Peter Schiff nails Wall Street



REIMktg said:
Wow. I did take the time to read all of the thoughtfully placed links.

I still cannot see how WalMart is evil. It is a sign of progress. It is an inevitable reality. With the internet, people were not going to pay Mom & Pop for overpriced goods.

The proliferation of Chinese products to the US would have happened either way - you simply would be buying the stuff from different stores. Do we think that Americans like low priced crap because of WalMart or that Americans like WalMart because of low priced crap? And if not WalMart, then Super Target, Super K - it was going to happen.

Also, I know that WalMart was the death to small town downtowns.... but the WalMart's I see have dozens of stores all around them. These are all franchises that are owned by.... Mom & Pop.

Should we be shopping at WalMart? Probably not. I mean why buy products made by Christian prisoners in China, though that may be an incentive to some here. But that is a huge trade argument and I think companies should be taken to the woodshed about supporting these things - but that is not just WalMart - it is everyone.

As for WalMart subsidies - they bring jobs to local communities - sorry but they do. I remember when a town in CA, Temecula, was anti Wal-Mart. So walmart built a store 2 freeway exits North in Murrieta, then one a few exits North of that, then all around Temecula.... now Temecula has a WalMart too.

There are plenty of City Planner's that love WalMart as they come in and completely rejuvenate a blighted area. As an entire commercial center that is modern and the pride of many small towns sprouts up, brings in revenues, and makes the town more modern. City's love it. Big huge new shopping centers with dozens of stores feeding off WalMarts anchor power.
Click to expand...

I don't know anything about Walmart, but their equivalent over here, Tesco is a blight. They move into a local area, and wipe out the local competition using low prices and "convenience". Once the competition is gone, prices rise again.

They also use their monopoly position to bully the shit out of suppliers. Farmers end up being forced to produce stuff below cost. The result is that the quality of food goes down and animal welfare standards are lower.

The "creates jobs" argument is bullshit PR. What they usually do is remove jobs from local businesses and transplant them to Tesco. However their is usually a net loss to the economy as a result. A quick comparison:

1. Local business

-Profits go to owner, usually spent locally
-Owner pays taxes at prevailing local rate of taxation (about 30% on average over here)
-Supply chains are often shorter, more likely to be buying from local or regional businesses

2. Tesco

-Profits go to shareholders who are not local. No reinvestment of profits into local economy
-Tesco uses complicated tax avoidance structures to pay far below the local rate of taxation. Some corporates pay as little as 2% of profits.-
-Global supply chains. Food airfreighted from Kenya, goods shipped from China

I'm all for capitalism, but large companies like WalMart and Tesco pervert capitalism by creating monopolies. They have so much power that they inhibit competition.

The other thing is that because they're accountable only the city, their only goal is financial profit. This means that ethics, environment and local concerns fall by the wayside. Profit is wonderful, but a world where that's all that matters would be a very unpleasant place to live.
 
Tesco has made a big move where I live. In my town there were only small mom and pop shops until two years ago. They are a menace, offering limited selection of inferior quality products in dirty conditions. Tesco is crushing them, thank goodness.
 
Walmart is not neutral, their goal is to crush the competition and own the market just like mine. Arguing pro or con Walmart's value to our society is a waste of time, they're looking out for stockholders ... which isn't a terribly bad thing ... because other companies are doing the same.

The system (theoretically) is the neutral part that raises the quality of life for the community. Demand brings competition, increased supply (innovation) reduces prices. We all win because of places like Walmart, Target, Best Buy, etc. assuming DC isn't making the choices for us.

If you guys look at the individual companies as good or bad you're the punchline of a really twisted joke. None of them are on your team even if you work for them.
 
REIMktg said:
I still cannot see how WalMart is evil.
Click to expand...

I haven't made any moral judgements about Walmart in here. Most small businesses will also accept any government help they can get.

As for WalMart subsidies - they bring jobs to local communities - sorry but they do.
Click to expand...

