Wal-Mart in the crosshairs

[southsider2k5]

$25 million is being spent this year to go after Wal-Mart. What is interesting is to see who is behind it, and the hypocracy of the fight.

 

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=1...id=aCJurSBQqfLM

[mreye]

Link won't work for me.

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't see the hypocrisy. I've read more than one research piece that has shown how Walmart actually has a negative effect on communities, financially and otherwise. The author of this particular article obviously chooses not to see that, instead looking on the surface - jobs, low priced necessities. These are important of course, but there are negative offsets that Walmart brings to the table as well, such as depressed relative wages (especially in or near urban centers), jobs lost at other retailers, detraction from local production of goods (Walmart doesn't buy locally except by happenstance), etc.

 

Just a perspective to keep in mind. This author passes off as fact that Walmart has a positive impact, but that is by no means generally accepted as truth. The arguments otherwise are, on the whole, more convincing to me.

 

Caveats: I am not defending the Unions or their tactics here, nor am I defending the politicians involved. Just speaking about the business and it's impact on local communities.

Edited December 21, 2005 by NorthSideSox72

[southsider2k5]

Link won't work for me.

 

Kevin Hassett is director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. He was chief economic adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona during the 2000 primaries. The opinions expressed are his own.

 

Unions Wage Vicious, Misguided War on Wal-Mart: Kevin Hassett

Dec. 19 (Bloomberg) -- If you're like me, you find it surprising that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is under such vicious attack. You can hardly flip open a newspaper without finding vituperative anti-Wal-Mart statements. While the bile has been steady over the years, things seem to have stepped up enormously in recent weeks.

 

It's surprising because Wal-Mart is one of the great economic success stories of our time. Thanks largely to its legendary efficiency, which has enabled it to provide much lower prices than the competition, the once-regional company from Bentonville, Arkansas, has become the world's largest retailer, as well as the biggest private employer in the U.S.

 

Wal-Mart Chief Executive Officer Lee Scott said in a recent speech that if Wal-Mart were a country it would be the 20th largest economy on earth.

 

The gains to Americans from Wal-Mart's lower prices are extraordinary. One recent estimate suggests Wal-Mart directly and indirectly (by forcing rivals to keep their prices down) saved the average U.S. household $2,329 in 2004. These gains help low-income individuals the most.

 

Harvard Harder?

 

The retailer also is clearly a highly desirable place to work, offering its employees career advancement, health insurance and personal satisfaction. New York University economist Jason Furman notes that a recent store opening in Glendale, Arizona, received 8,000 applicants for 525 jobs. The number of applications suggests, Furman writes, that ``A Harvard applicant has a higher chance of being accepted than a person applying for a job at that Wal-Mart.''

 

The academic evidence contradicts the common assertion that it's bad news for a town if Wal-Mart opens a store there. Some individuals may lose their jobs at competing retailers, but a recent study by University of Missouri economist Emek Basker in the Review of Economics and Statistics suggests that Wal-Mart's entry increases a county's retail employment by 100 jobs in the first year, and over time leads to the elimination of 50 jobs in less efficient retailers.

 

On a net basis, a county gains 50 retail jobs in the long run when Wal-Mart shows up. The competition from Wal-Mart also drives down prices for everyone.

 

So why the uproar? Has Wal-Mart finally gone too far? Have the grass roots finally had enough?

 

Unions at Work

 

Hardly. What's going on is a highly coordinated and heavily financed political campaign. One report puts the total spending on publicity and negative advertisements at $25 million.

 

It's no fun having enemies in this world, especially those with fat wallets. Guess where the money is coming from?

 

At the center of the crusade are two organizations, ``Wal- Mart Watch'' and ``Wake Up Wal-Mart.'' Wal-Mart Watch was started by Andrew Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union. Wake Up Wal-Mart is a project of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union.

 

The public relations offensive is one long attempt at image assassination. For example, Wal-Mart Watch has constructed a college ``curriculum'' that it encourages activists to push. It kindly provides a handy e-mail utility that directs the lucky recipient to the ``curriculum'' and says, ``I thought you might enjoy this story from Wal-Mart Watch, a group who is starting to expose Wal-Mart for their bad labor standards, political corruptness and overall bad citizenship.''

