Wal-Mart to close unionized store in Quebec

[Guest eureka]

You still can't get anything through the libertarian shell, Hugo. Next time you have a haircut, try having it shaved a little deeper!

I said that WalMart was an oligopoly and oligopsonyy not monopoly. Can you dispute that.

It has been noted how consumers pay more when there is a WalMart present. They pay more through their Municipal taxes: they pay more through income taxes to support welfare since, it has been found that WalMart does not employ as many as it replaces and, its wagr structure is lower.

Abstention is not a choice except for martyrs. It is not a choice for those who have families to feed. Ordnary people must take whatever is abailable.

Lowering prices does not raise real incomes unless there are productivity gains and real incomes are not reduced (or lost) at a rate that is better than the reduction in prices.

I would humbly suggest that "cognitive dissonance" is a mental feature of yours. I abhor monopoly and I also abhor oligopoly: I support "free choice. That is why I would support government action to keep playing fields even - not level.

So how about making an argument that addressesthid issue instead of spouting the mindless, thick-lensed drivel that leaves actual empirical experience out of the case.

[August1991]

It has been noted how consumers pay more when there is a WalMart present. They pay more through their Municipal taxes: they pay more through income taxes to support welfare since, it has been found that WalMart does not employ as many as it replaces and, its wagr structure is lower.

Can you provide any evidence of these claims? [You make it sound as if WalMart is the only employer in town.]

As to the claim that WalMart provides similar retail services with fewer people, I would not be surprised. WalMart is probably more efficient. But then, e-mails are more efficient than letters and no doubt many postal workers have lost their jobs too. Such improvements in productivity are the basis of economic growth.

Abstention is not a choice except for martyrs. It is not a choice for those who have families to feed. Ordnary people must take whatever is abailable.

Given the choice, people seem to choose WalMart over other other alternatives. Indeed the reason we are even discussing this is because WalMart is popular. (WalMart is not the US Army and does not physically eliminate the competition.)

eureka, WalMart makes it possible for ordinary people in Canada to cooperate with ordinary people in China. Both groups of people benefit from this kind of cooperation. WalMart makes that possible.

If you have some way of making it even easier for those two groups to cooperate better and gain more from the deal, then I urge you to try. I doubt you'll succeed because WalMart has narrowed the transaction cost of cooperation between Canadians and Chinese to a strict minimum.

That is why I would support government action to keep playing fields even - not level.

Cooperation and trade are not competitive sports. There is no notion of level playing field or unfair rules.

Life is difficult as it is. Why make it more difficult?

And ultimately, that is what you are suggesting eureka. You would have the government impose artificial handicaps on WalMart so that it would be forced to have higher costs.

I don't know how forcing WalMart management to run around its buildings three time every morning before it opens is going to make anyone's life better. Barriers to trade are simply extra burdens we impose on ourselves.

[Hugo]

I said that WalMart was an oligopoly and oligopsonyy not monopoly. Can you dispute that.

I don't have to, because the very existence of Sears, HBC/Zellers, Target, Price Club, Costco, Home Depot, Futureshop/Best Buy, Canadian Tire, Radio Shack, Zehrs, MDG, HMV, Blockbuster, Amazon.ca, etc. etc. prove you wrong. All of these stores are competing to buy the same products from the same wholesalers as Wal-Mart and all are competing to sell them to the same people.

It has been noted how consumers pay more when there is a WalMart present. They pay more through their Municipal taxes: they pay more through income taxes to support welfare

If you don't pay these taxes, who is it that arrests you and prosecutes you? Agents of the state, or agents of Wal-Mart?

it has been found that WalMart does not employ as many as it replaces

As August was alluding to, the same can be said of the spinning jenny, the water loom, the steam engine, electric light, canned food, etc. Are you against all of these developments as well? You would have to be, to have any measure of consistency. Yet the fact that you are obviously connected to the Internet would suggest that you are not an Amish.

Abstention is not a choice except for martyrs. It is not a choice for those who have families to feed.

It is always a choice. I'll borrow one of Walter Williams' examples for a moment. If you are diabetic and need 50 units of insulin per day, is abstention a choice? If the price of insulin is $1,000 per unit, then I would say that abstention is the only rational choice. At those prices you would be worse off buying insulin than not buying it.

Lowering prices does not raise real incomes unless there are productivity gains and real incomes are not reduced (or lost) at a rate that is better than the reduction in prices.

You have not put any evidence forward that Wal-Mart actually lowers wages. This is because there is not any. Your contention is that Wal-Mart seeks to make wages as low as possible, and if that were true you would expect many Wal-Mart employees to be at minimum wage, with management hoping that the government will lower minimum wage so that they can pay even less.

