West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: swangin and bangin on January 01, 2007, 05:46:38 PM
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.)
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
Ahhh my head hurts.
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.
-
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"
-
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?
-
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.
-
so is walmart good or bad?
-
walmart is OK. you cant be number 1 without being both
-
monopoly is always bad, fanboys.
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.
-
^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...
-
^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?
-
^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?
does costco carry 360's and wii's?
-
^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?
does costco carry 360's and wii's?
Yeah but only packages with hella games worth like 600 dollars
-
^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?
does costco carry 360's and wii's?
Yeah but only packages with hella games worth like 600 dollars
hell yea im gona go there today, i need a fuckin wii
-
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.
Walmart *IS* the economy. See, here's the problem with your question. Your logic, given to you by god at birth, already shows you that wal-mart cannot possibly be bad for the economy.
Pinhead assholes are trying to show that it IS bad for the economy, though, even though logic dictates that it makes no sense. Wal-Mart saves consumers millions upon millions of dollars a year; this is free enterprise.
-
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.
Your teacher is an asshole. He should not be teaching you, and brainwashing you to believe unnatural things. Think about it with an open mind. This is a free market. Wal-Mart is cheaper and puts other business the fuck out of business. There is NOTHING wrong with that, that is the very nature of AMERICA.
-
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
Your negative is your positive. Think about how idiotic that is. If they reduce competition by having lower prices, how can they then raise prices? Free Enterprise will always have those with lower prices, OR better quality at a comparable price as the market leaders. Wal-Mart would get hurt as soon as they raised the prices back up. Name me 1 thing you can buy cheaper than you can get it at Wal-Mart. There is no negative, the only negative is the thinking of the idiots who attack Wal-Mart simply because they're fucking HUGE. People always shoot arrows up.
-
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.
No, his teacher is a democrat and he's pushing liberal ideaologies he didn't think up himself on his students. The teacher should be fired.
-
Ahhh my head hurts.
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.
I agree.
-
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.
No, his teacher is a democrat and he's pushing liberal ideaologies he didn't think up himself on his students. The teacher should be fired.
i want the bitch fired, she might fail me cause i suck at french
-
monopoly is always bad, fanboys.
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.
You're an idiot. You act like these monopolies exist in a vacuum. If Microsoft did that, Sega would start making home consoles again and cripple Microsoft because nobody would buy a shittier system. The fact is, Wal-mart gives people what they want, they don't give people what egg head socialists say the people need.
-
damn doggie, dont catch feelings, different people have different Opinions
-
personally i hate walmart.. they treat there employees terible. and no one knows how to speak english in half of them and thats a huge problem with me.. I perfer target its a bit upper from walmart. But i enjoy the mom n pop stores.. also perfer a hard ware store over home depot most of the time...
-
yall r trippin walmart is da shit u can get everything hella cheaper than other places dats all dat matters
its fuckd up how dey always got da most retarded worker at da front sayin hi 2 ppl n shit
oh n when u exit those dudes dont even check ur receipt n ur bags n shit its hella easy 2 jack shit
-
when we was in middle skool my friend got caught tryin to steal yugi mon cards, he took the packet into the bathroom and opene it and put the cards in his pocket, right as he walked out the security gaurd took him into the back room. it was some funny asss shit. i think his momma whoped his ass.
-
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
Your negative is your positive. Think about how idiotic that is. If they reduce competition by having lower prices, how can they then raise prices? Free Enterprise will always have those with lower prices, OR better quality at a comparable price as the market leaders. Wal-Mart would get hurt as soon as they raised the prices back up. Name me 1 thing you can buy cheaper than you can get it at Wal-Mart. There is no negative, the only negative is the thinking of the idiots who attack Wal-Mart simply because they're fucking HUGE. People always shoot arrows up.
exactly, if walmart was put in a monopolising position, and they decided to raise prices it would give room for a new chain to enter the market.
-
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
Your negative is your positive. Think about how idiotic that is. If they reduce competition by having lower prices, how can they then raise prices? Free Enterprise will always have those with lower prices, OR better quality at a comparable price as the market leaders. Wal-Mart would get hurt as soon as they raised the prices back up. Name me 1 thing you can buy cheaper than you can get it at Wal-Mart. There is no negative, the only negative is the thinking of the idiots who attack Wal-Mart simply because they're fucking HUGE. People always shoot arrows up.
exactly, if walmart was put in a monopolising position, and they decided to raise prices it would give room for a new chain to enter the market.
me and u (no homo) lets become bussness partners and open up that chain thats gona take over walmart.
