Economics 101, Why the idea of Walmart is, in fact, GOOD...
Posted August 21st, 2008 by Clarkstmusic
output
Hello everybody,
I belong to a local 9/11 truth group here in Chicago. While we are all libertarian leaning(the political philosophy, not the party), we have a lone socialist in the group. We all have gone back and forth with him many times, and Walmart always comes up. I have also listened to the uneducated assaults on Walmart from so many other people, either socialists or freedom lovers, for far to long.
While I dont expect this post to actually end the arguement. I will give it a try.
Walmart is an advantage to the American people, not an assault on our liberty, purchasing power, wages earned, etc etc.
The cases against Walmart, that are frequently used.
1. They drive out mom and pop shops.
2. They dont have fair wages.
3. They union bust.
4. They outsource production.
All of these cases are absolutely 100% uneducated.
1. They drive out mom and pop shops.
Well, yes they do. But only because the mom and pop shops prices are higher than Walmart. If they werent, then they would still be in business.
When Walmart roles into town. They come in with a nice low price for everyone. The mom and pop shops cant compete and then go out of business. However, this is a good thing for the community. In the absense of Walmart. Everyone in the community had to go to the mom and pops to buy goods. When Walmart stepped in, the community instantly saw lower prices. So, yes, while some were effected by the out of business mom and pops, namely the owners and their employees. The community however saw a huge benefit. While they had, say 100 dollars to buy a pair of jeans from the mom and pop. Now, with the low price of, say, jeans from Walmart, they have more money to purchase a different good. The communities purchasing power just increased and the community is now that much richer whatever new goods they are able to purchase.
Also keep in mind that once they have driven out the mom and pops. If they, then, increased their prices. The mom and pops would come back into business.
2. They dont have fair wages.
The idea that everyone deserves high wages is one reason we are constantly in economic turmoil. People need to be paid what they are worth. You cant convince me that a cashier at Walmart deserves to make as much as the manager. NO, 100 times no.
Now, let us assume that Walmart gives their stockboys and cashiers a large increase in pay. Well, their prices will, in turn, increase as well. While those, lets say, 200 employees will directly benefit due to pay increases. The community of, lets say, 10,000 people will have a lower purchasing power and not be able to spend that money, that is now consumed in a rise in price, on something else.
Fair wages do NOT equal, high wages.
3. They union bust.
Of course they do. They do not want to see a union come in an increase wages. Because they dont want to have to increase price. If you want to understand that. Go back to number 2.
4. They outsource production.
They outsource because they are seeking ways of lower production costs. In return, they will be able to lower consumer prices. This benefits the community. While, the, lets say 200 people, they put out of a job because they outsourced a jean manufacturing plant. They just increased the purchasing power of 10,000 people in the community and now that community will be that much richer whatever new products they are now able to afford. Being against outsourcing is being against free-markets and being against international trade. This is exactly what Ron Paul has been talking about.
Now that I have destroyed some of your ideas that you have held about Walmart. Let me explain why Walmart, yes, is an evil company.
They get their prices so low because of their enslavement of indigenous cultures in both South America and Indonesia.
And, without the use of American backed military products being shipped to these countries to aid in the enslavement of their people. Companies like Walmart and Nike would not have a leg to stand on. When the people in these countries want to stand up for their rights. Their governments, backed by US money and war machines, keep them from doing so. And you cant, entirely, blame Walmart for using the US government to do their bidding. You blame the US government.
So, while Walmart is evil for their enslaving people in foriegn countries. They are not evil for their practices here in America.
And that is economics 101.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Wow - How much did Walmart pay you?
Join PyraBang the patriot search engine.
Did you actually read what I
Did you actually read what I wrote?
This is very basic free-market economics.
You know, that form of economics that Dr. Paul tends to talk about.
Your just not getting it are you...
If money is so important that it is more important than principles or morals... I'm sure it's hard to see why you wouldn't do something...
1. Walmart is a vessel of the global elite to destroy America's and Americans ability to be independent of the rest of the world.
2.It supports global slavery.
3.It uses it's power to corrupt federal, state and local officials,
4.It, in effect, goes around the laws and regulations that small businesses have to obide by.
So, if we we're in a boxing match...and I had my hands handcuffed behind me. Would you go ahead and fight me if they paid you?
Or would you pause and have to think about the idea behind fairness and competition?
The fact is it's actually worse because everyday you purchase things at Walmart... your actually punching yourself!
Mike
"Fire Team for Freedom" and "Revolutionary Business"
visit www.mikeandjake.com
How did they get the money in first place
in order to have all this power you claim they have and use? It was by figuring out out to be more efficient than other businesses.
Why would you want America to "be independent of the rest of the world?" That's isolationism. Dr. Paul's movement doesn't support that.
If there are laws and regulations that prevent competition with Wal-Mart, that's government's fault, not Wal-Marts.
You anti-Wal-Mart people are attacking the wrong thing. Attack government, not private enterprise.
----
Don't blame me if there's no voice for liberty opposing McCain and Obama in the Presidential debates. I donated to Ron Paul Libertarian, Bob Barr's campaign.
I can't think of anything more moral
than making money, and a lot of it.
----
Don't blame me if there's no voice for liberty opposing McCain and Obama in the Presidential debates. I donated to Ron Paul Libertarian, Bob Barr's campaign.
That is twisted
I can think of plenty of things more MORAL than making money.
and neither can
the federal reserve.
Wouldnt do something?
Wouldnt do something? Something about what? Walmart.
No, you are definately right there. I dont focus on Walmart. I focus on the politicians. And I do alot. Ive done alot. In fact I have worked extensively with people involved in the radio station you are broadcasted on. Ray knows me quite well as well as Brian Siemon. Dont presume Im not doing anything.
Im extremely principled. To the point of it being a fault. And just because I may hold an unpopular view on the Daily Paul doesnt mean that A. im not right in my view and B. im not principled.
Im sorry if I dont hold my head in the sand.
The problem isnt the corporations. Its the politicians who listen to the corporations that are at fault.
In my home town
In my home town, Walmart and other big box corporations are GIVEN Corporate Welfare. They are credited the Local Taxes... which equates to an additional 4% PROFIT kicker. Their other practices are well documented and haunting them.
I rarely shop at Walmart, because I don't buy things just because it's Cheap. I'm inclined to buy goods based upon personal value and endurance rather than divesting into a disposable consumerism philosophy of "Lower Prices" and "Saving Money".
Only Rich People can afford to save money!
A tax break is not corporate welfare.
By your reasoning, if the government lowered the income tax rate for everyone, that would be the same thing as welfare.
You may be wealthy enough to buy better quality things, but Wal-Mart benefits lower income people the most. They don't have the money to buy high quality or high fashion. They just need basic things that don't necessary last long, but give them a chance to have SOMETHING while they're trying to advance themselves to the next income level. This is where Wal-Mart comes in. It's elitist to knock that.
----
Don't blame me if there's no voice for liberty opposing McCain and Obama in the Presidential debates. I donated to Ron Paul Libertarian, Bob Barr's campaign.
Bingo! You nailed right there....
Elitist. All these people dissing the millions of satisfied Wal-Mart shoppers obviously have NO clue what it means to HAVE to buy the least expensive things they can find. They'd rather these people sunk even further into government-induced poverty (thanks to insane monetary policy) by not being able to afford basic necessities. "Buy American! It's twice as expensive, thanks to unions!" Screw that! Long live Wal-Mart! Bentonville, Arkansas IS America - deal with it.
http://groups.yahoo.com/g...
Amen, Bro..I think they
Amen, Bro..I think they support almost every fun thing we do in Heber Springs, like fireworks on the 4th and relays for life and Cardboard boat races--you can always count on them for money to the community.
Hott damn.
You must be tired because I'm exhausted. I've been here all day and I'm not getting paid. You have been at this non stop for at least 14 hours that I know of.. You're like a machine. And you have poor Karma.
You've left out
A large reason for their low prices is their federal and state subsidies. You pay a lower price at the register and starve the local shops out of business in the name of progress but your actually paying the difference in the price from taxs and inflation and future debt of the subsidies. I'm not sure that I would equate semi-fascist super corporations with efficiency any more than I would when scrutinizing government. Walmart is a symptom of a larger sickness of our monetary and political landscape.
-The first ever national report on Wal-Mart subsidies documented at least $1 billion in subsidies from state and local governments.
-A Wal-Mart official stated that "it is common" for the company to request subsidies "in about one-third of all [retail] projects." This would suggest that over a thousand Wal-Mart stores have been subsidized. ["Shopping For Subsidies: How Wal-Mart Uses Taxpayer Money to Finance Its Never-Ending Growth," Good Job First, May 2004]
http://www.wakeupwalmart....
"It is the responsibility of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
— Thomas Paine
Who wouldnt take government
Who wouldnt take government subsidies. If the government came to you and asked you if you would be willing to take a billion dollars for free. Would you. Of course you would. I know I would.
However, Walmart isnt to blame here. Yes yes I know they employ a huge amount of lobbyists. But why wouldnt they, if the outcome is free money.
Dont blame Walmart for that. Blame the politicians that give them the money. You cant control what Walmart does. Not in a free economy(well you can but that is only as a consumer choosing not to shop there). But you can control your politicians. By not re-electing them. If you have a problem with politicians that give away your money. Mount some opposition to their next re-election. Run for office, support a candidate.
But, heavens no, dont blame Walmart. They didnt create the system. They just figured out how to abuse it.
Im dead set against subsidies. But, I put the blame where it belongs, the politicians. And yes, I have worked on campaigns here in Chicago(a terribly liberal town) to over throw our current "marxist" politicians.
I agree with you, Clarkstmusic.
It looks like you have thoroughly mastered Econ 101.
Now, moving on to Econ 102, do you agree with me when I write,
"'The point of buying gold and silver is that the purchasing power of the metals don't change,' says Clark St Music, echoing his leader, Ron Paul, who writes, 'Gold is history's oldest and most stable currency… Since your dollars have no intrinsic value, they are subject to currency market fluctuations.' This is a particularly ironic thing for Clark St Music to say, since he is a strident Austrian who responds to any and all criticism with a list of recommended reading material – all by Mises, Hayek and Rothbard. If he had actually read any of those books himself, he would know that the fundamental contribution of Hayek's Prices and Production was that higher-order goods (farther from the consumer) are more volatile than lower-order goods. Mining, being the highest of Hayek's five stages of production, is the most volatile of all. Mainstream economists have rejected Hayek's five stages, preferring only two, labeled 'production' and 'consumption.' But they would not dispute the fact that production goods are more volatile than consumption goods. I have criticized Hayek at length, but I would not disagree with this basic observation either. Incidentally, as I explain in my Answer to Stephen Zarlenga, gold is not history's oldest currency – cows are. Gold coins were just tokens for cows, similar to the way paper notes would become, thousands of years later, tokens for gold."
But you also have to agree,
But you also have to agree, that the outlandish attacks I have now received due to this post has definately seperated the herd.
Yes, the outlandish attacks
have seperated the men from the boys.
Hey I hear their is a sale
Spiderman underware. 4-6 year old is what you said you wore right.
Hey I am sure Micheal Nystrom would appreciate you buying up some advertising space instead of pissing off his fellow patriots by troll bumping a thread to sell a book.
Shaka laka ding dong.
So what again are you doing here on the Daily Paul?
I do, roughly, agree with
I do, roughly, agree with you.
I have read those books.
My reason for advocating gold is that it will hold value, traditionally, over the paper dollar.
Thats all. Its a better store of wealth.
I was probably too harsh
when I implied that you hadn't read any of those books. For one thing, Hayek's Prices and Production wasn't on the list you previously presented me with.
Most young Austrians today are disciples of Rothbard and it was he who gave everybody the "cartoonishly simplistic" (there I go again, getting harsh) idea that hyperinflation is the inevitable fate of central banking.
Today I added an appendix titled, "Is the collapse of the dollar inevitable?" My answer is that it was not at the time that Rothbard was saying it was, but now that the Fed has polluted their portfolio, it might happen - the question has become murky.
So, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. It's not your fault that Rothbard led an entire generation astray with his scare talk of an inevitable collapse. If you were really convinced that collapse is inevitable, then purchasing gold was not entirely without justification.
The relevant passage is:
"Bernanke’s actions have made the question of hyperinflation a murky one. The Austrian’s depiction of hyperinflation as being the inevitable fate of central banking has always been cartoonishly simplistic, and it remains so. However, economists of all schools must now admit that hyperinflation is at least a possibility. If the dollar appears to be losing its status as the world’s reserve currency, what will the Fed do about it? Sell their AAA-rated securities for cash and destroy the cash? But what if nobody is impressed with the AAA rating and won’t buy their securities at any price? Then the Fed will be in the same position as the Continental Congress - benevolent men who have no desire to see their beloved nation racked with hyperinflation, but who have no more ability to recall the paper money that they have printed than Frankenstein had to recall his monster.
