,000 employees but pertaining only to one, Maryland has said Wal-Mart must spend 8 percent of its payroll on health care, or must give the difference to the state.

The Constitution's foremost framer, James Madison, understood the perils of democracy at the state rather than the national level of an "extensive republic": State legislatures have fewer factions competing for favors than compete for Congress' favors. States, being smaller than the nation, have legislatures more easily captured by overbearing majorities. Madison would have understood what Maryland has done.

Organized labor, having mightily tried and miserably failed to unionize even one of Wal-Mart's 3,250 American stores, has turned to organizing state legislators. Maryland was a natural place to begin because it has lopsided Democratic majorities in both houses of its legislature.

Labor's allies include the "progressives" who have made Wal-Mart the left's devil du jour. Wal-Mart's supposed sin is this: One way it holds down prices (when it enters a market, retail prices decline 5 percent to 8 percent; nationally, it saves consumers $16 billion annually) is by not being a welfare state. That is, by not offering higher wages and benefits than the labor market requires.

Labor's other allies are Wal-Mart's unionized competitors, such as, in Maryland, Giant Food, a grocery chain. These allies are engaging in what economists call rent-seeking — using government to impose disadvantages on competitors with whom they are competing and losing.

Wal-Mart's enemies say Maryland is justified in expropriating some of the company's revenues because the company's pay and medical benefits are insufficient to prevent some employees from being eligible for Medicaid. Well.

Eighty-six percent of Wal-Mart employees have health insurance, more than half through the company, which offers 18 plans, one with $11 monthly premiums and another with $3 co-payments. Wal-Mart employees are only slightly more likely to collect Medicaid than the average among the nation's large retailers, who hire many entry-level and part-time workers. In the last 12 months, Wal-Mart, the largest private employer in the nation and in 25 states, estimates it has paid its 1.3 million employees $4.7 billion in benefits. That sum is almost half as large as the company's profits, which last fiscal year were $10.3 billion — just 3.6 percent — on revenues of $285 billion. Wal-Mart earns just $6,000 per employee, one-third below the national average. Anyway, Wal-Mart's pay and benefits are sufficient to attract hordes of job applicants whenever it opens a new American store, which it does once every three days.

Maryland's new law is, The Washington Post says, "a legislative mugging masquerading as an act of benevolent social engineering." And the mugging of profitable businesses may be just beginning. The threshold of 10,000 employees can be lowered by knocking off a zero. Then two. The 8 percent requirement can be raised. It might be raised in Maryland, if, as is possible, Wal-Mart's current policies almost reach it.

This is part of the tawdry drama of state politics as governments grasp for novel sources of money. Forty-eight states are to varying degrees dependent on revenues from gambling; 46 states are addicted to their cut, to be paid out over decades, from the $246 billion coerced from the tobacco industry by using the specious argument that smoking costs their governments huge sums. As a result, 46 states have a stake in the long-term profitability of tobacco companies.

Maryland's grasping for Wal-Mart's revenues opens a new chapter in the degeneracy of state governments that are eager to spend more money than they have the nerve to collect straightforwardly in taxes. Fortunately, as labor unions and allied rent-seekers in 30 or so other states contemplate mimicking Maryland, Wal-Mart can contemplate an advantage of federalism.

States engage in "entrepreneurial federalism," competing to be especially attractive to businesses. A Wal-Mart distribution center, creating at least 800 jobs, that has been planned for Maryland could be located instead in more hospitable Delaware.

Meanwhile, people who are disgusted — and properly so — about corruption inside Washington's Beltway should ask themselves this: Is it really worse than the kind of rent-seeking, and theft tarted up as compassion, just witnessed 20 miles east of the Beltway, in Annapolis?

The logical solution is really quite simple. Wal-Mart should simply set up shop along the Virginia , Deleware, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania borders. Since Maryland is such a long and thin state, they will be close enough to gather customers from maryland. Then the Maryland shoppers will contribute to the tax base of the other states, and not Maryland. And since the 10,000 employee limit is in force, then within the easter portion of the state, where it is larger, simply locate the remaining stores there. That way the company remains under the limit that is expressly targeted at Wa-Mart.

