Does America need a bit of Socialism

[Benuty]

Does America need a bit less strawmen?

It needs more firemen and a question mark at the end of the title.

[WRIF Army]

Your honestly bitching about lower prices ?!

Can you name a single private sector monopoly that lowered prices then raised them and got away with it ?

Do you understand that a company loses money lowering prices below costs ?

Do you realize that the moment they raise prices they incentive immediate competition, substitution goods, boycotts... that will further erode profits?

It won't happen, it hasn't happened, it shouldn't be used to justify a far greater monopoly that is govt.

If there are no valid substitute goods, and you cannot boycott out of necessity as well as nobody to pick up the slack as immediate competition, you are left with no other recourse than to buy from them.

Also, Gallo's Wal-Mart is a perfect example of a local monopoly. A monopoly doesn't have to be national in order to be a monopoly.

Gallo ? what state is that in ?

I will find you some alternatives to the heinous WalMart that undercharges you on products and forces you to buy lower priced goods.

[Ainin]

What does Common Core have to do with socialism?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Sure. Live in ignorance.

Isn't this honestly what it comes down to, though? It's simply a lack of life experience. There's a reason free market fanboys are common on this forum, and that's because the vast majority of the forum is under 18. Most of them don't live on their own, don't pay bills, don't pay taxes, don't deal with lower class struggles.. How can they possible argue they understand the economy better than those who have decades of experience? That their ideology is better than that which most developed countries follow?

I haven't had a lot of experience in the real world, but I have talked to enough people to know though.

[WRIF Army]

Can you name a single private sector monopoly that lowered prices then raised them and got away with it ?

There were a lot back before anti-trust laws.

And you're making a lot of arguments about what Wal-Mart does for the consumer, but what does it do for the worker?

I am not aware of any worker being forced at gun point to work for WalMart.

[United Marxist Nations]

1 & 2) Then you're ignoring history; you can't just say "they should have done this" when that option did not exist at the time.

And the Tsar wasn't an option either. Nothing is an option now, because history is set in stone. But if I could choose, I've given you my options. The more likely is constitutional monarchy protected by foreign intervention.

The Tsar tried constitutional monarchy before (state Duma), and it didn't work. Foreign intervention, yeah, the Russians will like that , won't they?

4) Which the USSR also did, to an even greater degree than the other European countries, as the USSR suffered by far the worst from the war.

Source for the former.[/quote]
The Soviet Union suffered enormous losses in the war against Germany. The Soviet population decreased by about 40 million during the war; of these, 8.7 million were combat deaths. The 19 million non-combat deaths had a variety of causes: starvation in the siege of Leningrad; conditions in German prisons and concentration camps; mass shootings of civilians; harsh labour in German industry; famine and disease; conditions in Soviet camps; and service in German or German-controlled military units fighting the Soviet Union.[5] The population would not return to its pre-war level for 30 years.[6]
Soviet ex-POWs and civilians repatriated from abroad were suspected of having been Nazi collaborators, and 226,127 of them were sent to forced labour camps after scrutiny by Soviet intelligence, NKVD. Many ex-POWs and young civilians were also conscripted to serve in the Red Army. Others worked in labour battalions to rebuild infrastructure destroyed during the war.[7][8]
The economy had been devastated. Roughly a quarter of the Soviet Union's capital resources were destroyed, and industrial and agricultural output in 1945 fell far short of pre-war levels. To help rebuild the country, the Soviet government obtained limited credits from Britain and Sweden; it refused assistance offered by the United States under the Marshall Plan. Instead, the Soviet Union compelled Soviet-occupied Eastern Europe to supply machinery and raw materials. Germany and former Nazi satellites made reparations to the Soviet Union. The reconstruction programme emphasised heavy industry to the detriment of agriculture and consumer goods. By 1953, steel production was twice its 1940 level, but the production of many consumer goods and foodstuffs was lower than it had been in the late 1920s.[9]

[The Empire of Pretantia]

If there are no valid substitute goods, and you cannot boycott out of necessity as well as nobody to pick up the slack as immediate competition, you are left with no other recourse than to buy from them.

Also, Gallo's Wal-Mart is a perfect example of a local monopoly. A monopoly doesn't have to be national in order to be a monopoly.

Gallo ? what state is that in ?

Galloism, a player. It's not a city.

I will find you some alternatives to the heinous WalMart that undercharges you on products and forces you to buy lower priced goods.

Stop asking where we live. We're not saying it's happening in our area.

[Riiser-Larsen]

I don't have the $3-5 million it takes to open a store to compete with wal-mart.



I'm sure the bus driver having no clothes would be an interesting anatomy lesson.



For clothes? Like what?


Which costs substantially more due to shipping, along with the lack of guarantee they will fit.



Your free market solution is kill a town? That's a valid solution?

Besides, a lot of us don't have the $2,000-$5,000 it takes to move.


Define short.

Sam Walton was discharged from the Army with hardly anything. He opened a small store in Arkansas, busted his ass and created an empire. Some day an upstart (maybe Amazon....) will do better than WalMart and run them out of business.

Competition is never ending in capitalist society and it is driven by consumer preferences in a free, peaceful and voluntary market.

Moreover, tell me where you live and I guarantee I can find dozens of alternatives to your WalMart boogeyman. And you don't need to buy a store, in a free market some entrepreneur will step in for you to challenge a monopoly that overcharges for goods and services -- it always happens unless govt provides protections for favored businesses that bribe politicians (that is what you should really be worried about, not free market monopolies)

Walmart was successful because there had never been anything like Walmart before. Do you know what one of the major signs of a Monopoly or near-monopoly is? Enormous barriers to entry, which is exactly what exists now due to Walmart! It's like how right now, there is almost no chance of a man just opening up an oil company and being successful. If he started off before there were any major oil companies and they were all small, he had a better chance. The same goes for Walmart.

[Galloism]

I don't have the $3-5 million it takes to open a store to compete with wal-mart.



I'm sure the bus driver having no clothes would be an interesting anatomy lesson.



For clothes? Like what?


Which costs substantially more due to shipping, along with the lack of guarantee they will fit.



Your free market solution is kill a town? That's a valid solution?

Besides, a lot of us don't have the $2,000-$5,000 it takes to move.


Define short.

Sam Walton was discharged from the Army with hardly anything. He opened a small store in Arkansas, busted his ass and created an empire. Some day an upstart (maybe Amazon....) will do better than WalMart and run them out of business.

The difference was, Walton did something very smart. He exploited a hole in the market. He opened all his Walmarts in small towns with no general store (things had to be mail ordered from sears, then clothing had to be adjusted by a local tailor) and no one noticed - for years - that he was building an empire.

By the time they realized it, he already had significant market capital.

Now, Wal-mart, which is already in these small towns existing as a monopoly, can crush those small startups as they begin, before they have millions or billions of capital to work with.

Competition is never ending in capitalist society and it is driven by consumer preferences in a free, peaceful and voluntary market.

Then you should hate monopolies. They are the antithesis to free and voluntary markets. They require a person to buy from a particular entity. That's not voluntary nor free.

Moreover, tell me where you live and I guarantee I can find dozens of alternatives to your WalMart boogeyman. And you don't need to buy a store, in a free market some entrepreneur will step in for you to challenge a monopoly that overcharges for goods and services -- it always happens unless govt provides protections for favored businesses that bribe politicians (that is what you should really be worried about, not free market monopolies)

I'm not in the habit of telling people on the internet where I live.

Backwoods Arkansas is enough for you.

[Pilotto]

I take it you're not a fan.

Why not?

Aren't you a socialist? I brought up Adam Smith because I think his ideas about the role of government are spot on.

Smith is critical of government and officialdom, but is no champion of laissez-faire. He believes that the market economy he has described can function and deliver its benefits only when its rules are observed – when property is secure and contracts are honoured. The maintenance of justice and the rule of law is therefore vital.
So is defence. If our property can be stolen by a foreign power, we are no better off than if our own neighbours steal it. And Smith sees a role for education and public works too, insofar as these collective projects make it easier for trade and markets to operate.
Where tax has to be raised for these purposes, it should be raised in proportion to people’s ability to pay, it should be at set rates rather than arbitrary, it should be easy to pay, and it should aim to have minimal side effects. Governments should avoid taxing capital, which is essential to the nation’s productivity. Since most of their spending is for current consumption, they should also avoid building up large debts, with draw capital away from future production.

[Benuty]

What does Common Core have to do with socialism?

Apparently having a set of unified education standard is an example of socialism *nods*.

[Threlizdun]

You know a lot of African countries have low populations, right?

Let me rephrase that. "It's pretty easy to eliminate starvation in low population 1st world countries." Compared to high population countries.

Yes, it is easier to eliminate starvation in countries that don't have the means of production owned by foreign capitalists, who have a regulated market system, and who have fairly extensive social welfare programs to counteract the effects of poverty. That would be one of the reasons why the market alone doesn't solve all problems.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

If there are no valid substitute goods, and you cannot boycott out of necessity as well as nobody to pick up the slack as immediate competition, you are left with no other recourse than to buy from them.

