Unionize Wal-Mart or Let's Boot Them From Canada

[Argus]

Better than banning Walmart would be banning unions.

As someone who has worked for some real jerks in my life, all of the non-union, I am quite happy to now be in a union shop where my job and hours can't be shifted or changed at the whim of my supervisor

[Argus]

How many of you commies (ie, the anti-Walmart crowd) have worked a low-wage job?

Well I guess that makes you.. what, a fascist? A nazi? I mean, since we're throwing stupid, childish names around.

I have worked at plenty of low wage jobs, and owned my own business. But I don't confuse the need of a company for profit with the well-being of a community or economy. I recognize that corporations are in business to make money. They are ammoral entities with no other purpuse. I also recognize that allowing such entities free reign would be very bad for ordinary people.

Maybe if you weren't so pig-ignorant you'd recognize it too.

[Argus]

The purpose is to maximize market share. Wal-Mart is still growing at a huge rate, after all, with hundreds of new stores added every year.

It doesn't matter. They only have a slice of the retail pie right now, and as they grow, they pressure their competition to compete with them or die.

Which means their competitors should also get all their product from third world sweatships, right? I believe the current figure for Wal-Mart is 85% - that's how much of its product is made in Asia.

Thus, we have Zellers, Sears, the Bay et al stumbling over themselves to become more competitive. Either way, the chief beneficiaries of this process are the consumers, the ordinary folk trying to get by

Yeah, and they'll need those cheap products given they won't be able to get any freaking jobs - because all the giant retail outlets will be selling third world crap.

Nor is there much doubt about Wal-mart's bullying practices. They're well documented.

Perhaps you should try reading some of the other documentation as well. For example, how slashing retail prices stimulates other industries and creates other jobs thanks to lower opportunity costs.

Stimulates other industries where? In Asia? Yes, indeed. Wa-Mart has stimulated industry in Asia. How does that help Canada?

[Choke]

Well I guess that makes you.. what, a fascist?

You can call me a Fascist or a Conservative if you like, the terms are interchangeable as far as I'm concerned. I don't believe in democracy, if that's what you're implying. However, I was just kidding with the commie comment.

I have worked at plenty of low wage jobs, and owned my own business. But I don't confuse the need of a company for profit with the well-being of a community or economy. I recognize that corporations are in business to make money. They are ammoral entities with no other purpuse. I also recognize that allowing such entities free reign would be very bad for ordinary people.

Ok, I agree with you, but I think you're still talking about opting out of capitalism (not necessarily a bad thing, but in Canada's case, a radical step to take).

[Argus]

I have worked at plenty of low wage jobs, and owned my own business. But I don't confuse the need of a company for profit with the well-being of a community or economy. I recognize that corporations are in business to make money. They are ammoral entities with no other purpuse. I also recognize that allowing such entities free reign would be very bad for ordinary people.

Ok, I agree with you, but I think you're still talking about opting out of Capitalism (not necessarily a bad thing, but in Canada's case, a radical step to take).

Nope. I also agree with, I believe, Churchill, who said Capitalism was the worst economic system except for all the others. Show me a better system, though, and who knows.

But embracing capitalism does not mean giving it free reign to do what it wants. That way lies the worst nightmares of all those Sci-Fi writers who show the future as a world run by evil (or at least, ammoral) mega corporations. Under perfect capitalism it's the survival of the fittest, smartest, and meanest. And that leaves precious little left for concerns like decent wages, safety, human rights, or the environment.

We all love trees, but when the tree gets too big, so big the roots are threatening to strangle your pipes and break through your foundation, well, you've either got to do some drastic surgery or cut it down.

[August1991]

Argus, do you rely on science fiction novels and Winston Churchill for medical advice? So, why do you rely on such sources for your opinions of economics?

[August1991]

I almost have to be dragged into a Wal-Mart. I'll shop almost anywhere else. But I have been in them, and there don't seem to be a lot of kids working there. I don't think Wal-mart likes kids.

