The conscious mindlessness of conservatives

[BobcatJH]

Dear Nancy,

Having read your article, "Unconscious Consumption", in the latest issue of GOOD Magazine, two words immediately came to mind. Thank you. As an unabashed progressive writing an unabashed conservative about such a provocative article, I'm guessing you wouldn't have thought that my initial reaction. Indeed it was. So again, thank you. Thank you for saying more in 900-plus words about the morally bankrupt conservative ideology than an army of progressives could say in a lifetime, for re-affirming the mission of so many forward-thinking people and for reminding me why I'm a progressive.

"One of the reasons liberals believe evangelicals lack moral gravitas is because we don't attach our beliefs to our purchases like an overpriced service plan," you write. Quite the contrary. You and many others lack moral gravitas because your beliefs don't extend beyond the church walls. What good are your beliefs if you so willingly abandon them in the name of mindless consumerism or, in your words, "the sheer accumulation of stuff"? Yes, Wal-Mart offers aisle after aisle of inexpensive merchandise. And yes, millions of Americans - myself included - shop or have shopped there. More often than not, economics or geography play a large role in determining where one's next purchase will take place. That said, I fault those, like you, whose consumer behavior exhibits a spiteful neglect of reality, and whose attitudes prove that it's far easier to be against something than for anything.

Your column is less a criticism of so-called liberal smugness than an ode to purposeful negligence. You write that Wal-Mart increases the standard of living "for millions of working class Americans," yet you neglect the inconvenient truth that your retail paradise does far more harm than good. Consider that far too many Wal-Mart associates live below the poverty line, earning nowhere near enough to support a family. Nearly 800,000 of Wal-Mart's approximately 1.39 million American employees aren't covered by the company's restrictive, costly health care plan. A report found that in counties where Wal-Mart has had a retail presence for at least 30 years, the average store reduced per-person earnings by 5 percent. Wal-Mart's workers in China, a nation from which the consumer giant purchased $18 billion in goods in 2004, filed a lawsuit last year "claiming that they were not paid the legal minimum wage, not permitted to take holidays off and were forced to work overtime. They said their employer had withheld the first three months of all workers' pay, almost making them indentured servants because the company refused to pay the money if they quit." Wal-Mart faced the largest-ever class action lawsuit for gender discrimination, was hit with the largest-ever immigration-related fine for its use of undocumented workers and has been forced to settle child labor charges. "{I}nadequate health care and low wages" are not the liberal perception. They are the reality.

It saddens me that yours is the counter-argument most frequently essayed against progressives. It exemplifies lazy thinking, but more importantly it mocks the gravity of real issues. Real, serious issues like consumer behavior and its effects, the declining standard of living and the abuse of the environment require serious discussion, not a discussion shrouded in dishonest stereotypes. If the last six years have taught us anything, it's that divisive rhetoric and tilting at straw men are no way to solve our problems. What does shopping at Urban Outfitters, Williams-Sonoma and IKEA have to do with being a liberal? Were those the first three stores that came to mind when you were trying to broad-brush progressives as elitist, latte-drinking, hybrid-driving, tree-hugging limousine liberals? Your ad hominems, like your examples of our typical purchases - African tribal art, high-energy protein bars and scented candles - are ridiculous and trite.

You criticize liberals for seeking "to feed the desire for significance," for feeling smug, for viewing "consumer goods as a method of showcasing benevolence." But what you're saying points to a confusion between conscious consumerism and personal style. Sure, you can find certain products at both Wal-Mart and places like Urban Outfitters, Williams-Sonoma and IKEA. Many people, however, make the choice to buy those products at the latter outlets. Why? Personal style. This is not to be confused with purposely choosing to make moral choices while shopping. These - buying compact fluorescent bulbs to limit the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, for instance - can be made everywhere. Even Wal-Mart. But let's assume for the purposes of argument that you're right, and those smug liberals do indeed shop to, as you say, "Save the Planet". What's worse? Being smug while trying to make the world a better place, or being smug while despoiling the world around you in the name of cheap goods?

Also, can we please put to rest the concept of "Blue Staters" and "Red Staters"? Besides, how would you characterize me, a lifelong Ohioan? Was I a Red Stater when Ohio trended Republican? Am I only now a Blue Stater because Buckeye State voters put Democrats back in power? It's not that I don't know why you use these terms; I do. It's that these terms are, for you, mere shorthand for two opposite belief systems. One is a philosophy that champions crass consumerism, that brands those mindful of the consequences of their behavior as smug elitists and that considers "I gave at the church" the totality of one's obligation to others, a notion Jesus scoffed at when he told a wealthy man that, "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me." The other is a philosophy that realizes that everything we do (including what we buy and where we buy it) has an effect on the world at large, that doing good - no matter the reason - is a welcome prospect and that the responsibility to leave the world a better place than you found it has no restrictions. The latter doesn't make one a Blue Stater any more than the former makes one a Red Stater. It's about caring. Either you do or you don't.

It doesn't surprise me, either, to find a disconnect in your thinking between faith-based concern for others and a concern for others showcased in the check-out line. If you do, indeed, donate to causes like the "African AIDS victims" and "children enslaved by the global sex trade" you mention, how does it make you feel - as a self-confessed conservative and someone who must, in some way, support the current administration - to see your giving repeatedly undercut by the very candidates, initiatives and philosophies you support at the ballot box? Your money may go to "African AIDS victims", but the administration you support is counterbalancing your generosity in some very tangible, very tragic ways. According to a Human Rights Watch report, the Bush-supported "ABC" programs - for "Abstinence, Be faithful, use Condoms" - are hurting Uganda's once-successful battle against HIV/AIDS. According to the report, "The Less They Know, the Better: Abstinence-Only HIV/AIDS Programs in Uganda", vital information regarding condoms, safe sex and marriage and HIV have been removed from primary school curricula. At both the secondary-school level and at U.S.-sponsored rallies, falsehoods persist about condom use and premarital intercourse. "These abstinence-only programs leave Uganda's children at risk of HIV," said researcher Jonathan Cohen, one of the report's authors. "Abstinence messages should complement other HIV-prevention strategies, not undermine them."

Your money may go to "children enslaved by the global sex trade", but the administration you support owns a shameful track record in this regard. A 2005 Associated Press story cites the president as deciding to "waive any financial sanctions on Saudi Arabia ... for failing to do enough to stop the modern-day slave trade in prostitutes, child sex workers and forced laborers." One year later, in nearby Iraq, an IRIN-reported story noted that "Thousands of Iraqi women are being taken advantage of by unscrupulous sex worker traffickers seeking to exploit young girls' desperate socio-economic situation for profit". These two stories don't even delve into the most blatant example of related conservative wrongdoing. Tom DeLay, on behalf of Jack Abramoff, helped keep in place special labor laws for Saipan (the largest island in the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands) that led female sweatshop workers to face forced abortion and forced prostitution. Said DeLay, after touring several garment factories (where the clothes earn the "Made in USA" designation), "You represent everything that is good about what we are trying to do in America." Despite Wal-Mart's claim that it "does not conduct business with factories in Saipan", a 1999 complaint filed in California Superior Court would suggest otherwise. "During the last four years," it read, "defendant Wal-Mart has shipped into the U.S.A. through ports located in California an estimated 7.3 million pounds of garments worth an estimated wholesale value of $43.8 million, manufactured in sweatshops located in the CNMI."

So, you may showcase your benevolence by donating to these very worthy causes, but you give even more freely to repulsive perversions of all that is just, in exchange for "the sheer accumulation of stuff - the cheaper the better." Sure, you appreciate the inexpensive goods you're able to buy at the local Wal-Mart, but your spend first, ask questions later philosophy conveniently ignores the damage your behavior does. Your article, written in an effort to simultaneously pat yourself on the back while ridiculing progressives, inadvertently accomplishes the opposite, because neither ignorance nor negligence are virtues. Here's the bottom line: It's about being an informed consumer and, by extension, an informed citizen. You, sadly, have purposely chosen not to be an informed consumer, believing instead that your faith-based generosity is enough. It's not. Not only because whatever good works you can claim are betrayed by actions of those you support, but also because we can no longer afford not to take a universal approach to making the world a better place. You tell us you're "raising little capitalists". You're not. You're raising poor citizens.

Most unfortunate is that they - not you - will pay for your disgraceful attitude. For they will inherit a society and an earth ridden with the cancer that you allowed to spread. They will face unthinkable shortages and restrictions because you were too busy with the "sheer accumulation of stuff" to notice what you were doing and who you were hurting. They will look back at you and wonder why you failed to make even the most minute decisions that would have resulted in a much different outcome. Doing the right thing isn't hard. Nor is it expensive. You don't have to buy a Prius or completely retrofit your house to make a difference. It can be as simple as teaching your children to unplug their PlayStation 2 when it's not in use or making sure your car's tires are properly inflated. Even bringing reusable shopping bags the next time you visit Wal-Mart helps. But what's not helping is an unprincipled, immoral ideology like yours.

They have a whole different word for that. Evil.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. K & R

great read!

[CompassionateLib]

2. Can't agree

The progressive cause is about freedom. I don't understand why freedom has lead to an anti-free-enterprise business bashing bent. Are we free with our bodies? Yes, we agree. But why are we NOT free with our wallets? Wal-Mart hurts many and helps many, certainly both sides can be argued.

But overall they succeed only if they provide value to free choosing consumers. Basically, they re-sell items for cheaper then their competition. They provide no services. They build nothing. They re-sell the same things for cheaper becuase of efficiency and volume (economies of scale).

We need to help the poor, protect our freedom over our own bodies, protect the environment, protect workers from discrimination to be free. And we all need to pay our fair share in taxes to help the disadvantaged. But when it comes to a free marketplace, how does it add to our freedom to go to a company operating in a free market and through the power of government manipulate them?

And you are opening the door to moralistic Republican intervention in your life to tell you what to do when they don't like your choices. Doesn't work that way. We are free and have choices, or we don't. Which do you want? I want freedom all the time. Not just when you and the moralistic Republicans say it's OK.

[Dr.Phool]

3. I don't see anything compassionate or liberal in your post.

Wal-Mart is flat-out evil. Period.