In actual fact, Wal-Mart Canada does not employ a single person at minimum wage. All are paid higher. You will find that the small businesses that you seem to be rooting for generally pay lower wages than the big companies.

I would humbly suggest that "cognitive dissonance" is a mental feature of yours. I abhor monopoly and I also abhor oligopoly: I support "free choice. That is why I would support government action to keep playing fields even - not level.

Well, then perhaps you can explain to me how it is "keeping the playing field even" to throw in jail any non-state agent who dares to try and deliver mail.

You say you abhor monopoly, but this is exactly how you best illustrate your cognitive dissonance: the only monopolies in Canada are maintained by the government!

This is why you are completely self-contradictory. Your arguments have no basis in logic.

[Guest eureka]

Your arguments,Hugo, have a basis only in that never-never land from whence you derive all the views on the world you express here.

None of those companies have the powere of a WalMart. Microsoft may be a good comparison. Others have tried to be oligopoly and oligopsony, but not for a very long time has there been one so successful.

You keep bringing in the most ridiculous analogies. What has the choice of a diabetis to do with the lack of choice in employment? What have state agents and not paying taxes to do with the lower Municiipal taxes that are paid by WalMart stores? What have they to do with the inevitable tax funded succour to tje newly unemployed? What have technological developments to do with the forced overtimes (some without pay) and longer hours at WalMart - the factors that allow their lower numbers of employees.

If you remember the thread on WalMart, I posted the fact that the average hourly rate of ALL employees at WalMart is $7.50 per hour: that is in the US. Do you not think that might be considered lower wages tham existed without WalMart?

I have also said that Loblaws has renegotiated its contracts to lower wages in competition with WalMart: and that other chains have opened discount operations - mimimum wage employers to put them on the same footing with WalMart. Does that not lower wages? Does it increase the wealth of society?

I will say this for you, Hugo: your arguments may not be "self-contradictory since you are consistent in drawing from that one page in your ideology. They are, however, thoroughly illogical and often downright silly.

And please don't give me any more of the Post Office and state agents throwing people in jail.

[Hugo]

None of those companies have the powere of a WalMart. Microsoft may be a good comparison. Others have tried to be oligopoly and oligopsony, but not for a very long time has there been one so successful.

And it is successful not because Wal-Mart gets customers and workers by force, but because people choose to shop there. There is no other explanation. It's been alleged that Wal-Mart cuts prices to below cost to eliminate competition and then raises them, but Wal-Mart has never raised prices, so that is obviously just another lie.

What has the choice of a diabetis to do with the lack of choice in employment?

It was to demonstrate that abstention is always a choice. The fact is that for Wal-Mart employees, working at Wal-Mart is better than any other alternative available to them. What you would do is force them to accept an inferior alternative instead, and ironically you do this in the name of "helping" them - much as Stalin murdered the people in the name of the people. Socialists only differ in degree, not principle.

What have state agents and not paying taxes to do with the lower Municiipal taxes that are paid by WalMart stores? What have they to do with the inevitable tax funded succour to tje newly unemployed?

I would have thought it was clear. Wal-Mart has nothing to do with taxes, the government levies and collects taxes. If you have a problem with taxation, then you have a problem with the government - but you are still naive enough to believe that government can be the solution to your perceived problem here.

What have technological developments to do with the forced overtimes (some without pay) and longer hours at WalMart - the factors that allow their lower numbers of employees.

Let's see some evidence before we deal with that. These are serious allegations you are making.

If you remember the thread on WalMart, I posted the fact that the average hourly rate of ALL employees at WalMart is $7.50 per hour: that is in the US. Do you not think that might be considered lower wages tham existed without WalMart?

No. Now explain why you do and I will be happy to show you why you are wrong.

I have also said that Loblaws has renegotiated its contracts to lower wages in competition with WalMart: and that other chains have opened discount operations - mimimum wage employers to put them on the same footing with WalMart. Does that not lower wages? Does it increase the wealth of society?

Yes, it does increase the wealth of society. Your ignorance of economics is staggering and I can't believe I have to actually explain this to you. Lower wages don't generate profits, profits are generated by a temporary underpricing of the factors of production. When this is realised, either the factors of production will be priced upwards or their providers will maintain the current price because the cost of doing business elsewhere is too high, in which case the underpricing was purely subjective anyway.

In any case, what Wal-Mart is doing is promoting the division of labour, which is where wealth comes from. Where division of labour occurs it will create greater wealth since any loss in earnings will be more than offset by lower prices, and if not, market forces will quickly reverse the division. However, as Ricardo pointed out a long time ago, division of labour never lowers overall welfare, even when that division of labour does not occur along the Smithian lines of division according to greatest efficiency.

