The Poor Abuse the Rich (not the other way around)

[Avatar Roku]

I can't believe Wal-Mart gets criticised for helping consumers by selling goods at ridoclously cheap prices.

It's not that, it's that they drive the small businesses out of business, then jack up the prices. Obviously this hurts everyone but Walmart themselves. Even if they didn't jack up the prices, those businesses could have grown into competitors that could have forced the prices even lower for the consumer.

 

[goatzilla8463]

What? The consumer always has the choice to buy?

But not so. What if the consumer needs this phone for work? Then, it is not because he values it, it is because £50 is a damn cheap phone and the only one he could get on his shitty pay check.

 

[similar.squirrel]

The whims and fancies of consumers are catered to by companies. Which would be fine. Like taking candy from a baby by distracting it with something shiny. Morally dubious, but okay.

But when this process pollutes the world with advertising [and in indeed any other way], then the Producer is morally at fault.

Keep in mind that Freed wouldn't want a touch-screen phone in the first place if the manufacturers didn't try so damn hard to make it desirable in the first place. And spent it's time and resources making something beneficial to everybody instead.

 

[historybuff]

No. Because I've read history books.

See, in the real world--of business--money is the only thing that matters when one is counting if they are "rich".

And the rich don't care about the poor.

 

[ben---neb]

Secondly who really cares about the smaller company that say only employs a hundred people?

Exactly the kind of attitude which makes people hate Capitalism.

"Who cares if a hard working business person is out of a job? I get something cheap!"

In other words: "Fuck everyone else. I Benefit."

Wrong, f*** the strange people who think that if consumers refuse to shop at their small business the large business is the antichrist and deserves to be treated as such. People lose their jobs all the time (I lost mine a year ago), its part of life. If consumers choose to shop at large firms rather than small businesses than who am I to critise them for it?

 

[ben---neb]

The issue is when things such as food and drink become ridiculously expensive because the companies want profit. When poor people struggle to by necessities because of the greediness of corporations.

The other issue is that Capitalism is about profit and being on top. Large companies such as Wal-Mart create a monopoly on shopping that makes smaller (poorer) businesses struggle. There is no "choice" for the smaller company is there?

First of all food and drink can be expensive thanks to government subsides, trade barriers and intervention. Not only does the poor man pay in terms of the incresed cost of food due to poor competition but also through the taxes needed to be raised to pay for subsidies.

Secondly who really cares about the smaller company that say only employs a hundred people? Millions and millions of people benefit from the monoploy Wal-Mart has, indeed it provides a solution to your first point as it provides cheap goods to the masses. I said the consumer was King and they have chosen Wal-Mart. Small companies could still compete with Wal-mart they'd just have to be really really good. Just because a company is small does not make it worth saving.

I can't believe Wal-Mart gets criticised for helping consumers by selling goods at ridoclously cheap prices.

ben--neb, I think it is a mistake to defend Wal-mart. Wal-mart relies on the government to sustain its monopoly. The calculation problem alone makes something like Wal-Mart virtually impossible on a left libertarian free market. Wal-mart is a classic case of protectionism, not the result of normal market forces.

Point taken, somewhat. YOu haven't heard of www.mises.org have you? If you haven't give it a look, you'll like I'm sure.

 

[themanwithsauce]

Hey, you know all those restrictions placed on free trade? Guess who wants them? The businesses. They want us to have free choice in the marketplace. The free choice to choose their products and only their products. It's like the whole "Buy American" campaign for the auto industry. We were told to buy GM/Ford?Chrysler not because they were the better products but just because they were made in America. ANd when the manufacturing was outsourced and the engineering was limited we were still expected to buy the "American made" inferior vehicle? (this was like 20 years ago, when the companies still thought they could tell you what you wanted) No. No I don't think so GM, it does not work that way in truly free markets. And shame on japan for whining about GM wanting tariffs on hondas while japan said we could only export a handful of cars to their country.

But I appear to have wandered off topic a tad. To get back to the point, the businesses hold more control in our decisions than we realize. Stores can be bribed by comapies to have more shelf space for their products or companies will join in together to fix prices *cough*cokeandpepsi*cough*. Wal-Mart outright lied to consumers back in the 90s when they said they stocked American made products but the reality was that they had such low prices by *not* stocking american goods. You might think you have free choice but often your choices were decided by the very corporations you think you're affecting.

 

[Xvito]

Why can't Richard give the phone to Fred instead?

 

[DRADIS C0ntact]

Secondly who really cares about the smaller company that say only employs a hundred people?

Exactly the kind of attitude which makes people hate Capitalism.

"Who cares if a hard working business person is out of a job? I get something cheap!"

In other words: "Fuck everyone else. I Benefit."

Not to mention that the hard working business person will then probably have to start working at Walmart if he/she can't find another job. I'm not sure which is worse, unemployment, or employed by Walmart. They aren't exactly known for treating their employees well.

 

[FreelancerADP]

Your analysis is only applicable to a free market- not the Republican kind, the left libertarian kind. In the real world, there are artificial barriers to entry, tax barriers, charter, license, regulation, etc. ad infinitum which hurt the poor by either robbing or restricting them in some way.

Your analysis only applies to free markets, not to the system we currently live under.

To expound on this idea, the free market talked about is one without any laws or restrictions. A market that has $0 artificial cost to entry. The type of a market that's only possible in theory because people like the idea of governments saying, "No, don't make stuff that kills people. Or maims them horrible as they go for some ice cream either."

In reality, consumers are so massive (in number, let alone weight) that they almost are fixed with regards to their consumption. And it is not, in fact, consumers who dictate what is good or popular or whatever. Never has been. There has always been someone else not in the same consumption chain telling people what is good.

Take (really random here) champagne for example. Rather than lowering the cost per bottle and selling the same number of bottles, thus deflating the chance for future profits, vineyards are simply making less to keep prices high. There's a two way relationship here with regards to supply and demand, but it's not the textbook relationship. Demand went down, due to the economy. Now, supply should stay the same with prices going down to achieve an optimum efficiency relationship. But it didn't. The champagne growers all got together and decided that if they dropped the prices now, it would be hard to raise them in the future.

Why? Because people are people and not spreadsheets. So, they let 30% of their crops rot, produce at inefficient levels all to maintain price levels optimum for future levels of demand. Consumers are a factor, but the benefit to consumers isn't.

 

[Legion]

Secondly who really cares about the smaller company that say only employs a hundred people?

Exactly the kind of attitude which makes people hate Capitalism.

"Who cares if a hard working business person is out of a job? I get something cheap!"

In other words: "Fuck everyone else. I Benefit."

Wrong, f*** the strange people who think that if consumers refuse to shop at their small business the large business is the antichrist and deserves to be treated as such. People lose their jobs all the time (I lost mine a year ago), its part of life. If consumers choose to shop at large firms rather than small businesses than who am I to critise them for it?

Like Orannis62 said: Companies like Wal-Mart will make their products cheaper so people go to them and put others out of business, then they will make the prices higher because there is no competition.

I know this from experience, having lived in a town where there were only small businesses and an Asda (UK supermarket chain owned by Wal-Mart). Practically no other business lasts more than a year or two in that town. They can't hope to compete.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Point taken, somewhat. YOu haven't heard of www.mises.org have you? If you haven't give it a look, you'll like I'm sure.

www.Mises.org is an excellent resource, as is www.lewrockwell.com. But I am a left libertarian, and these sites are thoroughly right libertarian, which tends toward inconsistencies and culturally conservative viewpoints and apologies. I'm a little nervous about some of the stuff I read there, but it is still years advanced of most mainstream economic/political discourse. They also do not display the devotion to consistency which I consider quintessential.

 

[Akai Shizuku]

Like most arguments around here, its idealic but completely wrong. You are missing so many factors i cant even begin to argue against you. Either way nice try, poor execution.

Please do, although a socialist calling me idealic causes me to chuckle. I'll admit it ain't perfect (nothing is) but it's a damn sight more perfect than any other economic theory.

Yup, because sitting in your mansion drinking champagne on your king size bed while children starve and die on the other side of the world is damn fine.

WOOOOAAAAHHHHH! Slow down. Just because I support free markets does not automatically make me a murderous rich bastard. I'm a strong believer in charity but it should be an indivdual choice not one forced on me by the government. Oh, and the reason they are starving in the first place is due to a lack of capitalism (free markets) not because of it. Trade barriers, subsidies in Western countries, quotas, CAP, subsidies for bio fuel. It all distorts the market making food more expensive and less avilable.