Is that reason to stop other people from shopping there?

The purpose is to maximize market share. Wal-Mart is still growing at a huge rate, after all, with hundreds of new stores added every year. And it's barely begun its international expansion. Nor is there much doubt about Wal-mart's bullying practices. They're well documented.

Are you suggesting that Wal Mart is willing to lose money by having low prices because it wants to gain market share? That runs counter to your other argument that the managers of Wal Mart are rapacious capitalists.

Sorry, but that's a load of horse shit. Wal-Mart is a few very, very very wealthy people, mostly named Walton - 5 of the ten richest people on earth are Walton family members.

Wal Mart is a publicly traded company. Anyone can benefit from these exceptional profits you allude to.

In fact, who cares what Sam Walton makes. That's not the issue. The people who work at Wal Mart do so volunatrily. The people who shop at Wal Mart do so voluntarily. The people who supply Wal Mart do so voluntarily. All these people would be worse off if Wal Mart shut down.

you might say those people who join the company do it voluntarily, but you'd say the same about coal miners who went down into the mines despite their being no safety rules fifty or sixty years ago. In short, people who need to feed their families will take what they can get.

Do you really have to reach back 60 years to find an example to make your point? Do you really mean to compare the work of a miner and the work of a Wal Mart employee?

But frankly, if I remember the UK a few years ago, the miners were certainly upset to lose their jobs. Compare comparables.

Wal-Mart is bad for communities, bad for employees, bad for business, bad for economies, bad for nations.

Your opinion alone, Argus. I gather you don't like Wal Mart. But does that give you the right to stop other people from going there. Is Wal Mart like, uh, heroin?

When Wa-Mart forces changes to magazines, CDs and videos some of those who sanitize their products simply use that as the default for everyone else, since they can't afford to make two copies, two versions. So you may wind up buying sanitized, censored music, videos and magazines even if you never shop at Wa-Mart.

OMG. What a sense of entitlement! What gives you the right to tell a Hollywood producer how he should sell his product? If the producer decides to sell through Wal Mart, that's the producer's right - just as it is your right not to buy the product.

In addition, Wal-Mart wipes out jobs and competition. That is its main strategy, to wipe out all competition, or as much of it as they can, and their business practices, including predatory pricing, have been well documented.

I have never seen evidence of successful predatory pricing, ever. But a retail store that consistently sells most stuff at low prices strikes me as extremely poor evidence of predatory pricing.

You can have a communit with a hundred mom and pop stores, or a community with one Wal-Mart and nothing else.

In my experience, this is basically false for the simple reason, as many have noted, that other stores offer better service and/or manage to specialize or compete well with Wal Mart (Canadian Tire, Zeller's). But in any case, if people prefer to shop at Wal Mart rather than at a Mom and Pop, who are you to say they are wrong?

Wal-Mart sells mostly foreign produced goods. It disdains Canadian made products (or American made) in favour of cheap imports from third world countries.

So what? Adam Smith realized a long time ago that nations become wealthy through trade. Argus, are you a mercantilist?

It is the number one importer from China, and many of its goods come from sweatshops and slave labour camps.

China has one of the fastest growth rates in the world. Many Chinese are moving to areas where such jobs in "sweat shop factories" exist because they are much better than working coinditions elsewhere in China. Once again, compare comparables.

[maplesyrup]

Argus......makes valid points. It is obvious to everyone except the people with the rich right wing agendas, that economically a mixed system is by far the most beneficial for most in our society.

There is no need to take a simple subject and try to bamboozle people by saying it is very complex. It isn't. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and as unfortunately the rich live spurred on by the greed factor, so sometimes we need controls to balance things out.

Wal-Mart does nothing for anyone in Canada except it puts people out of decent paying work, and puts Canadian companies out of business. Who needs this kind of garbage!

[Argus]

Argus, do you rely on science fiction novels and Winston Churchill for medical advice? So, why do you rely on such sources for your opinions of economics?