 

Democrats Weigh In

 

These unions are waging a war against Wal-Mart because its employees aren't unionized. In the past, local retail monopolies could charge everybody in town high prices and split the profits with union employees.

 

Competition from Wal-Mart has put an end to that. Just as General Motors Corp.'s high labor costs are killing it, unionized retail firms can't keep up with Wal-Mart. Rather than improve their own efficiency, the unions have decided to try to smear Wal-Mart and scare away its customers.

 

The really striking thing, however, is who is in on the campaign. The anti-Wal-Mart crusade has been a rallying point for Democrats.

 

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, the unsuccessful 2004 Democratic candidate for president, described Wal-Mart's treatment of its workers as ``disgraceful'' (though his wife owns Wal-Mart stock, according to Kerry's latest financial statement). California Representative George Miller, ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, described the company as being ``in the driver's seat in the global race to the bottom, suppressing wage levels, workplace protections, and labor laws.''

 

Kerry Aide

 

Yet these same people don't mind taking advantage of Wal- Mart prices: The presidential campaigns for Kerry, Howard Dean and Ralph Nader all spent money at Wal-Mart, according to newspaper reports.

 

The efforts appear to be coordinated. For example, Paul Blank, former political director for Dean's presidential campaign, is now managing the anti-Wal-Mart crusade for Wake Up Wal-Mart. John Kerry's former presidential campaign manager, Jim Jordan, is a political consultant for Wal-Mart Watch. Tracy Sefl, former deputy director of research for the Democratic National Committee, is the group's communications director.

 

The very same organizations that are funding the crusade against the retailer are among the most reliable financers of the Democratic Party and they have hired the closest advisers of the same leaders bashing the company.

 

High-Tech Goons

 

There's no question that the thuggish attempt to smear and intimidate imposes harsh costs on Wal-Mart. But the money trail reminds us, more than anything, why unionization has had so much trouble taking hold in the U.S.

 

Imagine if you worked at Wal-Mart and saw your employer demonized by these people. Would it make you want to join the union? The high-tech goons the unions have sicced on Wal-Mart are employing exactly the types of tactics that have given unions a bad name.

 

Furman notes, convincingly, that low wages generally in some sectors of the economy may be a legitimate policy challenge. A correct response might be to expand the earned income tax credit.

 

Instead of that, the response in some quarters appears to be ``fire at will.''

 

It's irresponsible for leading politicians to vilify our nation's largest private employer. That their leading political advisers are now lining their pockets with union cash makes the enterprise all the more disgusting.

[southsider2k5]

I don't see the hypocrisy.  I've read more than one research piece that has shown how Walmart actually has a negative effect on communities, financially and otherwise.  The author of this particular article obviously chooses not to see that, instead looking on the surface - jobs, low priced necessities.  These are important of course, but there are negative offsets that Walmart brings to the table as well, such as depressed relative wages (especially in or near urban centers), jobs lost at other retailers, detraction from local production of goods (Walmart doesn't buy locally except by happenstance), etc.

 

 

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, the unsuccessful 2004 Democratic candidate for president, described Wal-Mart's treatment of its workers as ``disgraceful'' (though his wife owns Wal-Mart stock, according to Kerry's latest financial statement). California Representative George Miller, ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, described the company as being ``in the driver's seat in the global race to the bottom, suppressing wage levels, workplace protections, and labor laws.''

 

Yet these same people don't mind taking advantage of Wal- Mart prices: The presidential campaigns for Kerry, Howard Dean and Ralph Nader all spent money at Wal-Mart, according to newspaper reports.

[NorthSideSox72]

 

That's your reason for the hypocrisy argument? That the campaigns spent money at Walmart? Of course they did. In some of those small towns, where the heck else are you going to get certain things? That's pretty lame.

 

The stock thing you need to keep in perspective as well. To protect themselves from such connections, most of these politicians leave others to make their stock picks and other investments for them. They can't even sell the stock without going through a huge process first. That said, it would be smart for Kerry to have someone analyze his significant holdings and make sure his broker steers clear of certain things.

