You're right. My statementHow was THAT moderate man?
By God, you're right! Your single-product anecdote proves absolutely that WalMart is an unadulterated, pure, 100% benefit to all consumers, with no downside for anybody, ever!
Go tell Mommy how clever you are, you bright boy, you.
Walmart started as a small business.What are you talking about, Walmart alone probably has crushed hundreds of small businesses.
I repeat...
How was that moderate man?
You're right. My statement
"I disagree. There are downsides for consumers as well. For example, if a store whose inventory overlaps that of WalMart goes out of business because of the competition, its customers lose both the availability of items they can get at WalMart and items they cannot get at WalMart.
Of course, this is true of all businesses and simply part of the market, but to deny it happens is a sign of willful blindness."
Is the kind of firebrand revolutionary crazy talk that gets folk killed. Or at least threatened by a mod.
Awwww. . . Walter! A greenie? Really?
That doesn't change who they are now, does it?Walmart started as a small business.
No it's Walmart. Small businesses aren't able to afford to compete with their prices, and Walmart's consumers are predominantly poorer people who have little choice.Walmart doesn't kill mom and pop, consumers do. How many years do consumers need to be gouged before Walmart frees them from mom and pops monopoly?
Little benefit to consumers (some money saving) doesn't come close to offsetting all of Walmart's negatives.
actually there are plenty of facts to back up those opinions.Facts....criticisms are opinions.
there are many points in the article.
- david woodward, an economist, comes to the conclusion after thorough research that under our current economic system eradicating poverty is an impossibility.
- pretending it's possible to maintain the fastest growth rate sustained by the poorest 10% in our history (between 1993 - 2008 their incomes increased 1.29% each year) it would take 100 years to bring the world's poorest above the 1.25/day poverty line. even still the poorest 1% would not be out of poverty.
- howerver, thinking people have determined a more realistic $5/day as a more survivable income than 1.25/day.
so if we take that number it would take 207 years to eliminate poverty.
- right now the only strategy we have to reduce poverty is increasing the global GDP. unfortunately the poorest 60% have only received 5% of the income generated by global GDP increases, while the richest 40% have received the remaining 95% !!
- eradicating poverty would then require a global GDP growth of more than 175 times what it is currently. which means extracting, producing and consuming 175 times more commodities than we currently do. that requires an average global per capita of $1.3 million all so the poorest can earn $5/day.
- eradicating poverty is possible, it just requires the abolition most things if not everything capitalism is structured on.