For instance, according to Smith, if American workers can produce 10 microprocessors or 3 bushels of tomatoes per day, and Mexican workers can produce 2 microprocessors or 5 bushels of tomatoes per day, the Americans ought to specialize in microprocessors and the Mexicans in tomatoes. But according to Ricardo, if Mexicans instead produced 2 microprocessors or 2 bushels of tomatoes, it is still better for Americans to make microprocessors and leave tomatoes to Mexicans even though Americans can grow more tomatoes, because of the opportunity cost of Americans growing tomatoes instead of making microprocessors.

To return to your example, nobody forced Loblaws to lower wages. What happened was that the consumers chose the lower prices of Wal-Mart in preference to the higher prices of Loblaws of their own free will, and Loblaws chose to try and attract those customers back by cutting costs. In any case, if in a town 0.1% of people worked for Loblaws, then it is better for 0.1% of people to receive a pay cut so that 100% can get lower prices, is it not?

Let's plug some numbers in. Say we have a town of 50,000, and the Loblaws employees lose $2 per hour, which per year amounts to $4,000. Multiply that by 50 people (the Loblaws employees) and you get $200,000. Now let's say that people in this town can save $200 per year by shopping at Wal-Mart. Multiply $200 by 50,000 and you get $10,000,000. So the net annual gain to the town from Wal-Mart moving in was $9,800,000, and the average citizen got an extra $196 in his pocket every year. Even if only half the people in the town shopped at Wal-Mart you are still looking at an annual net gain of $4,800,000.

In order to break even here, Wal-Mart would have to offer savings of a mere $4 per year, and I think it highly unlikely that enough consumers would desert Loblaws for Wal-Mart in order to save a measly $4 per year!

And please don't give me any more of the Post Office and state agents throwing people in jail.

I would imagine that those examples are a little uncomfortable for you. After all, the objects of your abhorration and your praise are exactly the opposite of what they should be according to your principles. However, I'm not going to drop this just because you say so. Prove me wrong if you can, but it's a little silly to be begging for mercy in an online debate!

[Guest eureka]

Your posts have great amusement value, Hugo, if nothing else.

Do you understand anything about how Municipal taxes are levied? It is a fact that wherever WalMart is, municipl taxes are lower. This is not something that is forced by WalMart and it is disingenuous of you to keep pounding your "force" mantra. It is strictly concerned with the methods of assessment and the size of the properties.

Is it a serious allegation I am making about WalMart's employment practises? Why is it that there are more than one hundred court actions now in process in the US making just those claims - some have already been decided against WalMart.

You statements about economics, particularly where you invoke the authority of Ricardo and Smith are laughable. There is so much more to it than that. Comparative advantage related to modern economies also has to consider the comparative conditions and regulations of the countries compared.

The comparative advantage that some of WalMart's suppliers enjoy comes from the use of "slave" labour; from lack of safety or quality controls. It does not arise from any inherent advantage that one country may enjoy over another. It is those conditions, in part, that WalMart would introduce into its home.

Of course people choose to shop at WalMart and are not forced - your obsession with that word colours everything you say. And, I have already covered that so why not try to deal with the reasoning instead of your usual slide-by and repetition of your wrong idea?

I also dealt with WalMart's elimination of competition previously. It does cut prices and raise them later. More commonly, though, as I have explained to you, is the practice of using loss leaders to drive smaller competitors away. Loss leaders are loss leaders only for long enough to achieve their purpose.

If you still persist in the belief in choice for workers then you are a lost soul indeed. Most WalMart employees did not have a choice. They have to work. They have to eat. They have to feed their families: and most do not do that very well. The absurd comparison with diabetics is, wel just that, absurd.

I will not accuse you of being ignorant o economics since you obviously have read a couple of books. However, your ability to translate that into reality is somewhat less than I would expect from any high school student. You errors are as immense as your miscalculations.

Loblaws competes only in food and, increasingly in some other lines. It is only one of the many lined up against WalMart: the many who have become the few as smaller operations close due to the unfair competition.

I am not really very concerned with whether you drop the Post Office and "state agents," but I will ignore any references. I am not at all interested in feeding your frenzy about the evils of government and human society.

Begging for mercy! No, I am not interested in making myself appear as foolish as you do with every post. I might humour you in a personal discussion but not for public consumption.

[Hugo]

Do you understand anything about how Municipal taxes are levied? It is a fact that wherever WalMart is, municipl taxes are lower. This is not something that is forced by WalMart and it is disingenuous of you to keep pounding your "force" mantra.

No, not at all. What is disingenuous is your ascribation of the sins committed by government to a private company. But this issue is now mooted, since your final sentence is an admission of your error. Let's move on.

