Xmas Lights - Seriously Unimpressed

[Richard Crowley]

This presentation didn't even mention the way when one
township rejects them they go to the low-rent district that
abuts the town and set up there. The get a sweetheart deal
on tax breaks with the hard-pressed city gov't there. When
the tax breaks run out, they pull up stakes and find a new
bunch of suckers, leaving in their wake a town devoid of
Mom & Pop businesses.

What an excelent place to start a Mom & Pop business. But
I guess Neo-Libs who have become dependent on the nanny
state don't think in those terms. Seriously unimpressed sums
up my view of this useless thread. Bye.

 

[Watson A.Name - \Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\]

...

What an excelent place to start a Mom & Pop business. But
I guess Neo-Libs who have become dependent on the nanny
state don't think in those terms. Seriously unimpressed sums
up my view of this useless thread. Bye.

I guess we all know where he's coming from. He must own
stock in Wal-mart. ;-)

 

[R. Steve Walz]

...

What an excelent place to start a Mom & Pop business. But
I guess Neo-Libs who have become dependent on the nanny
state don't think in those terms. Seriously unimpressed sums
up my view of this useless thread. Bye.

------------------------------------
The big shits takethe capital they stole with them when they
pull up stakes!

Another shit-brained neocon with catch-phrases for a mind.

If bandits came to town he would try to finance them and not
grasp why he was being tortured to death when we caught him.

-Steve

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Watson A.Name wrote ...

Excuse me, but you, Mr. Name are the one who injected PBS
and their schockumentaries into the thread in your original post.
I'm getting really tired of leftist politics tainting Usenet.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Tolerance goes both ways, or is that only a rightist opinion?

 

[R. Steve Walz]

We don't have Wal-marts here in correctland, but I went to one for my
first time while visiting The Brat at college. I thought it was
great... lots of stuff, great prices, and very friendly people
everywhere to help you find things. I bought four pairs of great
velcro shoes for $14 per pair.

Why do people keep tying shoes? What an anachronism!

-------------------------
Because velcro when it stops holding sounds like loud crinkling saran
wrap akin to the third day of rain at Woodstock when you don't stand
perfectly absolutely still. Most new products they tell us we "need"
are nothing more than mass experiments at theft from us that SHOULD
have been done on only a few hundred pairs in a nice People's State
testing lab and their defects discovered BEFORE we make 10,000,000 of
them, so we can punish the moron who "invented" this crap and so the
materials are not wasted!!

-Steve

 

[repatch]

I don't know how old you are, but I'm old enough to remember the first
time ('70s) the Japanese (Matsushita) dumped TVs on the american market
and put most of the domestic TV makers out of business. And don't give me
that BS about "live with it".

Well, consider this: what allowed them to "dump" the TVs on the market?
Was it because the american TVs were OVERPRICED? Hmm, perhaps so...

The Japanese gov't found them guilty of
dumping, and they were fined $150 million. Yeah, $150 million. That's not
something any competing ompany should have to "live with".

That's simply not fair. The Japanese companies offered TVs at FAIR prices,
not the over-bloated prices of other manufacturers. And what reward are
they given? A fine. Doesn't sound very fair to me, and is definitely
against everything capitalism is supposed to mean.

My guess is the ONLY reason the Japanese government did this was because
of pressure from the US, can't make the US angry, so let's punish
ourselves...

This time, the Japanes are getting some of their own medicine. The
Chinese are dumping TVs onto the Japanese market and putting a lot of
pressure on the Japanese domestic TV makers to cut their prices to be
competitive.

And why shouldn't they? If the Chinese can make TVs cheaper why shouldn't
they? Why as a consumer should I pay MORE for the EXACT SAME THING??

But the U.S. Int'l Trade Commission has found the Chinese TV makers guilty
of dumping, and now imposes a tariff on each TV set. That's again not a
case of doing what the consumers want, dumping is a case of doing what the
competitors can't compete against.

If they can't compete they shouldn't be in business. They have been over
charging consumers for years, and consumers are supposed to defend them??

You don't seem to see the forest for
the trees.