The low prices come on the backs of their suppliers and employees.

[CompassionateLib]

5. Ditto

I'm an MBA and believe in free enterprise and you say I'm not liberal? I offered an opinion and you say I'm not compassionate? I believe in freedom, you believe in government. I fear government in my life, you embrace it, you just want to control it.

We may vote for the same politicans, but you are right we are not the same. But you do not own the word liberal and you are not honest. I'm A liberal, you're a socialist.

We used to be the big tent party that could debate and disagree and remain allies, I miss that party.

[Dr.Phool]

7. You don't know what I am.

But, I do believe in a regulated marketplace. Free enterprise with a few rules.

Where I live in Florida, there are 3 Wal-Mart Supercenters within a 10 minute drive of my home. Plus, a Sams Club. Right now, they're trying to build 2 more Supercenters WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE of my home. One, on the wetlands next to the Anclote River.

They nearly single handedly destroyed the textile industry in the south, by pressuring the mills to sell them goods cheaper and cheaper, by cutting employees wages and benefits.

Sam Walton would shut down any warehouse that dared to unionize. His kids did likewise with the meat-cutters.

[CompassionateLib]

12. Please

You're hopeless. I can't have such a vague conversation with someone who doesn't know what they are talking about anyway. For example, the textile business was single handedly destroyed by Wal-Mart is such an absurd statement. The labor intensive textile market was destroyed by cheap imports. You summed up you view with, "Wal-Mart is flat-out evil. Period."

I am not arguing for Wal-Mart. I am arguing for choice. Freedom. Tell me where they are thwarting freedom. They cannot cut wages and benefits without employess leaving, if they are worth the money.

And Wal-Mart is packed with liberals because they have used the free market to lower prices and we liberals are smart enough to prefer to pay less money for the same thing. I'm just honest enough to admit it. I am saying the government should stay out unless Wal-Mart is violating freedom. Tell me where they are doing that.

[Dr.Phool]

16. If you really have a MBA, I'd get a tuition refund

Because they sure didn't teach reading comprehension or critical thinking. And you sure as hell don't know what a liberal is.

The textile industry moved overseas because they couldn't meet Wal-Marts pricing demands with American labor.

Violating freedom? I guess the illegal aliens they were locking in their stores overnight were free to quit. So were the people they were forcing to work unpaid overtime. All the women who are suing for gender discrimination should have just felt free to quit.

Sam Walton felt free to violate federal labor law, in front of witnesses, by threatening to shut down his warehouses if they took a vote to unionize.

And if they could cut wages lower than the minimum wage most of them make, they would. Like the forced unpaid overtime.

[CompassionateLib]

22. Certainly...

...forcing people to work unpaid and gender discrimination are illegal. They should be addressed by government. But that isn't what the writing is about. I seem to be able to read fine. Freedom of choice does not mean that one side must be completely, entirely in the right without exception.

You may want to note that i'm not even arguing for Wal-Mart, I'm arguing for choice.

You're very angry, aren't you? Do people having other points of view always make you angry? I didn't insult you either. Can you express your view without insults? Insults weaken your arguments.

[Quantess]

25. Actually, I don't think he/she is angry at you, for arguing.

Dr. Phool's responses looked typical of anything you'd see at Democratic Underground.
You seem hostile.

[CompassionateLib]

29. OK...

They said "If you really have a MBA, I'd get a tuition refund. Because they sure didn't teach reading comprehension or critical thinking."

I'm hostile?

[Quantess]

34. Well, that was harsh, true.

However, you were the one who started with Ad Hominem comments, instead of focusing on the argument itself.

[CompassionateLib]

35. Actually...

...they started with "I don't see anything compassionate or liberal in your post."

I'm a sucker for freedom, and the government scares the hell out of me.

[Quantess]

37. Don't let that get to ya.

"I don't see anything compassionate or liberal in your post" is just an invitation to prove him/her wrong. People love to argue here. Don't take everything as an insult, and you'll do fine here.

[CompassionateLib]

39. I agree

The poster said I started it. I was just saying I didn't. You are dead on though and I appreciate your intent.

[Quantess]

40. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

77. "Lib" obviously stands for "Libertarian" here, not "liberal"

:eyes:

[CompassionateLib]

87. On this issue...

...yes, it could be. I think it shouldn't be that way though. I hope you're not saying though that to be liberal you must agree with liberals on every issue. I am advancing ideas. I think liberals should re-think their hostility to free markets and I am saying so. I am not advancing favoring corporations, which would not be liberal. I am advancing favoring free markets. Free markets also drive our economy which gives us more money to help the disadvantaged, invest in the environment and a lot of other things liberals, and I, support.

The US provides far more money then any other country not because we are inherently more charitable, but becuase our economy is so large we have the money. And that is becuase of our free markets. I don't want to choke the golden goose.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

88. Liberals are not hostile to "free markets"

We're hostile to unregulated predatory markets, which is what Wal Mart typifies.

WalMart and its ilk thrive by driving competitors out of business and by forcing suppliers to provide goods at rock-bottom prices. The owners are already some of the richest people on earth, and yet they want more, more, more, no matter who gets hurt.

I've seen DUers say that they have to shop at WalMart, despite their objections, because it's now the only grocery store in town or the only place within fifty miles to buy whatever.

Have you ever heard the phrase "penny wise and pound foolish"? That old English phrase refers to being so eager to save a penny that you sabotage your own interests and will have to pay for it in the future.

Defenders of WalMart are penny wise and pound foolish. They say, "Oh, look, I can save 25 cents on a sack of dog food!" or "Look, I can buy a DVD player for $20."

Well, whoopee, they buy they dog food or their DVD player or other items that WalMart sells at a loss in order to drive competitors out of business.
(As you should have learned in your MBA course, a large corporation can afford to lose money in one area for a while if it means that a competitor will be driven out of business. Prime case: Laker Airways, the first budget airline, driven out of business when the major airlines matched its New York-London fares temporarily while making up for the loss on their other routes.)

Meanwhile, the locally owned pet supply store and the locally owned electronics store, which a) provided personal service by owners who knew and loved their products, and b) provided good incomes for their owners, cannot sell those goods at the same prices because they don't have the clout to strong-arm the suppliers. Eventually, their penny wise and pound foolish customers desert them, and they are forced out of business.

Oops, there goes another member of the middle class.

Meanwhile, WalMart demands ever lower prices from its suppliers, so low that they can't make their products in the U.S. So what do they do? They either go out of business completely or open up shop in China or some other low-wage country.

Oops, there go some more members of the middle class.

WalMart seduces its customers with the promise of a nearly free lunch, but there's no such thing. Eventually, people pay for that $20 DVD player with reduced choices in their communities and reduced job opportunities for blue collar workers.

I shouldn't have to explain these elementary principles to an MBA. Are you sure that you didn't just get indoctrinated by members of the cult of St. Milton Friedman?

[CompassionateLib]

90. You pretty well make my point for me.

Your arguments are sweeping and one sided. For example, "forcing suppliers to provide goods at rock-bottom prices." They get large contracts for huge sales volume in a tradeoff for prices. They can ramp up production and lower unit cost, which is is called "economies of scale" and it's healthy for the economy.

Second, I have said I am A-G-A-I-N-S-T doing anything to help Wal-Mart. I only want to allow them to operate in a free market. I am opposed to Republican ideology of helping companies as also being blatantly anti-free market. And I have said I am F-O-R prosecuting them for any crime they committed. Your one sided view of complex, multi-facited Wal-Mart is the most powerful point I can provide you are hostile to a free market.

And what is the point in statements like this?
- Shouldn't have to explain these elementary principles to an MBA
- Are you sure that you didn't just get indoctrinated by members of the cult of St. Milton Friedman

I am advancing ideas. Why do ideas threaten you? Why do you feel it is nessessary to insult me?

[ProudDad]

107. Show me a "free market"!

As your training demands, you're arguing for license, not freedom...

by the by, the U.S. is one of the stingiest if not THE stingiest of the industrialized nations when it comes to aid to the less fortunate in the world...

http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/foreign_aid.html#Selfish

[CompassionateLib]

109. Two things

First, you agreed with me. I know that's going to kill you. The first line of the article is "The USA is only the worlds' biggest giver because it is rich." I said we give the most because we have the most and that's because of our free markets. I said it is not because we are the most charitable. So thank you for the support.

Now, on the piece you sent, there are two points.

#1) This stat is thrown around all the time and it is fatally flawed. It says the US gives a smaller portion of it's GDP than most industrialized countries. But statistics lie, my friend. The lie in that stat is it ONLY includes goverment giving. I've spent a lot of time working in Europe. They give far less out of their pockets because they expect their government to do it. Americans are far more generous and give themselves because they do NOT expect their government to do it. If you include voluntary gifts, we are in fact a very, very generous nation even as a percent of GDP against industrialized contries.

#2) While I dispise George Bush and his Presidency, intellectual integrity is important to me. You are criticizing the US for giving as a percent of GDP. However, I want to point out Democrats criticize George Bush for deficits. But guess what? Deficits are not large unless you IGNORE GDP growth and refer to only nominal dollars. Deficits in WWII were almost 15% of GDP. Deficits under Bush were under 3% of GDP at their worst. That is terrible, but records? Not in a real measure. In fact as a percent of GDP they are not really that high now. I am not happy with any deficit, I am not defending George Bush. But I am intellectually honest. Are you?

Just the facts, Sir. And Merry Christmas to you and your family! Keep up the good work, debate is healthy. If we are always agreeing, someone isn't thinking.

[ProudDad]

128. Happy holidays to you too...

I guess it's just my orientation.

I believe that the "government" is all of us (or should be).

Therefore, the European model, even if it limits your "free market", is better to me since they believe in taking care of their own; or have been forced into providing a better safety net because their populations DEMAND it!.

I criticize the U.S. because it places itself worst on the human misery index due to its perverted laissez fair approach to an "economy".

I still maintain the what your lauding is "license" rather than "freedom"...but I'm not surprised since that's what they teach in MBA programs...

