Flash Mob at WalMart - Trashing the Place 300+

[faceblogger]

lol i'm black dude i swear haha

You're black and you're a vegan. Which is correct?

 

[pewep]

I'm definitely vegan

 

[ly2 from WF]

You know how I feel about these mother fuckers.

 

[elucidex]

This thread is full of win. The watermelon as bait is fucking hilarious because it's definitely done on purpose, none of the walmarts in NY that I've been to have that.

 

[lukep]

Luke, what do you think about black people? Please be honest, I won't be offended and I won't hold it against you.

All black people worldwide? That's a lot of different groups. I couldn't possibly group them all into a single or even 5 similar groupings to talk about with any common theme. Some are much more civilized than others.

African Americans such as yourself? Your ancestors got a bad deal, no doubt about that. But the American Natives got 10x worse treatment and I don't see anyone throwing their descendants a century long pity parade filled with entitlement floats. :costumed-smiley-013

I like to think of myself as an equal opportunity racist, but I gotta admit I've never met anyone from northern Europe that I could hold something cultural against other than some socialism... So clearly it is only logical to say that some races have a lower average of sophistication than others. That's just a fact... Judging the people individually is of course the challenge that we must all attempt. (Except Dresden, naturally. He's exempt somehow.)

Growing up in the south, I probably had a few redneck years in my youth where you could call me a racist against blacks, but not nearly as bad as my parents and after I moved away, I chastised them both for being racists quite often.

Years later still I spent a lot of time in Thailand, where racism is also in their everyday life. Thais LOVE to be racist against Indians and darker-skinned Asians nearby, and make no apology for it at all. Heck, some of their childhood fables promote violence against Indians. It's hilarious for us farang to hear, but common sense to all Thais. They have no concept of politically correct at all.

Nowadays I have black friends and Indian friends, and neither deserved their derogatory labels. I only keep friends if they are good people. So by and large every person deserves to be judged individually, even if their 'race' has a high average of hoarding hooligans.

So I've learned there is no point being "racist," it's the same thing as penalizing people with freckles or something else pretty arbitrary. But watching that film above I'd be just fine with denying every one in it a chance to date my son or daughter. What a bunch of trash.

I have plenty of follow-up questions to your theories but I won't bother.

Not theories bro. Pretty much ripped directly from Mises.org.

If you're curious you can check out their excellent library at: Audio/Video Catalog: free lectures, audio books and courses from the Ludwig von Mises Institute

Good luck with all of your anarchy bros!

Why am I not surprised you posted more sci-fi?

Anarchy is simply implausible. I'm curious about how exactly you would regulate monopolies that would otherwise turn the whole world into a shithole...

In the crony capitalism we have today, a monopoly can be a very bad thing because it is USING the power of the state to keep its' competition down.

With no state, a monopoly is toothless. It can't keep its' competitors down for long; Any kid in a garage can invent a better product and take it to compete in a fair marketplace against the monopoly.

The better product will always win if the market is truly free.

You are essentially afraid of freedom, slave.

 

[globalaccess]

this is where a place like china is correct. something like this if it happened, they would find these people and beat the hell out of them. if it happened again, they would find the people and beat the hell out of them again, and it would stop.

 

[pewep]

Ok, race issue aside, let's talk about monopolies.

Monopolies 101:

They are economies of scale. Ever wonder why walmart is consistently able to come out with products that are far cheaper and usually of a better quality than smaller businesses? Because their cost of production is much lower than that of a regular business owner. This is what I mean:

In microeconomics, economies of scale are the cost advantages that an enterprise obtains due to expansion. There are factors that cause a producer’s average cost per unit to fall as the scale of output is increased. "Economies of scale" is a long run concept and refers to reductions in unit cost as the size of a facility and the usage levels of other inputs increase.

Please read this shit because it's important:

The simple meaning of economies of scale is doing things efficiently. The common sources of economies of scale are purchasing (bulk buying of materials through long-term contracts), managerial (increasing the specialization of managers), financial (obtaining lower-interest charges when borrowing from banks and having access to a greater range of financial instruments), marketing (spreading the cost of advertising over a greater range of output in media markets), and technological (taking advantage of returns to scale in the production function). Each of these factors reduces the long run average costs (LRAC) of production by shifting the short-run average total cost (SRATC) curve down and to the right.