Did I say I did? I don't pretend to be an expert economist. On the other hand, I did manage to wade all the way through Mcconnell and Pope's thousand page snoozefest Economics Principles, Problems and Policies in school, and I do at least remember the basics - mostly from having to reread everything several times due to falling asleep.

But really, Wal-Mart's affect on the economy is not complicated. It undercuts the competition, runs them out of business, pays lousy wages, and imports almost all its product from third world sweatshops. How can that be said to be good for Canada?

[August1991]

Wal-Mart does nothing for anyone in Canada except it puts people out of decent paying work, and puts Canadian companies out of business. Who needs this kind of garbage!

One could argue that Tim Horton's does the same but since it's perceived to be a Canadian company (Tim Horton's trades on the NYSE), you probably think it is OK.

BTW, how do you feel about CostCo?

MS, I have a sense that both you and Argus are fundamentally small-c conservative. You are suspicious of change.

Eaton's went bankrupt. Simpson's gone. Is Stedman's still around?

[Argus]

The purpose is to maximize market share. Wal-Mart is still growing at a huge rate, after all, with hundreds of new stores added every year. And it's barely begun its international expansion. Nor is there much doubt about Wal-mart's bullying practices. They're well documented.

Are you suggesting that Wal Mart is willing to lose money by having low prices because it wants to gain market share? That runs counter to your other argument that the managers of Wal Mart are rapacious capitalists.

Wal-Mart is willing to lose money temporarily, and in certain areas. If done properly, loss-leaders draw people in to buy other products, and help make the competition's life miserable. Wal-mart can target specific areas, such as CDs, videos, books, and toys, any one of which can be permitted to lose money for a particular segment of time in order to drive competitors in that field out of business.

In fact, who cares what Sam Walton makes.  That's not the issue.  The people who work at Wal Mart do so volunatrily.  The people who shop at Wal Mart do so voluntarily.  The people who supply Wal Mart do so voluntarily.  All these people would be worse off if Wal Mart shut down.

Says who? The employees would probably find better jobs in the retail outlets which would spring up to cater to Wal-Mart's former customers. The people who supply Wal-mart would have more individual customers, and better profit margins. As for the shoppers, Wal-Mart is not generally that much cheaper than anyone else. If you shop around a bit you can find deals easily enough. And frankly as a shopper I've never found Wal-Mart at all attractive as a place to shop. Its got jammed, closed-in aisles, no customer service, and lousy products (particularly the clothes) which fall apart fairly easily.

Wal-Mart is bad for communities, bad for employees, bad for business, bad for economies, bad for nations.

Your opinion alone, Argus. I gather you don't like Wal Mart. But does that give you the right to stop other people from going there. Is Wal Mart like, uh, heroin?

Yup. Heroin is illegal not so much because of what it does to those who use it, but what those people do to others. I don't like Wal-Mart, therefore I don't shop there. But I also don't like Wal-Mart's affect on communities or the economy. That is why I'd like to see them broken up.

When Wa-Mart forces changes to magazines, CDs and videos some of those who sanitize their products simply use that as the default for everyone else, since they can't afford to make two copies, two versions. So you may wind up buying sanitized, censored music, videos and magazines even if you never shop at Wa-Mart.

OMG. What a sense of entitlement! What gives you the right to tell a Hollywood producer how he should sell his product?

It's called democracy. Because ultimately that gives me, and others, if there are enough of us, the right to tell Wal-Mart that IT can't dictate to Hollywood producers.

Wal-Mart sells mostly foreign produced goods. It disdains Canadian made products (or American made) in favour of cheap imports from third world countries.

So what? Adam Smith realized a long time ago that nations become wealthy through trade. Argus, are you a mercantilist?

Trade is much like Capitalism, good... depending on circumstances. One way trade is not good for us, not by a long shot.

It is the number one importer from China, and many of its goods come from sweatshops and slave labour camps.

China has one of the fastest growth rates in the world. Many Chinese are moving to areas where such jobs in "sweat shop factories" exist because they are much better than working coinditions elsewhere in China. Once again, compare comparables.