On Edit: GDP is still a f*cked up measure of human "progress". I guess that might be our basic difference...I don't believe in profit ubber alles as a laudable goal for the human race to be pursuing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

113. You did read Adam Smith in college

you DID read Ricardo, didn't you?

Just curious... what was Smith's stand in the Wealth of Nations regarding monopolies?

If you cannot answer the question, go to the library, or the bookstore and get a copy and READ IT...

[CompassionateLib]

115. Again

I'm not going to keep repeating my answer to this question, but I'll try one more time. BTW, "The Wealth of Nations" is 5 feet from me as we speak and the pages are well read. It is ironic that you lecture my economic views based on beliefs held in your party affiliation. I am a Democrat because I agree with them on most issues, I do not take my views from them as do some. When I disagree with them, like in economics, I speak up. If a Democrat says 2 + 2 = 5, do you speak up or repeat that falsehood? Economics is a field of study which political ideology does not change what is correct. Free markets maximize freedom. Other issues, like social policy, opposition to the war in Iraq and helping the disadvantaged I think Democrats are correct.

So one more time on monopolies:

Natural monopolies are things like water that are not practical to be competitive. Some natural monopolies change, for example long distance phone was once a natural monopoly, it is no longer. In theory at least, we are protected by government from predatory practices in natural monopolies. While you do not draw any distinction between types of monopolies, I am not aware of ANY party that opposes them. They are by definition not practically competitive.

Earned monopolies are when the market chooses a winner that dominates the market. For example, VHS won over it's only real competitor, Beta. Microsoft is essentially a monopoly in PCs running 90% or so of them. But here's the rub. Earned monopolies must be continually defended. Trains used to monopolize transportation. Eight out of 10 of the original Dow Stocks were trains. Today 0 out of 30 are. Technology changes. VHS is dying now, technology changed.

Illegal monopolies are gained by violation of anti-trust rules. For example, rather than beating your competitors you buy them. You drop prices to put your competitors out of business then triple prices when competition is gone. These are covered by the Sherman Anti-Trust act. You may want to read that. There is no assumption (as there should well not be) monopolies are bad. It is predatory, anti-consumer practices that are banned.

Rather than asking me already answered questions, can you step up to a couple?

- Why should there be no earned monopolies? The market should not have been free to standarize on Windows?

- How is this relevant anyway? In what way is Wal-Mart a monopoly? They sell pre-made items that are available everywhere. They sell nothing no one else does and they provide no services. They offer ONLY lower prices.

[nadinbrzezinski]

117. Adam Smith despised monopolies

and I will say about the US what I said about the USSR

The US is not a capitalist country, not one that follows the tenets of Adam Smith or Ricardo

Just as the USSR was not a Communist country

I am not lecturing you, just pointing a fact.

As a HISTORIAN, yes I can wear that hat, I realize that ideals in economic models are NEVER attainable

By the way the US grew the best when it grew a middle class. That economy WAS regulated, but it was still allowed to mostly follow a capitalist model.

When you destroy that middle class, and replace it with the few who are insanely rich and the many who are poor and cannot afford to comsume... then that capitalist model starts to look a little shaky.

This is what the big picture is showing us.

By the way you are just as blind in your own libertarian belief as you accuse others of being... but the economy of the 1950s and 60s, with a strong union movement (and trust me they have their problems) led to a country where people could AFFORD to consume

Our current model is leading to the pasteurization of the middle classes, in fact their destruction, and the creation of monopolies that are capable of artificially managing the market.

By the way, Walmart is famous for its anti union stand. They are the largest employer and if I had my way, I would have EVERY walmart employee walk off the job until the union was voted in. Their policies also cost you and me, I pay for their health care. (Mind you we should have national health insurance, single payer... it would ahem make us competitive with other nations, but that is neither here or there)

By the way, the model that is quickly emerging has a lot in common with the middle ages, replace the lord of the Mannor for the Corporations, who SHOULD loose person hood, like a bad dream. That is part of the problem


The other part is that greed is good seems to have become the central value of American life

[CompassionateLib]

119. OK...

But my question was in what way is Wal-Mart, which sells nothing that isn't available all over a monopoly?

I am generally economically an Adam Smither, but I never said because Adam Smith said it I have it tattooed on my chest. For example, he believed in tarriffs as the primary source of revenue. I consider that too restrictive of free trade and insufficient to fund our modern government.

I also support paying fair taxes and assisting the disadvantaged. I just want the government to tell me my fair share and I'll pay it, then I want them to only referee and not control the economy.

And I am not advocating greed but freedom.

[nadinbrzezinski]

121. I'll give you a specific example

My mom knits, and she bought her material at Walmart...

Before you say, but, but, but... she bought it at the Walmart near her home in Mexico City.

Now she knows my stand about Wally Mart... here is the rub. Wally Mart bought almost every other competitor in Mexico. So when you go grocery shopping at Superama, you truly are buying at Wall mart Mexico. When you go out to eat lunch at VIPS, same story.

There are a few indies left but not many... that is what Wally Mart wants to do in the US, so when I go to Ralph's it will be Wallmart and why when Ralph's employees two years ago went on strike, management said they could not compete with wally mart and in the end cut benefits, such as medical. All the employees wanted to do in that strike was to keep benefits, not even looking for a pay increase... and the contract they were forced into bodes very badly for the future of that particular industry.

Now going back to the yarn.

It is a brand that I can find at Michaels, but not the particular color. That color is made exclusively for Wally Mart. So I had to byte my lips and walk into wally mart, and get her the 2.99 ball of yarn. So in that sense yes, it is to a point a monopoly

Once you look under the hood Wally Mart is not that different from Ma Bell, in either its attitudes or goals... and it has helped to destroy smaller competitors, including many in main street. And we will both agree that Big business policies of the Republican party helped Wally mart greatly to the detriment of their competitors... and those have to go... alas it is no accident that wally mart invest heavily in the politicos FROM BOTH PARTIES that it buys... in the form of political contributions (Public funding of elections across the board would be a start to solve that problem)

Many folks here have given you concrete examples of how they undercut the competition. That is fine and dandy, but when major manufacturers have a price scale for Wally Mart (Hasbro), that is anywhere from 50 cents to a dollar under their closet competitor, that is when artificially handling the market comes in and when a company has grown to a point that just like Ma Bell we may need to look into anti trust laws.

Now to tariffs, yes Adam Smith was all for them to fund the government. That WAS the way it was done, and until the early 1900s the NYC tax boss was one of the most powerful positions in the country, and one of the most corrupt.. but tariffs are one way to deal with some of the problems we have right now. On the ground, due to the policies we've had since at least the 1980s, including NAFTA, which by the way has failed spectacularly in many ways, our country has faced a de-industrialization of epic proportions. You need SOME barriers in order to protect industries. Today we export two items, food and raw materials... we used to export cars, refrigerators, you mention it. So this "free trade" hasn't really worked, unless the goal is to destroy the middle class... which I fear is the goal

By the way I am not against globaslization. It is going to happen.. due to our global reach in technology... for example the WWW... but like anything else, it is the method to the madness that matters. The current method is setting the ground work for a global revolution... mostly due the skewed percentages of who has and who hasn't and who controls what. Morover in general no consumer that capitalist engine stops working, HARD. In fact, we may see it alrady, this year's fourth quarter does not look good for the home team... and even Wally Mart announced their profits, best case, woudl be a paltry 1%... we are walking into a recesion or worst by the way.

By the way, here is a piece of trivia... Marx and Engels wrote their book after the 1848 failed revolution and it was an accurate reflection of the economy of the 19th century. Now I know what Lennin did with it, and even my lovely Marxist Instructor once quipped, that Marx must have done summersaults in his grave when Lenin took a medieval economy and jumped it straight into a caricature of Socialism. Now you want a good exxample of where it works and it is closer to the ideal, but not there yet (you cannot reach ideals), Sweeden.

Sadly, we are starting to have a lot in common with Victorian England, or wost the high middle ages, with a small class of burghers and a bunch of serfs.

And my teachers said history never repeats itself... snarf.

[POAS]

95. Here's a homework assignment

Read about what Wal*Mart did to Newell-Rubbermaid.

[CompassionateLib]

97. Is that the right link?

I couldn't find the article. It went to the Franken homepage and Id idn'tsee anything on Newell-Rubbermaid or Wal-Mart.

I'll be glad to look at anything pertinent to the discussion. I am open to new information, I hope you are the same.

[POAS]

98. Nope that is my sig line, try google.

eidted to add:

Here is one example from "The Rock River Times":

Rubbermaid, an 86-year-old company with all manufacturing facilities located in the USA, sent a letter to all their vendors stating there would be a price increase due to an increase in the price of resin, a raw material used to make plastic. All of Rubbermaid’s customers understood the increase except Wal-Mart, Rubbermaid’s largest customer. Wal-Mart stated in a letter that if Rubbermaid increased their prices, they would pull all Rubbermaid products from their shelves. Rubbermaid tried to comply with Wal-Mart’s demands, and as a result went into financial distress, forcing them to sell out to Newell, Rubbermaid’s largest competitor. Shortly after purchasing the company, Newell moved its manufacturing facilities to Mexico and other countries, laying off hundreds of people in the Freeport office.

[CompassionateLib]

101. I got it

I did google and saw some stories, but I thought you were referring to a particular one. If you were and it had a particular point I wanted to be sure to see that.

I'm not sure how this has anything to do with Wal-Mart being good or bad. It's a competitive market and Rubbermaid and Wal-Mart have to do what's in their interest. Wal-Mart gives far larger volume to fewer vendors so sure, they expect lower prices. And that benefits us. In the end, it is not if Wal-Mart "understands" why Rubbermaid needs to raise prices, it is a matter of their choices and cost. Anyone making those products would have had increased resin costs.

It is harsh to let Rubbermaid fail, but it is harder to keep them afloat if they cannot compete. Look at it this way.

- When we protect individual jobs, everyone pays more. Jobs go overseas becuase US companies can't compete and foreign companies prosper. Displaced workers have harder time finding jobs becuase there are fewer jobs becuase workers are doing economically inefficient work.