So what does that mean? Walmart is able to hire cheaper, more effecient workers and managers due to their scale, are able to find the best interest rates for loans, and their ROIs are going to be significantly higher than a small business because they are able to find the cheapest, quality resources that are only available in bulk.

Economies of scale is a practical concept that may explain real world phenomena such as patterns of international trade, the number of firms in a market, and how firms get "too big to fail." The exploitation of economies of scale helps explain why companies grow large in some industries. It is also a justification for free trade policies, since some economies of scale may require a larger market than is possible within a particular country — for example, it would not be efficient for Liechtenstein to have its own car maker, if they would only sell to their local market. A lone car maker may be profitable, however, if they export cars to global markets in addition to selling to the local market. Economies of scale also play a role in a "natural monopoly."

IMPORTANT POINT:

The standard economic case against monopoly is that, with the same cost structure, a monopoly supplier will produce at a lower output and charge a higher price than a perfectly competitive industry. This leads to a net loss of economic welfare and efficiency because price is driven above marginal cost - leading to allocative inefficiency.

Perfect competition is of course impossible in the real world because it is impossible for every consumer to have perfect knowledge of all sellers in the market. Fundamentally, monopolies end up being a huge cost to the market in the long run, nevermind the power they would wield after dominating a field for so long and amassing wealth.

Sources:

economies of scale monopolies - Google Search

First couple of links + wikipedia

I can go on and on debating this point but I want you to digest this first.

 

[lukep]

You and your Keynesian sources are simply confusing a symptom of monopolies (advanced economy of scale) for the evil that current day monopolies do. They aren't related. You're being scared of freedom for no logical reason.

Who cares if walmart is offering the best prices and it's hard to compete with them? There will be nothing artificially holding them in place at the top; they'll have EARNED the top, meanwhile if someone comes along and figures out a better system to sneak past them and fairly compete, they can do so...

But the important part is, the consumers win either way. No matter what the consumers get the best product available at the best price. Every. Single. Day.

When you use the government to deny monopolies, you're choosing which business can succeed and which can't. That's unnatural, and CONSUMERS LOSE. EVERY. SINGLE. DAY.

 

[pewep]

You and your Keynesian sources are simply confusing a symptom of monopolies (advanced economy of scale) for the evil that current day monopolies do. They aren't related. You're being scared of freedom for no logical reason.

Who cares if walmart is offering the best prices and it's hard to compete with them? There will be nothing artificially holding them in place at the top; they'll have EARNED the top, meanwhile if someone comes along and figures out a better system to sneak past them and fairly compete, they can do so...

But the important part is, the consumers win either way. No matter what the consumers get the best product available at the best price. Every. Single. Day.

When you use the government to deny monopolies, you're choosing which business can succeed and which can't. That's unnatural, and CONSUMERS LOSE. EVERY. SINGLE. DAY.

That wasn't my point Luke, stop playing games because I know you're smarter than that.

Answer this question:

Since economies of scale (monopolies) are able to produce high quality goods at a cheaper rate than local businesses/other competitions, how on earth would we be able to regulate them in an anarchy? How would we prevent BP from having another oil spill, causing billions of dollars and saying tough shit?

They will have all the money to hire mercenaries and large armies - force is out of the question.

This is what they do:

Bhopal disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Without an authority to regulate massive companies, who would protect people form being fucked? What about drug companies that refuse to disclose harmful side effects? They would still make billions and squelch the media that would try to show the ill effects of the drugs. This happens in many 3rd world countries. Now don't give me your "oh you love the gubberment" bullshit because I honestly do not. I'm asking you HOW you would prevent companies that are on the pursuit of profit by any means from trampling over people.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

why are you people so fucking racist? i'm legit embarrassed.

You and your people embarrass yourselves.

 

[pewep]

I belong to a great and powerful race. We are the oldest and most genetically diverse of our species. My brothers and sisters are spread across all 7 continents and have proved throughout the millennial that we are indeed very resilient and virile. You cannot destroy us, many have tried fruitlessly but our numbers continue to grow endlessly. We are in every discipline, have been to the highest heavens and below the depths of the darkest crevices in the earth. I have absolutely no shame and it would be a privilege to serve my people in any way possible.