Yes, the comparable is the wages of those people versus the wages of anyone here. It's like all those auto makers moving their production off shore, pleased they can lower prices a tad and increase profits. But who is going to buy their cars if all the good jobs keep moving offshore?

The fact is the Chinese are not fair traders. They cheat and evade taxes, rules, laws and obligations. Canada would be better off to simply ban all trade with China.

[Guest eureka]

You are talking an awful lot of nonsense, Hugo, just like August - but then August always does. I don't know whether you are just trying to present a case or whether you believe what you are writing.

A yers or so ago there was a financial series in one paper that gave the estimate of 2,300,000 jobs lost in the USA to the WalMart concept. That has been affirmed by a number of sources since - and don't ask for a link since, if you have not become aware of this, then you really must not follow financial news. It has also been reported many times that WalMart alone is responsible for 10% of the American imports from China.

WalMart does practise predatory pricing and all the ills that Argus is diagnosing so well. It targets vertain retailers quite deliberately for the purpose. The son of a client of mine manages a Toys'R'Us store - a large one to which he has been transferred. His previous store was one that closed.

The closure was brought about through losses incurres when the principal Christmas items they were featuring were marketed by WalMart through all their stores as loss leaders. This is their marketing strategy.

Loblaws, not long ago, renogiated their contracts with employees to lower wages because of the coming of Sams Club. The Food Basics and No Frills expansions are, primarily to meet the new competition. They will pay the employees transferred from decent paying jobs, minimum wage.

Lower prices at WalMart, which are to some extent fictional, do not translate into a bargain for the consumer. They are sold to a lower earnin consumer who is lower earning mostly due to the WalMart concept. They also come at a huge social cost since the lost jobs result in a drain on society

No economic system is bad of itself if controlled in the interest of all: not Capitalism and not Communism. WalMart, as Ted Heath said of Margaret Thatcher, represents the "Evil Face of Capitalism." I am in favour of wiping the smirk off the Walton family's faces.

[maplesyrup]

Welcome to Walmart's Canada:

Grocery story blues: The mysterious disappearance of local grocers

[August1991]

A yers or so ago there was a financial series in one paper that gave the estimate of 2,300,000 jobs lost in the USA to the WalMart concept.

2,300,000? I'd like to see a link to such a stat. But I'm willing to agree that Wal Mart has led to lost jobs and unemployment. And... that's a good thing too!

How many secretaries have lost their jobs to computers? How many typewriter manufacturers are now out of business? Have you noticed how there are fewer mechanics around since cars need less maintainence?

It's called increasing productivity - producing more with fewer employees - and it is the reason that we live so much better now than 100 years ago.

It targets vertain retailers quite deliberately for the purpose. The son of a client of mine manages a Toys'R'Us store - a large one to which he has been transferred. His previous store was one that closed.

Are you joking? Are you seriously arguing that American Wal Mart is bad because it has made American Toys R Us go out of business?

WalMart does practise predatory pricing and all the ills that Argus is diagnosing so well.

Wal Mart lowers prices and then the prices tend to stay low. How is that predatory pricing?

The closure was brought about through losses incurres when the principal Christmas items they were featuring were marketed by WalMart through all their stores as loss leaders. This is their marketing strategy.

Offering prices lower than the competition is bad?

I am in favour of wiping the smirk off the Walton family's faces.

eureka, I think that's what you don't like. You don't like the American Big Boy swaggering in and pretending to own the joint.

Wal Mart has cultivated the image of a big size because, in many people's minds, it signals bulk-buying and low prices. (Stack 'em high and price 'em low.) For you however, this just signals American swagger.

The issue seems to be one of image alone.

As to MS and the "Grocery store blues", let's let the CBC run a radio-TV network and leave retailing to people who seem to know how to do it.

[Hugo]

Stimulates other industries where? In Asia? Yes, indeed. Wa-Mart has stimulated industry in Asia. How does that help Canada?