"Of course, not all of the Fed’s portfolio is in AAA-rated securities and not everything with an AAA rating is worthless crap. They still have lots of T-Bills and there is a market for at least some of their AAA-rated securities. This is why the question of hyperinflation has become so murky. The bottom line is that nobody – including Ben Bernanke – really knows what the Fed’s portfolio is worth these days. For this reason, I would be very leery of any economist, from any school, who speaks confidently about the future of the dollar. Is the collapse of the dollar inevitable, as the Austrians claim? Or are we at the dawn of a socialistic paradise, provided only that we install the Benevolent One in the Federal Reserve’s chair, as the Debt Virus Theorists claim? The answer is certainly somewhere between these extremes, but where exactly I cannot tell you."
You didnt hurt my
You didnt hurt my feelings.
And, yes I do agree that hyper-inflation doesnt have to be the end all be all of a central bank. As of right now, I dont think we are at risk of hyper-inflation provided that we stay out of new wars. But, hey, thats improbable.
I do appreciate you coming on here and backing me up. Along with the others that have done so. And its funny, because you and some of the others have disagreed with me on issues in the past too. But something as simplistic as this post can really bring out the best half wits.
But, all in all, I could care less what people think about me. I have worked tirelessly for this movement and no one who knew what I was behind would disagree. But I'm not here for an ego boost. I just find entertaining to see people get their panties in a bundle over mundane things. And sometimes I learn something too.
You're alright with me.
No matter where you shop BUY AMERICAN ONLY!
Whenever possible, buy American made products. Walmart and every other retailer wouldn't stock cheap chinese/taiwanese/etc. products if there were no market for them.
Why?
If an American company is not able to make a product cost less than a foreign company, why reward the less efficient company? We should be rewarding efficiency.
----
Don't blame me if there's no voice for liberty opposing McCain and Obama in the Presidential debates. I donated to Ron Paul Libertarian, Bob Barr's campaign.
Change Happens
While it is true Wal-Mart brings some benefits to a community it also brings different forms of destruction. It is like fire or a sword - being both beneficial and detrimental.
Wal-Mart is a corporation. Corporations have no heart, no brain, no soul and no humanity. Corporations are like the Terminator: single minded purpose of maximizing profits.
Drive around western states and one sees countless ghost towns. These towns had families, schools and community life. What killed them?
Corporations, taxes (their own government) and the Federal Reserve by destroying the value of their money.
Corporations have stolen the productive capacity of the individual and family. With Wal-Mart the corporations have now stolen the retail market through ruthless competition, out sourcing to slave countries, and dominating local governments (unfair tax incentives, zoning breaks, etc.) Corporations control their spheres of activity through centralization. Centralization means control - in this specific case - of the retail market.
America's family farms have been destroyed by corporations. America's small business have been destroyed by corporations. (The FED is a corporation.) Wal-Mart is a corporation not of the local community where they are found. Thus they suck up cash and send it out of that community. Not unlike the Federal and State Governments [sic] that transfer untold cash amounts out of local communities through taxation.
I shop at the local Wal-Mart because it is here and I can get much of what I need or want. I also make many purchases online or in nearby Big Cities when I do visit.
Is Wal-Mart evil? Depends how one defines evil. They do some good and they do some bad. One thing though they have brought to this community a selection of goods which were not available prior to their arrival. The world is going through some deep and traumatic changes. Cars were not good news to buggy whip makers. Trains were bad for horse drawn freight companies. Change happens....
http://video.google.com/v...
I've bought a lot of amo at Walmart.
They benefit me with low prices. I resent being expected to pay higher prices for similar merchandise in smaller stores. I don't care what agreements they make with the many people who apply for jobs there. The fact that so many want to work there means it must not be all that bad. As for slave wages abroad, I'll bet people are equally eager to secure jobs in the foreign industries that supply goods to Walmart. It beats the hell out of what they might otherwise have to do for a living and no doubt raises they buying power and standard of living.
Re: I've bought a lot of amo
Re: "The fact that so many want to work there means it must not be all that bad."
In many towns they work there because their last job was put out of business because of Wal-Mart coming to town.
Watch the video and see:
Wal-Mart The High Cost of Low Price
http://video.google.com/v...
That is a CROCK! Walmart
That is a CROCK! Walmart comes from Arkansas, where I live, and, I swear, most everyone in the state is on some sort of government dole. I bet 60%PLUS of the population. They put no one out of jobs here--no one is really working. However, if they were, they would not receive even the little benefits that Walmart does give its employees at most jobs.
