Why do Libs hate successful business, and capitalsim?

[Ronaldus Magnus]

They don't hate successful business, but rather they love them. I mean they love to take everything that they worked hard to earn, and spread it out, because that's just the fair thing to do. Give me a break!!

If a person has earned a half million dollars, a million dollars, or more...God bless him. If you work hard for something you should have the right to keep it, and pay the same tax as anyone else. Not more just because you were successful. Punishing success is a sure fire way to pro long this recession, and to cause more painful results down the road for the middle class. I mean the middle class is who Obama is suppose to care the most about right. You wanna see more job loss, and the value of the dollar shot to hell....continue to punish success. We have it so ass backwards in this country right now....Punish success, and reward companies that should have been allowed to fail.

 

[Butercupp]

Give me an example of a monopoly?

Well in this thread, funny enough, I mentioned Walmart. That company in my opinion is a Monopoly in many towns across America.

 

[Ronaldus Magnus]

Well in this thread, funny enough, I mentioned Walmart. That company in my opinion is a Monopoly in many towns across America.

Wal-Mart is a monopoly? If so somebody should tell Target, K-mart, Menards, Costco, and countless other discount stores. That evil Wal-Mart giving those bonuses to their employees (only the hourly employees mind you). They disgust me to no end, because there wasn't any bonus money given out when I worked there in HS. As far as the employees being part-time, look around the store, most of them only want to be part time. You got college kids, school kids, and elderly.

monopoly - A situation in which a single company owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service.

Sorry, I know you said it was you opinion which is cool, but Wal-Mart by definition isn't a monopoly.

 

[Butercupp]

Wal-Mart is a monopoly? If so somebody should tell Target, K-mart, Menards, Costco, and countless other discount stores. That evil Wal-Mart giving those bonuses to their employees (only the hourly employees mind you). They disgust me to no end, because there wasn't any bonus money given out when I worked there in HS. As far as the employees being part-time, look around the store, most of them only want to be part time. You got college kids, school kids, and elderly.

monopoly - A situation in which a single company owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service.

Sorry, I know you said it was you opinion which is cool, but Wal-Mart by definition isn't a monopoly.

I suppose it isn't a monopoly yet. But it does bring down the quality of life in small towns. It takes the ability of small businesses to succeed away from people. But at the rate it is going, I can see wal-mart as a "to big to fall" company, which isn't good. We need to have a country of business owners, not Wal-Mart employees.

And, in my town, so my experience, Shopko, Kmart, Mervins, and several grocery stores have gone under because of Walmart. It has limited my ability to shop because I refuse to shop there. WinCo refuses to tell its customers their sales prices over the phone now because wal-mart was under cutting there pricing (which I know isnt against the law but is rude, haha)

 

[chestnut]

Walmart is an example of competition and fair markets. They sell cheaper and therefore get more customers.

Nothing stops the other stores to do the same thing.

 

[Pandora]

Well in this thread, funny enough, I mentioned Walmart. That company in my opinion is a Monopoly in many towns across America.

I like Wal-Mart, many others do too. They are all over the place because people like them, like starbucks, they are all over the freakin place but I dont like them at all, some one does though or they would not be every place I turn my head.

But there are still other big box stores besides Wal-Mart, you are not forced to go because they are the only ones. Same with Starbucks, there is another coffee place down the road for people like me who cant stand starbucks.

so it seems Wal-Mart can not be called a monopoly to me.... Monopoly means when they are the only choice doesnt it?

 

[Andy]

Well in this thread, funny enough, I mentioned Walmart. That company in my opinion is a Monopoly in many towns across America.

Really... So if another store wanted to open up and sell the same or similar goods to Walmart, they couldn't do it?

Put another way, if you had a million dollars, you couldn't open up a small store next to Walmart? What would prevent you?

 

[Pandora]

Walmart is an example of competition and fair markets. They sell cheaper and therefore get more customers.

Nothing stops the other stores to do the same thing.

Oh it’s not just because they are cheaper, sometimes I find better deals other places.

The way they have the store organized makes sense, things are easy to find, lots and lots of cashiers so there is never too long of a line, friendly people who work there who will stop what they are doing to help you find what you need and if they cant find it they will call another store and if you cant get across town they sometimes ship the item to your store.