I'll give you two ways it does to start off. First of all, when you start a factory in Asia you need construction crews and materials, industrial plant and machine tools, computers and IT equipment, even air conditioners and vending machines. Where do the companies that supply all these things come from? The developed world - primarily North America.

Secondly, this cuts prices of consumer goods. If you spend less on consumer goods you have more to spend elsewhere. Maybe now you can afford that big TV and give a Canadian guy a job selling it to you, warehousing it and shipping it to your house. Maybe you can buy services, which seem very difficult to outsource to the Third World. Have you had any luck getting your car fixed in Shanghai? How about having a new light fixture installed in Bombay? Your plumbing maintained in Nanjing? Your will notarized in Calcutta?

Which means their competitors should also get all their product from third world sweatships, right? I believe the current figure for Wal-Mart is 85% - that's how much of its product is made in Asia.

Prove that outsourcing to the Third World is bad before you try and make that argument.

Yeah, and they'll need those cheap products given they won't be able to get any freaking jobs - because all the giant retail outlets will be selling third world crap.

They will get jobs supplying the new goods and services that people can now buy because of the money they saved shopping at Wal-Mart. Doesn't this stuff get tired? Weren't we forecasting mass unemployment and strife when we developed the spinning jenny and the steam engine? Things seemed to work out!

Nope. I also agree with, I believe, Churchill, who said Capitalism was the worst economic system except for all the others.

Actually, he said democracy was the worst form of government except for all the others.

But embracing capitalism does not mean giving it free reign to do what it wants. That way lies the worst nightmares of all those Sci-Fi writers who show the future as a world run by evil (or at least, ammoral) mega corporations.

An outdated concept. Micro-corporations are the way things are probably going to go, not the megacorporations dreamed up by William Gibson and other bad science fiction writers.

Under perfect capitalism it's the survival of the fittest, smartest, and meanest. And that leaves precious little left for concerns like decent wages, safety, human rights, or the environment.

Actually, capitalism creates decent wages, safety, human rights and environmental concern. We have these problems precisely because we don't have enough capitalism. By making these things social, state issues, we have just brought them before the tragedy of the commons.

It is obvious to everyone except the people with the rich right wing agendas, that economically a mixed system is by far the most beneficial for most in our society.

What a statement! Let's play a little game. "It is obvious to everyone except the people with the round-earth agendas that the earth must be flat."

Did I say I did? I don't pretend to be an expert economist. On the other hand, I did manage to wade all the way through Mcconnell and Pope's thousand page snoozefest Economics Principles, Problems and Policies in school, and I do at least remember the basics

I recommend more Mises, Hayek, Hoppe, Friedman, Rand and so forth. Keynesianism is debunked.

Wal-Mart is willing to lose money temporarily, and in certain areas. If done properly, loss-leaders draw people in to buy other products, and help make the competition's life miserable. Wal-mart can target specific areas, such as CDs, videos, books, and toys, any one of which can be permitted to lose money for a particular segment of time in order to drive competitors in that field out of business.

And as soon as that price rises, competition re-appears. Furthermore, this doesn't address the problem of a competitor who might also play the loss-leader game. Returning to the Sega/Nintendo/Sony example, when the Playstation was first released, each unit was deliberately sold for a substantial loss. Loss-leader strategy failed for Sega and Nintendo there, as it could very conceivably fail for Wal-Mart.

Anyway, I don't understand how offering extremely low prices to the Canadian public is bad for the Canadian public.

It's called democracy. Because ultimately that gives me, and others, if there are enough of us, the right to tell Wal-Mart that IT can't dictate to Hollywood producers.

Democracy gave Hitler the right to exterminate European Jewry, too.

Trade is much like Capitalism, good... depending on circumstances. One way trade is not good for us, not by a long shot.

There is no such thing as "one way trade." We generally call it "theft" when you take without giving back or "charity" when you give without receiving.