- When we protect efficient markets, we are richer and there are more jobs becuase there is more economic activity.

Here are some facts.
- We have more manufacturing jobs in the US then we have ever had.
- They make more products then they ever made.
- They sell those products for more money then ever before, even when adjusted for inflation, GDP or any other typical economic measure.

It is only in % of economy and market it is declining. But why would the US be able to compete with lower cost countries for growth in labor intensive manufacturing jobs? We dominate in services. Manufacturing is low margin rote. Services are high margin and drive wealth across the economy.

I am very sympathetic to Rubbermaid workers losing their jobs, but I am also sympathetic to the more who would go without jobs if we artificially protect Rubbermaid from competition.

Merry Christmas, my friend, and thanks for the discussion!

[CompassionateLib]

104. Wal-Mart does not harm community economies...

...in fact it helps them. I've been arguing Wal-Mart and some have wanted to put political labels on my Wal-Mart views, but it is not an ideology question, it is just what is. If you keep hearing the Wal-Mart bashers, please just read and consider this, it's all I ask.

To sustain a Community must export some product or service outside the community. Let's take an example of a farming community. The community exports crops, eggs, meat etc. The money comes into the community is the "revenue" of the community. Now the farmers producing the products have direct costs to produce them. They must make a profit (their income).

The farmers also need stuff like groceries, gasolines, etc. Businesses spring up to provide that to them and the people running the other businesses. And those businesses send money outside the community for the products. So for example a gas station buys gas from an oil company sending money outside the community and sells gas to the members of the community keeping the difference as their profit.

But everything in the community is ultimately funded by the crops sent from the community by the farmers and then circulates through the other businesses. Now, Wal-Mart comes to the community.

Wal-Mart produces nothing and sells no services. So which businesses are replaced by the Wal-Mart? Ones that simply buy and re-sell pre made items and do not add value to them. Lamp stores, pharmacies, electronics stores, whatever. But think about it from the perspective of the community.

- The revenue of the community is not affected. Their product is crops, Wal-Mart does not decrease that. How can it be devistated?
- However, the money leaving the community is reduced because Wal-Mart buys products more cheaply. Instead of a small lamp store paying $30 to a lamp producer, Wal-Mart pays them only $20.
- The farmers (and other in the community) have more money because they pay less for same thing. Instead of buying the lamp for $50 they buy it for $30, which means they have $20 to spend or invest. Or maybe they lower the price of their crops enabling them to sell more bringing more revenue to the community.

Now the people who lost their jobs I agree it is too bad. I really do. But change is constant and people are always affected. We have not become the greatest country on the planet by fearing and resisting change but by embracing it. So now,

- The lower tier workers work at Wal-Mart providing them with opportunity
- Some higher skilled can get jobs managing the others
- The others who lost their jobs can get jobs that rather than simply re-selling pre-made items add value or provide services
- Consumers have more money for other stuff becuase they got the same thing for less.

This is why Wal-Mart cannot harm a community by coming in. It is not an ideology that makes me say it but the recognition of basic economics.

[Quantess]

108. I REALLY am dying to know......

do you intend "Merry Christmas" as a jab?

[CompassionateLib]

110. No, absolutely not

If you want to know, I'm glad you asked. But I mean it as no jab at all. I love to debate. I love economics. Democrats are far better than Republicans, but I dont' like the Wal-Mart and business bashing. I'm trying to explain. If we could hold our strengths in social liberalism and continue to want to help the disadvantaged and add to our war chest some healthy love of free markets there would be no discussion of brain surgery of one senator tilting control of the senate.

I don't insult people in my notes. If I meant it as an insult there would probably be others.

But I prefer you ask then assume I am jabbing. But I think it's unfortunate that so many are uncomfortable by debating issues now. Why do we all have to agree? Exchange of ideas is a very healthy thing.

[Quantess]

112. That's nice. I think it's pretty obvious you're assuming "Merry Christmas" is an insult to DUers,

and I think it's kind of weird, honestly, for you to be using "Merry Christmas" as an intended insult.

[CompassionateLib]

114. Grow up

I appreciate the people who disagreed with me and say so. I think it's a wonderful thing.

I am sorry, very sorry that you are so threatened by ideas that disagreement must be personal.

[Quantess]

129. For your own credibility, please stop using "Merry Christmas" as a jab. (EOM)

And, if you are truly sincere about the sentiments of a "Merry Christmas" then please don't start saying it until after December 22.

[hfojvt]

19. Freedom, schmeedom

Perhaps you may have heard about the 'reserve army of the unemployed'. Or is that too socialist for you?

Employees cannot leave unless there are other jobs available, and since other retailers are trying to compete with Wal-mart, other employers have to reduce their wages and get rid of unions as well.

Wal-mart certainly infringes upon the freedom to start your own business. I still resent their intrustion into the book business. Although, to be fair, every store with 5 square feet of extra space seems to put in a spin rack and try to get into the massively profitable book business - grocery stores, drug stores, and their chains all feel the need to sell books and magazines and calendars. Wal-mart was selling calendars cheaper than I was getting them wholesale. A $10.95 calendar that I would pay 6.57 for (sometimes plus shipping if my order was not big enough) would be at Wal-mart for 4.97! How is that fair?

Of course, my complaint with Wal-mart (and grocery stores and drug stores) is that they sell the profitable, best-selling crap. My focus was on more edifying literature. At least I made it available, even if not many people were buying it. Can you go into a Wal-mart, or even an average Waldenbooks, and find the Nearing's "The Good Life" or Wendell Berry's "The Unsettling of America" or John Brunner's "Stand on Zanzibar", etc.? No. And you won't find it in my store either, because I went out of business after seven years of working two jobs. But they didn't violate freedom. It was a fair fight. Me and my $12,000 vs. Wal-mart's 900 ton gorilla.

[CompassionateLib]

23. You sure know a lot about Wal-Mart stores...

... for someone so against them. Apparently you are a regular shopper?

BTW, freedom means freedom to compete in a free market. It does not mean you are protected from having to compete in a free market.

Merry Christmas, my friend! See you at Wal-Mart!

[hfojvt]

36. RU sure you have an MBA?

even an introductory economics course should have told you that it's not a 'free' market any more when you have monopolies and oligopolies. Maybe the course has changed since I took it almost 30 years ago.

BTW, I did not say I was 'so against Wal-mart'. Just making a few points about the lack of options in the labor market and the lack of fair competition between an independent bookseller and an oligopolistic behemoth. I have an economics degree, so I am supposed to know 'the price of everything, and the value of nothing.'

[CompassionateLib]

38. I'll bring you up to date

Monopolies and Oligopolies are legal under two scenarios. I'm going to use the term monopoly but it would include oligopolies also. Just so I don't have to keep repeating both terms.

- Natural monopolies (e.g., water, electricity) where it's impractical to have competition. These are government regulated if not owned.
- Monopolies earned and defended in a free marketplace

Where Monopolies are illegal is when companies use unearned market power to thwart competetion. This is covered under the Sherman anti-trust act, one of the greatest pieces of legislation in our history. So for example,

- Microsoft's practical monopoly on operating systems is legal. They just dominate with the best product. Their using that monopoly to create a monopoly in browsers (e.g., telling Compaq they could not have MS operating system if they sold computers with Netscape on them) is illegal.
- It is illegal to lower prices to put your competition out of buisness in order to raise prices later above where they are now.
- It is illegal to dump (e.g., sell long term below cost) like steel exports.
- It is illegal to buy all your competitors simply to gain a monopoly.

The Sherman anti-trust act is far older than 30 years, they must have covered it in your economics class.

[hfojvt]

49. it's not about legalities

it is about whether a society where 98% of commerce or an industry is controlled by 2 or 3 companies can still be called a 'free' market.

[CompassionateLib]

70. I gave you...

...a pretty specific discussion on monopolies for a discussion board. You came back repeating the 50,000 foot point you made in the first place I already addressed. You said you have an economics degree, but have you just done something else the last 30 years?

[Steely_Dan]

63. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

"Microsoft's practical monopoly on operating systems is legal. They just dominate with the best product."

That's a joke, right?

The "best" product does not always dominate the market. Ever heard of "Beta" vs. "VHS?"

-P

[CompassionateLib]

64. Issume this is tongue in cheek

Good example the market doesn't always choose the superior technical product. Beta was technically superior. VHS won because studios and manufacturers backed it. We have the same going on in HDTV versus Blue Ray, except it looks like this time the better product, Blue Ray, may win.

So by best I mean "as defined by the market." I know you knew that. Actually when I wrote it I was expecting an Apple Computer user to gag. Same idea though. There are a lot of deficiencies with Microsoft. But they dominate for a variety of reasons.

[Steely_Dan]

71. Excellent response...

So, just OS vs. OS...do you think that PC's are superior to Mac's...just curious.

-P

[CompassionateLib]

82. Tradeoffs

To qualify my answer, I'm a PC person so I'm used to MS Windows. I also started my career as a devloper of Microsoft applications. I have used Mac pretty extensively though, though not as much.

In terms of which I think is better OS to OS, I think that generally Mac is better for less experienced users, but Microsoft provides a lot more for sophisticated users. Mac does less, but does it easier. Just my view.

[Toots]

81. Kind of like how Republicans beat out Democrats in the ninties

They most certainly were not the best product nor do they represent the "freedom" you are most fond of. From your post I don't think you understand what a Liberal is. You called one a socialist without knowing anything about them. That most certainly is not a Liberal position. Liberalism is not solely about Freedom. It is about Respect. Which I see little of in your posts. It is about Respecting other countries and other life styles and other races and the very earth itself. Liberalism is far more than Socialism and Freedom is indeed a part of it but not the main part.

[CompassionateLib]

83. You must be young

I believe in the traditional Democratic and liberal values. You obviously grew up in recent history where Democrats and liberals are kissing government on the lips. You may want to do some studying about the history of liberalism. How liberal meant open to new ideas, differences and change. And liberals feared government. It used to be that no one could argue more intently and be better friends then a couple of liberals.

I do not accept the usage of socialists you are not liberal unless you are socialist. There is nothing anti liberal about free markets or wealth. There is something anti-socialist about free markets and wealth (when outside the government leadership).