 

[.Hack]

I have many black friends that are successful, dependable, smart, etc. I HAVE NO NIGGER FRIENDS BECAUSE NIGGERS ARE LAZY, LOUD, OBNOXIOUS, DRUGDEALING, WELFARE STEALING, MURDERING RAPIST MOTHERFUCKERS.

 

[pewep]

I'll be your nigga hack

 

[iPwnNoobs]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAjzrcEOKkw[/ame]

 

[pewep]

sup pwnage, long time.

 

[lukep]

Since economies of scale (monopolies) are able to produce high quality goods at a cheaper rate than local businesses/other competitions, how on earth would we be able to regulate them in an anarchy?

You don't. And that's a GOOD thing.

My point has been above that monopolies stop being a bad thing without government intervention... So of course using government intervention on them (regulation) defeats the purpose.

How would we prevent BP from having another oil spill, causing billions of dollars and saying tough shit?

Free markets. That's it and that's all... And that's enough.

This is what they do:

Bhopal disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bhopal is the largest industrial accident ever, but it is not without its' ties to the state. (States actually, not just India.)

Without an authority to regulate massive companies, who would protect people form being fucked?

Again, free markets. If they're truly free then people can much more easily "vote them out" with their purchasing decisions.

What about drug companies that refuse to disclose harmful side effects?

Huge lawsuits, as usual. But instead of a state-appointed court system, it would be a private arbitrar like these guys: Internet Arbitration | Judge.me

They would still make billions and squelch the media that would try to show the ill effects of the drugs.

Squelching the media is something the government does, not J&J.

I'm asking you HOW you would prevent companies that are on the pursuit of profit by any means from trampling over people.

You keep asking the same questions over and over and fail to hear the answer here. Without the governmnent, these things you fear can't get 1/100th as bad as they do now. Therefore, get rid of the government, seek private solutions to any remaining problems, and enjoy a society that is far, far more fair, free, and peaceful than the one you see before you today.

 

[MSTeacher]

Not theories bro. Pretty much ripped directly from Mises.org.

I fuckin lol'd

With no state, a monopoly is toothless. It can't keep its' competitors down for long; Any kid in a garage can invent a better product and take it to compete in a fair marketplace against the monopoly.

The better product will always win if the market is truly free.

monopolies stop being a bad thing without government intervention

Free markets. That's it and that's all... And that's enough.

Squelching the media is something the government does, not J&J.

Without the governmnent, these things you fear can't get 1/100th as bad as they do now.

Wow.

I thank you sincerely for your post. It is statements like these that remind me how absolutely bat shit insane anarchy would be in the current world. :thumbsup:

 

[pewep]

You don't. And that's a GOOD thing.

My point has been above that monopolies stop being a bad thing without government intervention... So of course using government intervention on them (regulation) defeats the purpose.

That's clearly not the kind of regulation I'm referring to.

Free markets. That's it and that's all... And that's enough.

*Explain*!!

Bhopal is the largest industrial accident ever, but it is not without its' ties to the state. (States actually, not just India.)

Accident??

In 1998, during civil action suits in India, it emerged that the plant was not prepared for problems. No action plans had been established to cope with incidents of this magnitude. This included not informing local authorities of the quantities or dangers of chemicals used and manufactured at Bhopal.[4][5][13][20]