Re: That is a CROCK!
If that is true, why do all of these people in the video say otherwise? Not to mention I've seen it happen.
http://video.google.com/v...
Crock still. I watched some
Crock still. I watched some of the video. In our town we have an Ace Hardware store AND a Walmart. I get a lot of my hardware at walmart because the price is cheaper, but GEE. The hardware store is smart enough to carry a LOT of things you just can't buy at Walmart--especially the higher quality stuff, and they are doing fine! They sell carpeting and flooring at ACE. They sell some walmart stuff at horrid prices, but since you are there, you buy them anyway to save the hassle. Some of you guys are wimps. When the times change, one has to change with them to keep afloat. Like I said, Kroger's with its great gas card and heavy organic food sections would probably take oodles of business from Wally if they moved right across the street. SO this is a successful corporation that sells people stuff at great prices, then CONTRIBUTES back to the community lots of times. I am not the sort of person who could work for them but they do pretty well by their employees, considering what I do for the people who work for me, which is essentially nothing except flexibility.
And yet at the same time
they're now able to buy more things with their salary, because Wal-Mart has driving down prices of goods. So in effect, their real wages have increased.
----
Don't blame me if there's no voice for liberty opposing McCain and Obama in the Presidential debates. I donated to Ron Paul Libertarian, Bob Barr's campaign.
Yes,
good point.
How much have the 'real' wages of the unemployed...
American workers who's jobs have been shipped overseas increased?
Are you really so shortsighted? Or are you simply an asshole?
There is no doubt that SOME people
are hurt when jobs get shipped oversease, but MOST people benefit. That's the cost of progess. And those people that get hurt eventually end up with better jobs, because the increased wealth in the U.S. due to outsourcing gives us more money to create jobs in other areas.
----
Don't blame me if there's no voice for liberty opposing McCain and Obama in the Presidential debates. I donated to Ron Paul Libertarian, Bob Barr's campaign.
Yes, this argument is similar
to the one regarding new technologies.
For instance, when automobiles were introduced, a lot of people with jobs at stables, etc. were put out of work. Yes, that hurt, especially if they'd spent their whole lives acquiring skills specific to caring for and driving horses.
But would we really be better off today, in 2008, if we were still all getting around on horseback? Of course not.
Ah.... Ahh...
AchOOO... Excuse me. I'm allergic to bullshit.
First of all....
SIR, MADAM...
Learn to use punctuation correctly.
Unlike my own sister, I do not let that get in the way of understanding what you're trying (and I do mean TRYING) to say.
But after reading it - it's a very poor excuse to get ANYONE to see how WaLly wOrLd is not hurting anyone....
Just to prove a point - so that I may go on to worthwhile threads...
The industries that are removed from your city - THOSE are the ones paying the higher wages - allowing their employees to live and live modestly well.
Take Ann Arbor, Michigander just for a recent example......
My sister - a chem engineer for Ford Motor Co. - and her husband - a crash test engineer for Ford Motor Co. - they bought a house for nearly 300 grand.....a small house. Houses are that expensive up there...or at least they were until Pfizer saved money by leaving Ann Arbor all together.
Extremely high paying jobs.....you know.....the kind that we need around here.....every one of them at that facility was lost and gone. The community took a huge hit. FOR SALE signs popped up everywhere. That $300K house wouldn't sell for $200K just one year after being bought by my family.
Pfizer saved money by relocating.....and Ann Arbor got stuck with the bag. Wal-mart wages don't cut it bud....
We can't all sit around buying shit at Wal-mart for the rest of our lives.
I can't even believe I share the same view about 9/11 as you.
That kills me.
.....moving on now.....
Thanks for the laugh though! :)
First of all,
this is a forum and people rarely check their punctuation and spelling before they hit the "post comment" button. While literacy is a fine thing, why pick on Clarkstmusic? His posts are typical of this and most other forums.
Second, why is WalMart responsible for Pfizer moving out of Ann Arbor? Did they hire gangsters to blow up the Pfizer plant so they could steal their employees? No. WalMart just happened to be there when the former Pfizer employees went looking for work.
It's too bad that your sister can't sell her house but - you know - things are tough all over.
Most of the anti-WalMart posts on this thread complain about working conditions at WalMart and I agree: It sucks to work at WalMart. But it's not their fault that you don't have someplace better to work. At least they were there to give you a job while you look for work.