Is it a serious allegation I am making about WalMart's employment practises? Why is it that there are more than one hundred court actions now in process in the US making just those claims - some have already been decided against WalMart.

If there are over a hundred it should not be hard for you to find a few examples, then. Hop to it!

Comparative advantage related to modern economies also has to consider the comparative conditions and regulations of the countries compared.

No, it does not. These conditions are communicated by the price mechanism. If conditions at a given employer are worse, then the price of labour there will increase. This is why Henry Ford had to increase wages. As to regulations, these will also be reflected in the price of labour.

The comparative advantage that some of WalMart's suppliers enjoy comes from the use of "slave" labour

Where?

Of course people choose to shop at WalMart and are not forced - your obsession with that word colours everything you say.

OK, so you want to replace a system where, of your own admission, coercion is not a factor with a system where coercion is a factor.

Why, therefore, are you advocating the replacement of nonviolence with violence?

I also dealt with WalMart's elimination of competition previously. It does cut prices and raise them later.

Give me an example, please. I have read from several different sources that this has never happened.

If you still persist in the belief in choice for workers then you are a lost soul indeed. Most WalMart employees did not have a choice. They have to work. They have to eat. They have to feed their families: and most do not do that very well.

You write as though Wal-Mart were the only employer in existence. If a town was small enough where everybody had to work for Wal-Mart, it would be too small to support a Wal-Mart. If a town was large enough to support a Wal-Mart it would also support hundreds of other firms that would employ people. Even if, in the bizarro world perhaps, Wal-Mart was the only employer in a town, there's always the next town over.

Your argument, again, is completely illogical.

Loblaws competes only in food and, increasingly in some other lines. It is only one of the many lined up against WalMart: the many who have become the few as smaller operations close due to the unfair competition.

This is just a dodge. My demonstration is perfectly valid, exactly what Loblaws sells does not disprove it.

I am not really very concerned with whether you drop the Post Office and "state agents," but I will ignore any references.

I know. They're far too uncomfortable for you. It is worth noting that when your self-contradictions are pointed out, you stick your fingers in your ears. Your intellectual dishonesty speaks volumes about the strength of your arguments.

[jccc]

This maybe a little off topic, but can somebody please tell me what "farm hands" are paid. I have heard that they can be paid less than minimum wage, is this true or not?

Thanks for the info

Jim

[I Miss Trudeau]

No, not at all. What is disingenuous is your ascribation of the sins committed by government to a private company. But this issue is now mooted, since your final sentence is an admission of your error. Let's move on.

I suppose we could force all businessed to pay for the entirety of everything that they need to conduct business. Roads, sewage, power grids, policing, fire service, ambulance service, etc. And then the maintanence of such things in perpetuity. I suspect that without the "sins of the state", there would not just be no Walmart, but no business at all.

The fact of the matter is that without the taxpayers paying for all of these things, it would have to be paid by Walmart in order to do business. And there is no doubt in my mind that Walmart could not offer anything near the prices it currently offers, if it were forced to pay all of the expenses it forces upon communities.

[Hugo]

I suppose we could force all businessed to pay for the entirety of everything that they need to conduct business. Roads, sewage, power grids, policing, fire service, ambulance service, etc. And then the maintanence of such things in perpetuity.

Actually, the state is stealing from a variety of people to pay these costs, and it steals in proportion to what they earn, not what they use. Take that coercion away and the market will make the payment of those current externalities fair: those who use will pay, those who don't, will not.

I suspect that without the "sins of the state", there would not just be no Walmart, but no business at all.

You must be joking! The division of labour, which is trade and therefore business, has existed since primitive human males went out to hunt while the females gathered nuts and berries and raised the young. The state is hundreds of thousands of years younger than that.

The fact of the matter is that without the taxpayers paying for all of these things, it would have to be paid by Walmart in order to do business. And there is no doubt in my mind that Walmart could not offer anything near the prices it currently offers, if it were forced to pay all of the expenses it forces upon communities.

Their prices might indeed go up. More to the point, without government confiscating half of all we earn (on average) we would be able to afford those prices, and we'd be better off too, since everything currently provided by the state can be provided by the free market at a cheaper price and better quality.

[I Miss Trudeau]

You must be joking! The division of labour, which is trade and therefore business, has existed since primitive human males went out to hunt while the females gathered nuts and berries and raised the young. The state is hundreds of thousands of years younger than that.

Of course, the huge infrastructure required for modern business was not needed in hunter/gatherer societies. The state, in one form or another, has existed as long as large scale infrastructure has been required. And for good reason, too.

Their prices might indeed go up. More to the point, without government confiscating half of all we earn (on average) we would be able to afford those prices, and we'd be better off too, since everything currently provided by the state can be provided by the free market at a cheaper price and better quality.

And yet there is no evidence that the free market is in fact more efficient than a controlled market, no matter how often the ideology is recited. More to the point, if only those people who supported a particular business were made to pay its entire infrastructure cost, the price increase would far exceed the cost per person paid in taxes.

[August1991]

Do you understand anything about how Municipal taxes are levied? It is a fact that wherever WalMart is, municipl taxes are lower. This is not something that is forced by WalMart and it is disingenuous of you to keep pounding your "force" mantra. It is strictly concerned with the methods of assessment and the size of the properties.

Then I guess municipalities should just raise tax rates. They could even specify taxes in such a way that large stores alone would have to pay them. Are you really blaming WalMart because municipalities don't tax?

I also dealt with WalMart's elimination of competition previously. It does cut prices and raise them later. More commonly, though, as I have explained to you, is the practice of using loss leaders to drive smaller competitors away. Loss leaders are loss leaders only for long enough to achieve their purpose.

I have never seen evidence of this predatory pricing. The cost to WalMart would be tremendous. And what stops a small competitor from moving back in once prices rise again?

This maybe a little off topic, but can somebody please tell me what "farm hands" are paid. I have heard that they can be paid less than minimum wage, is this true or not?

They would be subject to provincial minimum wage legislation and the employer would have to make all normal contributions.

If you remember the thread on WalMart, I posted the fact that the average hourly rate of ALL employees at WalMart is $7.50 per hour: that is in the US.

That's about $9.50 Cdn which is above minimum wage everywhere in Canada.

----

Over 100 years ago, Emile Zola wrote a novel, Au Bonheur des Dames, about a shop that goes broke because of competition from a new, better organized store.

IOW, this is an old, old story. eureka is barking up an old tree when the cat has already jumped away.

Ultimately, the world changes, new firms arrive, old ones leave. Eaton's is no more. The retail business is such.

Some people feel uncomfortable with change of any sort. They want the government to intervene and make things safe. The Soviet Union showed that that is a path to stagnation.

[Trial-and-Error]

I have never seen evidence of this predatory pricing. The cost to WalMart would be tremendous.

Besides the fact that I am touched by your sympathies for Walmart, I think it's obvious you don't shop much. Loss leaders is a very common practice among large stores, especially discount stores.

And what stops a small competitor from moving back in once prices rise again?

Gee, let's see now, how about giving yourself some time to mull that over and see if you can come up with some reasons a small competitor would find it difficult--and no doubt impossible--to return to the scene. Clue: Think financial resources and yo-yo.

Some people feel uncomfortable with change of any sort. They want the government to intervene and make things safe. The Soviet Union showed that that is a path to stagnation.

Make things safe?!! for whom? the great unwashed? You're kidding, of course. I don't think even the poor are that delusional.

The vast majority of government legislation is written in favour of the rich and powerful (dems that pays the political bills)--even in Canada where by U.S. standards we are a relevantly socialistic country. Government is an old boys club where if you play the game, perfect the art of lying; master obfuscation and double-talk; build up a strong resistance to criticism; create an aura of indignant righteousnous and embrace hypocrisy, why you, too, can rise as "cream" to the top, with all the attendant perks and an indexed pension which you can then afford to use as "pin money."

Try tuning into CPAC and see our government in action. Monkies could not begin to compete with such evident incompetence; still it does have good entertainment value if you have the stomach for that kind of humour.

Unfortunately, with those needed traits only the scum rise to the top.

[August1991]

I have never seen evidence of this predatory pricing. The cost to WalMart would be tremendous.

Besides the fact that I am touched by your sympathies for Walmart, I think it's obvious you don't shop much. Loss leaders is a very common practice among large stores, especially discount stores.

By predatory pricing, I was referring to the practice of selling at below cost to drive out a competitor and then to raise prices later. I have never seen good evidence of this ever being achieved. Do you have any?

And what stops a small competitor from moving back in once prices rise again?

Gee, let's see now, how about giving yourself some time to mull that over and see if you can come up with some reasons a small competitor would find it difficult--and no doubt impossible--to return to the scene. Clue: Think financial resources and yo-yo.

The retail market is light-footed. For small stores, it is easy to get into or out of specific product lines. Location is of particular importance.

WalMart is a behemoth facing many small pinpricks.

Some people feel uncomfortable with change of any sort. They want the government to intervene and make things safe. The Soviet Union showed that that is a path to stagnation.

Make things safe?!! for whom? the great unwashed? You're kidding, of course. I don't think even the poor are that delusional.