I simply see things like this: if a company can't compete they shouldn't
use my tax money to artificially keep them going.

 

[Keith]

If you want to see television that doesn't bend over for corporations,
PBS is the last bastion--

And on the other hand, if you want to see television that bends over for
gays(I just couldn't resist), tree-huggers, gun-control nuts, democratic
presidents(and presidential candidates) and senators, and the rest of the
wacko left-wing causes, simply watch CBS, ABC, NBC, or the rest of the
main-stream media.

It's funny how the majority of the people voting anti-business have no
problems patronizing our malls, shopping at Wal-Mart, etc. Wal-Mart exists
because consumers want low prices, and Wal-Mart gives it to them. The same
people who are on the news talking about "it's such a shame to see Wal-Mart
destroy the local businesses" finish up their rants with, "oh, btw, when is
it going to open?". If everyone boycotted Wal-Mart, there would be no
Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart adds considerable tax revenue to any town --- money that
the Mom and Pop shops weren't generating. In addition, Wal-Mart's also puts
money back in the communities, in terms of donations to charities, improving
the local infrastructure, etc. When local people complain about Wal-Mart,
the number one reason I see stated is that it adds too much traffic to an
area. Traffic = tax revenue generation. Doesn't sound bad to me..... Tax
revenue generation = money to widen roads, improve school districts, etc.

I still have yet to figure out why the baby boomer generation will pay three
times more for the same exact product by shopping at a Mom and Pop shop.
This is certainly anecdotal and you can place whatever worth you want on it.

There is a Mom and Pop hardware store down the street from my parent's
house. It's a fairly high-volume store, just looking at the parking lot,
and the people in the store, they certainly don't do bad. This place,
despite getting tons of business, repeatedly marks up the products OVER the
MSRP. Wal-Marts, Targets, Home Depot, Lowe's, etc are consistently under
the MSRP. Why does the Mom and Pop shop think that overcharging and gouging
consumers is OK? This locally-owned hardware store is affiliated with some
national chain, and I'm sure gets reasonable margins off the list price.
There certainly seems to be no problem with volume at this store although
they can't compete with the volume of Home Depot etc, but their business is
very steady.

Paying $8.00 for a $3.00 part simply isn't acceptable in my eyes. If
Wal-mart offers the SAME PRODUCT(same brand, same quality, etc) at a lower
price, I have to shop there. And most of America agrees with me, most
people shop there too. You can't argue that the community suffers as a
result, because the pure tax revenues and jobs created well exceed what had
been in place before.

You can also argue the differences in terms of service too, but I've been on
my soapbox long enough.

I believe in the power of the people. If you don't want Wal-Marts in your
area, good. Mobilize your troops, get the community involved, and chase
them out. Boycott them. Elect people to your local government who share
your interests.

Keith
Pittsburgh

 

[Watson A.Name - \Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\]

And on the other hand, if you want to see television that bends over for
gays(I just couldn't resist), tree-huggers, gun-control nuts, democratic
presidents(and presidential candidates) and senators, and the rest of the
wacko left-wing causes, simply watch CBS, ABC, NBC, or the rest of the
main-stream media.

It's funny how the majority of the people voting anti-business have no

You need to get over your 'attitude' and learn to view things more
objectively.

problems patronizing our malls, shopping at Wal-Mart, etc. Wal-Mart exists
because consumers want low prices, and Wal-Mart gives it to them. The same
people who are on the news talking about "it's such a shame to see Wal-Mart
destroy the local businesses" finish up their rants with, "oh, btw, when is
it going to open?". If everyone boycotted Wal-Mart, there would be no
Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart adds considerable tax revenue to any town --- money that
the Mom and Pop shops weren't generating.

I think that point is debatable. If a store sells something for less,
the taxes are less, and therefore the local revenue is less. DUH.

In addition, Wal-Mart's also puts
money back in the communities, in terms of donations to charities, improving
the local infrastructure, etc.

And you're implying that the local small business do not? Another big
DUH.

When local people complain about Wal-Mart,
the number one reason I see stated is that it adds too much traffic to an
area. Traffic = tax revenue generation. Doesn't sound bad to me..... Tax
revenue generation = money to widen roads, improve school districts,

etc.

