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

[August1991]

As capital increases, money will correspondingly increase, since money represents capital.

The need for money does not follow an increase in "capital". The need for money follows an increase in transactions. In fact, if you mean "base money", then it would follow an increase in the need for reserves (which are necessary for certain transactions).

If you you use the term "capital", be explicit whether you mean physical capital or a financial instrument.

Keynes invented macroeconomics and gave us, among other things, the liquidity preference theory of money. He was no fool.

[The Terrible Sweal]

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.

If this were true we would see more units of currency, but each unit would still have the same purchasing power. But in fact, we have more units of currency, each with reduced purchasing power. Inflation is a by-product of increasing wealth.

[Guest eureka]

Thank you for telling us what "the truth is." However, I am beginning to think you would not see truth unless it cam from a point straight on front of your eyes. Your blinders do not help you. I suggest that you desist from tangetial argument without removing them.

Debt does not lead to extraordinary inflationary pressure. One great thing about Keynes is that he taught the difference and how to use the differences. Debt is a problem when it is abused and applied at the wrong times - as now in Dubbya's democracy.

Your arguments are digging a deeper hole for you. If I have a piece of board and hammer a nail into the middle is the nail fluid. It coud be moved with effort but it is certainly not fluid.

My statement about WalMart makes perfect sense. WalMart is striving for the end that is "perfect Capitalism." That is not equitable and should offend your Libertarian views.

For inflation and the potential for destruction that does not fit the mold you have, I would suggest Spain in the 17th. century. There is destruction because there was no Keynes to explain what to do about "ordinary" inflation.

[Guest eureka]

Just do a search under American job losses,walmart. There are many informative sites. I did not look for long since I have more to do than research the obvious. And I did not see the particular program I cited though I ma sure it will be there.

I did look at some, though briefly.

Amongst interesting findings in various studies are:

Three jobs are lost for every two Walmart new employee.

Walmart American suppliers driven out of business due to Walmart's demands AND to its selling their products as loss leaders.

Municipal taxes are reduced when a Walmart store comes in.

There are a myriad others; none favour the continued existence of Walmart.

[Hugo]

Keynes invented macroeconomics and gave us, among other things, the liquidity preference theory of money.

According to Mises, W. H. Hutt and others, Keynes did not actually have a single original idea. Amusingly, he was simply repeating ideas that were widely held until Adam Smith refuted them - almost two centuries before him! Why Keynes is highly regarded as an economist is a mystery.

The need for money does not follow an increase in "capital". The need for money follows an increase in transactions.

You may be correct in that transactions will tend to grow capital. Money is not worth anything (at least, paper money). It represents capital. When you have more capital, you have more money. Someone will make more money, meaning that the value of a monetary unit goes unchanged, or no new money will be created, which means that the value of a monetary unit will increase (i.e. prices will drop).

Inflationary money is basically an act of fraud. It is the printing of money which represents capital that does not physically exist.

If you you use the term "capital", be explicit whether you mean physical capital or a financial instrument.

Physical capital.

Debt does not lead to extraordinary inflationary pressure.

Debt would not lead to extraordinary inflationary pressure if debt was taken entirely from government bonds. It isn't. Governments borrow money from the marginal reserves of banks, which is inflationary debt. If a government ever abolishes fractional reserve banking we can have this discussion, but at the moment it is moot simply because fractional reserve banking is a reality and is used.

If I have a piece of board and hammer a nail into the middle is the nail fluid.

If I have a teeter-totter coated in oil and I drop a nail onto it, it'll roll towards one end of the other. We can concoct silly analogies all day, or we can get down to business. Your choice.

My statement about WalMart makes perfect sense. WalMart is striving for the end that is "perfect Capitalism."

No, Wal-mart is striving for the end of greatest return on investments. Mercantilism would make Wal-mart execs very happy (we have mercantilism, and they are very happy). If you listen to industry lobby groups it becomes very plain that the business world (small businessman, international corporation, all of them alike) has a deathly fear of pure capitalism, because it means they have to play hardball as opposed to arranging government defeat of market functions.