I also notice they hire differently. This is going to sound strange but I can’t help it, I am one of those people who are a people watcher. I spend far too much time watching others and I have noticed something about Wal-Mart that I don’t see in other places and I like this about them….

When I shop at Fred Meyers, Target, and the other stores… the people are all much the same, same basic build same basic height weight, not drop dead gorgeous and not super unattractive, not too old just average I guess.

At Wal-Mart I see really quite old people working there, some very overweight people, neither group would have much luck getting a job in other places. Also long haired men who would not normally get a job in some of the other stores, one man missing an arm and a few just plain Jane types. But they do have far more diversity with who they hire; in all honesty some of the people they hire would never be able to get a job in other stores similar to Wal-Mart. I personally appreciate that Wal-Mart hires them; it makes me feel better about spending my money there.

Price is nice but that is not the only reason

 

[Pandora]

Really... So if another store wanted to open up and sell the same or similar goods to Walmart, they couldn't do it?

Put another way, if you had a million dollars, you couldn't open up a small store next to Walmart? What would prevent you?

We have a street called West 11th. On that street is a Fred Meyers, one stop shopping, they have clothes/shoes, lumber, paint and plumbing, gardening, groceries a bakery and pharmacy, and more that I'm sure Im leaving out. That store has been there for 30 years or more.

When Wal-Mart wanted to put in a super store less than 10 blocks up the city just about crapped in their pants and said it would hurt Fred Meyers and the city tried to invent laws to keep Wal-Mart out. It did not work and the Wal-Mart was built.

Both stores were doing fine. Actually Fred Meyers may go under but it won’t be because of Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart does not do much if anything in the way of lumber but the Lowe’s that was built across from Wal-Mart last year does and the home depot built next to the Fred Meyers 2 years ago does.

The Wal-Mart did not shut down any stores big or small

But by my house there is an Albertsons and when Winco (who I hate) decided to build next to them it took all of Albertsons business and the Albertsons is not doing very well and may have to close. But no one complains about Winco because its a bunch of nags who took over the company from the owner in a hostile take over with help of their union. I think the attack on Wal-Mart is mostly because they are not pro union

 

[Andy]

I like Wal-Mart, many others do too. They are all over the place because people like them, like starbucks, they are all over the freakin place but I dont like them at all, some one does though or they would not be every place I turn my head.

But there are still other big box stores besides Wal-Mart, you are not forced to go because they are the only ones. Same with Starbucks, there is another coffee place down the road for people like me who cant stand starbucks.

so it seems Wal-Mart can not be called a monopoly to me.... Monopoly means when they are the only choice doesnt it?

Monopoly actually means more than just the only choice. It means they can prevent competitors too.

For example, if I come up with widgets, I could be the only manufacture of widgets in the entire country. Does that mean I have a monopoly on widgets? Not really, because anyone can make them, just no one has.

But what if there are other manufactures, but I drive them out of business by making my widgets for less money, or with better features and quality. Does that mean I have a monopoly? No, because obviously the fact there were other manufactures, means I couldn't prevent them from existing. I simply provided a better product, at a better price. You know, the free-market system at work.

Only if I can systematically prevent competition from even existing, can I really have a monopoly.

That why when you look at prior court cases for 'anti-trust' laws, none of them have been with an actually monopoly. Mabell was broken up because they provided phone service at a lower cost than the competition. Darn them providing us cheap phone service. Of course phone service fees have doubled and tripled since they were broken up.

Standard Oil was broken up for giving discounts to gasoline distributors for buying entire tanker loads of oil. The result was the cheapest oil prices at the time. Darn Standard Oil providing cheap petroleum.

Microsoft almost got broken up for providing the only PC software that was widely popular, even though there are dozens of other operating systems that are not used because of price or not as easy to use. Darn Microsoft.

In short, I personally have yet to see of any instance when there actually was a monopoly, or that a monopoly have negative effects. Generally monopolies offer a better product at a better price. That's why they are the only game in town. Who'd buy a lesser product at a higher price?

Anti-trust laws are simply another way to attack successful business.

 

[Pandora]

Monopoly actually means more than just the only choice. It means they can prevent competitors too.