-
walmart is buying all his stuff in china and sell it back to americans, that's why it's bad for the economy. They makes america customers act like crazy mothafuckaz with no heads. There are wallmart in canada but their closing one after all because people dont wanna go shopping there.
i would say it is good for the worldwide economy but not for the united states in general. Since those companies are international it's no more related with usa economy. America has a trillion dollar economic deficit and the cause of that is the globalisation of the economy. It cost nothing for walmart to get their product in china and sell it back to rich americans, but only wall mart and china is winning in this situation, usa stay loosing. And that's the same shit all over the occident. One day GMC cars will all be built in china or india
-
walmart is buying all his stuff in china and sell it back to americans, that's why it's bad for the economy. They makes america customers act like crazy mothafuckaz with no heads. There are wallmart in canada but their closing one after all because people dont wanna go shopping there.
i would say it is good for the worldwide economy but not for the united states in general. Since those companies are international it's no more related with usa economy. America has a trillion dollar economic deficit and the cause of that is the globalisation of the economy. It cost nothing for walmart to get their product in china and sell it back to rich americans, but only wall mart and china is winning in this situation, usa stay loosing. And that's the same shit all over the occident. One day GMC cars will all be built in china or india
You have no idea what you're talking about.
I'll make one simple point that even you should be able to understand: if consumers are willingly spending their money on these cheap products, and Walmart is making huge profits, thus increasing U.S. GDP, how is it not good... or in regards to your dumber comment... how is it not related to the U.S. economy? LOL idiot.
-
monopoly is always bad, fanboys.
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.
You're an idiot. You act like these monopolies exist in a vacuum. If Microsoft did that, Sega would start making home consoles again and cripple Microsoft because nobody would buy a shittier system. The fact is, Wal-mart gives people what they want, they don't give people what egg head socialists say the people need.
I act as if they exist in a vacuum to make it easier to grasp cause I know people like you will be reading it. Of course it's not as simple as that. If you have a higher sales volume it's easy to have cheap prices. It's hard to realistically battle a monopoly like that because you have to start with a waaay lower sales volume and having cheap prices + a decent marketing scheme to get out there is required... hardly possible. Of course you wouldn't care cause all you sell is repaired vintage consoles at the flea market.
-
^money is hardly ever an issue, investors see opportunity too, not just suppliers.
-
walmart is buying all his stuff in china and sell it back to americans, that's why it's bad for the economy. They makes america customers act like crazy mothafuckaz with no heads. There are wallmart in canada but their closing one after all because people dont wanna go shopping there.
i would say it is good for the worldwide economy but not for the united states in general. Since those companies are international it's no more related with usa economy. America has a trillion dollar economic deficit and the cause of that is the globalisation of the economy. It cost nothing for walmart to get their product in china and sell it back to rich americans, but only wall mart and china is winning in this situation, usa stay loosing. And that's the same shit all over the occident. One day GMC cars will all be built in china or india
You have no idea what you're talking about.
I'll make one simple point that even you should be able to understand: if consumers are willingly spending their money on these cheap products, and Walmart is making huge profits, thus increasing U.S. GDP, how is it not good... or in regards to your dumber comment... how is it not related to the U.S. economy? LOL idiot.
you're the idiot, we're talking about jobs, it's the tierce world people who get the jobs to make all these cheap ass products. Ever heard about the economic deficit of united states? Last time i checked it was 60 billion per months, that means america import more than it exports.
-
Are you really this fucking stupid? First you state that Walmart has nothing to do with the U.S. economy, which I thought would be the dumbest comment you could make, but you have obviously proven me wrong by continuing to show your lack of common sense. Again, I ask, if Walmart is raising U.S. GDP, how is it not good for or related to the U.S. economy? You're an idiot. And now you say that Walmart is creating jobs in Third World countries. So all you're really pointing out is that not only is Walmart good for the U.S., but it's actually helping the rest of the world as well. Even better I'd say. Again, you're an idiot.
-
you dont understand that if u buy more than u sell there's less money in your pocket, you're the stupid lil bitch