For inflation and the potential for destruction that does not fit the mold you have, I would suggest Spain in the 17th. century.

On the contrary, Spain was doing exactly what Keynes - or the 17th Century economists he plagiarised - recommended they do. Hence their collapse. Refer to your Kennedy, specifically, the financing of wars with debt and government debt defaults. Once you inflate, you have two choices. You can deflate and enter a recession, or you can continue inflating until the currency is abandoned and the economy collapses entirely. It's like jumping out of a plane - you have to land, one way or the other, and the landing won't be soft and gentle.

Just do a search under American job losses,walmart.

If I do this, will you undertake to read the links I posted earlier? I want to make sure you're not just hearing one side of the story. You wouldn't be able to make an objective judgement.

[playfullfellow]

No matter how you slice it, consumer demand will esatblish whether a store makes it or not. In the case of Walmart, just look at the chaos in store these days before Christmas. Lineups from open to close. People standing there in line like a herd cows being led to slaughter. Most people even look like they are being led to slaughter. If people do not like the store, they won't shop there. There are plenty of alternatives to Walmart but people have just gotten lazy and like Walmart because you can get most things in one stop.

[Guest eureka]

While you think that is a "silly analogy," there does not seem to be much point in discussing that continuum with you. I sippose that the idea is too simple for your convoluted thinking.

As for Spain in the 17th. century, I think that you need to revisit your history books.

The, if you persist in the false accusations about Keynes, then you are indeed lost. Plagiarism from one of the finest minds of the century! The latter day Father of Confederation as he is known to Canada because his theories saved this country.

[Hugo]

As for Spain in the 17th. century, I think that you need to revisit your history books.

I cited Paul Kennedy. Which history book or historian are you referring to?

The, if you persist in the false accusations about Keynes, then you are indeed lost.

It's interesting that I have mentioned several Keynesian theorems and two publications, whereas you have given absolutely no indication that you have even read anything by Keynes. You mentioned absolutely nothing of his theories, nor offered a defence of them. All you did was to say I was wrong, without justification, evidence or logical argument.

Plagiarism from one of the finest minds of the century!

Take it up with the economists who alleged it, not me. Have you read them, either?

The latter day Father of Confederation as he is known to Canada because his theories saved this country.

I'd like to see some evidence or argument for that before I blindly accept it. You have led me to suspect you don't actually know a single thing about Keynesianism.

[August1991]

Hugo, you mentioned "Mises" (in fact, it is von Mises) and W. F. Hutt. Neither of these two can be considered to be mainstream.

Most economists have their works forgotten after they're dead. I've the unique distinction in having had all my works forgotten while I'm still alive.".

W. F. Hutt.

But, I'm willing to debate the merits of an argument.

Keynes was an important economist and important contributer to economic theory. To suggest otherwise is simply false.

Why Keynes is highly regarded as an economist is a mystery.

... to you, apparently. Not to others.

Inflationary money is basically an act of fraud. It is the printing of money which represents capital that does not physically exist.

"Excess" supply of money is not a fraud, it is a tax. The notion that there is a one-for-one equivalency between "real assets" and "paper assets" is simplistic to be laughable. What valuation do you give either asset?

The latter day Father of Confederation as he is known to Canada because his theories saved this country.

eureka, that idea might have been common in the 1960s - but it is certainly not believed now.

Keynes has his place in economic theory. No more, no less.

I'll start a thread on Keynes elsewhere.

Just do a search under American job losses,walmart.

eureka, I agree that WalMart probably caused job losses in the US (I doubt 2.3 million jobs were lost) and I would not be surprised that it is a major importer from China. So what?

If WalMart manages to organize the retail business better so that fewer employees are required to provide the same service, then that is good for the economy. It is the same if GM can manufacture a car with fewer employees - or if a hospital, through better management, can provide the same service with fewer doctors and nurses.