As if..

The traffic issue is often a legitimate problem brought up in meetings
because it can be easily quantified. The traffice eng'r puts a box and
counts the number of cars. If it's a lot more, then it's a problem.

This ends up costing the municipality a lot of money because they may
have to mitigate the traffic problens. But all this is not really
related to the other legitimate topics that were brought up in this
thread.

I still have yet to figure out why the baby boomer generation will pay three
times more for the same exact product by shopping at a Mom and Pop shop.
This is certainly anecdotal and you can place whatever worth you want

on it.

Maybe that's because they know the proprietors, and they know the owner
has to make a decent living, and can't close up his shop and start
working for Wal-mart part-time at sub-poverty wages and expect to make a
living.

[snip]

Paying $8.00 for a $3.00 part simply isn't acceptable in my eyes.

The problem is that the "$3 part" isn't. It's a fraction of a dollar
when it leaves the plant in China. Wal-mart _dictates_ to the
manufacturer what they will pay for it. And the extra $5 you claim the
mom-n-pop stores are overcharging looks like peanuts when you compare it
to the amount that Wal-mart is 'overcharging' you for the $3 part -
percentage-wise.

I just got through watching ABC News, and they showed a piece about kids
playing mature rated video games. They said that the average young
adult has spent ten thousand hours playing video games.

The thought occurred to me that this may be a major contributor to the
dumbing of young kids. They don't spend enough time reading even a
newspaper. The kids have substituted video games as their
entertainment. Bunch of illiterates!

In a like manner, I would compare Wal-mart to this in that they are
giving the consumer not mind candy but wallet candy, and in so doing,
undermining the country economically, just like the video games are
undermining the minds of the younger generation.

If
Wal-mart offers the SAME PRODUCT(same brand, same quality, etc) at a lower
price, I have to shop there. And most of America agrees with me, most

You don't _have_ to shop there. There are other factors. One is
Costco. They may sell it cheaper than Wal-mart. Another factor is you
may be paying more for the Wal-mart goods because you have to drive more
miles to get the goods, and as gas prices increase, this may be an even
bigger factor. Before the Wal-mart came to the local mall, I wouldn't
shop at either Wal-mart ot Costco because they were ten miles too far
away.

people shop there too. You can't argue that the community suffers as a
result, because the pure tax revenues and jobs created well exceed what had
been in place before.

Again, as I stated above, that's an incorrect assumption. DUH.

You can also argue the differences in terms of service too, but I've been on
my soapbox long enough.

Your soapbox is made of cheap cardboard because you got it at Wal-mart.

I believe in the power of the people. If you don't want Wal-Marts in your
area, good. Mobilize your troops, get the community involved, and chase
them out. Boycott them. Elect people to your local government who share
your interests.

Perhaps it's better that the average consumer gets his wallet candy at
Wal-mart. That way, they will leave us, the ones with more common
sense, to shop online and on Ebay, and get even better deals. ;-)

 

[Watson A.Name - \Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\]

Well, consider this: what allowed them to "dump" the TVs on the market?
Was it because the american TVs were OVERPRICED? Hmm, perhaps so...

No, it was (and this was the reason the Japanese gov't caught them)
because they were _overcharging_ the Japanese consumers for the TVs, so
they could still make a profit.

That's simply not fair. The Japanese companies offered TVs at FAIR prices,
not the over-bloated prices of other manufacturers. And what reward are
they given? A fine. Doesn't sound very fair to me, and is definitely
against everything capitalism is supposed to mean.

No, as I said above they screwed their own people to make inroads into
the U.S. domestic TV market. Simply shifting the costs.

As for FAIR prices, the gov't charged these companies with dumping them
at UNfair prices, below FAIR market value.

My guess is the ONLY reason the Japanese government did this was because
of pressure from the US, can't make the US angry, so let's punish
ourselves...

No. The U.S. _pressured_ the Japanese to forgive, and _not_ pay the 150
million to the domestic mfgrs, and in return, let the U.S. military put
bases in Japan to thwart the Soviet cold war threat.