And too, there is more than one way to stick the shaft into the Maryland, and not even have to worry about greasing the it. First take maryland to court. Under the Equal Protection Clause, Wal-Mart has a valid case against maryland for being singled out explicitly. My guess it that Wal-Mart would win, collect damages, AND hinder Maryland from collecting revenues that would go to the surrounding states.

I really love this approach. It gives the maryland power base feces all over their faces, does not hurt business, and sticks a big poker up their collectve Arses. How wonderful "Pay Back" can be.

And don't make any mistake, Wal-Mart will eventually win this fight, because they have done nothing wrong, other than irritate the Collectivist, Statist Left. But then again, almost ALL of the left have been recently having their "Bottoms" filled with what only TQ could even dream of getting on a regular basis.

This is really quite simple, John. The loss that they take on the Vlassic can be made up by increasing the prices on something else! They are creating the illusion of being a store where they are helping out the average consumer. I suspect that they are trying to squeeze out all the competition, such as Target, Kmart, and others, to be the only one standing. If that ever happens, watch their marketing strategy then!

If Walmart wishes to do that - fine and dandy! My guess? They will stay right in that state and continue to sell like they normally do.

Yes! I know it, John. It seems that you have been way a head of me with your postings too, at other sites! If in doubt check it out!
Go here here here here. All you need to do is peruse that site to see how many branches that you have on your tree compared to mine, John.


Oh. And by the way - I think that they should read this post too! Don't you think?

I am eagely awaiting your move from the "general" here, to the "specific". Do you have examples to back up this dastardly activity? And even if true, where is this dastardly?



Again, I am eagerly awaiting your specific examples here. Oh, and try to make it something that is not the usual "boiler plate" of the trade unions, ok?



Again, I reiterate that you are an economic novice( I will refrain from an accurate description here). That is what ALL businesses attempt. That is what competiton is all about. Dominance is the name of the game, and Wa-Mart is the master, with the others trailing.

BTW, I don't hear you carrying on about Intel doing the same with AMD, and they are the only two in the business of making CPUs. And where have you been lately, castigating Microsoft? I suspect you are simply being the consumate follower Grizz. The DNC commands "Jump", and you not only jump, but ask "How High"?

Sucker! How does it feel, to be not required to have an independent mind? I realize that it is easy, but does it give you a sense of self-satisfaction intellectually?

Here is the latest news about the Evil Wal-Mart in the Chicago area. Aparantly there are again far more people seeking work there than there are positions available. If they are so cheap and bad for people, then why are so many seeking jobs there?

Chicagoans flock to Wal-Mart jobs

January 26, 2006

BY LESLIE BALDACCI Staff Reporter
Advertisement

Eighteen months after the Chicago City Council torpedoed a South Side Wal-Mart, 24,500 Chicagoans applied for 325 jobs at a Wal-Mart opening Friday in south suburban Evergreen Park, one block outside the city limits.

The new Wal-Mart at 2500 W. 95th is one block west of Western Avenue, the city boundary.

Of 25,000 job applicants, all but 500 listed Chicago addresses, said John Bisio, regional manager of public affairs for Wal-Mart.

"In our typical hiring process, you're pretty successful if you have 3,000 applicants," he said. "They were really crowing about 11,000 in Oakland, Calif., last year. So to get 25,000-plus applications and counting, I think is astonishing."

Assistant manager Rachael Fierro, who was still interviewing prospects Wednesday, said "we saw a little bit of everything -- people who hadn't worked for a long time, people who saw an opportunity to do something with themselves. That's the information I got from applicants."

The 141,000-square-foot store has 36 departments, a "tire and lube express," vision center, Subway restaurant, pharmacy, garden center and drugstore. It will sell some groceries but no fresh produce or meats and no liquor. It is expected to generate $1 million in sales and property tax in the first year -- a windfall in a village that collects about $3 million a year in sales taxes, said Evergreen Park Mayor James J. Sexton. Evergreen Plaza, with 100 stores, generates about $2 million.

Anticipating the usual protests over wages, benefits and anti-union practices, the Evergreen Park store was union-built. A protest over minority set-asides was defused in one day. Wal-Mart also came bearing gifts -- Tuesday night, the corporation donated $35,000 to the village library, local hospital, churches and other village institutions, Sexton said.

Just another example of regulation getting in the way of the free market and raising the cost for everyone.

Wal-Mart can handle this in many ways:

Raising the price of its goods.
Cutting jobs.
Cutting wages.
Bypassing regulation by leaving the state or other means.