Also, Gallo's Wal-Mart is a perfect example of a local monopoly. A monopoly doesn't have to be national in order to be a monopoly.

Gallo ? what state is that in ?

I will find you some alternatives to the heinous WalMart that undercharges you on products and forces you to buy lower priced goods.

Galloism - the user > Gallo.

And I live in Dallas, so we have a VERY vast market and competitors to Wal-Mart, but that's the thing, that we do not have mini Dallas all over the U.S. in terms of resources.

[Riiser-Larsen]

There were a lot back before anti-trust laws.

And you're making a lot of arguments about what Wal-Mart does for the consumer, but what does it do for the worker?

I am not aware of any worker being forced at gun point to work for WalMart.

THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE. One of the most core principle of the free market is that people accept the most profitable work available, which in these cases is limited to Walmart. It's the same reason people work at any low-income institution, because there are no alternatives.

[Divair]

The Tsar tried constitutional monarchy before (state Duma), and it didn't work.

Except:
1. It wasn't representative
2. He constantly dissolved the Duma
3. He ignored his ministers
4. He had absolute authority, the Duma was more of an advisory council

Not what I had in mind. Nor what the West had in mind.

Foreign intervention, yeah, the Russians will like that , won't they?

I don't care what the Russians like.

-snip-

I said former, not latter.

[America Libertaria]

There are other means than physical force to force people to buy your product. For example walmart offers prices below what it costs to make which causes people to buy from walmart because it's so cheap (not because of the quality of the products) which in turn force all the small businesses to go bankrupt. Now that Walmart is the only supplier of those supplies left you have to buy from them. You honestly know nothing about economics and you have provided no evidence to back you up.

1. Your honestly bitching about lower prices ?!

2. Can you name a single private sector monopoly that lowered prices then raised them and got away with it ?

3.Do you understand that a company loses money lowering prices below costs ?

4.Do you realize that the moment they raise prices they incentive immediate competition, substitution goods, boycotts... that will further erode profits?

5.It won't happen, it hasn't happened, it shouldn't be used to justify a far greater monopoly that is govt.

1. Yes, because Walmart has done is an unethical business practice that destroys competition and innovation.
2. Standard Oil, U.S. Steel, Walmart...
3. Do you realize that when a large competition engages in those practices it's meant to eradicate competition so that consumers have no where else to go but them?
4. Do you realize that just simply isn't reality and has no historical basis behind it. I don't think you understand the term monopoly.
5. It has happened, and it will happen if we deregulate. The government isn't a monopoly. It provides free services to the public.

[Threlizdun]

There were a lot back before anti-trust laws.

And you're making a lot of arguments about what Wal-Mart does for the consumer, but what does it do for the worker?

I am not aware of any worker being forced at gun point to work for WalMart.

Shop or starve. Shop or starve. Shop or starve. Shop or starve. Is it really this hard for you to understand the poor can't choose where the shop because they can't afford it?

[Yorkopolis]

Of course they are. I don't know why you would think the threat of starvation, homelessness, exposure, and death is not coercion.

Actually this is the rule of law, and it is not extortion. Extortion is illegal.

The primary places were starvation occurs in socialist command economies mismanaged by coercive govt managers, see China, N. Korea, Cambodia......
In contrast, you are never going to have starvation in more free market oriented societies like Singapore, Hong Kong.... despite the fact that these nations have precious few food resources.

Hey! That's nice! Hong Kong is, where? CHINA. And China has a free-market economy, nothing "socialist command" about that. Cambodia? Doesn't have and never had a socialist command economy. North Korea? Doesn't have and never had a socialist command economy. Also let's just plain fucking ignore those 50% of the populace that lived in starvation and poverty each day in the US from 1800-1900. Let's just plain ignore those and pretend we're all doing good, because it'll all magically go away. Yeah.

So you'll just ignore the poor, I take it?

I don't ignore the poor, I offer charity and a hand-up to those that need it. In contrast, govt exploits the poor to serve itself. Govt uses the plight of the poor as an excuse to plunder more wealth, all the while the poor (conveniently) remain poor while govt claims it needs ever more money to 'solve' the problem.

It is noteworthy that socialists tell everyone that money is needed to help the poor, yet they never give their own, they always require (demand at gun point) that other people contribute.

If socialists learned to love the poor more than they envy the rich, we might make a dent in govt created poverty.

Haha, you think we envy the rich? Why would I envy a pig-swine capitalist who unfairly earns his money over the backs of other people? Give me a single reason as to why I should be envious of someone who lives such a disgusting lifestyle? I'll be waiting!