A yers or so ago there was a financial series in one paper that gave the estimate of 2,300,000 jobs lost in the USA to the WalMart concept. That has been affirmed by a number of sources since - and don't ask for a link

Fallacy of prejudicial language. There are no stupid questions, Eureka, only stupid answers.

WalMart does practise predatory pricing and all the ills that Argus is diagnosing so well.

Predatory pricing is not sustainable long-term and, when it occurs, it is of great benefit to the consumers.

The closure was brought about through losses incurres when the principal Christmas items they were featuring were marketed by WalMart through all their stores as loss leaders.

So, basically, Wal-Mart executives were smarter than Toys "R" Us executives, because they figured out a good loss-leader strategy and Toys "R" Us could not. What you want to do, then, is reward stupidity and punish intelligence.

No economic system is bad of itself if controlled in the interest of all: not Capitalism and not Communism.

This is not possible. Either you are capitalist, or you are communist, or you are moving towards one or the other. Currently, we are moving towards communism. You cannot remain static in the gap between capitalism and communism.

[Guest eureka]

Do a rough calculation yourself, August. 10% of all imports from China in the US are to WalMart. That is not by a long way the total of the WalMart "concept" since many others have been forced into the same tactic to survive. How much production lost to the US would that be: and how many lost jobs. I merely gave you the figure that I recall reading as estimated by people who do have the means to measure.

The Toys'R'Us is one example of the WalMart strategy and it has worked for WalMart a thousand times over: the deliberate destruction of smaller competitors. This example shows haw it is used agains fairly large rivals, particu;arly those who are engaged in a limited range of products. Toys'R'Us main line is just a "Loss Leader" to WalMart with its overwhelming power. They more commonly apply it to smaller retailers in limited markets.

You should note that, Hugo. The failure of Playstation as a loss leader has no relevance to the tactics. In the WalMart case, they cannot fail any more than the Americans can fail to topple more Central American governments if they wish to do so. There are no rivals and there is no need for localised "predatory pricing "long term since the competition is gone.

Don't throw out the "fallacy of prejudicial langiage" to me, Hugo. There are stupid answers and yours was one in that if you think you can slide past awkward information with pedantic nonsense, you will not get away with it.

You so often talk of the debunking of Keynesianism by Right Wing economists (not the correct term but it will serve). None of these ever "debunked" Keynes. They tried to but succeeded only in constructing houses of cards that are already toppling. You might, if you so desire and can get away from your obsessive theorising, show this. Though I don't think any here really want the exercise.

Of course it is possible to remain "static" in the gap between Capitalism and Communism. I don't know what is desirable about static, though. You are not either Capitalist or Communist. Argus has written of "perfect Capitalism," and the same could be applied to "perfect Communism.

We do fall between those extremes on the continuum as do all societies. Reining in WalMart would move nations a little closer to the equitable benchmark.

[Hugo]

The failure of Playstation as a loss leader has no relevance to the tactics.

Playstation was a remarkable success. They succeeded in driving Sega from the hardware market altogether - and a few short years before, Sega had a share of the console market that Wal-Mart executives would have sold their children for.

In the WalMart case, they cannot fail any more than the Americans can fail to topple more Central American governments if they wish to do so.

They're having enough trouble just with Iraq. It's no accident that the dollar continues to fall and US gold markets are buoyant, because since all wars are financed with deficits rather than taxes this is causing serious economic problems for the US, with runaway inflation causing rising prices and a plummeting dollar. They are one war away from economic crash at the moment.

Don't throw out the "fallacy of prejudicial langiage" to me, Hugo.

Don't commit it, then. You threw out a figure without any source, and then tried to discourage further inquiry by implying that anybody who questioned your figure would be ignorant. This is the fallacy of prejudicial language. Fortunately for this debate, August called your bluff and demanded a source anyway, and I see you haven't provided it yet!

None of these ever "debunked" Keynes.

Actually, that was von Mises main claim to fame - to offer a solid refutation of Keynesian economics, and to be the first to plug the gaps in Marxist theory that even Marxists couldn't fathom, destroying Marxism in the process.