I gave the example of secretaries losing their jobs because of computers.

Your China example is similar. China does not send us stuff for free. We have to send something to China to trade and get all the stuff it sends to us. If we stopped importing from China, we would in effect shut down all those Canadian firms now exporting.

eureka, your family can stay at home and knit and sew your own clothes. Or, you can go out, do a job, earn money and buy ready-made clothes. I suspect your family has "out-sourced" the knitting job, caused unemployment in that sector of your family, but now do something else "more profitable".

Many people think Wal Mart is ugly, crowded and filled with poor quality consumer crap. It's an opinion. If you don't like it, don't shop there. Nobody is forcing anybody to have any thing to do with Wal Mart. Look the other way when you drive by a Wal Mart.

My argument is as basic as respect for people of a different religion, different lifestyle.

[Guest eureka]

O think that you are displayung your very superficial knowledge of Keynesianism. You trot out a couple of sentences purporting to explain highly complex theories; post as fact, the accusations of jealous, inferior economists - without naming them (a sin for you) and expect to be accorded credibility.

Keynes was accused of "Plagiarialzing Gessell. Of course he did not. He adopted some of Gessell's rudimentary theory and enlarged it. Keynes was a capotalist and his use of that particular model was in his attempts to save Capitalism.

Have you read Keynes "How to Pay for the War?" That just about explodes your juvenile criticisms. All of them in one.

Do you know what Friedman replied when asked whether he thought Keynes or Von Mises was the greater economist. He said, without hesitation; "Keynes."

Keynes did not espouse all the "evils" you accuse him of, either. Unlike your "critics," he sought controlled use of tools to remedy economic ills. He did not say "there is a hole in the pipe and the oil is leaking out. Leave it and the market will fix it in time." He saod; "Fix it and then leave it to do its job."

Keynesianism taught Canada how to get out of the Depression as it did everyone who would listen. More importantly in the long run (which was always Keynes concern) it taught the federal government the use of the Spending Power. That saved Canada which, by the late 30's was on the brin if disintergretation as the powers of the Federal Government dissipated and the Provinces acted more and more like autonomous regions.

That saved Canada's integrity. It is the binding force today and is the reason that al those who are crying "Fiscal Imbalance" should be hanged for treason.

For that, Keynes was often referred to as a "Father of Confederation." You still see the term used by some who are not ignorant of our real past.

[August1991]

eureka, I have answered your Keynes post elsewhere.

Let's keep this thread on Wal Mart.

[Hugo]

Post moved to relevant thread.

[Guest eureka]

Let's keep WalMart on a leash!

[Cartman]

I find the company absolutely disgusting and have not been there for years. I cannot stand the crowds, the insincere welcomes, the use of sweatshop labour (at least in the past) and the way they have been known to be poor corporate citizens. I am no bargain hunter and would rather get gouged than be treated like a cow.

Wal-Mart's success is just a mirror of general problems in our society. Our children (and adults) are fat because they eat like shit and their parents do not take them out on walks, swimming, hiking, cycling etc. There are many cost effective ways that parents and children can enjoy time together without having to buy more poorly made crap. Having more stuff does not make a person happier.

[August1991]

I find the company absolutely disgusting and have not been there for years. I cannot stand the crowds, the insincere welcomes, the use of sweatshop labour (at least in the past) and the way they have been known to be poor corporate citizens. I am no bargain hunter and would rather get gouged than be treated like a cow.

No one is asking you to shop at Wal Mart, Cartman. As to sweat shop labour, the people working for suppliers in China have a choice between a subsistence life on a rudimentary farm or the chance to work in "sweat shop" factories. By all reports, they are choosing massively to work for a wage. I think these Chinese are best placed to judge which type of work is better.

Wal-Mart's success is just a mirror of general problems in our society. Our children (and adults) are fat because they eat like shit and their parents do not take them out on walks, swimming, hiking, cycling etc. There are many cost effective ways that parents and children can enjoy time together without having to buy more poorly made crap. Having more stuff does not make a person happier.

