I have no idea what you are talking about anymore. In the OP, you said that the government did not help Walmart, and now you're saying the opposite. Care to clarify?
I agree that current laws like minimum wage and corporate welfare laws have helped companies like Walmart to become enormously successful, even in a poor economy... That's why I said the government "accidentally" helped Walmart in my last post. I don't believe Walmart has gotten any DIRECT help from the government, nor have they been granted a franchise monopoly or anything of the sort. The help that Walmart received from the government is the same help that every corporation qualifies for, because of the current laws. The free market would fix that over time, and if we originally had a free market, companies like walmart never would have become as large as they are now.
http://traversecity.injuryboard.com...ur-claimsflsa-violations.aspx?googleid=254004 Also, if we're asking for facts, I'd like to see that workers in sweatshop locations (in native areas, not urban slums since living conditions that go with terrible working conditions are different matters) turn to prostitution usually. If its true, that is still a shitty reason for having sweatshops, in my opinion. The easiest example of Wal-Mart exerting power directly over suppliers is in the music industry. PBS - STORE WARS: Wal-Mart Business Practices But otherwise, its basic applied logic. Wal-Mart is the largest company and the largest retail outlet in the world. How could any company in a normal non-niche afford to NOT meet their demands? As well this quote I" agree, and evidence points towards the state as the culprit of permitting most of the abuse." is just awesome. Right, cause nations with a strong central government are anathema for successful globalization. Countries like China, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and Singapore never succefessfully industrialize, and countries with free markets and weak central governments like Jamaica, Nigeria and the Congo become beacons of industrial action. Suffering isn't the problem, everyone suffers a little bit through modernization, its either short (South Korea) or a terrible prolonged process (Indonesia or other pacific island nations and pretty much the entire continent of Africa)
I'll assume you're responding to me... It appears WalMart had a corporate culture crisis whereby they incentivized managers to cut labor costs. Obviously this backfired, and they learned their mistake. Their managers broke labor laws and they pay the fines. An exploitative monopoly, like the FDA or something, would not change their ways. Has WalMart changed, or will they continue to exploit their workers? As TV's Frank Azar said, "We are pleased with this settlement and believe it is fair and reasonable for our clients. We are equally pleased that Walmart has made tremendous strides in wage and hour compliance and that it has implemented and agreed to continue to follow state of the art compliance programs so that these improvements will continue into the future. We hope Walmart’s compliance programs will serve as an example to other major retailers.” Or Burton of the Mills Law Firm said, "After many years of hard fought litigation, the parties have reached an agreement that values the work of Walmart’s employees by providing both economic and injunctive relief... As a result of this settlement, Walmart can now say that it has taken action to make its stores a great place to shop and work.” We'll see. The Case for Sweatshops That's not the only reason, and I provided others. Bringing in labor opportunities far beyond their current ones will drastically improve the standard of living in third world countries. They have no power over their suppliers. The record labels that want to put their artists on show at WalMart volunteered to diminish their image. There is no force here... The music industry doesn't need WalMart, they need artists. I don't understand why you are so defensive of losers that can't compete. If you can't survive on having a strong brand and innovative products, why do you deserve to survive? He said the state permits corporate abuse. While those countries have only recently adopted free market principles, they have histories of abuse far worse than the US. None of those are free markets or decentralized states. Nigeria is an N-11 country, which Congo? and Jamaica is a slave to the IMF.
My obvious question: Who/ what would stop them? Your predicted answer: The free market would fix that over time I haven't read anything tangible on 3 pages that can satisfy the thread title. In fact, I have heard that their will be free market monopolies, and they will be great for consumers because they are somehow non-coercive! I just don't have your blind faith in Adam Smith's forgiving hand, and I trust all too much in Corporate corruption.
we have a monopoly in my area the electric company is the major provider for everyone in the city so they charge stupid prices whenever they want. thats why people jack them for hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of copper almost every month lol.
I love how lefties insist it is the market's fault for monopolies. While it is true that some monopolies will come to rise through the free market, they always crash when the market corrects itself. It is the govnerment that allows a company to sustain its monopoly. In a free market there is no such thing as "too big to fail". Edit, the power company example is a great one. The electric companies have totally strayed from Edison's plan. Edison wanted a ton of super efficient localized power plants. Anyone interested in the sucject should read power to the people.
Yes, only the omnipotent and benevolent government has any power to stop monopolies. Any service provided by the government can be provided by a private company in the free market and this includes keeping monopolies in check.
So if I am an Objectivist and I apply that objectivity to real-world applications, I am now just pushing an agenda? Of course the people who disagree with objectivism will see it as an "agenda," as most Humans have a very hard time being objective about ANYTHING.
I thought that was the point he was trying to make, LOL. Kind of funny because it's hard to tell. It has been the trend among liberals to blame elements of welfare capitalism (corporatism) such as the bailouts, or in this case government sanctioned monopolies on free market capitalism.
Objectivism isn't about being objective. Objectivism is kind of a joke philosophy and I would respect libertarians a lot more if they distanced themselves from Rand and focused on, say, less crazy people, like Hayek or Locke. EDIT: There is nothing to prevent monopolies from forming in a free market. That's the idea. It's a free market. Consumers are stupid and easily tricked.
Just to continue your thought to it's conclusion, consumers are stupid and easily tricked by smart people who have spent an awful lot of time figuring out the best way to trick them. I would say that the market in general does take care of itself in the long run, but in the short term the state needs to be able to keep the general public out of harm's way as it comes by. Individuals can make business decisions that benefit them, but do harm to the public. This is not to say that everyone does, but there is, and always will be a few people who are completely willing to satisfy their greed and ambition at any price so long as they don't have to foot the bill in the end. No one can argue with this, it's human nature. The government needs to protect it's citizens from this, because we cannot protect ourselves.
I do not endorse that government or any other sort of market will stop monopolies.(strawman) I just don't like people touting about saying the free market can stop the fundamental reasons monopolies form.
I hope nobody said that. I come from the belief that the market allows monopolies to collapse under their own weight when the government has a tendency to support monopolies through subsidies, preferential licensing, tariffs, taxes, government contracts, bailouts etc. Edit. I meant that tariffs and taxes are meant to discourage competition, not that they help monopolies directly.
If you look at every exploitative monopoly in history it was supported by the government. How come there is no evidence of an aggressive monopoly acting against consumer interests without the state? They've only formed by conspiring with the state. Doesn't that suggest something? In a free market they could only hope to deceive the consumer for so long, and then collapse when they are exposed... Isn't this obvious?