 

I figured you were pointing to the fact that Dems (the crusaders for the under-priviledged) were the ones fighting Walmart.

Edited December 21, 2005 by NorthSideSox72

[Rex Kickass]

Anybody hear ever read "Nickel and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenlich?

[southsider2k5]

That's your reason for the hypocrisy argument?  That the campaigns spent money at Walmart?  Of course they did.  In some of those small towns, where the heck else are you going to get certain things?  That's pretty lame.

 

The stock thing you need to keep in perspective as well.  To protect themselves from such connections, most of these politicians leave others to make their stock picks and other investments for them.  They can't even sell the stock without going through a huge process first.  That said, it would be smart for Kerry to have someone analyze his significant holdings and make sure his broker steers clear of certain things.

 

I figured you were pointing to the fact that Dems (the crusaders for the under-priviledged) were the ones fighting Walmart.

 

There is more in there, but that is a good place to start... I guess shopping at the local places they are trying to keep open is out of the question, huh? I don't know about you, but if I was throwing $25 million to try to get rid of something, I sure wouldn't be shopping there.

 

As for the stock thing, after working 7 years in the financial markets I am pretty sure I understand the disclosure rules more than most. The fact that it was Kerry's wife who owned the stock tells me it probably wasn't a blind trust as she has no real conflicts of interest in her private vs work life. She doesn't vote in congress, so there is no conflict. That means even if her money is in trust, she knows, or at least has the ability to know, what it owns. What does make it interesting is it was Kerry's wife who loaned the Kerry campaign a big amount of money which flooded the early primaries with money in the 04 election cycle and revived his campaign. Evidently it doesn't matter where the money comes from, just that it comes, even if it is from the same groups that are being publically campaigned against.

[NorthSideSox72]

There is more in there, but that is a good place to start... I guess shopping at the local places they are trying to keep open is out of the question, huh?  I don't know about you, but if I was throwing $25 million to try to get rid of something, I sure wouldn't be shopping there.

 

As for the stock thing, after working 7 years in the financial markets I am pretty sure I understand the disclosure rules more than most.  The fact that it was Kerry's wife who owned the stock tells me it probably wasn't a blind trust as she has no real conflicts of interest in her private vs work life.  She doesn't vote in congress, so there is no conflict.  That means even if her money is in trust, she knows, or at least has the ability to know, what it owns.  What does make it interesting is it was Kerry's wife who loaned the Kerry campaign a big amount of money which flooded the early primaries with money in the 04 election cycle and revived his campaign.  Evidently it doesn't matter where the money comes from, just that it comes, even if it is from the same groups that are being publically campaigned against.

 

And knowing the markets, do you really think that Kerry or his wife ever actually stock pick? I mean, unless they are avid amatuer market makers from past jobs or something (which is possible I suppose), that just isn't likely. They give the money to their fund guy, and say "go moderate with this amount, aggresive with this amount, avoid these industries..." etc. I am sure you realize this.

 

If you are saying Kerry's campaign should be more careful about investments, then sure, that's probably true. But there are so many connections that could be made to so many companies that could make a person look bad, it becomes absurd to even try. So you do what most of the monied politicians do - let someone else do your investing for you.

 

And yes, he should avoid shopping at Walmart in the future. Of course I am sure you also realize that this recent Walmart thing with Kerry is POST-election I believe, and those purchases were DURING the election.

 

You can find a few picky little things about his investments and where his lackies shopped, but I just want you to see that this article has a clear hole in its logic. Walmart is not necessarily healthy for communities, and in fact probably harms them.

 

I put the caveats in my original posts to avoid having this particular discussion. I was trying to focus on Walmart's impact and the general conflict with the Unions and the politicos, not Kerry's campaign in 2004.

[Controlled Chaos]

Does Wal-Mart Destroy Communities?

by William Anderson

 

In a recent poll on the CNN website, viewers were asked the "poll" question of whether or not they believed that Wal-Mart stores were "good" for the "community." Perhaps it is not surprising that a large majority answered "no."

 

Now, this by itself does not mean much, since these online "polls" are not scientific and reflect only the views of the moment by people who choose to participate. What is more significant, however, was the anti-Wal-Mart content of a speech recently given by Teresa Heinz Kerry, John Kerry's wife and an influential person in her own right. Speaking at a Democratic Party rally, Mrs. Kerry declared that "Wal-Mart destroys communities."