Cartman, what gives you the right to judge other people the way you do? Are you the Pope?

Cartman, do you really want to defend the interests of ordinary people?

Or in fact, do you want to feel morally superior to them? (Do you want to show them the errors of their ways and raise them up to your level?)

[Cartman]

I think these Chinese are best placed to judge which is better for them.

I am best placed to judge which company I choose to do business with. I find it odd that you feel I am immoral in making a decision to not shop at this place. This sounds communist August and it also sounds judgemental. I enjoy smaller businesses with superior products. In the end, they cost less because they last longer.

My understanding is that Wal-Mart no longer uses sweat shop labour anymore because it tarnishes their corporate image. As you so frequently say, let the market decide.

Cartman, what gives you the right to judge other people the way you do? Are you the Pope?

Ha! We all make judgements August. What is the definition of an individual who does not make judgements?

For a more direct answer, I have the right to say it is ideal for people to comsume less because greater consumption leads to greater environmental destruction. As a taxpayer funding health care, I have the right to say that physical exercise and healthy eating are superior to a sedentary lifestyle and eating poorly. Do you believe speaking my mind is immoral?

Yes, I am the Pope.

[Hugo]

I find the company absolutely disgusting and have not been there for years. I cannot stand the crowds, the insincere welcomes, the use of sweatshop labour (at least in the past) and the way they have been known to be poor corporate citizens. I am no bargain hunter and would rather get gouged than be treated like a cow.

Then it's really quite simple. You've made a sound economic decision. You have decided that the service of not being treated like cattle has more value to you than the price difference between Wal-Mart and this mysterious snooty shop you buy things at.

But if we respect your economic decision and the value you place on being treated like a lord, should you not respect the economic decisions of others, and the value they place on being treated like a lord?

Some people think that being treated nicely is worth less than the price difference between Wal-Mart and its competitors. If you want to shut Wal-Mart down because of this, you are basically presuming that you have the right to tell others what they should think.

You don't.

Our children (and adults) are fat because they eat like shit and their parents do not take them out on walks, swimming, hiking, cycling etc.

And let me guess: the government should step in and help us, hmmm?

As to sweat shop labour, the people working for suppliers in China have a choice between a subsistence life on a rudimentary farm or the chance to work in "sweat shop" factories.

Cartman doesn't think this is the case. Anti-sweatshop people seem to think that the Chinese could be working cushy jobs as developers for Microsoft or something, and that Wal-Mart has shepherded them all into its evil factories at gunpoint.

The truth is that life as a Chinese peasant is absolutely miserable. Most of them will die before they reach 50 years old, but not before they see half to two-thirds of their children die before the age of 5. Most of them will work 16 hours a day or more of back-breaking labour without any mechanical or even animal assistance.

Some of them have been given the opportunity to work in a factory for what, to a Canadian, seems like a pittance. They took it and made an economic decision. Cartman seems to think he has the right to override their economic decisions too and send them all back to the paddy fields to die young.

I have the right to say it is ideal for people to comsume less because greater consumption leads to greater environmental destruction.

Ah. So you think you own the environment, then. Otherwise, you would be telling people what to do with things that aren't yours, wouldn't you?

[Cartman]

You have decided that the service of not being treated like cattle has more value to you than the price difference between Wal-Mart and this mysterious snooty shop you buy things at.

I buy things from many different places and I would not call them "snooty". "Mom and pop" shops are not "snooty" but it may be "snooty" for you to unfairly label them as such.

But if we respect your economic decision and the value you place on being treated like a lord

I do not want to be treated like a "lord" as you put it, I like to be treated like a human being...sorry.

If you want to shut Wal-Mart down because of this, you are basically presuming that you have the right to tell others what they should think.

Did I say this? I just do not enjoy going there and, for me, it is worth the extra money to stay away from them. They can remain open as far as I am concerned.