And by the way, you're slapping me and calling me not "respectful?" I am only advancing ideas. You are saying becuase I have different ideas from the people who call themselves liberal today that I am not respectful?

First: respect is a two way street dearie. Why don't you try some yourself.

Second: Your post is a sad testiment to my point. You are not open to new ideas. You do not accept discussion or debate. You want to snuff it out. My ideas do not goose step with yours so you insult me. They are ideas. You are the one not being liberal.

[Quantess]

27. LOL! I think "Merry Christmas" was supposed to be a jab!

:rofl:

[Kerrytravelers]

31. This poster's whole response has been some sort of comical jab!

:rofl:

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

33. Regarding Unions

and Wal-Mart. I received the following letter from Customer Relations. I had addressed my concerns to Lee Scott, president of Wal-Mart in a letter. This is the response.

February 5, 2005
Dear Ms. ______

We want to clearly address your concerns about unions. Our associates, not our managers or Home Office, are the only ones who decide whether or not they want to be represented by the union. Time and time again, our associates have made a decision to reject the union, citing that they do not need to pay a third-party their hard earned dollars for something they can do for free every single day. We have an open communication between associates and supervisors, and our associates value this part of our culture.

Thank you,
Customer Relations :shrug:

[J Miles]

100. He's lying

Wal-Mart has a history of intimidating employees who express a desire to unionize. Here are a few excerpts from a 2002 article about their anti-union activities:

Stacking the vote is Wal-Mart's way of keeping the union out:
Wal-Mart's union busting operator named by US authorities for illegally threatening workers

<...>

Systematic union busting in South Carolina

Wal-Mart's war on its workers claimed its latest victims in Aiken, South Carolina where the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is prosecuting Wal-Mart for waging an illegal, systematic union-busting campaign against workers. The NLRB is also charging Wal-Mart for violations of federal law in Palestine and Jacksonville, Texas.

In Aiken, South Carolina, a corporate union buster from Wal-Mart's Bentonville, Arkansas headquarters, Kirk Williams, is named for illegally threatening workers in an attempt to undermine workers' efforts to organize a union. This is the third time the NLRB has named Mr. Williams for illegal anti-worker activities around the country.

The Board also charged that Wal-Mart illegally denied several workers their right to have co-workers witness any interviews with managers. Among other things, workers were told that the right to a witness, known in labor law as an employee's "Weingarten rights," "did not hold water at ," even though two Circuit Courts of Appeal have upheld the right.

This right to a witness is especially important to Wal-Mart workers because a common company practice is to surround employees in disciplinary interviews with an intimidating group of managers.

Interrogation, threats and discipline

Wal-Mart will be on trial on September 23, 2002 in Aiken for its illegal campaign of interrogation, threats and discipline against workers to suppress their legal right to organize with the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW).

In Palestine, Texas, the NLRB charges that Wal-Mart illegally sabotaged the union election by transferring anti-union workers into the unit just before the election to dilute the strength of the union supporters. Corporate union busters are also named for illegal threats and interrogation of employees. The Palestine meat department workers narrowly lost an election to join UFCW Local 455 in May, 2000.

The new Board case addresses Wal-Mart's illegal activities that sabotaged the union drive in Palestine and the company's failure to respect the workers' choice for UFCW representation at the Jacksonville, Texas Wal-Mart Supercenter meat department.

http://www.union-network.org/unisite/Sectors/Commerce/Multinationals/Wal-Mart_union_busting_operator_named_for_threatening_workers.htm

[bread_and_roses]

72. A total aside here - but "Stand on Zanzibar" is an excellent book

And not "just" for Sci-Fi readers. It still rings in my mind many years now after reading it. Glad you mentioned it - maybe someone here will be motivated to read it.

[turbo_satan]

53. Wal-Mart's version of the free market isn't really free

There was a fascinating article in Harper's a few months ago that argued quite cogently that Wal-Mart could very likely be subject to anti-trust law on the basis of their being a monopsony -- an entity that has gotten so powerful that it has the ability to manipulate market prices by artificially varying its purchase quantities. The problem with this is that the monopsony can arbitrarily force its suppliers to bend to their will. Indeed, Wal-Mart has driven a few of its larger suppliers into bankruptcy, and these bankruptcies weren't always due to structural inefficiencies on the suppliers' part. The Harper's article also points out that Wal-Mart routinely commits restraint of trade violations by acting punitively with suppliers who wish to legally pursue simultaneous alternative distribution channels.

There are other big-box stores who provide benefits to consumers AND workers and act far more honorably. Costco comes to mind. They have managed to be very profitable and very competitive in the marketplace, all the while winning acclaim from progressives for the corporation's labor and sourcing practices. I think the Costco model is far more beneficial to consumers, labor, and communities. Furthermore, they play fairly in the free market.

[ManWroteTheBible]

59. If you have an MBA...

you should DEFINITELY get a tuition refund!

You made this statement: "They cannot cut wages and benefits without employess leaving, if they are worth the money."
Either you live in the ivory tower with the Bushes peering down on the masses wallowing in this robust economy we have, or you are just as willfully ignorant as the guy Nancy wrote about.

And you followed that line with this little gem...

"And Wal-Mart is packed with liberals because they have used the free market to lower prices and we liberals are smart enough to prefer to pay less money for the same thing. I'm just honest enough to admit it. I am saying the government should stay out unless Wal-Mart is violating freedom. Tell me where they are doing that."

How about the freedoms of the Saipan sweatshop workers... how about the employees who can't afford healthcare - because their wages are TOO LOW to be able to afford the deduction. How about the fact that Wal-mart blocks their FREEDOM to unionize. No one said "You can't shop at Wal-mart." That would be a Bush-type tactic. The point of the article is that you do have the freedom to shop wherever you choose, however that freedom comes with a price - the price of gas to drive to a more socially conscious marketplace or the price of knowing that your dollars may be proliferating unscrupulous business practices.

Don't get me wrong, I shop at Wal-mart for the convenience - a lot of stores aren't open when I'm able to shop... but it is not without a conscience and I do it as little as possible. You call yourself a "liberal" when you're really a "libertarian" (sp?). Liberals usually think beyond the pocketbook.

[CompassionateLib]

65. Interesting...

...You're funny, I like you. I have a couple points though.

1) you say "Liberals usually think beyond the pocketbook." Yet you also say "I shop at Wal-mart."

OK, so you think outside your pocket, but act in it. So according to you, I can shop at Wal-Mart as long as I feel bad about it and criticize them?

2) "If you have an MBA... you should definately get a refund!" Then you say "Liberals usually think beyond the pocketbook."

But isnt' being an MBA thinking in the pocketbook? (I'm scratching my head right now)

3) "You call yourself a 'liberal' when you're really a 'libertarian.'"

I agree on this subject I am pro-free market, but Liberal and Libertarian words cover a lot of ground, not just Wal-Mart. Libertarians believe government should not protect the environment, help the disadvantaged, protect us from discrimination or even regulate markets to ensure they are free. I believe in all that. I'm also socially liberal, though there liberals and libertarians generally agree so it's not a distinction. Do I have to pick one ideology and then only advocate positions approved by that ideology? Just because you and I would agree on most other issues, why do I have to accept your economic views to be liberal? I consider myself liberal becuase I agree with liberals more than anyone else, not because I accept their views and nothing else.

I just want the tax bill up front. Tell me what my share is. I'll pay it. I am doing well, I can afford it. But then I want government to get out of my hair. Granted I am not socialist, but why is that not liberal?

Most of the rest is rant, but on the point of sweat shops and that sort of thing, I am 100% for the government going after illegal acts and holding Wal-Mart accountable to the full extent of the law. But then apparently it's not a big enough deal to get you to not shop their either.

Have a good one, my friend!

[durtee librul]

66. You just gave it all away

with the comment that you are doing well. A lot of us aren't and see no hope of doing better until policies and laws are either changed or enforced. Period.

I don't have an MBA unless MBA stands for "mothers bathing asses", then I qualify.

I don't claim to know the difference between a liberal and a libertarian...I do know the difference between right and wrong and the right to chose wisely.

I don't need a fancy education to know what is right and what is wrong. This country is wrong and until Bush is out of office along with all his demogogues (sp), we are all stuck. Sad part, our kids will also be stuck and their kids will be stuck paying for his disasterous policies.

End of rant.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[StoryTeller]

74. Not cool.

I was reading this thread with a great amount of interest, but I do have to step in and say that you'll find your welcome on DU rather short-lived and chilly if you continue to make statements like "John Kerry found a Sugar Momma." That is a gross misrepresentation of their relationship, and it's just plain insulting to a faithful, honest Democratic leader and his very gracious and intelligent wife.

What I've learned on DU is that while it's okay to argue vociferously and it's even okay to state disagreement with or dislike of certain Democratic officials, this is not the place to be flat out insulting about them, no matter who it is. There are other forums where that sort of thing is welcomed and encouraged, but not here.

Thanks...and welcome to DU.

[CompassionateLib]

86. I just meant...

... it as hyperbole. I wasn't serious, I was making the point that Democrats are as interested in money as anyone else, and yet they seem to feel the need to pretend they don't care about it. That is not all John Kerry is about, to your point he stands for a lot of positive things too. thought the outrageous insult (hyperbole) would actually make clearer I wasn't literal. I was wrong.

This was explanation, but I have only done that once in a long discussion and if it bothers people that much, I won't do it. I don't make the rules, but I will follow them.

[StoryTeller]

89. I appreciate your explanation.

And I think you have a point that a desire for money is something shared by people across party lines.

It just, to me, very denigrating to Ms. Heinz-Kerry (as well as to Senator Kerry) to imply that someone like the Senator would only care for her because of her money. She's a fabulous, amazing person, and if you read their own accounts of their relationship, you'd see there's a tremendous amount of love and mutual respect shown between them.

Also, I've seen the two of them together in a somewhat more casual setting (i.e. not on stage) and there's a warmth and regard between the two of them that speaks of the sort of love that makes for a strong, healthy marriage.