You are looking for work, right? Or are you too busy whining about the working conditions at WalMart to bother filing out applications elsewhere?
We all go through bad times at some point in our lives. (My stint at Jack-in-the-Box twenty years ago certainly does NOT bring back fond memories.) The strong ones move on and get better jobs. The weaklings just whine about the job they've got.
And what you wrote applies
And what you wrote applies to my post.......HOW.
WalMart hired gangsters
to blow up the Pfizer plant so they could steal their employees.
So of course it's all WalMart's fault!
(Ha! Ha!)
A few articles about Wal-Mart.......
http://www.mises.org/stor...
http://www.lewrockwell.co...
http://www.robertringer.c...
http://tinyurl.com/y8e832
http://tinyurl.com/ykop6c
http://www.mises.org/stor...
http://www.freeliberal.co...
http://www.tcsdaily.com/a...
Clarkstmusic is a globalist
Clarkstmusic is a globalist
he considers china as part of the USA
dont feed the moleeeeeeeee
MY YOUTUBE http://www.youtube.com/us...
MY WEB SITE http://www.InfoSpill.com
Whatever one thinks of
Whatever one thinks of Walmart, the absolute worst outcome is to allow opportunistic big government statists to use them as an excuse for more government control, even if it is in the name of ‘saving the little guy’ from ‘unfair competition’ or other such BS.
What ought to be the focus, is making sure government, whether local, state, or federal, does not have the power to do any bidding on behalf of large companies.
That means getting rid of all individual and corporate taxes, so that governments cannot favor the big guys by giving them tax breaks, to ‘bring in more jobs’ or something (More like take politico’s golfing, in reality).
It also means dramatically cutting back on the amount of regulatory compliance necessary to operate a business. The way things are now, the benefits to being big are artificially inflated by fixed overhead due to regulation. For companies large enough to amortize legal and public affairs departments over huge sales volume, this is much less of a problem than for a small startup, or even an existing mom and pop.
In addition, it requires getting rid of, or at least severely limiting, the restrictions governments can put on property owners, under guise of land use or zoning laws. The real effect of giving politicians the ability to decide whether someone, including Walmart, can set up shop or not, is that only those companies with political clout gets permission. And it doesn’t take a genius to realize the big guys, in the long run, hold more sway over politicians than smaller ones.
In a truly free and minimally regulated economy, Walmart would be a lot less influential than it is today. If anyone, anywhere, anytime could buy or rent a lot, and set up a competitor across the street in less than five minutes; and could cherry pick goods from equally easy to set up distributors, manufacturers and importers; none of whom needed to spend money and effort reporting to taxmen etc.; the benefits to size that allows Walmart to be so dominant would largely disappear.
Instead you would have a constantly changing mix of smaller operators, in total resulting in even lower prices and better selection. While at the same time ensuring no wage earner is stuck working for chump because Walmart is the only game in town.
That maybe true, but, You
That maybe true, but,
You cant blame Walmart for the shit policies that the government makes.
Even if Walmart influenced the government to do so.
We dont elect Walmart CEOs
We do elect our politicians.
I’m not really trying to
I’m not really trying to blame Walmart. They are who they are. Not my idea of a pleasant place to shop, but they do have low prices on (American made nonetheless) Mossberg shotguns and rifles. I was rather trying to point out, that if we can just stay focused on shrinking government and increasing individual liberty, the conditions that gave rise to the Walmart problem in the first place, would ultimately go away.
The worst possible thing that can happen, is if the politicians responsible for making it impossible for smaller companies to compete on an equal footing with Walmart, are now able to use Walmart as an excuse to tighten their grip on the economy even further.
Good recommendations
Abolish taxes and regulations.
Wal-Mart doesnt give two
Wal-Mart doesnt give two shits about their employees or the community.
Yes, they do
If they didn't respect there employees or the community, people would tend to not would work or shop there.
And they would then go out of business.
I worked inside one of the
I worked inside one of the restaurants inside Wal-Mart, and so many of the employees there only worked there because that was the only job they could get. People there are miserable. They treat them like crap. Women dont make equal wages to men. Its sick.
Yet, they still choose to work there.
Apparently they would be more miserable if they quit. So you can't blame Wal-Mart. They're making their lives better, even if they're miserable, because they're less miserable than they would be without the job.
----
Don't blame me if there's no voice for liberty opposing McCain and Obama in the Presidential debates. I donated to Ron Paul Libertarian, Bob Barr's campaign.