Anyway, Keynes needs no debunking. He debunks himself. For example, in his General Theory in 1936, he directly contradicts the theory of monetary policy he wrote in 1931. Then, in the same book, he trips up again when he advocates inflation as a remedy for unemployment, and then later admits that unemployment can only be remedied by "a gradual and automatic lowering of real wages", which basically assumes that nobody would notice inflation and the consequent price increases happened. Every time a worker demands a wage increase in line with inflation, he destroys this Keynesian line of thought, because Keynesian inflationary full-employment doctrine depends upon this never, ever happening. Keynes was a fool.

Of course it is possible to remain "static" in the gap between Capitalism and Communism.

What principle do you use to hold yourself at a static point? Any compromise between the two is not based upon principles or doctrine, but upon purely arbitrary opinion, and there is no logically defensible resting-place. Either you're heading for one or the other.

You are not either Capitalist or Communist.

I'm an Austrian-school capitalist.

Reining in WalMart would move nations a little closer to the equitable benchmark.

It is only equitable because you say it is. It isn't defensible, being just your opinion. The correct capitalism/communism compromise is as objective as your favourite colour or food.

[The Terrible Sweal]

How many of you commies (ie, the anti-Walmart crowd) have worked a low-wage job?

How many have owned and operated their own business?

How many think people who own corporations should work to their own detriment by NOT trying to make the biggest profits possible?

How many think they know of a viable alternative to capitalism and an example of where it is working today?

Perhaps I shouldn't answer this because I am not 'anti-Walmart', but here goes ...

I have worked a low-wage job. I have owned and operated my own business. (At times they were the same thing!)

Other than obeying the law, corporations should have no obligations but to do what the owners direct (generally presumed to be maximization of profit over a specified but variable time-frame).

As for capitalism, if by that you mean the economic system we have today, I would like to replace it with a free-and-fair-market.

[Guest eureka]

Anyone who says that "Keynes was a fool," is a fool and clearly incompetent to argue economic theory. Picking a few points from Keynes is not an argument. And, Von Mises seems to have a lot of detractors as well as failing practitioners.

You are fond of throwing out your "fallacies." I wonder whether you really understand the concepts or whether you are simply repeating terms that you like the sound of. My statement of the figures would be common knowledge to those who claim to be so informed as you do. They were in newspaper articles and, I believe, magazines. They were much talked about not long ago.

If you think that I am going to waste time searching for the source(s) to satisfy what you think is academic method, then you will be disappointed

Of course it is possible to be static when there are two fixed points as you imply that Capitalism and Communism are. It is also possible not to be static (my position) and to experiment on positions between the points.

The, equitable has meaning and it has nothing to do with my saying so. A correct capitalist/communist compromise is what most societies are searching for and is, as you say, objective. Where did you get the idea that I stated what it would be. I know that you did not and that it is just your usual imputation of position to others as a substitute for argument.

However, by no objective standard could WalMart's behaviour be considered equitable or a compromise between the extremes.

[Guest eureka]

Anyone who says that "Keynes was a fool," is a fool and clearly incompetent to argue economic theory. Picking a few points from Keynes is not an argument. And, Von Mises seems to have a lot of detractors as well as failing practitioners.

You are fond of throwing out your "fallacies." I wonder whether you really understand the concepts or whether you are simply repeating terms that you like the sound of. My statement of the figures would be common knowledge to those who claim to be so informed as you do. They were in newspaper articles and, I believe, magazines. They were much talked about not long ago.

If you think that I am going to waste time searching for the source(s) to satisfy what you think is academic method, then you will be disappointed

Of course it is possible to be static when there are two fixed points as you imply that Capitalism and Communism are. It is also possible not to be static (my position) and to experiment on positions between the points.

The, equitable has meaning and it has nothing to do with my saying so. A correct capitalist/communist compromise is what most societies are searching for and is, as you say, objective. Where did you get the idea that I stated what it would be. I know that you did not and that it is just your usual imputation of position to others as a substitute for argument.