I'm not going to argue too much on this, because I quickly tire of long debates. However, there is only so much wealth in the world. As long as capitalism exists, it is impossible for everyone to live comfortably. It is unstable and always prone to imbalance.

If you put a scale on a wooden fence, and you don't want the scale to fall over, the only way is to equally distribute weight on both platforms.

It is a myth that the harder you work, the better off you will be. I know this from experience. I've known some people who work ridiculously hard, but are still stuck in wage slavery. 14 hours a day, 7 days a week. No holidays, no breaks. 365 days a year. $14/hr. And this is in one of the wealthiest nations in the world: Canada. Don't tell me that he's free to quit, because that means his wife and four kids starve to death.

"When the rich wage a war, it's the poor who die." -Fort Minor

 

[Perticular Elk]

Just because there is a Walmart with a pizza restaurant in its does not mean all the near by pizza places will close down. There is a differences in quality that people reconize and will select according to there mood and taste. the same is true for all items Walmart sells.

And if Walmart sells quality products at lower prices then consumers, is that a bad thing? Providing the best for the people should not be punished. If a business fails because it can't compete it's a good thing.

Its sounds like some of you want to use Government the close store that are successful because you don't think they are "fair".

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

*Chop

Why? Because people are people and not spreadsheets. So, they let 30% of their crops rot, produce at inefficient levels all to maintain price levels optimum for future levels of demand. Consumers are a factor, but the benefit to consumers isn't.

FreelancerADP, I think we're actually approaching this from different angles. I actually believe the state should be abolished. From my approach, I would say the problem you bring up with your champagne producer model is a problem inherent to our current system, but not to the literally free markets which are actually what I favor.

 

[Agema]

I'm aware of these sorts of lines of arguments. You'd need some really heavy duty debate to tackle them adequately as they're really complex, and I fear they'd squashed by the "CAPITULISM/SOSHULISM SUX" one-liners. Suffice to say, you have an element of truth in there, but personally I think the general thrust of your argument is entirely wrong.

This does not nagate the fact that an indivdual human will always make a rational choice. In hindsight it might not seem to be rational but at the exact moment of purchase the product they buy is valued higher than the money they spend. Secondly I rather doubt that the vats masses are as stupid as you are protraying them to be in a rather unequal fashion i might add.

Just a quick note... by "rational choice", you appear talking about a choice that cannot be explained by later consideration. How rational a choice does that really seem to you? Do you think the term "impulse buy" exists by accident, and that retail strategies to encourage it are the result of some bizarre misconception of human thought?

 

[johnzaku]

Why can't Richard give the phone to Fred instead?

Well, it cost Richard to make the phone, however, it was a $10 total parts and labour to make it, but $100 to sell it. That's quite a mark-up.

 

[Zombie Nixon]

First post is essentially true. The reason capitalism is so successful is that it recognizes that economics is not a zero-sum game.

 

[JeffersonTwilight]

I think that the largest problem with ben-neb's argument is that A. they don't make their assumptions clear. and B. The consumer is never rational and admittedly this is largely due to asymetrical information so if we assume that people are rational and act on the limited amount of information that they have then the rich will still exploit them, and i use exploit in the sense that they will appropriate the surplus while having nothing to do with its production, because they control the information that is necessary to make rational judgements. so if you really want to adjust the system then you need to address the information asymetry

 

[Perticular Elk]

]

If you put a scale on a wooden fence, and you don't want the scale to fall over, the only way is to equally distribute weight on both platforms.

It is a myth that the harder you work, the better off you will be. I know this from experience. I've known some people who work ridiculously hard, but are still stuck in wage slavery. 14 hours a day, 7 days a week. No holidays, no breaks. 365 days a year. $14/hr. And this is in one of the wealthiest nations in the world: Canada. Don't tell me that he's free to quit, because that means his wife and four kids starve to death.

"When the rich wage a war, it's the poor who die." -Fort Minor

first of all Wealth is being created every day. It is true that there is a limited level of resources on the planet, but with new markets being created every day and economies grow, wealth is being grown.

Second, This story doesn't tell of the choices this man made in is life that placed him in this predicament. Is it the company's fault that he got married and had four kids when he knew he could not support them? Was it the company's fault he did not prepare for a decent paying job with his educational choices? What is he doing to improve his future?