Cartman doesn't think this is the case. Anti-sweatshop people seem to think that the Chinese could be working cushy jobs as developers for Microsoft or something, and that Wal-Mart has shepherded them all into its evil factories at gunpoint.

This is the first label you have correctly attributed to me. I am an anti-sweatshop person and I believe nations should sanction companies that employ them. I have worked for a Canadian company that operated in a third world nation. When Canadians worked there, they were paid unionized, Canadian wages so I am sure that they could be paid the same. My union also made the same argument. Odd how you and August seem to be so concerned about these children but offer no concrete ways to truly make their lives better other than the economic "freedom" to choose between virtual slavery or complete misery. So, what is your option?

They took it and made an economic decision.

We have very different ideas of what constitutes "decision-making".

Cartman seems to think he has the right to override their economic decisions too and send them all back to the paddy fields to die young.

Maybe I will make this my new signature.

Your argument is quite weak Hugo because you have found it necessary to resort to inaccurate and pejorative labels. You have also attributed inaccurate logic on my behalf. That does not seem to be in keeping with the ideals of anarchy.

Sincerely,

Lord Cartman, the Pope.

[Hugo]

I buy things from many different places and I would not call them "snooty".

That was a bit of tongue-in-cheek humour. I was jokingly asserting that you might be a Beverly Hills type who walks into a store and demands it be closed while you shop and that all ten assistants be swarming around you. I don't think that's actually the case. Do you get my point, though?

I just do not enjoy going there and, for me, it is worth the extra money to stay away from them. They can remain open as far as I am concerned.

I never said that you believed any differently. I said if you believed that Wal-Mart should be closed etc. If you don't, then that's just fine with me.

Odd how you and August seem to be so concerned about these children but offer no concrete ways to truly make their lives better other than the economic "freedom" to choose between virtual slavery or complete misery. So, what is your option?

The option is to bring them into the real and sustainable increase in welfare that capitalism produces. This means starting at the bottom, just as Western nations did a few centuries ago. Yes, it might take them a while to get to our level, however, it will probably take them less than it did us, since they have existing rich nations to trade with, which was not the case when Britain was entering her capitalist phase.

It takes longer to work, but capitalism is the best and the only sustainable welfare scheme in the world. Redistribution of wealth is great if you want a quick-fix that can't be kept up in the long-term - if you're an elected politician, basically.

We have very different ideas of what constitutes "decision-making".

Show me the guns.

I note that you didn't offer any refutation of what I actually said. You picked up on a minor detail of my first point, neglecting to dispute or embellish it in any way, and then instead of refuting any of my arguments about sweat-shops you decided to regale us with a hypothesis backed only by an extremely limited piece of anecdotal evidence.

When Canadians worked there, they were paid unionized, Canadian wages so I am sure that they could be paid the same.

That means your prices will go up, so Canadians will be able to buy less. What you are proposing, then, is international redistribution of wealth. Redistribution is both immoral and economically counterproductive.

[Cartman]

That was a bit of tongue-in-cheek humour. I was jokingly asserting that you might be a Beverly Hills type who walks into a store and demands it be closed while you shop and that all ten assistants be swarming around you. I don't think that's actually the case. Do you get my point, though?

Oops...my mistake. Cheerfully withdrawn.

Show me the guns.

You are not going to like my answer. I generally feel as though free-choice is illusory or rare at best. I recognize that this is rather nihilist but also true.

That means your prices will go up, so Canadians will be able to buy less. What you are proposing, then, is international redistribution of wealth. Redistribution is both immoral and economically counterproductive.

I would think that if all industrialized nations engaged in a global agreement working with business, third world nations would be much better off. I have no illusions about the difficulty in eradicating international poverty, but I think that wages can be higher than sweatshop wages. I try to keep on top of companies that are "good corporate citizens" and purchase more from them than others who are not. Some unions keep lists.