It also bothers me because if Teresa had been a "poor commoner" then the story would possibly have been portrayed as a Cinderalla-type story, like the movie American President, or Maid In Manhattan. But because she's a woman who happens to be quite wealthy, that's been used as a source of derision against both her and her husband. It sends the message that women have no business being wealthy or powerful, and that gets into a whole bunch of gender issues that I feel very strongly about.

[RetroLounge]

125. John Kerry found a Sugar Momma?

Did you make a wrong turn on your way home from Walmart?

Welcome to DU, may your stay be short...

RL

[hfojvt]

21. you seem to believe in UNregulated 'free enterprise'

and that is not liberal. It is libertarian. But then I think libertarians are claiming the label of 'liberal' in the classic sense.

It seems to me that they are also the ones who see any sort of government regulation of business as 'creeping socialism'. As a socialist myself, I would insist that there is a huge difference between a liberal who wants to regulate corporations, and a socialist, who wants to abolish (or completely re-work) them. Hillary and Obama, for example, are about as far away from being socialists as Gerald Ford was.

[CompassionateLib]

26. Terms

First, I appreciate your honesty you are a socialist. You can begin to agree only when you are honest. No insults either. You are a good man/woman. It is better when we don't all agree. When we all agree, someone is not thinking.

Liberals believe in basic tenents like:
a- We own our bodies
b- We want the government out of our bedroom and doctors offices
c- We need to protect the world we all live in (environment)
d- We need to provide help as a society to those who can't provide it to themselves and we can't just leave it to people to do it on their own

I think we agree on those. Where I think you are going wrong is in the economics. Socialists, by definition, believe in government ownership of the economy. Socialists are liberals, but you do not have to be a socialist to be a liberal.

You are right my economic views are consistent with libertarians. Where I part with liberatarians are on the parts above regarding the environment and helping society (c and d). Libertarians say that is not a role for government. I say the economy and providing a basic level of support for the needy is a role for government. Maybe we go to far, but libertarians oppose it entirely.

Liberalism is about free thinking, debate, being open to change. It does not require you advocate government ownership of the economy (i.e., socialism). Hope this helps.

[hfojvt]

42. I do not define socialism as government ownership

and I am not the only socialist to do so.

Nationalising industry for a true socialist is a MEANS, not an end. It is the ends which are socialism, not the means, not even the means of production.

"Socialists should insist on using the nationalised industries not simply to out-capitalise the capitalists - an attempt in which they may or may not suceed - but to evolve a more democratic and dignified system of industrial administration, a more humane employment of machinery, and a more intelligent utilisation of the fruits of human ingenuity and effort."

I cannot find one of my other quotes that sums it up better, but it is not primarily about 'the means of production' or even economics. It really is about valuing human life, individual and social, more than profits.

Anyway, I would prefer to reverse your list of liberal tenets to d, c, b, a, but must admit that social issues like abortion and GLBT issues seem to take precedence here on DU and at the DNC.

[CompassionateLib]

43. From the dictionary

Socialism
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

[hfojvt]

46. I do not expect a dictionary

to understand the nuances of socialist economic theory, and more than Schumpeter did. Dictionaries don't get to define what socialism means. Socialists do. And, as the last socialist in America, that means me. :o

As I said, I am following other people who have called themselves socialists, if not necessarily the big guy (Marx) himself. Fourier was a socialist too, as was Schumacher. There is also quite a bit of wiggle room in that definition - 'various theories'; 'collectively or ...'; 'often plans ...'

[CompassionateLib]

54. Agreed...

..there is not a single definition of socialist. But I've never met anyone who called themselves a socialist who belived that government should not own most industry and dominate the rest.

The biggest argument to me against socialism is the reality of the incompetence of government or the reality that once in control power becomes it's own end.

I do not believe that even if I agreed with socalist objecives (obviously I don't) I could ever believe it was implementable by humans as they currently exist without being strangled by corruption.

[hfojvt]

61. I do not think any decent person can disagree with socialist objectives

Again, the objective is NOT government ownership. The objective is that the people who do most of the working and paying and living and dying in this community should be treated like human beings. That industry should be run for the benefit of workers and consumers instead of the benefit of Andrew Carnegie and JP Morgan (or their current incarnations). That some people should not starve and freeze and beg or fight for crappy, low-paying work while others make fortunes from swindling people.

Most people think the objectives are desirable, but, like you said, impractical. There is a certain optimism in human thought which thinks that most people will be compassionate, altruistic and sociable. But they also think that people can be taught better ideals than the ones current in capitalism, and that systems and institutions can be created which reward good behaviour and discourage bad behaviour. As Schumacher quoted Tawney:

'It is obvious, indeed, that no change of system or machinery can avert those causes of social malaise which consist in the egotism, greed, or quarrelsomeness of human nature. What it can do is to create an environment in which those are not the qualities which are encouraged...It cannot control their actions. It can offer them an end on which to fix their minds. And, as their minds are, so in the long run and with exceptions, their practical activity will be.'

[CompassionateLib]

67. I pretty much agree..

We agree "industry should be run for the benefit of workers and consumers instead of the benefit of Andrew Carnegie and JP Morgan (or their current incarnations)." I would argue that in a well run business, there is no conflict between profit, workers and customers.

I would also agree that often management is too short sighted to recognize that. So even though you consider yourself a socialist and I consider myself a liberal capitalist, we may not be that far off. Just so you know though if you call yourself a socialist you're going to get a lot of people thinking you want to start nationalizing industries.

[Quantess]

24. Excuse me, but how do you know

Dr. Phool is a socialist? Because he/she refuses to shop at WalMart and encourages others not to support their exploitative policies? You are presumptuous.

[CompassionateLib]

28. A rose by any other name...

[tavalon]

41. What's so damned awful about being a socialist?

And for the record, this socialist doesn't shop at that damn evil store, either! I shop at Costco, TruValue, Family Grocer and Duvall Family Drugs and with the exception of the folks at Costco, I'm always greeted by name and they ask after my son. Not that they would likely do that if they knew I was one of them damned socialists! LOL

Don't worry though, while my philosophy is socialist, I vote Democratic - straight ticket these days.

[CompassionateLib]

44. Nothing, it's a question of what you want

To me there is nothing wrong with the theory of socialism. The problem is in reality when you give anyone that much power they use it for their won ends, not the good of the people.

The theory of socialism is that it's not how big the pie is, it's how evenly it is sliced, with the exception in reality is the overseers cut most of the pie for themselves and give the small even slices to the rest of us. I want the opportunity to get more pie.

Keep in mind I want taxes and I want to help the disadvantaged and protect the environment. We need to pay our fair share. And the government must ensure a competitive marketplace. But that does not mean we need to turn the whole economy to our government. We should pay our share then get government out of our way and out of our bedroom.

[tavalon]

47. With the exception of our differing beliefs about Walmart

it seems we agree on a lot of points. I know that socialism doesn't actually work in the macrocosm because of the very reason you pointed out. However, since I belong to a cooperative commune, I know it works in a microcosm or at least, it works in our microcosm (and it isn't absolutely pure since we don't give everything to the collective).

[CompassionateLib]

55. Excellent point

You are dead on, I was discussing "macrososm." I totally can see it could work well in your case as a microcosm. In your case, everyone is accountable to each other. In the macrocosm you start building layers which become corrupt with power and loss of accountability.

I do not believe the current evolution of man would allow it to work in macrocosm, maybe when we are more advanced it would work.

[tavalon]

56. BTW, welcome to DU

It's exactly our big tent in combination with the anonymity of the internet that leads to just the sort of rankling conversation you have sparked here.

[CompassionateLib]

58. Thank you

This is the sort of welcome I really do apprecaite. I like to discuss. To compare and contrast. Degate and argue. If we always agree someone's not thinking.

You are a thinking man/woman.

[Quantess]

45. I didn't say there's anything bad about it.!

However, it's quite a leap to say that anyone who opposes WalMart is a socialist. That's all.

I think there's plenty of stench emanating from that entity called WalMart. Saying so does not automatically make someone a socialist. I stay away from that store, which is perfectly acceptable in a "free market".

[tavalon]

48. Yup

I exercise my right not to soil myself by buying anything from that soulless entity.

[Quantess]

50. My boyfriend despises WalMart more than I do

and he'd be stupefied if someone called him a "socialist", savvy businessman that he is.

[tavalon]

51. Yeah, one of my partners

calls himself a capitalist bleeding heart liberal. I don't think he's wrong in that characterization. We get in some bigass arguments about economic philosophies and yet, he wouldn't be caught dead in a Walmart.

[CompassionateLib]

57. We mostly agree.

I agree with you on: "it's quite a leap to say that anyone who opposes WalMart is a socialist." I do not believe only a socialist would criticize Wal-Mart.

Cool: "I stay away from that store, which is perfectly acceptable in a 'free market'". Bang on. That is capitalism in action. You speak with your wallet. That is totally 100% your right, and I have no issue with you not shopping at Wal-Mart.

Where I diverge from you is what I commented on is a diatribe of socialist points. There is not acknowledgement of Wal-Mart providing low prices or competing in a free market.

- Why do we like shopping at Wal-Mart? we get the same thing for less. Why do we like that? We have more money in our pocket. Do we burn it or throw it away? no, we spend on something else. We are wealthier. That is a good thing.
- Wal-Mart has been hugely innovative in getting us cheap products.
- If they stop, others will beat them.
- They replace businesses that create nothing, simply resell products. Why do we need to artificially create jobs for people to resell what others created? That is dead wood on our economy. Wal-Mart creates nothing, they reduce inefficiency. We will never grow our economy by creating jobs to resell stuff already made or hurt it by eliminating jobs to just resell what is already made.
- They hire low end workers, not skilled one. That gives them opportunity to improve their lot in life, if they want to. Doesn't it make sense that low end workers would dominate an industry that makes and services nothing but simply resells pre-made items?

I've re-read the message several times, the testament to socialist points and exclusions of capitalist ones are consistent. That is not calling anyone who opposes Wal-Mart socialist or saying anyone must shop there.

[Quantess]

91. How is this a "testament to socialist points"?

"There is not acknowledgement of Wal-Mart providing low prices or competing in a free market."