And why shouldn't they? If the Chinese can make TVs cheaper why shouldn't
they? Why as a consumer should I pay MORE for the EXACT SAME THING??

Wal-mart is dictating to the Chinese mfgrs what price they will pay, and
in so doing are damaging the Chinese economy. But they can do it
because they have such a large percentage of the total Chinese exports.

If they can't compete they shouldn't be in business. They have been over
charging consumers for years, and consumers are supposed to defend

them??

WTF is the matter with you? Overcharging? They're losing their behinds
and having to move all their production overseas. Those jobs that are
lost are _your_ jobs, so now you can't even afford to buy the goods!
HAR-HAR!

I simply see things like this: if a company can't compete they shouldn't
use my tax money to artificially keep them going.

This would be true if the playing field were level. But it's not. And
that's why the gov't is putting tariffs on the goods. To level the
playing field.

Which would you rather have? A decent wage in a decent economy, or no
job, on welfare, in a country that's turning into a third world economy?

It's your choice.

 

[Tim]

GREAT PRICE, too bad its all made in China and no here.

We need jobs for people here, thanks for helping, your a good shopper
too bad your kids won't be able to buy anything there because they
won't have a job.

 

[repatch]

No, as I said above they screwed their own people to make inroads into the
U.S. domestic TV market. Simply shifting the costs.

As for FAIR prices, the gov't charged these companies with dumping them at
UNfair prices, below FAIR market value.

Some would call it dumping, others would call it a very clever tactic.

Wal-mart is dictating to the Chinese mfgrs what price they will pay, and
in so doing are damaging the Chinese economy. But they can do it because
they have such a large percentage of the total Chinese exports.

Excuse me, but if Walmart "dictates" a price, and that price CAN be met,
what's wrong with that? What is wrong with efficiency?

them??

WTF is the matter with you? Overcharging? They're losing their behinds
and having to move all their production overseas. Those jobs that are
lost are _your_ jobs, so now you can't even afford to buy the goods!
HAR-HAR!

That's simply not how it works. Lets look at Japan. They USED to be the
number one sellers of "cheap stuff", now they are the number one sellers
of some expensive stuff (i.e. cars, electronics, gadgets). How did they do
that?

Just because something is made in the US today doesn't mean it SHOULD be
made there. If manufacturing of some items is cheaper in other countries
it should be made in those other countries, the extra capacity in the
states will mean other things will be made.

There's alot of fear mongering about "off shoring" that goes on, I don't
buy it at all. If off shoring were as bad as SOME try to make us believe
North America would be a desert.

This would be true if the playing field were level. But it's not. And
that's why the gov't is putting tariffs on the goods. To level the
playing field.

Level playing field??? What the heck are you talking about? If it costs $2
to make paper cup in NA and only $0.05 in China, why, as a consumer,
should I buy the $2 paper cup???? The answer is there is NO reason I buy
the $2 paper cup. Paper cup manufacturing SHOULD be done in China, and the
capacity freed up on the paper cup lines can be dedicated to something
else, i.e. making plastic cups.

Which would you rather have? A decent wage in a decent economy, or no
job, on welfare, in a country that's turning into a third world economy?

There is NO evidence that the country would turn into a "third world
economy". What will simply happen is production of some items will be done
elsewhere, and other industry will come to bear in the coutry you're in.
No third world.

On top of that, do you REALLY think I'd choose an economy where I'm paying
10X more for paper cups just to subsidize the workers making the $2 paper
cups???

It's your choice.

Yes it is, and my choice isn't one of the "options" you gave me since
neither is valid.

 

[repatch]

I think that point is debatable. If a store sells something for less, the
taxes are less, and therefore the local revenue is less. DUH.

Hehe, you ARE good at twisting the truth are you?

So, lets see, you think that when prices drop, the NUMBER of items sold
will be the same?

WRONG. If prices drop MORE items will be purchased. In the end, AT WORST,
the tax revenue will be the same. MUCH more likely is the HUGE volume
Walmart deals with will INCREASE tax revenue.

As if..