I was referring to calls, earlier in this thread, for government action against WalMart.

Government is an old boys club where if you play the game, perfect the art of lying; master obfuscation and double-talk; build up a strong resistance to criticism; create an aura of indignant righteousnous and embrace hypocrisy, why you, too, can rise as "cream" to the top, with all the attendant perks and an indexed pension which you can then afford to use as "pin money."

You may give "government" too much credit. There are less risky ways to the riches you describe.

And can you learn how to use:

QUOTES

[Hugo]

Of course, the huge infrastructure required for modern business was not needed in hunter/gatherer societies. The state, in one form or another, has existed as long as large scale infrastructure has been required.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. You say that since the state has been in existence for as long as "large scale infrastructure", it means that large scale infrastructure requires a state.

Let's replace your nouns. "Cars have existed as long as telephones, therefore, telephones cannot exist without cars."

And yet there is no evidence that the free market is in fact more efficient than a controlled market, no matter how often the ideology is recited.

Another joke, surely! What do you define as a controlled market - the Soviet or Chinese economies? If they are more efficient or as efficient as ours, can you perhaps tell me why two of the most agriculturally productive countries in the world lost 50 million lives in famines that had absolutely no cause in natural phenomena?

Not even socialists claim that a planned economy can be as efficient as the free market anymore. They generally prefer to claim that efficiency is merely a secondary consideration, except for you, who evidently has not been keeping up with the developments in his own economic school of thought.

Loss leaders is a very common practice among large stores, especially discount stores.

I find it very telling that the left-wingers in this thread speak of things that are "very common", occur hundreds of times, and are "well known", and yet when asked cannot come up with a single example!

[I Miss Trudeau]

.Let's replace your nouns. "Cars have existed as long as telephones, therefore, telephones cannot exist without cars."

Of course, large scale infrastructure and the state are related in a way in which cars and telephones are not.

Another joke, surely! What do you define as a controlled market - the Soviet or Chinese economies? If they are more efficient or as efficient as ours, can you perhaps tell me why two of the most agriculturally productive countries in the world lost 50 million lives in famines that had absolutely no cause in natural phenomena?

Or perhaps you can tell me why public health care systems are so much more efficient than private syetems? Or why the same is true of insurance industries?

[Hugo]

Of course, large scale infrastructure and the state are related in a way in which cars and telephones are not.

Prove it. One thing you should and may learn about debate is that you are required to prove your assertions. Prove to me that only the state can provide the infrastructure necessary for a modern economy, and there is absolutely no way that private enterprises can accomplish the same things.

Or perhaps you can tell me why public health care systems are so much more efficient than private syetems? Or why the same is true of insurance industries?

Again, you are assuming your conclusion as the premise of your argument. That is another fallacy. You need to prove what you claim, not just spout off unfounded statements. You also cannot conduct an argument in a circle that leads back to its own beginning without actually proving anything, as you have done here.

Just in case you don't understand this, it is by no means proven that public systems in these fields are actually more efficient. The Atlantic Institute for Market Studies has prepared a great number of papers on the subject of Canadian healthcare, I suggest you review them - they stand your prejudices on their heads.

[Shakeyhands]

Hmmm....... this ought to send our RWW's into a tizzy...

http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/16/news/fortu...dex.htm?cnn=yes

[Guest eureka]

August, I gave you the answers to your points in the discussion on WalMart. I told you of the ToysRus situation where WalMart sold as a loss leader the item that Toys was selling as its principal Christmas product. That damaged them severely and led to the closing of some stores.

Then, WalMart does not have to increase the prices of loss leaders once the aim has been achieved. They simply can the product if they choose. That has happened many times.

$9.50 an hour in Canadian money is not what I would consider a fair recompense as an average for all employees in a large corporation. It includes management salaries. You may imagine what the average for floor workers and similar brackets is.

This may be "barking up an old tree," but does that have any significance?

You should also rethink your rake on Municipal taxes. Replacing several buildings with one has led to a decline in the tax take. Also, as someone has pointed out, WalMart benefits from the infrastructure paid for by others. Hugo, of course, in his blindness could bever hope to grasp that.

As for Hugo's efforts, I have no intention of feeding his mania. He does nothing but indulge in fallacy of every kind with or without the Latin descriptions, while pompously accusing others of doing this when they apply a little common sense.

He then asks for proof of assertions while offering his creation of a mythical past as his evidence.

[Hugo]

I told you of the ToysRus situation where WalMart sold as a loss leader the item that Toys was selling as its principal Christmas product. That damaged them severely and led to the closing of some stores.

Even giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you are correct, all you have done here is establish the premise for the mathematical demonstration on page 4 of this thread. As that shows, this scenario is beneficial for people overall, not detrimental as you allege.