The simple act of not acknowledging the plusses of WalMart is evidence of being a socialist? In what parallel universe?

[CompassionateLib]

96. Most of it is rant

Here are a few examples. BTW, I didn't really like either article so I'm defending the one being replied to in the rant.

- "Consider that far too many Wal-Mart associates live below the poverty line."

Where were they BEFORE Wal-Mart hired them? So Wal-Mart is bad for hiring people below the poverty line? Wal-Mart tends to be outside cities where wages and cost of living are not as high. You can live well in Arkansas below the poverty line and poorly above it in NYC. But in the end these are low end jobs. They make no product and provide no service. You stock and sell pre-made items. This isn't a job for rocket scientists. These are people who need work the most and when you increase the cost of very low skilled workers, those who need the jobs the most are the first to be let go. Wal-Mart should be encouraged to hire, not disincented by government control.

- "Earning nowhere near enough to support a family."

Again, these are among the lowest skilled jobs. Those with virtually no skills should be able to support a family on their wages? Everyone in this country should earn a wage to support a family? Teenagers? If you stock shelves you should be able to support a family on that?

- "Nearly 800,000 of Wal-Mart's approximately 1.39 million American employees aren't covered by the company's restrictive, costly health care plan"

And if they had comperable jobs sweeping floors and cleaning bathrooms they wouldn't either. And unlike at Wal-Mart there would be no ladder for them to climb or established name on their resume to improve their lot in life.

These and the endless blasting of Wal-Mart as "evil" are not free market. And as I've often said, I do not want to help Wal-Mart in any way and if they commit crimes I want them accountable to the full extent of the law. I am only saying they should be free to operate in a free market.

[Quantess]

94. WalMart is socialist because:

Their company has more employess on welfare, social security, medicare, and medicaid, than any other company. Wal Mart refuses to pay their employees a living wage, and instead, encourages their employees to use the government's socialist programs.

That is socialist.

[CompassionateLib]

103. Not clear

Are you saying that if Wal-Mart did not hire them they would not be on those government programs? That would not make sense. You can't be against them hiring people on government programs are you? Doesn't that help them? I'm sure they are smart enough to not be turning better jobs down elsewhere, aren't you?

[The Wizard]

79. Any system left unfettered

becomes totalitarian in the end. The moronic musings of Nancy French aside, Republicans embrace Wal-Mart for two simple reasons. One is cheap labor and the other is higher income for those at the top. It's a ratio of inverse proportion. There's only so much gold to go around and if the middle class is reduced to groveling at the feet of the corporate elites the middle class will become extinct as will democracy and in the end, capitalism itself. All this was the Zeitgeist of the 1850s. Check it out sometime.
We should all go to Wal-Mart and urinate on the radiators, just for a few cheap laughs, because everything is cheaper at Wal-Mart.

[Kerrytravelers]

9. Questioning the business practices of a corporation doesn't make you

anti-free market.

Nice try, though.

[CompassionateLib]

13. No..

..and if all she were doing were questioning their business practices that would be true. But she went far beyond that, so what's your point in regard to what I said?

Nice try though.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CompassionateLib]

32. Who did I call a name?

What is wrong with debate? Why does that bother you?

[rucky]

75. The OP is the free market at work...

consumers debating the pros and cons of where they spend their money. What's not free market is companies that become so big, they can pay for K-Street lobbyists to convince politicans to push for regulations when it restricts competition (net neutrality, tax breaks & subsidies), or de-regulation when it restricts them (clean air act). nothing free about that. I suppose the best way to combat the anti-free-market practices of the big corporations looking for government welfare is by voting for progressive candidate, staying educated as a consumer, and discussing the facts with other - exactly what the OP is doing.

[NobleCynic]

80. If Walmart did what it does without the help of government subsidies

then I would have less of a problem with it. On average, each Walmart employee costs the relevant state government over $1,000 per year per employee in Medicaid and Welfare costs. (Mind you, they are not the only company guilty of relying on state support to take care of their worker's health care, just the largest.) They use their massive political clout to browbeat local politicians into giving Walmart massive, albiet temporary, sales tax breaks, and then they pack up and cross county lines when the tax breaks expire having reached a new and similiar deal with the next local government. If a politician takes issue with it, right side of the aisle or left, they donate massively to their political opponent in the next election and run media campaigns dwarfing what any local politician can muster against him and the idea of "restricting growth." All of these patterns are systematic in their operation. They are the single largest purchaser of Chinese goods, accounting more over 10% of China's exports, meaning they are one of the prime causes of our international trade imbalance (they other being oil).

I understand your Libertarian viewpoint. However, Walmart is not only approaching monopoly status, if it isn't already there, it is abusing its monopoly power in similar ways to what got the Sherman anti-trust laws enacted in the first place. Second, it is not playing in a free market, because as the new player on the field it received countless tax breaks from eager politicians that its competition did not receive, all in the name of "providing jobs to the community" "keeping a pro-business stance" and "supporting growth." Ask your local K-Mart if they got a 5 year exemption on their sales tax when the Walmart moved in next door just like the Walmart did. I assure you, they did not.

[CompassionateLib]

84. Two questions

- How do you figure Wal-Mart is a monopoly? What do they sell no one else does. It seems the reverse to me, they sell what EVERYONE else does. I can't think of any way at all they are a monopoly.

- How is government subsidizing them? They hire people for low end/low skill jobs. They would likely be on Welfare and Medicaid anyway. Wal-Mart is in that sense reducing government costs, not increasing them. And they give low end workers the chance to develop an employment record and move on to better jobs. Many do. Remember, we're talking about reselling pre-made items. They make nothing and provide no services. This is not high end work.

[Quantess]

92. The government DOES subsidize WalMart.

Local governments often give incentives for them to open a store in their town, because they are looking forward to sales tax revenues. There are other examples. I'll have to look them up and get back to you.

[CompassionateLib]

93. That's true

and I oppose governments doing that or giving any business incentives. But isn't it a criticism of the governments, not Wal-Mart? Wal-Mart is bad for not turning down money?

[Quantess]

99. Good point. Businesses will do whatever they can to make a profit,

and the government is enabling them. WalMart is good at making a profit for themselves, no doubt about that. I think there are ethical problems with the way things are. As it stands now, it's up to consumers to decide whether to support ethical business practices, or to just always buy the cheapest.

(edit for grammar)

[CompassionateLib]

102. This is no fun...

...we're agreeing too much! Just kidding (on the not being fun part).

It is companies jobs to make profits, not to determing whether government should incent them. The biggest reason to me that government should not incent companies is that is helping one company over another. If Wal-Mart is more efficient and offers lower prices, that is fine. If they can offer lower prices then their competition because government charges them lower taxes, that is against free markets. And that is the sort of thing I criticize Republicans for in free markets. They favor companies, which gives them an unfair edge because it's based on government intervention, not market forces.

I'm 100% with you that customers should make their choice on where to spend their money and have absolutely no problem with anyone deciding to not shop at Wal-Mart. I would never presume to tell them how to spend their money. I just want discussions of Wal-Mart to be realistic.

While I do not want governments to incent Wal-Mart, I do not believe Wal-Mart should be forced to provide welfare either. If workers w/o skills can't live on market wages, then they should get a combination of wages and welfare. It's not and should not be Wal-Mart's job to implement social policy and they should not be beneficiaries or vicims of unbalanced government social policy.

The

[bicentennial_baby]

111. It's a Monopolistically Competitive firm which

practices strategic behavior through advertising, prices, location, etc.

[CompassionateLib]

116. How is Wal-Mart a monopoly?

They sell pre-made items that are available everywhere. They sell nothing no one else does and they provide no services. They offer ONLY lower prices. How are they a monopoly?

[nadinbrzezinski]

118. You almost got it right

There are certain items that you can only find at Wally World

Their second objective is to drive ALL competition under the bus... local, regional, national does not matter

[CompassionateLib]

120. What..

...can you only buy at Wally world?

And competing does not make you anti-competitive, so what exactly is your point?

[nadinbrzezinski]

122. You have an expansive answer to your question above

a real expansive answer...

But you should really look under the hood at Walmart.

Sam Walton, for the record, was not that bad. His kids though.. oh boy

[ironflange]

4. This shows how badly she doesn't get it

Democrats run as "Wal-Mart Foes" criticizing what they perceive to be inadequate health care and low wages. (Wages that are lower than unionized labor's, but
competitive enough to draw 25,000 job applicants for 325 openings at a new Chicago store.)

Does she think these people all decided they didn't like being lawyers, cops, pilots, teachers, etc., and what they really wanted was a new career at Wal-Mart? I have news for you, Lady, these folks aren't filling out apps because they want to, it's because they have to, thanks to the economic miracle they're living under.

[bread_and_roses]

73. Really. That this person thinks 25,000 applicants for 325 low-paid

dead end, no health care/benefits jobs that can't support them is a GOOD thing tells us everything we need to know about HER value system.

And does our "free-market-eer" poster think such #s indicate some kind of "free" market competition for Labor or a healthy economy? Tell that to the 24,675 desperate souls who don't get hired. A lot of them will be in the line on the next "food-bank" distribution day, but then, so will a lot of those Walmart workers who don't make enough to feed a family.

But hey, that's OK - those "compassionate conservatives" can keep supporting Walmart and its' ilk while they
A)pat themselves on the back for donating to the Food Bank and
B)cut the safety nets for the poor 'cause they are just lazy, should get jobs, and we don't want that old inefficient "Big Gubm't" screwing things up with its' ineffieciencey, don't you know?

That inefficient Gubm't that manages to run Medicare with about 1/10 of the Administrative costs of private insurers, right? (They should spend more - no agency that size can well-serve its' clients on the % Medicare spends, but they are probably afraid of being accused of being "inefficient.")

immediate edit to add the word "want" and to correct spelling

[CompassionateLib]

85. Agreed...

I didn't write the post you rebutted but I've been the free-market-eer in most of the discussion. An accusation I'm guilty of, I am a free-market-eer. Let me say I agree totally with your point on Republicans.

I am free market.

Republicans are big business.