The traffic issue is often a legitimate problem brought up in meetings
because it can be easily quantified. The traffice eng'r puts a box and
counts the number of cars. If it's a lot more, then it's a problem.

This ends up costing the municipality a lot of money because they may have
to mitigate the traffic problens. But all this is not really related to
the other legitimate topics that were brought up in this thread.

But more traffic means more people shopping. More people shopping means
more people stopping for gas or a bite to eat at the local restaurant. All
this means MORE incoming money to the town, easily balancing the slight
increase in road maintenance.

The problem is that the "$3 part" isn't. It's a fraction of a dollar when
it leaves the plant in China. Wal-mart _dictates_ to the manufacturer
what they will pay for it. And the extra $5 you claim the mom-n-pop
stores are overcharging looks like peanuts when you compare it to the
amount that Wal-mart is 'overcharging' you for the $3 part -
percentage-wise.

Percentage doesn't matter to the consumer. The consumer sees a part for
sale at $8 at one place and at $3 at another. It doesn't MATTER how much
profit is being made on that $3 part, the consumer sees a substantial
savings. That is GOOD for the consumer.

I just got through watching ABC News, and they showed a piece about kids
playing mature rated video games. They said that the average young adult
has spent ten thousand hours playing video games.

The thought occurred to me that this may be a major contributor to the
dumbing of young kids. They don't spend enough time reading even a
newspaper. The kids have substituted video games as their entertainment.
Bunch of illiterates!

Wow, you sound like a very interesting person. Listen, go bad to reading
your newspaper.

Hint: the internet requires ALOT of reading, and show me a kid into video
games that ISN'T into the net.

Just because they're not reading what YOU consider worthwhile doesn't mean
they aren't reading.

 

[John Larkin]

GREAT PRICE, too bad its all made in China and no here.

We need jobs for people here, thanks for helping, your a good shopper
too bad your kids won't be able to buy anything there because they
won't have a job.

The fact is that people in China and Indonesia and Africa need jobs,
too. In fact, they need them a lot worse than we do, for basic things
like food and medicine and keeping their kids alive. Did you buy an
American made DVD player, TV, bench vise, or dinner plates? Grapes?
Flowers? Lumber?

My kids will do fine, and I hope those Chinese and African kids will,
too. People are people.

John

 

[Watson A.Name - \Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\]

The fact is that people in China and Indonesia and Africa need jobs,
too.

But they shouldn't 'take' them from us; they shouldn't get jobs at the
expense of other countries. And many other countries are primareily an
agarian economy. The jobs they get aren't as necessary as for our
industrialized society.

In fact, they need them a lot worse than we do, for basic things
like food and medicine and keeping their kids alive.

They already keep their families in basic necessities with a barter
system. Fishermen trade with farmers to get the staples to each other.

Modern medicine hasn't been widely introduced in many countries. That's
why there's so much of an aids epidemic in many countries. They have a
system, and it's not like our modern medicine.

Did you buy an
American made DVD player, TV, bench vise, or dinner plates? Grapes?
Flowers? Lumber?

Point? I'm not sure.

My kids will do fine, and I hope those Chinese and African kids will,
too. People are people.

People are people but societies are societies. You can see that right
now, with the problems in the middle east. As a matter of fact, I'd say
that much of the problems there have been caused by the introduction of
'modern' culture, and they're going thru a backlash, to the 'old ways'.
Similarly to what happened in Iran decades ago.

 

[Doug Schultz]

The fact is that people in China and Indonesia and Africa need jobs,
too. In fact, they need them a lot worse than we do, for basic things
like food and medicine and keeping their kids alive. Did you buy an
American made DVD player, TV, bench vise, or dinner plates? Grapes?
Flowers? Lumber?

My kids will do fine, and I hope those Chinese and African kids will,
too. People are people.

John

Dont mean to butt in here but I also think that if you shop at Walmart you
deserve the Poverty level wage you are going to end up with.
If you support poverty wages then no one who pays real wages can compete.
so your wage will eventually be a poverty wage as your sector of employment
becomes swallowed in the eddie.