The company operating in the 3rd world is a coal mining company. They pay union wages to CDN's working there, but much lower wages to the domestic labour force. This was altered somewhat by union pressure. Higher wages will not substantially affect pricing because the coal is used largely in steel manufacturing for cars. As it sits, there is a large discrepancy between the cost of raw materials (like coal) that go into the vehicle and the ultimate product. Most of the margin comes from manufacturing the car. Increasing the costs of coal by $1 per tonne will have little impact on the price of a car. Because this particular mine operates on somewhat lower wages, they could increase wages and still offer lower coal prices and lower car prices.

I think capitalism has been shown to make the pie larger. It is not the case that the less I have, the more you have as Marx suggested. If this is the case, then the world will be in big trouble as these nations industrialize.

[Guest eureka]

Much used to be made and bought from Mexico and the same arguments were made about the eventual benefit to the "slave" labourers there. Now the jobs are fleeing Mexico for China or....... Mexicans are now experiencing the benefit of having less than they had before. What comes after China? Back to North America when wages are driven down sufficiently to give the same profit margins.

You ralk of reading links. If you looked at the page of links I gave, you will find one of a test of WalMart prices over a range of items. The result was that the goods were slightly more expensive at WalMart in total.

WalMart is not cheaper overall. It uses predatory pricing to rid itself of competition and then raises its prices. The benefit of the more normal price structure does not go to consumers or to Chinese peasants. It goes to the Waltons.

[August1991]

Did I say this? I just do not enjoy going there and, for me, it is worth the extra money to stay away from them. They can remain open as far as I am concerned.

The thread's title refers to booting Wal Mart from Canada. Maybe that's where the confusion arose. It's understood that you may not like Wal Mart, but you are not against it operating in Canada.

I have worked for a Canadian company that operated in a third world nation. When Canadians worked there, they were paid unionized, Canadian wages so I am sure that they could be paid the same. My union also made the same argument. Odd how you and August seem to be so concerned about these children but offer no concrete ways to truly make their lives better other than the economic "freedom" to choose between virtual slavery or complete misery. So, what is your option?

I am concerned about making their lives better but what you are suggesting won't achieve that.

Let me note children first. In my experience, there are few cultures which place such a high value on children as Asian (particularly China) and South America. I cannot imagine a less likely place where children would be "exploited" by their parents. (Orphans a possible exception).

You cannot raise wages by using unions or minimum wage legislation. It makes as much sense as to ordain literacy. If a government makes it illegal to hire people below a certain wage, this will simply price poor people out of the market.

Imagine if it was illegal in Canada to buy or sell a car for less than $50,000. All the cheap Korean imports would disappear and we'd be left with fewer cars, mostly high-end German and American. Only the rich could afford a car.

This comparison is apt, Cartman, because rich people would not be affected by such a minimum-car-price law. In fact, what you are suggesting for China (imposing Canadian wages there) would be exactly the same. You would price Chinese out of the market.

-----

For a more direct answer, I have the right to say it is ideal for people to comsume less because greater consumption leads to greater environmental destruction. As a taxpayer funding health care, I have the right to say that physical exercise and healthy eating are superior to a sedentary lifestyle and eating poorly. Do you believe speaking my mind is immoral?

Environment and health are reasonable arguments in my mind. But an even better one (Hugo would probably disagree) is "education".

If parents won't raise their children well, maybe the rest of us collectively (through the State) should.

Bear in mind, the purpose is to improve the lives of ordinary people.

[Hugo]

Oops...my mistake. Cheerfully withdrawn.

No problem. My apologies for the confusion.

You are not going to like my answer. I generally feel as though free-choice is illusory or rare at best. I recognize that this is rather nihilist but also true.

Then why would it make a difference? You purport to offer third-world citizens a better choice, then in the next breath you say that there is no such thing as choice, or that it is fleeting and scarce.

I would think that if all industrialized nations engaged in a global agreement working with business, third world nations would be much better off. I have no illusions about the difficulty in eradicating international poverty, but I think that wages can be higher than sweatshop wages.