The primary places were starvation occurs in socialist command economies mismanaged by coercive govt managers, see China, N. Korea, Cambodia......
In contrast, you are never going to have starvation in more free market oriented societies like Singapore, Hong Kong.... despite the fact that these nations have precious few food resources.

So you are both showing that you still don't know what socialism is and that you are prepared to deny the reality of starvation in capitalist countries. Does the third world not exist anymore?

'Cause, y'know, the third world is "socialist".

[Divair]

Why not?

Aren't you a socialist?

No.

[Riiser-Larsen]

What does Common Core have to do with socialism?

Apparently having a set of unified education standard is an example of socialism *nods*.

I don't support Common Core, mostly because I think it's set up horribly, but calling it socialism is just insane. I thought the Red Panic ended years ago.

[WRIF Army]

Sam Walton was discharged from the Army with hardly anything. He opened a small store in Arkansas, busted his ass and created an empire. Some day an upstart (maybe Amazon....) will do better than WalMart and run them out of business.

Competition is never ending in capitalist society and it is driven by consumer preferences in a free, peaceful and voluntary market.

Moreover, tell me where you live and I guarantee I can find dozens of alternatives to your WalMart boogeyman. And you don't need to buy a store, in a free market some entrepreneur will step in for you to challenge a monopoly that overcharges for goods and services -- it always happens unless govt provides protections for favored businesses that bribe politicians (that is what you should really be worried about, not free market monopolies)

Even the best of Entrepreneurs would find competing with a store like fucking Wal-Mart too burdening because it is - again - far easier to kick out competition out of a market you own than carving a market in one you don't own any resources.

Basic rule of economics: all resources are limited by the inherent nature of scarcity.

WalMart is successful because they satisfy consumer preferences in a peaceful and voluntary market, once they cease to do that, then myriad competitors will swoop down and take market share from them.

You can't name a single American who has been forced into Walmart against their will, yet you advocate the empowerment of the mother of all coercive monopolies --the federal govt. -- to combat an illusory fantasy boogeyman WalMart 'monopoly' that to date has committed the heinous act of lower prices ?!

[United Marxist Nations]

The Tsar tried constitutional monarchy before (state Duma), and it didn't work.

Except:
1. It wasn't representative
2. He constantly dissolved the Duma
3. He ignored his ministers
4. He had absolute authority, the Duma was more of an advisory council

Not what I had in mind. Nor what the West had in mind.

Foreign intervention, yeah, the Russians will like that , won't they?

1) I don't care what the Russians like.

-snip-

2) I said former, not latter.

1) Because fuck democracy, right?

2) Did you see the bold at the very end?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

There were a lot back before anti-trust laws.

And you're making a lot of arguments about what Wal-Mart does for the consumer, but what does it do for the worker?

I am not aware of any worker being forced at gun point to work for WalMart.

*Strawman*

One store does not need five managers; five managers who would be put out of business by Wal-Mart. A single body does not need as many staff members as five. That's why company mergings often have layoffs, and why it's bad news for store owners in areas where Wal-Mart and other big stores come to town. Instead of working and getting a manager's salary, they now have to work as cashier, or in some other lower-paying job. And it's not just managers; employees down the chain of command can feel it too.

[WRIF Army]

I am not aware of any worker being forced at gun point to work for WalMart.

Shop or starve. Shop or starve. Shop or starve. Shop or starve. Is it really this hard for you to understand the poor can't choose where the shop because they can't afford it?

Seriously dude, where do you live that WalMart is the only option?

Let's have it, I can help you find some alternatives.

[Yorkopolis]

1. Your honestly bitching about lower prices ?!

2. Can you name a single private sector monopoly that lowered prices then raised them and got away with it ?

3.Do you understand that a company loses money lowering prices below costs ?

4.Do you realize that the moment they raise prices they incentive immediate competition, substitution goods, boycotts... that will further erode profits?

5.It won't happen, it hasn't happened, it shouldn't be used to justify a far greater monopoly that is govt.

1. Yes, because Walmart has done is an unethical business practice that destroys competition and innovation.
2. Standard Oil, U.S. Steel, Walmart...
3. Do you realize that when a large competition engages in those practices it's meant to eradicate competition so that consumers have no where else to go but them?
4. Do you realize that just simply isn't reality and has no historical basis behind it. I don't think you understand the term monopoly.
5. It has happened, and it will happen if we deregulate. The government isn't a monopoly. It provides free services to the public.

This, this, so much all of this!