For example, if I come up with widgets, I could be the only manufacture of widgets in the entire country. Does that mean I have a monopoly on widgets? Not really, because anyone can make them, just no one has.

But what if there are other manufactures, but I drive them out of business by making my widgets for less money, or with better features and quality. Does that mean I have a monopoly? No, because obviously the fact there were other manufactures, means I couldn't prevent them from existing. I simply provided a better product, at a better price. You know, the free-market system at work.

Only if I can systematically prevent competition from even existing, can I really have a monopoly.

That why when you look at prior court cases for 'anti-trust' laws, none of them have been with an actually monopoly. Mabell was broken up because they provided phone service at a lower cost than the competition. Darn them providing us cheap phone service. Of course phone service fees have doubled and tripled since they were broken up.

Standard Oil was broken up for giving discounts to gasoline distributors for buying entire tanker loads of oil. The result was the cheapest oil prices at the time. Darn Standard Oil providing cheap petroleum.

Microsoft almost got broken up for providing the only PC software that was widely popular, even though there are dozens of other operating systems that are not used because of price or not as easy to use. Darn Microsoft.

In short, I personally have yet to see of any instance when there actually was a monopoly, or that a monopoly have negative effects. Generally monopolies offer a better product at a better price. That's why they are the only game in town. Who'd buy a lesser product at a higher price?

Anti-trust laws are simply another way to attack successful business.

AH so like the game, you cant put your hotels on my property

 

[PLC1]

Anti-trust laws are simply another way to attack successful business.

You're kidding, right? Do you know the premise behind the game of monopoly?

A real capitalist monopoly (which WalMart certainly isn't) is worse than a state run monopoly. In the latter, at least the people have some say in how it is run.

Neither one, of course, is desirable.

 

[Andy]

You're kidding, right? Do you know the premise behind the game of monopoly?

A real capitalist monopoly (which WalMart certainly isn't) is worse than a state run monopoly. In the latter, at least the people have some say in how it is run.

Neither one, of course, is desirable.

Again, in the cases of supposed monopolies, the result was better products at a lower price.

See the reality is, there is no such thing as a monopoly, unless the government enforces it.

I would challenge you to find one single consumer product in which a single company has made it, not hard, but impossible for there to be competition. And if you do find such a product, show me in what way it has had a negative impact.

I'll give you a quick personal example. My company a few years back, hired a head of sales that was awful. Of course they didn't know that at the time, but the guy was incredibly arrogant. At the time, our company was the only supplier of the product we sold, in the entire world. Now this isn't quite as impressive as this sounds since our product plays to a limited market, nevertheless, if you wanted this product, we were the only game in town.

You could say that we had a monopoly on the market. But simply being the only supplier of a product, may only mean no one else had decided to make it yet. Not that they can't.

Unfortunately the arrogant fool, and that's the best description of him possible, told one of our largest customers in the heat of a conversation, that we were the only supplier of this product, and they'd just have to deal with it.

Of course this manufacture got understandably pissed off by this, and sent out an open call to various companies, that if they'd make a similar product, they would automatically have them as a customer. Within months our contract was canceled, and new competitor in the market popped into existence, which cost our company dearly.

Obviously this sales guy didn't stay long at our company after single-handedly creating our mortal competition when there was none before.

Point is this. Even in situations were there is only one supplier, that could be simply because no one has thought it worth getting into the market yet. Or that the current one is so good and so cheap, no one sees an opportunity to get into that business yet.

 

[Butercupp]

Walmart is an example of competition and fair markets. They sell cheaper and therefore get more customers.

Nothing stops the other stores to do the same thing.

I would say ethics and the inability to buy in bulk stops them from doing the same thing.

 

[chestnut]

It's called business sense. They do nothing illegal and just have a better business model and brighter people.

That's the part of a free market system. The one's that do it better succeed and the one's that don't fail.

Failing is part of the process. It weeds out the businesses that have made bad choices or it is just the people "voting" with the dollar.

In short, competition is good. If Walmart wasn't making prices lower, than the competitors wouldn't either.

And look at Walmart's 4$ generic prescription program. That is a benefit of their buying power. Not to mention they employ over 1million people.