But I'm not giving you the benefit of the doubt because "predatory pricing" is unsustainable. To pursue the policy you allege, Wal-Mart's management would have to be prescient. They would need to divine ahead of time how long and what price it will take to drive the competition out of business, which means they need to discern in advance such obscure phenomena as consumer preference and inertia, and exactly how much and for how long their competition will be able to compensate for their efforts, which will mean that they have to have complete access not only to the current but also the future assets, management strategy, suppliers and so forth of their competition. They also need to ascertain countless other variables such as the future rate of inflation, the state and price of supplies, future consumer confidence, and what natural disasters and other acts of God are going to occur in the future, when they will occur, what they will affect and by how much. Then they need to ascertain if, once all these variables are resolved as absolutes, if it is even worth their while to bother.

Unless you can prove to me that Wal-Mart has gypsy seers in its employ, and that these seers are actually reliable by any metric, consider this argument disproven. The free market is, by and large, unpredictable because it revolves around human action, which cannot be scientifically or mathematically predicted. This is why nobody can tell you when the next stock market crash is coming.

Furthermore, as I have worked in retail management I can tell you that the actual strategy behind loss leaders is not to eliminate competition but to entice people into the store in the hopes that they will then purchase something profitable enough to offset your loss - a bait-and-switch, essentially. It is as impossible to make a strategy for eliminating the competition with predatory pricing as it is to make a strategy for winning the lottery.

They simply can the product if they choose. That has happened many times.

Again with the supposedly common occurences that you cannot find any examples of.

$9.50 an hour in Canadian money is not what I would consider a fair recompense as an average for all employees in a large corporation.

It doesn't matter what you think. You don't work there. The wages offered to Wal-Mart employees are determined by Wal-Mart, and the wages accepted are determined by the employees. You do not enter the equation, therefore, keep your nose out of other people's business.

What all this nonsense amounts to is the supposed "right" of a third party to interfere in a transaction to which he is almost infinitely more removed than either primary party. Next time you buy groceries, Eureka, I should turn up at the store and demand that you pay more for your purchases. According to your logic this will be perfectly acceptable to you.

You should also rethink your rake on Municipal taxes. Replacing several buildings with one has led to a decline in the tax take.

This is not the fault of Wal-Mart, any more than the price of tires is up to Ford. The government decides who pays what taxes and how much they are, not Wal-Mart. You have already conceded this point, so I'm not sure why you have taken up the beating of this dead horse again.

As for Hugo's efforts, I have no intention of feeding his mania.

What a pathetic, shameless performance.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Their prices might indeed go up. More to the point, without government confiscating half of all we earn (on average) we would be able to afford those prices, and we'd be better off too, since everything currently provided by the state can be provided by the free market at a cheaper price and better quality.

Prove it.

Not even socialists claim that a planned economy can be as efficient as the free market anymore. They generally prefer to claim that efficiency is merely a secondary consideration, except for you, who evidently has not been keeping up with the developments in his own economic school of thought.

Prove it.

You must be joking! The division of labour, which is trade and therefore business, has existed since primitive human males went out to hunt while the females gathered nuts and berries and raised the young. The state is hundreds of thousands of years younger than that.

Prove it.

[Guest eureka]

Hugo, I have conceded nothing and what you so painfully work out is pure bunkum. You may have worked in retail management, for instance, but you are quite wrong to assume that everone plays the game according to your textbook rules.

Also, your point about the insurance industry being more efficient in private hands than in government is equally crap. There are some very good reasons for it to remain private but they have no connection to efficiency. I might even let you into the secrets if you ever stop trying to make out that you are all-knowing.

[Grantler]

Wal-Mart outsources 80% of its business to China where it employs vast numbers of workers for small wages to produce cheap materials that flood the North American market.

I do not see why they would close a store in Quebec considering the profit they are making. It makes you wonder what can actually be done in this country to protect our working people.

It brings up the bigger question of is NAFTA really all it is craked up to be.

[Michael Hardner]

Some comments have been made in this thread as to what business people have in commenting on the relationship between WAL MART and it's competitors, employees, customers and so on...

From Auguste and Hugo:

Well said, Hugo. It seems "progressive" to respect other people's sexual choices but somehow "regressive" to respect their economic choices. Why?

...

Precisely. If people freely choose to work for WalMart, then that is their choice. It is no different from a person's choice of spouse. And what right do you have to interfere?

...

There you have perhaps touched the key issue. What effect does WalMart have on people that don't shop there and don't work there? And what effect does gay marriage have on people that are not gay?

...

You do not enter the equation, therefore, keep your nose out of other people's business.