However, by no objective standard could WalMart's behaviour be considered equitable or a compromise between the extremes.

[Hugo]

Anyone who says that "Keynes was a fool," is a fool and clearly incompetent to argue economic theory.

The truth is that Keynes was incompetent to argue economic theory. For instance, he tells us that economic slowdowns must be offset by increased government spending. However, he admits that increased taxation defeats this, so increased government spending must come from a deficit: inflation. Debt must be paid off, which means deflation and economic slowing, and what is Keynes' remedy? More inflation!

If you know of a single incident of inflation in history that ended in anything but economic disaster, let me know. But you won't, because none exist, from the ancient Roman coinage debasements through the Great Depression to the early 90s recession.

This is the big flaw with Keynes: history keeps proving him wrong. You don't have to be an economist to see that, you just have to open your eyes a bit.

And, Von Mises seems to have a lot of detractors as well as failing practitioners.

Who are his practitioners? Lamentably, I don't think there are any people putting his theories into practice right now.

My statement of the figures would be common knowledge to those who claim to be so informed as you do.

Same fallacy, again. The fact that nobody whatsoever on this thread has blindly accepted your figures and that several have demanded to see your sources should tell you the problems with this statement!

Of course it is possible to be static when there are two fixed points as you imply that Capitalism and Communism are.

This is self-contradictory. If there are two fixed points, the only static places would be at those points. All other positions are necessarily fluid. This statement refutes your earlier position, so I invite you to make up your mind one way or the other!

A correct capitalist/communist compromise is what most societies are searching for and is, as you say, objective.

That was irony. I'm sorry that you believe that one could have an objective standard for favourite foods and colours, though. If your favourite colour is red, you are wrong. The correct favourite colour is blue (irony again). Clearer now?

However, by no objective standard could WalMart's behaviour be considered equitable or a compromise between the extremes.

Since Wal-Mart is not macroeconomic this statement makes absolutely no sense.

[The Terrible Sweal]

If you know of a single incident of inflation in history that ended in anything but economic disaster, let me know.

What a bizarre thing to say. Inflation is a historical fact, so you must be saying that history to date is an economic disaster. Of course, that would be absurd.

[Hugo]

Inflation is a historical fact, so you must be saying that history to date is an economic disaster. Of course, that would be absurd.

No, I meant an incident or period of deliberate inflation, or inflation as policy, such as the Weimar inflation, the John Law paper money scheme, the Great Depression, the Union greenback in the Civil War, and so forth. Inflation is not an "historical fact" in this sense, but a positive act, one that can be avoided. We can isolate these incidents of inflation-as-policy as opposed to inflation as an independent phenomenon (which, when it occurs as such, is not destructive).

[The Terrible Sweal]

Inflation is a historical fact, so you must be saying that history to date is an economic disaster. Of course, that would be absurd.

No, I meant an incident or period of deliberate inflation, or inflation as policy, such as the Weimar inflation, the John Law paper money scheme, the Great Depression, the Union greenback in the Civil War, and so forth. Inflation is not an "historical fact" in this sense, but a positive act, one that can be avoided. We can isolate these incidents of inflation-as-policy as opposed to inflation as an independent phenomenon (which, when it occurs as such, is not destructive).

So the question becomes what is a level of inflation which is unproblematic ... and that undermines the (generic) criticism you made of Keynes.

[Hugo]

So the question becomes what is a level of inflation which is unproblematic ... and that undermines the (generic) criticism you made of Keynes.

Not at all. The "inflation" you claim to see throughout history is not known as inflation. As capital increases, money will correspondingly increase, since money represents capital. This is a normal, noninflationary increase in the money supply. It is not the same thing as monetary inflation.

Inflation is when the money supply is increased faster than capital accumulates, thus devaluing the currency and causing price rises as an immediate effect. This is what Keynes was talking about, and it is about this which he was wrong.