Either way it leaves the "little guy"out in the cold.

Adam Smith once said "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, brewer, or baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interests."

Regulation like this only makes it harder for the "little guy" to benefit from Wal-Mart's self interest.

What never ceases to astonish me is the number of "do-gooders", who claim to be all for helping the little person, yet constantly persist in hurting them through a total lack of reason. Maryland is the classic example here. Simply by passing that law, they have hurt several hundred possible employees who could have added to their tax base, because Wal-Mart will now relocate it's distribution center.

These people should be voted out of office. Unfortunately they won't. Go figure.

I'll look up that article that I read today. I haven't put it out here yet.

Here it is. And note how maryland is actually shooting itself in the foot here. They will be soon realizing this. Now, let's hope that the other states see the wisdom of not following suit with their own little laws that will punish the little guy and hurt their own tax base.

Would you like to bet that politicians are wise enough to know this? Don't hold your breath.

Note: the lose of that one distrubition center will result in the loss of more jobs than just direct employees. Count all the employees up and down the distribution chain and one can see what this article means. Just look at the parts in Black. These maryland people are simply carzy, and they deserve what they have done to their constituites. I hope they enjoy thier smugness AND Stupitidy.


Hard Line State: Big Labor's war on Wal-Mart claims casualties among poor Marylanders.

BY STEVE H. HANKE AND STEPHEN J.K. WALTERS
Thursday, January 26, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

BALTIMORE--In Big Labor's war against Wal-Mart, "collateral damage"--in the form of lost jobs and income for the poor--is starting to add up. Of course, since the unions and their legislative allies claim that their motive is to liberate people from exploitation by Wal-Mart, these unintended effects are often ignored.

Here in Maryland, however, that's getting hard to do. The consequences of our Legislature's override of Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich's veto of their "Fair Share Health Care Act" on Jan. 12 will be tragic for some of the state's neediest residents. The law will force companies that employ over 10,000 to spend at least 8% of their payroll on health care or kick any shortfall into a special state fund. Wal-Mart would be the only employer in the state to be affected.

Almost surely, therefore, the company will pull the plug on plans to build a distribution center that would have employed 800 in Somerset County, on Maryland's picturesque Eastern Shore. As a Wal-Mart spokesman has put it, "you have to take a step back and call into question how business-friendly is a state like Maryland when they pass a bill that . . . takes a swipe at one company that provides 15,000 jobs."

Unfortunately, in Somerset, the new law looks more like a body blow than a "swipe." The rural county is Maryland's poorest, with per capita personal income 46% below the state average and a poverty rate 130% above it. Somerset's enduring problem is weak labor demand that greatly limits its 25,250 residents' economic opportunities.

There are just 0.8 jobs per household in Somerset, barely half the 1.5 figure that applies to the rest of the state. Somerset's top 10 list of employers features sectors like food services (average annual compensation per employee: $9,637), poultry and egg production ($14,320) and seafood preparation and packaging ($19,190).

It is hard to exaggerate how much the planned distribution center might have meant to Somerset's economy. Using an input-output model, we forecast the "ripple effects" of the new income and spending that could have emanated from Wal-Mart's facility as follows:

• The center's 800 employees would have created an additional 282 jobs among "upstream" suppliers and "downstream" retailers and service establishments; all told, the center would have boosted county employment by 14% and private-sector employment by 20%.

• Total annual employee compensation in Somerset would have risen by $46.5 million, or 19%.

• Annual output (or "gross county product") would have risen by $128.3 million, or 19%.

• State and local tax receipts would have increased by $19.2 million annually; this would include $8.5 million in property taxes, $5.6 million in sales taxes, and $1.4 million in personal income taxes.

Those losses, though dramatic, probably understate the full extent of the damage in this case. They do not include forgone employment and income from construction of the facility and related infrastructure improvements. What is more, Wal-Mart's tentative plans for a second distribution center in Garrett County, in mountainous western Maryland, also appear dead. Garrett, with a poverty rate that is 70% above the state's, is only slightly better off than Somerset.



How could our legislators turn a blind eye to such areas? Partly, of course, they are simply eager for Big Labor's votes and money and therefore subservient to its interests. The Service Employees International Union actually helped draft what became known as the "Wal-Mart bill." Unable--so far--to organize workers at the company, the union's immediate national strategy is to limit Wal-Mart's competitive reach by raising its costs. Maryland was a shrewdly chosen place to kick off this campaign.