This is a Keynesian argument for government stimulus that doesn't quite go along with your avatar. Technically yes, the government can give Walmart enough money to provide a job to all of the unemployed. That money gets taken out of another part of the economy though and/or it goes into debt that must be repaid at some point.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru1AnAAhtx0&]Peter Schiff: The Stimulus Is The Reason The Economy Is So Sick! - YouTube[/ame]
 
Moxie said:
This is a Keynesian argument for government stimulus that doesn't quite go along with your avatar. Technically yes, the government can give Walmart enough money to provide a job to all of the unemployed. That money gets taken out of another part of the economy though and/or it goes into debt that must be repaid at some point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru1AnAAhtx0&
Click to expand...

The subsidies that I have seen allocated to WalMart are all from local communities acting in their best interest. For every dollar they subsidize they likely get more benefit back. These same subsidies go to all big corporations that will bring jobs, development, improvements, etc to a city. Anyhow, can you really call these subsidies? Maybe we should see it as local communities paying for WalMart to locate in their City.

Either way I am not a 100% Rand person at all - just think it is a book that everyone who was not been exposed to the way the world works, should read.
 
Which is a great example of the lack of free markets in the U.S. Walmart should be competing purely on their ability to serve consumers rather than having to, or having the opportunity to, use government to get ahead.
 
REIMktg said:
The subsidies that I have seen allocated to WalMart are all from local communities acting in their best interest. For every dollar they subsidize they likely get more benefit back. These same subsidies go to all big corporations that will bring jobs, development, improvements, etc to a city. Anyhow, can you really call these subsidies? Maybe we should see it as local communities paying for WalMart to locate in their City.
Click to expand...

How is it in the people's best interests for a government at any level to force their citizens to give money to Walmart? This is welfare, plain and simple. Not welfare for hungry children, but for a company that profits billions and doesn't need handouts to open up and maintain new stores.

Small business owners have to pay taxes or go to jail. In some cases, their tax money gets used to help the very company that puts them out of business.
 
Yuckystuff said:
Actually, Walmart does a lot of lobbying on a national level, and they aren't throwing that money around for nothing. We just had a thread on here a few weeks ago about their dirty dealings with Dick Durbin. Don't forget the role that Walmart is playing to fuck affiliates.

Wal-Mart Is Behind the New State Affiliate Taxes | Business 2 Community
Who Is Behind The New State Affiliate Taxes? Why, Wal-Mart!

That's not to say Walmart is evil - that argument is silly. The point is that they are a net negative on the local economy.
Click to expand...


I see your point. I have known that corporations restrict free markets to retain their market share - I was not applying that in this case and I should have.

Though I feel for Amazon, the fact that they sell products without sales tax is completely unreasonable. This means that Amazon is living off Govt subsidies by being exempt from charging sales tax on purchases - right? Why should Amazon be sales tax free? At least local stores produce money for a community - Amazon sucks out purchasing dollars and gives nothing back.


Moxie said:
How is it in the people's best interests for a government at any level to force their citizens to give money to Walmart? This is welfare, plain and simple. Not welfare for hungry children, but for a company that profits billions and doesn't need handouts to open up and maintain new stores.

Small business owners have to pay taxes or go to jail. In some cases, their tax money gets used to help the very company that puts them out of business.
Click to expand...

I see your point. But for some reason these communities feel they will suffer more if they do not lure WalMart in. The problem is, just like that Libertarian economist video linked earlier - the problem is that when the local cities start raking in the WalMart taxes & revenue - they waste it on useless things instead of benefiting the community in an efficient manner. and as all of you are saying - that is not the role of Govt in the first place - fine.
 
And the gap in the front yellow teeth = Priceless
07:54 on the video they actually discuss the "gap"
He also says "dat" 18 times
 
REIMktg said:
At least local stores produce money for a community - Amazon sucks out purchasing dollars and gives nothing back.
Click to expand...

I don't know what their warehouse looks like, but do they really not employ anyone? Their business pays no tax? No state income tax?

Seriously, you think they don't give back anything to the community?


[ame="http://askville.amazon.com/people-Amazon-employee-United-States/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=582630"]How many people does Amazon.com employee in the United States?[/ame]

Not sure how reliable this is, but assuming it's a good guess...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom