Author Topic: walmarts bad for economy? (i dont know if this is the right section sorry)  (Read 687 times)

swangin and bangin

  • Guest
how is walmart bad for the economy? i always hear that but dont get it. i heard theres a movie out but i never seen it. theres a walmart by my house house and its open 24 hours, its always jam packed, when u drive by theres madd people goin in and out.
 

Dubz

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 1571
  • Karma: -8
it monopolizes by carrying a shitload of stuff at cheap prices, wiping out mom and pop shops that cant afford to carry shit for that cheap. with no mom and pop shops, theres no competition or moderation of retail. and somehow i guess that lowers the economy... someone clarify...
 

Lincoln

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 4677
  • Karma: -2421
  • The best in the game today....Black Jack Johnson
It's the opposite, Wal-Mart is great for the economy. It provides jobs at half-decent wages to people who otherwise would not find work (such as the elderly, students, perpetually unskilled and therefore unemployed.)

Most hip-hop is now keyboard driven, because the majority of hip-hop workstations have loops and patches that enable somebody with marginal skills to put tracks together,...

Unfortunately, most hip-hop artists gravitated towards the path of least resistance by relying on these pre-set patches. As a result, electric guitar and real musicians became devalued, and a lot of hip-hop now sounds the same.

Paris
 

swangin and bangin

  • Guest
It's the opposite, Wal-Mart is great for the economy. It provides jobs at half-decent wages to people who otherwise would not find work (such as the elderly, students, perpetually unskilled and therefore unemployed.)
thats not what i heard, even my teacher told the class to not shop at walmart.
 

Mo Z. Dizzle

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 6145
  • Karma: 877
  • Mo Z. Dizzle, the CEO of WCC Wrestling League
negative: it reduces competition; if competition runs out, ppl are forced to shop at Wal-Mart for products and will have to pay the price at whatever Wal-Mart sets it at.

positive: by having lower prices, competition will also have to try and lower prices; good for consumers since they have options for now; and it also gets consumers to shop more which brings money into the economy; then money is used in different parts of the coutnry's infrastructure
      
The WCCWL is always looking for new members; take a chance at becoming a champ!! PM Mo Z. Dizzle if interested!!
 

J @ M @ L

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 1630
  • Karma: -115
It's the opposite, Wal-Mart is great for the economy. It provides jobs at half-decent wages to people who otherwise would not find work (such as the elderly, students, perpetually unskilled and therefore unemployed.)

You can't say Walmart is great for the economy simply because it creates jobs. You can't just focus on one positive aspect, and ignore other negative effects that something may have.

With that being said, there is no definite answer to whether Walmart is "good" or "bad" because first you have to ask/define in what context you want to use those terms, what  in your opinion would make something good or bad.. people always have different normative views. For example, Lincoln might believe it's good for the economy because it creates jobs, but someone else might look at the same exact situation and consider it something horrible. Like someone above said, Walmart engages in predatory pricing (they lower their prices to the extent that competition is driven out, barriers to entry are created, and can almost be considered a monopoly in certain areas - these things usually lower efficiency - im not sure if you're familiar with that, but that's basically a measurement of the overall benefit to consumers and producers). And since the creation of jobs was brought up, Walmart isn't really known for adhering to labor laws, is anti-unions (again this depends on your view of whether unions are good or bad), and Walmart uses more foreign labor than any other company (but then again Walmart is the world's largest retailer, so it's all relative.. and even this can be considered as good or bad).

Basically when your teacher says it's bad for the economy, I'm assuming he has looked at certain figures and came to the conclusion that Walmart lowers economic efficiency.

my throat hurts, its hard to swallow, and my body feels like i got a serious ass beating.

LOL @ this fudgepacker
 

Ant

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 2140
  • Karma: -418
Ahhh my head hurts.

Quote
Basically when your teacher says it's bad for the economy, I'm assuming he has looked at certain figures and came to the conclusion that Walmart lowers economic efficiency.

This is such a retarded comment you should be ashamed.  Same goes for "even my teacher says."  So you're suggesting that anything a "teacher" says must be the "truth." So what happens when teachers disagree?  Now you're fucked.

Guess what?! Just because a "teacher" says something doesn't mean it's true.  Plenty of teachers are just as dumb as you.

Back to the question... Is Walmart good for the economy?

To the extent that improved efficiency is good for the economy, Walmart is also good for the economy.   The question you're all addressing is a different one.  You're discussing if Walmart is good for society.  This is debatable, but you cannot debate that Walmart is good for the economy.   
 
Of course a few people are ballsy (stupid) enough to suggest Walmart reduces economic efficiency.  But these people are not to be taken seriously.  Walmart clearly improved the efficiency of our international and national economic system.  The problem is there is often a trade-off between efficiency and equality.  When we make the economy more efficient we create losers.  People are hurt.  Small businesses get killed.  Workers get laid off.  Middle income jobs get replaced with lower income jobs.  Or something else happens.  These things are all good for the economy.  But its not so clear that they are good for society.  Try not to confuse the two. 

« Last Edit: January 01, 2007, 09:56:55 PM by Ant »
 

J @ M @ L

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 1630
  • Karma: -115
Quote
Basically when your teacher says it's bad for the economy, I'm assuming he has looked at certain figures and came to the conclusion that Walmart lowers economic efficiency.
This is such a retarded comment you should be ashamed. 


Of course a few people are ballsy (stupid) enough to suggest Walmart reduces economic efficiency.


First it's retarded, and then you edit your post. LOL.
That's why I said his teacher must've looked at some shit to come to that conclusion... I personally never stated that it does decrease efficiency, nor do I know, since I haven't looked into it myself... but I assumed his teacher must've thought that...

Remember: "There are lies, more lies, and statistics"
my throat hurts, its hard to swallow, and my body feels like i got a serious ass beating.

LOL @ this fudgepacker
 

Ant

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 2140
  • Karma: -418
What does me editing my posts have to do with anything?  That's another ridiculous comment you should be ashamed for making.   

And you're statement implied he should listen to his teacher since they probably "looked at some shit." If that isn't what you meant you certainly didn't do a good job of making it clear. 

Finally, if you haven't looked into this topic why are you commenting on it? 
 

J @ M @ L

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 1630
  • Karma: -115
What does me editing my posts have to do with anything?  That's another ridiculous comment you should be ashamed for making.   

And you're statement implied he should listen to his teacher since they probably "looked at some shit." If that isn't what you meant you certainly didn't do a good job of making it clear. 

Finally, if you haven't looked into this topic why are you commenting on it? 


I said that his teacher probably looked at some statistics and came to the conclusion that Walmart is bad for the economy (aka reduces economic efficiency)

You reply saying I should be ashamed for making such a "retarded" comment. Then right after you say yourself that there are people who in your opinion are stupid enough to suggest that Walmart reduces economic efficiency. What I did is basically state that his teacher might be one such person who believes that. If you were able to comprehend simple English, you'd see that's all I was saying.. nowhere did I state that he should listen to his teacher, or that his teacher was right. I wrote one sentence saying what his teacher probably meant, and you pull 3 different assumptions out of your ass. It's clear as glass, you're just an idiot who doesn't even know the difference between "you're" and "your". Finally, he asked what his teacher meant when he said Walmart is bad for the economy, and I simply answered and told him what his teacher could've been referring to when making that statement. I didn't say whether his teacher is right or wrong. Step up your reading comprehension, dipshit.
my throat hurts, its hard to swallow, and my body feels like i got a serious ass beating.

LOL @ this fudgepacker
 

swangin and bangin

  • Guest
Re: walmarts bad for economy? (i dont know if this is the right section sorry)
« Reply #10 on: January 01, 2007, 11:14:33 PM »
so is walmart good or bad?
 

Samoan Enforcer

  • Guest
Re: walmarts bad for economy? (i dont know if this is the right section sorry)
« Reply #11 on: January 02, 2007, 02:19:39 AM »
walmart is OK. you cant be number 1 without being both
 

7even

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 11283
  • Karma: -679
Re: walmarts bad for economy? (i dont know if this is the right section sorry)
« Reply #12 on: January 02, 2007, 02:43:20 AM »
monopoly is always bad, fanboys.

Quote
When we make the economy more efficient we create losers.  People are hurt.  Small businesses get killed.  Workers get laid off.  Middle income jobs get replaced with lower income jobs.  Or something else happens.  These things are all good for the economy.  But its not so clear that they are good for society.  Try not to confuse the two.

it's not about confusing, it's about being smart enough to realize that things that hurt the society also hurt the economy in the long run. if people get paid less, lose their businesses, etc, of course that's also bad for the economy... because what sucks for the economy is that those people will eventually consume less, since they have less money.

now one can argue that it's just about the poor get poorer and the rich get richer and overall economy efficiency is the same if not even better, just society is ass.

but if the poor don't buy from the rich then it's a problem again, isn't it? nothing hurts an economy more than people who don't buy shit.

that being said you can always make statistics to "prove" something is awesome/awful, so what the hell.

at the end of the day I will never be a fan of monopolies or things close to that, never. economic competition and economic diversity .. those things are very important, and monopolies kill them.

for the less economically educated ones in here, here's an example to make it more visual. let's imagine the playstation 3 and the nintendo wii wouldnt exist because microsoft baught sony and nintendo. so only the xbox 360 exists. monopoly right there. so everybody has to buy from microsoft. what happens? the quality of the console decreases as they put less effort in and the prices go up ... because there's no competition AND you also don't have the diversity you'd have if there's also a wii and a ps3.

fuck walmart.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2007, 02:56:39 AM by 7even »
Cause I don't care where I belong no more
What we share or not I will ignore
And I won't waste my time fitting in
Cause I don't think contrast is a sin
No, it's not a sin
 

Chief

  • Guest
Re: walmarts bad for economy? (i dont know if this is the right section sorry)
« Reply #13 on: January 02, 2007, 08:14:10 AM »
^but the beauty of it all is, if the 360 was the only console on the market, and it's quality decreased while price increases, it will create demand for a better quality console for a better price, and the market will take it's course.

i dont believe WALMART is bad for the economy, it may drive some business to failure, but there will always still be niche markets that smart business people could enter and provide things walmart doesnt.

it's strange that Walmart is the only large supermarket chain though...
 

Sparegeez

  • Guest
Re: walmarts bad for economy? (i dont know if this is the right section sorry)
« Reply #14 on: January 02, 2007, 12:36:13 PM »
^but the beauty of it all is, if the 360 was the only console on the market, and it's quality decreased while price increases, it will create demand for a better quality console for a better price, and the market will take it's course.

i dont believe WALMART is bad for the economy, it may drive some business to failure, but there will always still be niche markets that smart business people could enter and provide things walmart doesnt.

it's strange that Walmart is the only large supermarket chain though...

what about costco?