Some estimate that as much as a third of the state's economic activity stems from federal employment and purchases. Over 150,000 Marylanders--six times the population of tiny Somerset--are on the federal (nonmilitary) payroll; they are concentrated in central Maryland, near the nation's capital. Nearly 268,000 more Marylanders draw checks from state and local government.

With so many workers in a sector where revenues appear to arrive automatically and inefficiency never leads to bankruptcy, our state's resulting political culture is quite predictable. Many Marylanders are simply unmindful of the necessities of survival in the private sector: pleasing customers, controlling costs and satisfying shareholders. Thanks to the federal tax dollars collected from the rest of the country and spent in Maryland, the prevailing view of economic reality is inverted: The public sector is seen as the engine of prosperity, with the private one along for the ride.

Reflecting this culture, our legislators often behave as if business is a problem to be solved. On Jan. 17, they also overrode a gubernatorial veto of a $1-an-hour increase in the state's minimum wage. Like the health-care mandate, the hike is a job killer--though not in affluent areas of the state, where strong labor demand long ago pushed the going wage above the minimum. In those areas, the law is largely symbolic and enables well-meaning voters and legislators to conclude that they are "doing something for working families." Safely out of their view, however, at Maryland's impoverished margins, already weak labor demand will be further diminished.

What remains to be seen is whether Maryland will be a leading political indicator or an anomaly, for Wal-Mart bills have been drafted in 33 other states. Emboldened by success here, lawmakers in some states have set the threshold for companies to be hit with mandated health benefits as low as 1,000 workers.

In these upcoming battles, legislators should be mindful that companies like Wal-Mart are not the enemy but rather frontline soldiers in a real war on poverty. The profit motive leads them to seek out areas where there is much idle labor and put it to work. Where they are prevented or discouraged from doing so, the alternative job prospect is rarely a cushy spot in the bureaucracy. Rather, it is continued idleness and hardship.

Mr. Hanke, a professor of applied economics at Johns Hopkins University, served as a member of the Governor's Council of Economic Advisers in Maryland (1976-77). Mr. Walters is a professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland.

If it forces Wal-Mart to raise prices other retailers will no longer have to worry about lowering their prices. Wal-Mart workers along with every other Maryland resident will have to deal with higher prices everywhere they turn. That only hurts the family who cannot afford to pay extra for the necessities.

Bty, did you note that the article about Chicago, which is so funny, and I am just now listening to Rush talk about it is what happened there. The amount of tax that Chicago lost amounts to over $1 million dollars per year. Wal-Mart is located just one block outside Chicago. And get this. All the revenue goes to Evergreen Park, a little township that allowed Wal-Mart to locate there.



This is money that Chicago LOST, due to it's own stupidity. LOL!!! I hope they choke on their own lack of intelligence, while Wal-Mart sticks their finger in the eye of Chicago. All those Leftie Dems are so stupid that they simply can't help themselves.

What idiots. And they wonder why so many of us call them JACKASSES.



GRIZZLY, ARE YOU READING THIS?

I shop at both Wal-Mart and Mom&Pop stores in this little town.....because we need both for the economy for this town to survive. WalMart can undersell the Mom&Pops because of the volume. It just makes sense.

However, WalMart is not so saintly in this war on poverty. We recently saw a very ugly scenario when WalMart drove out another small chain store (Dunlap's) who was offering BETTER quality things for the same price as WalMart. When I could, I'd shop at Dunlaps, where I could also get Clinique products which WalMart does not carry.

Dunlaps had the misfortune of having WalMart as a landlord. WalMart raised the rent so high that Dunlaps was forced to vacate. Obviously, they were already on a thin-margin of profit, and have not re-opened. That was almost a year ago. This left a very bad taste in everyone's mouth in this town. Dunlaps was the favorite place to shop for quality products at reduced prices. So, it had to go. I foresee this as the future of a lot of America once WalMart drives out the competition. Then, what will the prices be??

That said, I'm also not in favor of the current war by Dems on Wal-Mart simply because WM is a supporter of Republicans.

Complicated subject as usual. But, I am now leery of WM and will shop there now only when I have to. I'd rather go to a larger town closeby and give my $$ there after seeing their ugly side. The poor, however, vote with their $$ because they can't go to the larger town to shop. There we are. Is WM using the backs of the poor to get a monopoly? What will happen once Sam's culture of goodness dies with him? Look at what happened to Disney once Walt was gone.

Good posting, Solo. I agree with the vast majority of what you said.

So, you agree with her that you too are "also not in favor of the current war by Dems on Wal-Mart"?

Or is that not part of the "vast majority" of what you are referring to? Enquiring minds would LOVE to know.

BTY Grizz, do you even bother to read ANY of the articles I present here? Do you?

Or are you immune to the facts of economic life, where pigs can fly, cows can jump over the moon, and Jackasses can "Hee Haw" their way back into the majority again?

THOUSANDS APPLY FOR JOBS AT NEW WAL-MART

"A year and a half after some Chicago alderman stopped Wal-Mart from opening a store on the city's South Side, 25,000 people applied for 325 job openings in the company's new store, located just one block west of the city's boundary in south suburban Evergreen Park, the Chicago Sun-Times reported"

"...guess all those people wanting to work for big, bad, terrible Wal-Mart are just confused pawns of corporate America, right? Sure."

Doesn't sound like a bad place to work then, eh?

No, the moonbat left would rather have us go back to the horse & buggy days with all those inefficient mom & pop stores. I'll take Wal Mart any day - the ones in Texas even have car lots and funeral services available. All that's left is a wedding chapel business and folks would have ultimate convience.

Greg, you are behind the "curve" my good man. Go back up to post #8, and read the post. Or better yet, read them all. They are good.

Of course the Grizz doesn't think so. But what else is new.

If Wal Mart arrived after Dunlap's I wonder what Dunlap's prices were like. I think it is very likely the prices were higher. Also I wonder how long could Dunlap's have kept its prices down. My guess is eventually they would have folded or moved.



It is very shady what Wal Mart did, I agree, because competition benefits everyone. Wal Mart is having much trouble with public relations because of this but it doesn't seem to bother citizens in Lubbock if the Wal Mart in Abilene forces Uncle Joe's tool shed out of business. I believe your Wal-Mart situation only has small local effects. It would be next to impossible for Wal Mart to completely wipe out all competition.

I am in no way an advocate for Wal-Mart. I'm against WM opening suburban, big-box stores that add a lot to traffic and sprawl problems to the urban areas of our country. I cannot argue with the economic impact though.

We live in a free market. If walmat gains some sort of monoploly and abuses their status then maybe some other people should get together and build another retailer that gives better values.

For the most part I agree with Jon on this one. Walmat is demonized just because they are the largest retailer. Back in the 20's Ford was our countries Walmart.

Sorry about that John - good lesson in reading the prior posts on the subject before posting one's own I guess...

Do you know what MO NO POLY means? It means that one person/business holds all the power. It takes government policy to break a MO NO POLY. Other businesses can't because of the MO NO POLY.

MONOPOLY: A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition - which often results in high prices and inferior products.

In the Free Enterprise system, monopolies do not exist long. There are cases where it is permitted, ie the patent system. Suppose you invent a special engine that will allow you to acheive faster than light speed. For a while you would have a monopoly on this, and you would have a comparative advantage. However, patent laws only allow this for a short while, and then the patent is open to others. This allows you to exploit your rightful advantage, since you invented it, but not to the point where you stifle competition for ever.

Under the Free Enterprise system, others are able to offer competitive businesses that either do something better, or less expensive, or even offer an alternative to one's product. That is how the market works.

Microsoft is a great example. It has over 90% of the OS market, and is accused of being predetary in nature, and monopolist. This is horse manure! It is where it is because it not only produced a product that was more efficient than the competition, but also did so more inexpensively, and efficiently, thus promoting other software companies to develop supporting programs to enhance the OS.

Granted, it plays hardball, but that is what it is supposed to do in a Free Market environment. This is Darwanism at it's finest.



That is simply not true. All the State can do is jump in and screw things up royally. The market, by it's very nature, will take care of this by allowing for competition. All the State should do is provide for basic rules of fairness and then enforce those rules to ensure that bullies do not take unfair advantage of others. That is all.

People who do not believe this do not believe in the power of the market to be self correcting. Too bad for everyone.