 

Indeed, Wal-Mart bashing is in vogue. Whether one journeys to the sight of Sojourners Magazine or reads even mainstream news publications, the charges against Wal-Mart abound. According to the consensus of the critics, Wal-Mart is guilty of the following:

 

Paying low wages to workers, and generally abusing them.

Intimidating shoppers by having them "greeted" by an elderly person at the door. (As one writer said, the real purpose of that greeter is to let shoppers know that they are being watched.)

Putting small stores out of business, as shoppers stop patronizing the little "mom-and-pop" boutiques for the big box, thus "destroying" the look of "Main Street" in small towns and cities.

Purchasing low-priced goods from abroad, which puts American workers out of jobs.

Contributing to that allegedly harmful disease known as "consumerism," in which Americans are constantly purchasing goods that the Wal-Mart critics insist that they really don't need. As the bumper sticker of one of my faculty colleagues proclaims: "Mal-Wart: The Source of Cheap Crap."

Of course, what really bugs the critics is that people choose to shop at Wal-Mart instead of the places where they would want people to spend their money. (Activists on both left and right often will invoke the name of the "people" when their real goal is to restrict the choices of those "people.") Yet, while up front I question the real motives of the Wal-Mart haters, it still behooves us to answer the charges using economic logic, since many of the arguments against this chain store also appeal to economics.

 

In a recent article, "Always Low Wages," Brian Bolton declares that Jesus would not shop at Wal-Mart, since the company's employee pay scale is not up to Sojourners' standards. Furthermore, he all but declares it a "sin" for Christians to patronize the store because it imports cheap goods made by people who make even less money than Wal-Mart employees. As Bolton writes, "lower prices equal lower wages."

 

Nearly all of us would accept higher payment for our services, and Wal-Mart employees are no exception. Yet, that condition alone hardly makes a company's pay scales illegitimate, as Bolton and other critics contend. If my employer were to double my pay tomorrow (which is highly doubtful), I doubt I would object, although I'm sure that most of my colleagues would see the event in a different light. That Frostburg State University does not make that offer to me does not make my current salary illicit, nor does it make my employer the second coming of Silas Marner.

 

The point is this: payment for services involves mutually agreeable exchanges. They are not manifestations of power, as some would say. No one is forced to work at Wal-Mart; people who choose to work there do so because they prefer employment there to other circumstances.

 

At the local Wal-Mart where I shop (contrary to Bolton, I do not believe that shopping at Wal-Mart violates the Holy Scriptures), I have noticed that many employees have stayed with that company for a long time, and there does not seem to be much turnover there. Furthermore, from what I can tell, they seem like normal people, not the oppressed slaves that the critics claim fill the ranks of Wal-Mart workers.

 

Now, my personal observations hardly constitute proof that Bolton and the other Wal-Mart critics are wrong, but unless they can repudiate the opportunity cost argument, they have ground upon which to stand. Wal-Mart is not engaged in a grand conspiracy to push down wages in any given market, and twisted logic cannot prove otherwise.

 

For example, Bolton writes that part of the problem faced by recent striking union grocery store workers in Southern California was that Wal-Mart super centers in the area paid lower wages, which placed pressure on the other grocery stores. Thus, he reasons, it was Wal-Mart that ultimately kept workers from receiving "just wages" for their work.

 

No doubt, Bolton can appeal to the anti-capitalist mentality of many people, but his work stands economic logic upon its head. By paying lower wages, Wal-Mart makes grocery stores like Vons and other places that pay union scale more attractive to workers (although labor unions do not exactly welcome some potential employees with open arms). The success of Wal-Mart does not have to do with the pay scale of its employees, but rather with the perception by consumers that the store will have the goods they want at an affordable price.