• The MIC tank alarms had not worked for four years.[4][5][13][25]
• There was only one manual back-up system, compared to a four-stage system used in the United States.[4][5][13][25]
• The flare tower and several vent gas scrubbers had been out of service for five months before the disaster. Only one gas scrubber was operating: it could not treat such a large amount of MIC with sodium hydroxide (caustic soda), which would have brought the concentration down to a safe level.[25] The flare tower could only handle a quarter of the gas that leaked in 1984, and moreover it was out of order at the time of the incident.[4][5][13][26]
• To reduce energy costs, the refrigeration system was idle. The MIC was kept at 20 degrees Celsius, not the 4.5 degrees advised by the manual.[4][5][13][25]
• The steam boiler, intended to clean the pipes, was out of action for unknown reasons.[4][5][13][25]
• Slip-blind plates that would have prevented water from pipes being cleaned from leaking into the MIC tanks through faulty valves were not installed. Their installation had been omitted from the cleaning checklist.[4][5][13]
• The water pressure was too weak to spray the escaping gases from the stack. They could not spray high enough to reduce the concentration of escaping gas.[4][5][13][25]
• According to the operators, the MIC tank pressure gauge had been malfunctioning for roughly a week. Other tanks were used, rather than repairing the gauge. The build-up in temperature and pressure is believed to have affected the magnitude of the gas release.[4][5][13][25] UCC investigation studies have disputed this hypothesis.
• Carbon steel valves were used at the factory, even though they corrode when exposed to acid.[20]
• UCC admitted in their own investigation report that most of the safety systems were not functioning on the night of December 3, 1984.[17]
• The design of the MIC plant, following government guidelines, was "Indianized" by UCIL engineers to maximize the use of indigenous materials and products. Mumbai-based Humphreys and Glasgow Consultants PVT. Ltd. were the main consultants, Larsen & Toubro fabricated the MIC storage tanks, and Taylor of India Ltd. provided the instrumentation.[27]

Previous warnings and incidents

A series of prior warnings and MIC-related incidents had occurred:

• In 1976, the two trade unions reacted because of pollution within the plant.[5][21]
• In 1981, a worker was splashed with phosgene. In panic he ripped off his mask, thus inhaling a large amount of phosgene gas; he died 72 hours later.[5][21]
• etc... you'll have to read on wikipedia. too many characters in this post.

Tl;DR - A company cut corners to increase profits because they were operating in a 3rd world environment. This happens constantly from the BP oil spill in Nigeria to mines in south africa. The simple fact is with corruption and no government oversight, corporations do everything in their power to maximize profit and minimize costs. The end result is a huge environmental and labor drain.

Again, free markets. If they're truly free then people can much more easily "vote them out" with their purchasing decisions.

Manipulated free "sheeple" can truly choose right? How exactly would they go about the choosing process? Who would have control of the capital to advertise their services in vast and overpowering way?

Huge lawsuits, as usual. But instead of a state-appointed court system, it would be a private arbitrar like these guys: Internet Arbitration | Judge.me

Oh please save me this bollocks. We already know that in a true anarchy, the ones with the money would buy the mercenaries and ombudsmen in order to make it a kangaroo court. You cannot "force" them to do shit.

Squelching the media is something the government does, not J&J.

Are you being serious? Companies and wealthy individuals in no way use propaganda perpetrated by the media to influence public opinion? What world do you live in because it sounds awfully nice!

You keep asking the same questions over and over and fail to hear the answer here. Without the governmnent, these things you fear can't get 1/100th as bad as they do now. Therefore, get rid of the government, seek private solutions to any remaining problems, and enjoy a society that is far, far more fair, free, and peaceful than the one you see before you today.

I keep asking you the same question because you are NOT answering it. Yes, the government does a lot of fucked up things, but I'm 100X more afraid of what JP morgan and all the other fucking wall street banks would do if they really were pulling the strings and running the show on their own.


Oh wait they already do.

 

[lukep]

@MSTeacher: In the current world, granted. Stinky batshit at that. You know I meant in a post-government world though. Ppl would be more educated without the state and its' school system filling their head up with the OPPOSITE of knowledge.


@Pewep: Every point you raised again assumed that these things will be bad when there is no government in the first place! Every single one. Yes, corps and banks will have the same profit incentives, but they won't have the power that they enjoy now to do the really bad stuff. The end.


With this, I give up trying any more of this line of argument. I guess there's just no way to make someone see that the state is causing all of the things they are afraid of happening elsewhere until they are stop listening to the state and the MSM entirely. Their propoganda kung-fu is too strong.

Since there is state-approved propoganda in your head (put there by public school systems) blocking the acceptance of this I can only refer you to the following vid on how distorted your reality is:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okPnDZ1Txlo]SCHOOL SUCKS: The American Way - YouTube[/ame]

Corporations aren't doing that to you; your government is.

 

[pewep]

Pewep: How will we prevent lunatic wealth hoarders from owning everything and everyone?
LukeP: The Free Market ™
Pewep: Please explain in detail as I have explained WITH sources why a "free" market would be a disaster.
LukeP: Aaah fuck it, you just don't get it.