Doug

 

[George Jetson]

Dont mean to butt in here but I also think that if you shop at Walmart you
deserve the Poverty level wage you are going to end up with.
If you support poverty wages then no one who pays real wages can compete.
so your wage will eventually be a poverty wage as your sector of
employment becomes swallowed in the eddie.

Doug

That's no eddy mate, we're all doing circles around the bowl. I dont
believe the public will ever do whats for the common good, buying the
cheapest one posible is going to get us all.

 

[John Larkin]

That makes no sense. Employers compete for employees from a common
pool of available workers, and they use wages and benefits to convince
people to work for them and to stay. Wal-mart can't just decide to pay
arbitrarily low wages; they can only get workers by offering them a
better deal than they could get somewhere else. I noticed that most of
the Wal-mart floor workers were either very young or very old; both
are probably grateful for having a better job than anybody else
offered them.

That's no eddy mate, we're all doing circles around the bowl. I dont
believe the public will ever do whats for the common good, buying the
cheapest one posible is going to get us all.

Whose common good? Just the people in the US, or all the people in the
world?

Once everybody becomes middle-class, imports will no longer have an
economic advantage. The cheap-imports-from-cheap-labor situation is
just a transient condition. Europe, Japan, and Korea were once
cheap-labor suppliers.

Being a low-cost exporter is a positive step on the way to being
developed and wealthy. China and India and Mexico are there now; too
bad most of Africa isn't developed enough yet to be a cheap-labor
supplier.

John

 

[Watson A.Name - \Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\]

That makes no sense. Employers compete for employees from a common
pool of available workers, and they use wages and benefits to convince
people to work for them and to stay. Wal-mart can't just decide to pay
arbitrarily low wages; they can only get workers by offering them a
better deal than they could get somewhere else. I noticed that most of
the Wal-mart floor workers were either very young or very old; both
are probably grateful for having a better job than anybody else
offered them.

The very old workers were very likely secure in their retirement or
income. The very young workers probably don't have a family to support
or a bunch of medical bills. Wal-mart doesn't pay enough, that's a
given. But they're big enough that they don't have to. Just like Radio
Shack[1].

Your last sentence with the word grateful, is certainly not the way I
see it. The "better job" bit is just not true. A minimum wage job at
less than 40 hours a week (yes, they are only working 32 hours) is not a
"better job." It's what no one else wants, because they can't live on
those wages. It's a job that's below poverty level. See
http://slate.msn.com/id/2104988/ which said about Wal-mart: "The
company's labor policies are state-of-the-art, for the 1890s."

And what really ticks me off about Wal-mart is those damn commercials
where they brag about helping the community. That's just a coverup for
the damage that they really do. They probably do it because they have
been beat on so much by the media, local gov'ts and advocacy groups that
they had to do something to not look so bad.

[1] All the 25 years that (at work) I have walked across the street to
Radio Shack, and I have never seen any employee stay at that store for
more than a year. They're mostly male, but there is an occasional
female. They make substandard wages and are given the incentive to sell
by getting a commission of a certain low percentage of some sales.
That's why they're always trying to sell you cell phones or satellite
dishes. I don't think Wal-mart even offers their employees a
commission. Go figure.

As for your last sentence below, the 'cheap labor supplier' bit isn't
the way that some countries work. Some countries export finished goods
or raw materials and only to other nearby countries where they have a
competitive advantage. They haven't been exploited yet by other
countries.

 

[James T. White]

That makes no sense. Employers compete for employees from a common
pool of available workers, and they use wages and benefits to convince
people to work for them and to stay. Wal-mart can't just decide to pay
arbitrarily low wages; they can only get workers by offering them a
better deal than they could get somewhere else. I noticed that most of
the Wal-mart floor workers were either very young or very old; both
are probably grateful for having a better job than anybody else
offered them.

John,

What makes you think they can't just decide to pay a substandard wage? That is
exactly what Walmart does to their suppliers by setting arbitrarily low prices
they are willing to pay for goods. When suppliers couldn't go that low on goods
manufactured in the US, Walmart was very quick to suggest moving the
manufacturing offshore. As far as Walmart is concerned, labor costs are just
another cost to be minimized.