 

Bolton claims that Wal-Mart can charge lower prices and still be profitable because it pays its employees less than do other companies. As anyone with even cursory training in Austrian Economics knows, such an argument is false. As Murray Rothbard points out in Man, Economy, and State, economic profit exists because of temporarily underpriced factors of production. Over time, as the owners recognize their position, they will either refuse to sell their factors at current prices and look to other options, or accept the current price because the opportunity costs of selling to other buyers may be higher than they wish to incur. If it is the latter, then one cannot say that these particular factors are even underpriced, as their owners are not able or willing to do what is necessary to gain higher prices for their employment.

 

In places like Southern California, where there are numerous employment opportunities, to say that workers are "forced" to work at Wal-Mart for "slave wages" is ridiculous. As noted before, the fact that workers there would be willing to accept higher pay is not evidence that they are enslaved. That they would prefer more to less simply means that they are normal, purposeful human beings.

 

One can easily dismiss the charge about the "greeter" at the door—unless one truly is intimidated by the presence of a diminutive 60-year-old grandmother. (What I have found is that if I select merchandise and actually pay for it, then no one there bothers me at all. If activists are upset that Wal-Mart does not like individuals to steal goods from their shelves, then they are advocating theft, and one does not have to pay attention to their arguments at all.)

 

The "Wal-Mart destroys the community" charge, however, needs more attention. It goes as such: Wal-Mart enters a geographical area, and people stop shopping at little stores in order to patronize Wal-Mart. The mom-and-pop stores go out of business, the community is left with boarded-up buildings, and people must leave the small businesses and accept lower wages at Wal-Mart. Thus, while a shiny new store full of inexpensive goods is in the locality, in real terms, most everyone actually is poorer.

 

Again, these kinds of arguments appeal to many people. For example, all of us have heard of the theoretical owner of the small, independent hardware store who had to close his shop when Wal-Mart or Home Depot moved into his community, then suffer the indignity of having to go to work at the very place that put him on the streets. The former owner has a lower income than before, which is held up as proof that the "big boys" create and expand poverty.

 

A few items need to be put in order. First, no one forced the hardware owner to close his shop; he closed it because it was not profitable enough for him to keep it open. If the new chain store meant that many of his former customers had abandoned him, that is not the fault of the new store. Instead, consumers faced with choices and lower prices that they had not previously enjoyed freely chose to patronize the new store.

 

Second, while the owner of the smaller store has suffered a loss of income, everyone else has gained. Third, if the employees of the smaller store go to work at the new chain store, it is almost guaranteed that their pay will be higher than before and they will enjoy new benefits that most likely had not been available to them previously.

 

Third, the presence of Wal-Mart means local consumers will pay lower prices for goods than before, and also will benefit by having a wider array of available items than they had previously. (And they save on time by being able to stay under one roof while shopping for different items.) Whatever the reason, we can safely assume that consumers in that particular locality are exercising their free choices, choices that they perceive will make them better off than they were before the store existed. Activists may not like their reasoning, but that is irrelevant to our analysis.

 

Having dealt with the "Wal-Mart" creates poverty argument, we now turn to the more nebulous claim that the chain store "destroys" communities. Now, I have never seen a place that has been severely damaged or "destroyed" by Wal-Mart. (I have seen places that have had their quality of life spoiled by rent controls, "urban renewal," and other statist interventions that so-called activists have championed, but that is another story for another time. Suffice it to say that activists are unhappy that individuals freely choose to shop at Wal-Mart, and they want to restrict their choices in the name of "community.")

 

In fact, I would like to make a reverse argument; Wal-Mart and stores like it add to the quality of life in large and small communities because they provide consumer choices that otherwise would not be available. Take the area near Cumberland, Maryland, where I live, for example.

 

Cumberland is something of a time warp, a place that 50 years ago was a manufacturing center and was the second-largest city in Maryland. Today, most of the large factories are long shut down and the population is less than half of Cumberland's heyday numbers. Furthermore, the area has a relatively high unemployment rate and many jobs do not pay very well.

 

The presence of Wal-Mart and Lowe's (a large hardware store), along with some large grocery chains, however, means that people here can stretch their incomes farther than we would if those stores did not exist. If they suddenly were to pull out, one can be assured that our quality of life here would not improve in their absence. Furthermore, the fact that Wal-Mart and other large stores are willing to locate in smaller and poorer communities also makes these areas more attractive for people who wish to live here but do not want to have to give up all of the amenities of living in a larger city.