Yes, and they will be. If you want to help third-world workers, the best thing you can do is to buy more third-world-made products. Right now, because relatively few products are made in the third world (certainly not enough to fully industrialise the labour force), there is a greater supply of labour than there is demand, so the price of labour is very low.

If you buy more third-world goods, your demand increases, and entrepreneurs will make sure that supply will increase too (there's a dollar to be made here). More factories will be built in the third world. As long as they are built faster than new workers are added to the workforce, the supply of labour will decrease relative to the demand, pushing the cost of labour higher.

On the other hand, if you boycott third-world products, you reverse the process and push wages in those countries even lower.

s it sits, there is a large discrepancy between the cost of raw materials (like coal) that go into the vehicle and the ultimate product. Most of the margin comes from manufacturing the car. Increasing the costs of coal by $1 per tonne will have little impact on the price of a car.

Perhaps, and it's important to remember that it does have an impact (opportunity cost) but that's not the point. If a union demands that wages be increased from $10 to $15 an hour, everybody whose labour was worth $15 an hour or less is now unproductive and must be fired. A union can only obtain an increase in wages if some workers are to be laid off. The alternative to unemployment now is unemployment in the future, because to increase wages without laying off workers will reduce profits, discouraging investment and slowing the growth of the company.

I'm not against unions per se, but unions with the power to override market functions are a stupendously bad idea.

I think capitalism has been shown to make the pie larger. It is not the case that the less I have, the more you have as Marx suggested. If this is the case, then the world will be in big trouble as these nations industrialize.

If Marx was correct then the world should have been in big trouble a long time ago. Instead, we all continued to get richer.

[Argus]

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.

You are clearly lacking even minimal information about trade with Asia. Especially China. No, none of that is going to come from North America. It's going to be made there. They make their own machine tools, computers and air conditioners there, and do it cheaper than we can since they use cheap labour.

Secondly, this cuts prices of consumer goods. If you spend less on consumer goods you have more to spend elsewhere.

Uh huh, and what do you believe is the net "stimulative effect" of shipping milions of jobs overseas to Asia? Remember, we don't make our own TVs any more, or our own radios, or, for the most part, computers, boots, clothes, cars, etc. How many people can't feel a lot of hope that prices are 5% cheaper now that they're earning half the salaries they used to ean. How many auto jobs alone have been shipped to Asia?

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

Why don't you prove water is wet, first? Then I'll see about trying to prove the obvious right back at you.

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

What people? The people who don't have jobs any more? Suuuuurre.

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.

This is bullshit, August. Remove the regulations we have put on them and capitalist enterprises would be pouring toxic sludge into playgrounds and chaining their employees to their work stations for 18 hr days. Capitalism is not about being nice. It's about making money, no matter who else that harms.

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.

Utter nonsense. You're forgetting about the opportunity cost involved in setting up, as an example, a large chain of toy stores, especially knowing that if you do Wal-Mart will just drop its toy prices again until you are forced out of business.

Furthermore, this doesn't address the problem of a competitor who might also play the loss-leader game.

That would clearly be pretty silly for the likes of Toys R Us. As was explained already, toys represent only a small portion of Wal-mart sales. They can afford to sell them dirty cheap for a while. Toys R Us obviously can't.

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.

There's an axium that any hope for intelligent debate disappears the moment someone brings in Hitler. But the above is nonsense on a number of different levels.

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."

One-way trade is where a nation strives determinedly to sell you anything and everything it can, while putting road blocks and tarrifs and customs duties in the way of any of your exports. And China is a master at that, as is Japan.

[Argus]

Your China example is similar. China does not send us stuff for free. We have to send something to China to trade and get all the stuff it sends to us. If we stopped importing from China, we would in effect shut down all those Canadian firms now exporting.

Uh, what we send to China for exports is called "money". China has a pretty one-sided trade with everyone else. It does not like to import goods. If it wants, say airplanes, it will contract for the manufacturer to build the plant in China, then, after they have completed the contract, it will take over the plant and start producing a very slightly modified version for half the price.

About all we sell to China are raw materials.