Of course it is the absence of competition. But surely you don't think that it is more than just a spot in time? As I stated earlier, monopolies cannot last for long, because of their very nature. And you answer the reason why they don't. With the absence of competition, they tend to charge too much, and have no incentive to produce superior products.

Now, should they realize this and keep prices down, AND produce superior products, then they could, in theory, remain the sole monopoly, but then they would be doing what was necessary to maintain customer satisfaction, right?

I recall the beer industry headed in that direction during the 70s and 80s. But a funny thing happened. The poor quality of the big brewerys led to a new generation of microbreweries dedicated solely to quality beers. Now, they are all over the place, and potentially any pub can have it's own brewery. This is Free Enterprise taken to it's best result.

One of my favorite beers is Samuel Adam's Boston Lager, which is one of the best lagers in the world. It is not quite an Austrian style beer, but tastes just like Negra Medalo, which is. Since I am partial to true Czech Pilsners and Austrian beers, I love both. Therefore, Anheiser Bush and Miller Brewing have no monopoly on me.

(I can see we are going to squaring off at each other again after the latest turmoil surrounding you know who. I can always tell when you are in a tiff with me. You come out swinging.)

Tis true, John. I'm referring to the Sherman Antitrust Act, which was created to break up monopolies. I'm not discussing whether or not you or I approve of government intervention here, or even whether or not government does a good job. I'm stating it took and takes government intervention to break up monopolies because the market alone cannot do it, or else monopolies would not exist in the first place. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/A...st:_an_overview

antitrust: an overview

Trusts and monopolies are concentrations of wealth in the hands of a few. Such conglomerations of economic resources are thought to be injurious to the public and individuals because such trusts minimize, if not obliterate normal marketplace competition, and yield undesirable price controls. These, in turn, cause markets to stagnate and sap individual initiative.

To prevent trusts from creating restraints on trade or commerce and reducing competition, Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890. The Sherman Act was designed to maintain economic liberty, and to eliminate restraints on trade and competition. The Sherman Act is the main source of Antitrust law.

The Sherman Act is a Federal statute and as such has a scope limited by Constitutional constraints on the Federal government. The commerce clause, however, allows for a very wide interpretation and application of this act. The Act applies to all transactions and business involved in interstate commerce. If the activities are local, the act applies to transactions affecting interstate commerce. The latter phrase has been interpretted to allow broad application of the Sherman Act.

Most if not all states have comparable statutes prohibiting monopolistic conduct, price fixing agreements, and other acts in restraint of trade having strictly local impact. See, for example, the Massachusetts Antitrust Act.

You will have to agree that Microsoft has had to face this issue in 2000 when suit was filed against them to break them up. And, didn't Ma Bell have to do the same thing?

John L all the way!

I can see your comment is based upon research and not emotional in the least. John, you have a new worshipper.

First off, AT&T was for years a government Encouraged monopoly that existed via the good graces of the State. Through contributions and gifts, it influenced enough Congressmen to enable itself to maintain that monopoly in most places in the country, and also because they had the most extensive wire network available.

Had the Government not followed it's policies here, there would undoubtly have been more competition within the telecommunications industry earlier. And when AT&T was finally forced to divest, it really did not matter, as companies such as Sprint had already laid down enough fibre optics cable to offer another competitor system, and the wireless market was ready to take off. I contend that had the State not sheltered AT&T as it did, the increase of communication systems would have been a fact of life earlier than it did.

The Sherman Anti-Trust Act was a result of the Progressive Movement, which was not business friendly, and all you have to do is look at the "so called" liberals today to see what they are made of. That is why I strongly encourage ALL of them to switch their names over to "Progressive", and leave we True Liberals with what dignity and honesty we can return to this honoured name.

And as for Microsoft and the 1996 assault on it via the Reno Justice Department, that was simply due to the fact that Microsoft did not play according to the "Extortion" game that is played in Washington. It really had nothing to do with monopolies, but how the politicians would get their hands on Microsoft money in the form of contributions. If you doubt this, I can supply links, of which James K Glassman is most prolific.

And with regardsw to your first accusation, you are off base. I am a male and do not play Katty games of "gotcha" in that manner. I was merely making a correction economically, to what you stated. Nothing more, nothing less. If you will note, there was no anamus or sly enuindoes in that post. I cannot answer for you, but only myself here.