 

Others on this page and elsewhere have dealt with the charge that Wal-Mart destroys American jobs by purchasing goods from abroad, where the goods often are manufactured in what activists call "oppressive" conditions. (In fact, Sojourners elsewhere has openly stated that Third World peoples should simply be supported by American aid, and that the West should do all it can to make sure that the economies of these poor nations do not grow, all in the name of environmentalism. In other words, none of us are poor enough to satisfy the anti-Wal-Mart activists whose real goal is to eviscerate our own standards of living and "turn back the clock" to an era when life expectancy was lower and people generally were more deprived.)

 

The last objection—that Wal-Mart helps create "mindless" consumerism—is easily refuted by Austrian economics. The very basis of human action is purposeful behavior; to call human action "mindless" is absurd. Consumers at Wal-Mart and other chain stores are not zombies walking aimlessly through the building with glassy stares. They are human beings with needs and desires who perceive that at least some of those desires can be fulfilled through the use of goods purchased at Wal-Mart.

 

In a free society, activists would have to try to convince other individuals to change their buying habits via persuasion and voluntary action. Yet, the very history of "progressivist" activism in this country tells us a story of people who use the state to force others to do what they would not do given free choices. Yesterday, Microsoft was in their crosshairs; today, it is Wal-Mart, and tomorrow, some other hapless firm will be declared guilty of providing customers choices that they had not enjoyed before. A great sin, indeed.

[BigSqwert]

At the local Wal-Mart where I shop (contrary to Bolton, I do not believe that shopping at Wal-Mart violates the Holy Scriptures), I have noticed that many employees have stayed with that company for a long time, and there does not seem to be much turnover there. Furthermore, from what I can tell, they seem like normal people, not the oppressed slaves that the critics claim fill the ranks of Wal-Mart workers.

 

Wow! Impressive study done by this guy. He noticed things about the 1 Wal-Mart he visited and provided us with some excellent results. I guess we can close the case on this issue seeing that he actually verified that most of the employees at this 1 location have worked there for several years and there is very little turnover.

 

 

Second, while the owner of the smaller store has suffered a loss of income, everyone else has gained. 

 

Exactly what does that mean? A little vague here if you ask me. How does everyone else gain? Gain what?

 

Third, if the employees of the smaller store go to work at the new chain store, it is almost guaranteed that their pay will be higher than before and they will enjoy new benefits that most likely had not been available to them previously.

 

Almost guaranteed? Based on what? Where is the evidence? Is this based on his opinion?

[southsider2k5]

And knowing the markets, do you really think that Kerry or his wife ever actually stock pick?  I mean, unless they are avid amatuer market makers from past jobs or something (which is possible I suppose), that just isn't likely.  They give the money to their fund guy, and say "go moderate with this amount, aggresive with this amount, avoid these industries..." etc.  I am sure you realize this.

 

If you are saying Kerry's campaign should be more careful about investments, then sure, that's probably true.  But there are so many connections that could be made to so many companies that could make a person look bad, it becomes absurd to even try.  So you do what most of the monied politicians do - let someone else do your investing for you.

 

And yes, he should avoid shopping at Walmart in the future.  Of course I am sure you also realize that this recent Walmart thing with Kerry is POST-election I believe, and those purchases were DURING the election.

 

You can find a few picky little things about his investments and where his lackies shopped, but I just want you to see that this article has a clear hole in its logic.  Walmart is not necessarily healthy for communities, and in fact probably harms them.

 

I put the caveats in my original posts to avoid having this particular discussion.  I was trying to focus on Walmart's impact and the general conflict with the Unions and the politicos, not Kerry's campaign in 2004.

 

After campaigning against Wal-Mart and other corporations, you would think that a consumate politician would think it might be a good idea to tell your trust to avoid conflicts of interest, especially with disclosures the way they are now a days.

[kapkomet]

After campaigning against Wal-Mart and other corporations, you would think that a consumate politician would think it might be a good idea to tell your trust to avoid conflicts of interest, especially with disclosures the way they are now a days.

But it doesn't fit an agenda... come on, now.

[BigSqwert]

After campaigning against Wal-Mart and other corporations, you would think that a consumate politician would think it might be a good idea to tell your trust to avoid conflicts of interest, especially with disclosures the way they are now a days.

 

I am now shaking with anger.

[NorthSideSox72]

After campaigning against Wal-Mart and other corporations, you would think that a consumate politician would think it might be a good idea to tell your trust to avoid conflicts of interest, especially with disclosures the way they are now a days.

 

Nice idea, but good luck with that. You could probably choose all the companies in the S&P, choose a major politician at random, and find similar questionable connections for half of the companies with that individual and some issue they are big on.

 

I think they would suffice to just avoid the biggest potholes. And yeah, Walmart was maybe one of those. But again, doubtful the Kerrys thought about it, or the broker.

[Texsox]

WalMart is the shining example of American Capitalism. They beat the world at the US retail game. Using every advantage they could muster, they became the #1 retailer. Now we see what the victor looks like, and some people are unhappy with they picture. Survival of the fittest. Mom and Pop died because they couldn't compeat. Local manufactures died, because the couldn't compeat. Walmart remains standing.

[southsideirish71]

WalMart is the shining example of American Capitalism. They beat the world at the US retail game. Using every advantage they could muster, they became the #1 retailer. Now we see what the victor looks like, and some people are unhappy with they picture. Survival of the fittest. Mom and Pop died because they couldn't compeat. Local manufactures died, because the couldn't compeat.  Walmart remains standing.

 

As long as I can get my gallon of milk for $1.98 at Walmart instead of shelling out 4 bucks at Jewel, they can keep that model going.

[Balta1701]

As long as I can get my gallon of milk for $1.98 at Walmart instead of shelling out 4 bucks at Jewel, they can keep that model going.

Wow, I still beat that.

[Mercy!]

Wow, I still beat that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Same here. And that's at my corner bodega.

 

And the cheap price is not due to unfettered free market capitalism a la Wal Mart. It's because of all the damned subsidies from the federal government.

[NorthSideSox72]

WalMart is the shining example of American Capitalism. They beat the world at the US retail game. Using every advantage they could muster, they became the #1 retailer. Now we see what the victor looks like, and some people are unhappy with they picture. Survival of the fittest. Mom and Pop died because they couldn't compeat. Local manufactures died, because the couldn't compeat.  Walmart remains standing.

 

All true, and that's the upshot. As a business, I have huge respect for them. In fact, they are THE model at this point in retail transportation and logistics management. That's the single biggest driver of their success.

 

But that doesn't mean Walmart's net effect is necessarily positive.

[kapkomet]

All true, and that's the upshot.  As a business, I have huge respect for them.  In fact, they are THE model at this point in retail transportation and logistics management.  That's the single biggest driver of their success.

 

But that doesn't mean Walmart's net effect is necessarily positive.

They are rich. They need to give that money to the poor. f*** capitalism!!!

[BigSqwert]

As long as I can get my gallon of milk for $1.98 at Walmart instead of shelling out 4 bucks at Jewel, they can keep that model going.

 

Sure get your $1.98 gallon of milk. Oh by the way your also helping shell out to subsidize all the millions of dollars being spent on Wal-Mart employees who are on welfare, getting food stamps and getting all sorts of state and federal aid because their greedy company doesn't pay them enough and provide them with benefits.

 

Maybe you are exempt from helping pay for that welfare but I'm pretty sure my taxes help pay for that.

[kapkomet]

Sure get your $1.98 gallon of milk.  Oh by the way your also helping shell out to subsidize all the millions of dollars being spent on Wal-Mart employees who are on welfare, getting food stamps and getting all sorts of state and federal aid because their greedy company doesn't pay them enough and provide them with benefits. 

 

Maybe you are exempt from helping pay for that welfare but I'm pretty sure my taxes help pay for that.

Once a Walmart hourly minimum wage employee, always a walmart hourly minimum wage employee.

[BigSqwert]

Once a Walmart hourly minimum wage employee, always a walmart hourly minimum wage employee.

Hey, whatchoo talkin about sucka? I work at K-Mart!

[kapkomet]

Hey, whatchoo talkin about sucka? I work at K-Mart!