While I don't think that gay marriage has any negative effect on non-gays (or society in general), I wouldn't ask anybody opposed to gay marriage to refrain from commenting on it.

Why ? Because I believe that those who comment on these large issues does so out of a care for the community, whether I agree with them or not.

I'd like to hear more between Eureka and Hugo on the economic argument. But the potshots don't ring true - you're both expressing opinions that have been held by well known economists.

I'd be interested to hear from Hugo if he thinks any government control of the market is worthwhile.

Hugo's comment:

Government makes the law and government should punish those who break it? Replace "government" with "Mafia" and you have a good description of organized crime.

Watching the Godfather Part II, you can get an appreciation for why businesses paid protection money, and why the Mafia took root in the community. The film makes a case for the idea that the Mafia was needed, in the absence of a real authority that was respected and patronized by the community.

If such organizations rise up from communities in chaos, is the idea of government so unnatural ?

A natural economy gives more wealth to some than to others, it's true, but technology multiplies this effect millions of times over today.

Isn't it 'natural' that the majority demand payback from those members of the community that gain the most from its existence ?

[Hugo]

Prove it.

Alright, but after I do this I expect that you will prove at least some of what you have said.

Firstly, that goods provided by the state can be provided by the free market at better quality and cheaper cost. It's not hard to prove this.

Looking at the example of healthcare it's difficult to find a modern country that actually practices private medicine. However, going back to the USA in the 1920s and before, medicine was truly private at that point and full medical coverage cost from $1 per year (Mutual Aid to Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services, 1890-1967, and Thy Brother's Keeper, Policy Review, Fall 1994, p. 56., David Beito). Therefore, from approximately $9 per year in 1920 (in 2003 US dollars), the cost of healthcare has skyrocketed to $4,270 per year. This is massively in excess of inflation. Consider too that the $1 per year also usually covered a family, so for a typical two-child family we are looking at annual costs of $9 in 1920 against over $17,000 in 2003!

If you were to argue that this is because of new technologies and medical advancements since 1920, this should have had the opposite effect. In all other fields - cars, computers, foodstuffs, or anything else - technology has the effect of lowering costs. Furthermore, the cost of healthcare since 1920 should also have decreased since we now have more food of better quality, live in less crowded conditions, have by-and-large moved away from heavily polluted inner cities, replaced polluting heavy industry with cleaner industries, and so forth.

The only explanation is that the massive inefficiencies of state intervention have caused massive increases in the cost of healthcare. Another example would be schooling, when in the USA the literacy rate actually dropped after private schools were abolished and state schools mandated. It took many years to get back to the level achieved solely by private schooling.

Second, that socialists no longer claim that a planned economy can be as efficient as a free market. Well, it's hard to dispute the facts, so unless they want to look like idiots socialists have to modify their views. I have discussed this matter with two left-wingers on this board in recent months and both have opined that the free market offers greater efficiency, but that socialism offered greater equality, and equality is better than efficiency.

Third, the question of whether division of labour is older than formal government. Well, we know that primitive humans divided labour along at least gender lines. Anthropologists and archaeologists find that from unearthed skeletons, grave goods, cave paintings and so forth that men hunted while women gathered and raised children. This arrangement seems to have existed even amongst the earliest hominids believed to have lived at least 4.2 million years ago.

On the other hand, the earliest government that we would recognise (i.e. a government whose primary purpose is to govern others, rather than one that does so as a secondary function like a tribal leader) as such dates from ancient Sumer, approximately 5,000 years ago.

So, we have division of labour predating government by around 4,195,000 years.

Also, your point about the insurance industry being more efficient in private hands than in government is equally crap. There are some very good reasons for it to remain private but they have no connection to efficiency. I might even let you into the secrets if you ever stop trying to make out that you are all-knowing.

This is your response? Stop wasting our time.

I'd be interested to hear from Hugo if he thinks any government control of the market is worthwhile.

I don't think any government as you would understand the term is worthwhile, period.

Watching the Godfather Part II, you can get an appreciation for why businesses paid protection money, and why the Mafia took root in the community.

It's not a good idea to make any kind of empirical deductions from Hollywood movies.

In any case the Mafia is not the best option. Many Russian firms and individuals hire private security firms and consultants to help them against Russian organized crime when the state police fails to assist them.

If such organizations rise up from communities in chaos, is the idea of government so unnatural ?

A lot of things occur "naturally", like murder, rape and slavery. That does not necessarily mean that they are just or proper.

Isn't it 'natural' that the majority demand payback from those members of the community that gain the most from its existence ?

No, because this would mean a contract, and the social contract cannot exist because it is of undefined terms between undefined parties.