You should know by now that I do not seek worshipers. I did not encourage Georgie then and do not encourage others now. I merely champion my ideals of Lord Acton Classic Liberalism. If others agree with me, I am heartened greatly because I am making strong logical and reasoned points.

I merely "do my own thing" and let things lay down where they wish. Nothing intentional here Dear. I do wish you would put aside this Love/hate relationship with me. It is not good for either of us. Even when I agree with you, give you credit, or admit wrong, it is still never good enough. What else am I supposed to do:slit my wrists?

Sorry for being ignorant and emotional.

Very good. A one-down position...........a very powerful, disarming debating tool.

Glad to know you don't play Katty games. It would be refreshing to have this be true, and I take you at your word. BTW, I'll have to question your chauvenism here.......... this isn't just a "female" occupation.......I've had my share from "males." Oh, yes, let me add the smilie here.

Yes, I know Microsoft's problems were related to it's not paying dues in Washington and was the reason for the attack from Clinton, Reno, et al.. But, aside from that reality, the law for dismembering monopolies was what was used, however crookedly it was applied. It can be used just as purposefully in honest attempts. That's the reason for it's existence. Just as your arguments that Christian laws being used for UnChristian purposes does not negate the Christian law.

Solo, I was talking about economic rules, not Christian laws here. Remember, this is a thread about Wal-Mart, not Whether or not Christians are abiding by their own rules.

But again I will state that a monopoly by it's own definition is an endangered species within the Free Enterprise system. Only State intervention and State regulations tend to perpetuate it. Fascism comes to mind here. Under it, the State protects monopolies or oligopilies, because it is easier to control them. True competition is frowned upon, as there would be too many entities to regulate.

A monopoly simply does not last, if left to it's own desires in the Free market model. Period!

(sigh!) A principle is a principle whether it's applied to one field or another. But, that was a nice dodge.

You and I merely disagree on our OPINIONS about whether or not the free market can completely on it's own deal with this issue. I don't think it can, and I'm not willing for citizens to suffer through the trying of it to do so as I live in a small town that frankly cannot take the time to find out as the Mom & Pop stores here are needed for this town to survive.
And, I fully think that Wal-Mart is capable of becoming a danger because of it's power, as expressed in my recent post about the confrontation between our local WalMart and Dunlaps, and feel the same about Google.

Again, you did not entirely digest my earlier post. Here is it again



Set up basic rules of fairness*, and then get out of the way, other than to enfore the rules.




*Fairness = Equality before the law.

While I see SoLo's point re monopoly with Wal Mart it's also survivor of the fittest. Recall K-Mart was around before Wal Mart and was top dog. Target can't dent Wal Mart's base - different stuff and where there's no Wally Worlds and Sam's Clubs, there's Costcos who perform the same function.

Wal Mart is great for rural areas of the country period and I happen to live in a very rural area right now so my shopping budget goes further than if they were not around.

Here is another example of blaming Wal-Mart for the closing of music stores in an area. As usual, it gets the blame for selling music cheaper than the "Mom and Pop" businesses. In truth, the music industry is changing quickly, and the total cost of music is droping due to availability over the internet.

For instance, with my Replay-Music software, and my subscription of Rhapsody, I am able to legally rip music at 192kbs on to my hard drive overnight. The next day, all I have to do is ensure that they are tagged properly and then move them to a properly entitled folder within each artist's section. I used to frequent a used CD store next door to the Kroger supermarket, where I shop. However, I no longer shop there, as I can get all I want at Rhapsody.

Yet Wal-Mart is the villian. This also occurred during the 19th and early part of the 20th century as farmers were being pushed off the farms, and mechanized farming was revolutionizing that field. Yet those displaced farmers found other means of employment in the ever growing national economy. And the same thing is happening now.

So why is Wal-Mart the villian? Because it is too successful, and also because it's employees refuse to join the unions that are part of the DNC establishment. I predict that ultimately this is a fight that the unions and the left will lose, but it will be a costly one. Nevertheless, they will lose it.

Just saw this, John. Please don't take things so personally!! A joke!!!!

I am amazed at how much you project your feelings onto others. It is quite apparent, from thinking that some people will "off' themselves unless you interevene, and now this "love-hate" relation, which I submit exists in your mind.