I have been mulling this over and I think it's discussion worthy. Here is the premise of my thoughts: Liberals are all about government redistribution of wealth because the free market doesn't do enough for the poor and favors a privileged few. But what about Wal Mart? What are they always accused of doing? Rolling into town and screwing mom and pop businesses right out of town. But who do mom and pop businesses benefit? Mom and pop and no one else. Little mom and pop book stores and shoe stores and tire stores don't offer their employees the benefits Wal Mart offers, and no chance for advancement. Also, Wal Marts hire more people than mom and pop. Listen mom and pop aren't giving away free jobs, they hire the fewest people the possibly can, just like Wal Mart, but wally world is open 24/7, employing way more people than mom and pop, and offering more and better benefits. Furthermore, like a rising tide that lifts all boats, Wal Marts low prices in effect give every WalMart shopper more spending money, and who doesn't want that? WalMart does all this, while MAKING A PROFIT!!!! Why can't the government do this much good for this many people without it COSTING $$TRILLIONS$$? Capitalism - 1 Government - 0
I think the attraction of Mom & Pop businesses is in the fact that supporting small businesses allows more small businesses to prosper. The Wal-Mart may employ more people, but if Mom & Pop gained more business, they would either expand or more Mom & Pop businesses would sprout. Leaving us with a somewhat even amount of people hired versus how much money is being made. Historically, Mom & Pop businesses have been the middle class citizens. So even though Wal-Mart hires more people, it hires them at a low price, leaving the town with more jobs for lower class citizens and less for middle class citizens. Recently, it's been made more and more difficult for Mom & Pop businesses to flourish, due to high prices to make up for the costs of regulations. If they do want to compete, they have almost no chance for expansion due to the low profit margins. This allows for less competition in the Market and businesses like Wal-Mart to flourish without much worry of creating better benefits or innovations. Capitalism-2 Government-0
Cool. I never really looked at it this way. I always thought wealth redistribution in capitalism came from ingenuity or creativity - finding a new, cheaper or more effective way of doing the same thing or a replacement. Thus the money you earn is effectively your redistribution or wealth based on what contribution you make towards society. For example, at a job I took a few years ago, I designed a system that freed the company from keeping 3 people staffed to do mundane data entry, roughly 120 hours a week of work. I charged more than those employees would have made in the time it took for me to deploy the system but now that company need never pay them again. Before the left get's vehement, 1 employee was trained to maintain the system I put in, 1 employee moved to another department and the third was a turd who was going to be laid off but wound up quitting instead. That's progress, that's how capitalism furthers society.
Is it fair to give government 0 when they (USA) have never actually tried just taking some of peoples money and distributing it equally? Just a thought. It seems more like a baseball game than a hockey game, and capitalism is at bat. once government's up, maybe they will do well.
Because when someone just takes a dollar from someone and gives it to another person it exacts a cost on that dollar equal to the effort expended in taking it and redistributing it. So it costs less to just leave the money where it is.
Chapter out of "atlas shrugged" Who is john galt? This is why socialism will never work. http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...00AE9C80F75CD046B35000AE9C8&first=0&FORM=LKVR http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...3A627655C4B6D9F3B1D93A6276&first=0&FORM=LKVR8 http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...3DE12DF6EAB4D3E799423DE12D&first=0&FORM=LKVR6
Please no. The gov't collects taxes and monopolizes welfare. Wealth distribution is real and it is operated by gov't and legislation. What you say in the underlined is just untrue. Money cannot be equally distributed when there is a central authority (monopoly) that governs the way that money will be spent. People are not given the freedom to choose how to invest their own money. The gov't should simply not steal away people's money. It is theft when people are not given the personal choice of how their personal wealth and savings will be spent. It is manipulative and coercive to argue that people must conform and fulfill their obligation of paying "their dues".
Wal-Mart may be able to provide lower prices, and yes, that leaves more money in the pocket of those that consume there. But where does the money go once it's passed into the hands of the store (be it Wal-Mart or the M&P)? For the small business, one can see that almost all of that profit is going to translate to consumption by the owning family within that town. The Wal-Mart profit, however, belongs to the Wal-Mart corporation, and wherever else they spend it (if it doesn't just increase the wealth of the Waltons.. Walton family - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia hmmm, what do you think?) that money isn't going back into that town. I'm not sure what you've heard about Wal-Mart's employment record but they have been said to pull a lot of shady shit. See this doc: WAL-MART: The High Cost of Low Price . From what I can tell, Wal-Mart serves to increase the short-term incomes of small town residents, but once the small businesses in the town fold and the consumption of their owners/employees dries up, the income of the down decreases in the long-term. Capitalism:0 Government:0 The People: -1
Ever hear of Alexander Hamilton? Hamilton placed tariffs on imported goods, which helped develop the then infant American manufacturing base. With the revenue collected from taxes, Hamilton advocated investing in roads and canals, which in turn saved money for businesses to transport their goods. This moderate amount of government involvement did stimulate our economy. Some people here seem to have only read a one-sided,romanticized view of American history to satisfy their angst with the current socio-political situation.
Most of what you hear about Wal Mart is just union propaganda. They're pissed off because they can't get a stranglehold on the corporation. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-o1fj1rX7A]Penn and Teller Bullshit S05E02 Walmart PART 1 of 4 - YouTube[/ame]
It also screwed over the south and was one of the leading causes of the civil war. So, ya, that's a government failure.
d I thought walmart started out as a mom and pops shop? That mom and pops got pretty greedy, which is how many buisnesses end up. Capitalism- negative 2 Government- negative 1000000
You mean it screwed over the slave-owning Southern Aristocracy. It actually worked to Massa's benefit, since the British stopped buying cotton from them, and went to the Egyptians anyhow. It was much cheaper for the British to buy cotton from Egypt, since Egypt had a massive trade deficit to the Europeans in the 19th century.
The Articles were a major failure. They were replaced by the current Constitution for a reason. Some here selectively choose to ignore the failures during this period, and also fail to realize that there is a fine balance that needs to be reached between the federal and state governments.