I am only defending Wal-Mart's right to compete. Nothing anti-liberal in that. I am not advocating helping them compete, which is what Republicans do. When Wal-Mart is free to competitively reduce their costs society benefits because it is more productive. And I want a fair share of that to go to assisting the disadvantaged and economic efficiency increases our ability to do that.

As you rightly point out Replublicans want to HELP Wal-Mart compete becuase they are then big and fund their political war chests. Then society does pay for corporate profits and that is anti-liberal.

Then again, it's not like I've been able to understand or explain Republicans before, why would this be any different?

[starroute]

6. There is something skewed in that woman's thinking

Her column starts off, "Because we're raising little capitalists, my husband and I pay our children nominal fees to make their beds, wash their plates, and hopefully one day do our taxes. Every Saturday night, we gather at the kitchen table for 'payday' and drop coins earned from daily chores into different jars labeled 'God,' 'Save,' and 'Spend.'"

So right from the start, this couple is training their offspring to believe, not that good behavior finds its reward in Heaven rather than on Earth, not even that the members of a family have certain responsibilities to give back to the community which maintains them -- but instead that no service should be performed without the promise of immediate material reward.

Clearly, they also anticipate that in years to come, when they are elderly and decrepit and ask their now-grown children for help in performing basic tasks, the response of those children will be, "What's it worth to you?"

And just as clearly, among those three jars, even the one marked "God" is conceived of as money for favors to be received at some unspecified future date -- and not as selfless giving without thought of personal return.

Not being a Christian myself, perhaps I shouldn't worry about it -- but it does dismay me to see how much of present-day Christianity has become perverted into what used to known as the worship of Mammon:

"No servant can serve two masters," Jesus told his disciples. "For either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and Mammon."

What the Sermon on the Mount makes clear is that you can't even serve Mammon on the weekdays and God on the weekends. As the columnist's little parable of the tip jars tells us, once you allow Mammon to rule your daily life, your relationship to God becomes Mammon-ized as well.

And that's the real problem with raising good little capitalists.

[hfojvt]

10. not very good capitalists either - perhaps just consumers

there is, for example, no jar for 'invest' and her idea of 'saving' seems wrong as does her idea of spending.

"The Save jar is placed back on the windowsill for the day they can afford, say, a PlayStation 2 game..."

Except that is not 'saving' - that is accumulating for later, larger spending. Saving is when you put money away in case of an emergency, so you will be able to pay your hospital bill, say, if you suddenly need an appendectomy or to have a broken collarbone set, etc. Or you put money away, really long term, so you can afford college or the downpayment on a house or you have seed money for your business idea.

Really her kids are being trained to think of their income as 90% disposable income and that is wrong too. First maybe you could double their allowance and let them know that their first, and largest piece of spending is on necessities - food, shelter, clothing, utilities, transportation, child or pet care, medical care, etc. Unless they are contributing their own paper-route or babysitting money to the household, those are being provided to them for free. Which is the 2nd half of socialism - to each according to their needs. Those need to be taken care of before they go buy another toy with "their own" money, and for alot of working class people in this world, there is not alot of money left over to buy toys. Plus, the probably huge stock of toys which already clutter up most middle class households were provided to them for free too.

You make a good point about mammon worship, but I hope you realize it's been going on for decades, if not centuries here in America. Mammon worship is like the Niagara river of America. Sometimes there are eddies and people trying to swim or row against the current, but the raging torrent roils on mostly unperturbed.

[Joe Bacon]

8. Bobcat, you hit the nail on the head!

Conservatives bullshit about their personal relationship with Jesus BUT, in reality, they are far more concerned with their pursuit of Ayn Rand's "Looking Out for #1" philosophy.

What hypocrites!

[NanceGreggs]

11. As always, an EXCELLENT, worthwhile read!

K&R!

[hfojvt]

14. I would point out another 'dirty little secret'

When she says this:
"They are also 25 percent more likely to donate money than those who don't (91 percent to 66 percent)—and this isn't just giving in the collection plate: the religious are more generous with nonreligious causes as well. They are also 23 percent more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent)."

She ignores the fact that people who regularly goto church are, on average, wealthier than people who do not. It is also that wealth that helps to make them conservative. Go get some more statistics. How much likelier is a church-goer to have a car that is less than 3 years old? At least at the Methodist, Presbyterian, Free Methodist, and Nazarene churches that I have associated with, their members have nice cars, nice clothes, and nice houses.

Also, church goers are probably more likely to volunteer time because they are older than average - they are more likely to be retired and thus have lots of free time to play with.

[Marnieworld]

15. excellent smackdown BobCat

I love how she asserted that so many people applied for jobs at Wal-Mart as proof that working at Wal-Mart is a good thing. A compassionate person would realize that of course they would chose wages over no wages or work over no work. And they call us elitist?

[silverlib]

17. Link to this article - Tell the world it's Good!

at the end of the article. Doesn't this just say it all?

Thank you for taking the time to respond directly, as well as posting your response.

I often say that I am an oxymoron - the only thing I cannot tolerate is intolerance. Thank you Nancy for raising oxymoron to a new level!

[Career Prole]

18. I can't begin to tell you how gratifying it was

to read this in the comments section after that ridiculous article! Bravo, sir! Bra-damn-vo!
:yourock:

[NoSheep]

60. Ditto!!!

Bravo!!!!:bounce:

[Norrin Radd]

20. That Nancy is the sort to mutter "liberal" like a mantra immediately demonstrates

to me that she is a nutter, not to be acknowledged.

Words of wisdom for Nancy:

Once you label me you negate me.

- Søren Kierkegaard

[stevietheman]

52. I encourage everyone to try FreeCycle

http://www.freecycle.org/

I just gave away a pair of unused inline skates yesterday to a lady who is going to give them to her son for Christmas.

Mal-wart lost a sale. Boo hoo.

[depakid]

62. What is up with Ohians & Walmart?

Far right trade and economic policies AND corporation like Walmart have devastated communities across the state.

Ohio is NUMBER 1 in job loss- and if there's a more corrupt state in the union, I'd like to see it. Yet so many people still can't connect the dots.

Bizarre.

[CompassionateLib]

69. Louisiana

Would be more corrupt.

[silverweb]

76. Wonderful!

:applause:

[SavageDem]

78. Oooooh, she blowed up REAL good, didn't she?

...as Joe Flaherty used to say to John Candy back in the day. Bobcat, I bet your response left her gasping for air. Beautiful. Keep it up, man!

[CompassionateLib]

105. Wal-Mart does not harm community economies...

...in fact it helps them. I've been arguing Wal-Mart and some have wanted to put political labels on my Wal-Mart views, but it is not an ideology question, it is just what is. If you keep hearing the Wal-Mart bashers, please just read and consider this, it's all I ask.

To sustain a Community must export some product or service outside the community. Let's take an example of a farming community. The community exports crops, eggs, meat etc. The money comes into the community is the "revenue" of the community. Now the farmers producing the products have direct costs to produce them. They must make a profit (their income).

The farmers also need stuff like groceries, gasolines, etc. Businesses spring up to provide that to them and the people running the other businesses. And those businesses send money outside the community for the products. So for example a gas station buys gas from an oil company sending money outside the community and sells gas to the members of the community keeping the difference as their profit.

But everything in the community is ultimately funded by the crops sent from the community by the farmers and then circulates through the other businesses. Now, Wal-Mart comes to the community.

Wal-Mart produces nothing and sells no services. So which businesses are replaced by the Wal-Mart? Ones that simply buy and re-sell pre made items and do not add value to them. Lamp stores, pharmacies, electronics stores, whatever. But think about it from the perspective of the community.

- The revenue of the community is not affected. Their product is crops, Wal-Mart does not decrease that. How can it be devistated?
- However, the money leaving the community is reduced because Wal-Mart buys products more cheaply. Instead of a small lamp store paying $30 to a lamp producer, Wal-Mart pays them only $20.
- The farmers (and other in the community) have more money because they pay less for same thing. Instead of buying the lamp for $50 they buy it for $30, which means they have $20 to spend or invest. Or maybe they lower the price of their crops enabling them to sell more bringing more revenue to the community.

Now the people who lost their jobs I agree it is too bad. I really do. But change is constant and people are always affected. We have not become the greatest country on the planet by fearing and resisting change but by embracing it. So now,

- The lower tier workers work at Wal-Mart providing them with opportunity
- Some higher skilled can get jobs managing the others
- The others who lost their jobs can get jobs that rather than simply re-selling pre-made items add value or provide services
- Consumers have more money for other stuff becuase they got the same thing for less.

This is why Wal-Mart cannot harm a community by coming in. It is not an ideology that makes me say it but the recognition of basic economics.

[RetroLounge]

126. and how long have you worked there?

:shrug:

RL

[nadinbrzezinski]

127. Actually the statistics show a different story

when I buy a book at my LOCAL indie books store... 70 cents stay in the community

When I buy ANYTHING at Wally World only 20 cents or so stay in the communty, profits go to Corporate HQ.

[ProudDad]

106. Great Reply!

Thanks...

[Manifestor_of_Light]

123. go to East Texas --- destroyed

There is little to no industry, mostly timber, and Wallyworld has destroyed tons of small businesses in small towns. Nothing there. They're trying to entice Baby Boomers to retire there, since there is no industry. No grocery stores, no electrical stores, no antique stores, no independent drugstores.

In one little town, the hardware store that sells appliances, lawnmowers, guns, etc. is only surviving because they sell fancy china and crystal and silverware so that brides can have their perfect dream set of china, etc. for all those parties they are going to have (snicker).

If you don't go to church or the garden club, you got no social life.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

124. Those low prices do you no good if you don't have a job

Those low prices do you no good if you don't have a job, and don't have money to spend.

The greedy are cutting their own throats, because if there is no working class and middle class, there's nobody to buy all that cheap crap from China. And we're the biggest debtor nation in the world, to China.


My fucking Doctorate Degree (Juris Doctor) is only useful as an impressive framed placemat that looks like I did something worthwhile. Didn't keep me from falling out of the middle class like everyone else. I just wasted five years of my life and about $20,000 in 1980s dollars getting it.