We have no Walmarts near me due to a law forbidding Walmart, Target, and Costco. Personally, I think that's a good thing, since the little Mom-and-Pop stores don't get immediately pushed out of business by huge chains.

Okay, I understand why people hate those stores, but that law is censored bull-censor. Who do they think they are to tell specific business that they can't be there? Isn't that completely against the views of capitalism?

I would say so. I hate Walmart, but will shop at Sam's Club.

Well, Sams Club is were I get my 30 pack of Gardetto's .

Delicious!

Completely unregulated capitalism is widely considered NOT a good thing.

If you have ever read any book about early factories during the industrial era (like The Jungle) you would understand that factory owners nearly became equivalent to slave owners. They treated workers like absolute crap, made them work in horrid conditions, and shipped unsafe goods. The worst part was, the belief at the time was that capitalism should be completely unregulated, and that the country should stand behind the leaders of big business. So nothing was done for a very long time to help these people.

We have since learned from the mistakes of our past. Our government now plays an active role in shaping our economy. We have minimum wage, regulated meal breaks, maximum work hours, and anti-trust/anti-monopoly legislation. You would have to oppose these laws as well if you truely favor pure capitalism.

Personally, I wish we could have laws like that where I live. When I moved to where I live now there was a line of stores in the center of my town run by small families. Gradually over the years, they have faded away as more and more people are unwilling to go there. Instead they shop at the mega-stores they are building a couple towns away.



Have you ever heard of the Greek story of The Sirens? I would say that walmart is a perfect example of a "siren song"

I don't oppose the law; I just don't see how it is legal to make a law like that. You'd think with a good lawyer Sam could find a way to overthrow that one...

Hipocrite (don't worry, I am one too ).

Legal to make a law? Laws determine legality. Unless you are acusing the constitutionality of the law. In that case, if you can show me the clause that prohibits laws of this type, I will reconsider. In my opinion, if they can make a law that allows for the breaking down of a company if it becomes too big, they can make one that prohibits where it can reside.

This is starting to remind me of the song "Little Man" by Alan Jackson. If you can listen to it, I recomend it for htis.

Of course it's legal. A government can choose to protect its citizens from interlopers, and it's certainly constitutional. If someone really wants to get something from one of these stores, they can go to the next county.

There's a difference between preventing forcible coercion and tampering with the free market. The issue here is not Walmart forcibly coercing anybody, it's interfering with the free market on behalf of special interests or politics or what have you. If people truly wanted Mom-and-Pop shops more than Walmart, then they would buy from Mom-and-Pop shops and not from Walmart. Obviously, this bull-shit nostalgia is all talk and no walk, because the shops need protection from big bad Walmart by the government. As has been proven time and again, the freer the market, the better off people are. Thus, I oppose anti-Walmart laws. The only laws that interefere with the economy that I approve of are ones that prevent the infringement of rights, i.e. prevention of forcible coercion. Anything more is anti-libertarian and anti-free market.

For example, many people think minimum wage is a good thing. It is not. Increases in minimum wage serve only to hurt small-business owners because they are a)the largest employers in the nation and b)often just barely getting by, meaning that they have to cut jobs if minimum wage is increased. In fact, no minimum wage promotes higher wages because more jobs are available, creating a competition to pay good wages and attract employees.

I could go on, but that last paragraph was dangerously rambly.

Political forum here we come .

I was thinking the samething early on with this topic. What do you guys think on that?

I agree with jpez completely. And yeah, political forum wouldn't hurt.

I think alot of forums have politic areas.

Too late, I moved it an hour before your post.

0x5, whoops. I just clicked the SAX link instead of looking through the forum. >_<

Haha, it happens. Anyway, carry on the discussion.

I've always been against minimum wage increases. A lot of business owners aren't rich. Like jpez said, in order to pay more, they have to cut jobs. The only other way would be to give pay decreases to the higher-ups in the company.

Let's say someone owns a hospital. He has 2 doctors and 10 secretaries/janitors/whatever_other_jobs_there_are. His doctors get paid $40 /hr and his secretaries get $10 \hr. If minimun wage gets bumped up to $15/hr, he would only be able to pay his doctors $15 /hr. The doctors decide that if they get the same pay for an easier job, then they should just do the easier job. The owner now has to charge more money so he can pay his doctors more to ensure they keep their jobs. All other businesses have to raise they're prices for the same reason. Now the cost of living has went up just as much as the pay increase and everyone is exactly where they started.



p.s. I was making it up as I typed it. If it doesn't make any sense, I apologize. I suck at mental math, too, so if my pay doesn't work out right, feel free to correct it.

true. many employers dont have the money... but on the other hand, is it really fair to the worker who can barely afford to feed himself and pay rent, let alone a potential family?