AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Foxy wrote:

There is no question that the Democrats/Left/Unions have been on a crusade to take Wal-Mart down for some time now or force it to conform to their agenda.

Foxy,

The liberal agenda includes:

- Keeping Wal-Mart from benefitting from, or suppting child, or prison labor.
- Keeping Wal-Mart from illegally keeping its members from joining unions (it is against the law for corporations to intimidate their employees).
- Keeping Wal-Mart from pitting American workers against foreign workers in order to depress the wages of both.

You can call this the "liberal agenda".... but you, and the Republican party, are going to find that most working Americans are pissed off about this crap.

If you mean to imply that most Americans are liberals, then I won't argue.

0 Replies

If Conservatives believe a corporation is dealing in unacceptable practices, they participate in boycotts of that corporation and hit them in the pocketbook much as we did to the Nestle Corporation during the 1970's. Wal-Mart quite practically resists unions because they do not wish to go the route of General Motors and other large corporations who can no longer be competitive because they cannot tailor wages and benefits according to market demands as the un-unionized Japanese can. I don't have time to do the research, but I believe the record will show that a disproportionate number of large unionized corporations are struggling financially.

Conservatives believe, if the workers want that, the worker should be free to negotiate job duties, responsibilities, schedules, wages with their employer. The more reliable, responsible, capable, and valuable employees should be able to earn more rather than have their wages fixed by a union and the company should not be forced to pay the less productive employees as much as the more productive employees earn.

Wal-Mart, being one of the world's largest corporations, of course is often in the news as groups of employees here and there file suit over this and that. But considering the many millions of Wal-mart employees, the malcontents seem to be in a pretty small minority. According to Wal-mart employees that I know, most Wal-mart employees feel the bonuses, profit sharing, and stock options that Wal-mart provides for its employees in lieu of unionization is the way to go.

Sure Wal-mart employees would like to earn a higher wage and receive more benefits. Who wouldn't? I make quite a bit more per hour than the average Wal-Mart employee and I would very much like to earn more. I am sure the union bosses would love to be able to accommodate a whole lot of people who prefer the flexibility and ability to determine their own destiny that they enjoy without a union. Most of us aren't willing to agree to a union and lose that.

There are areas where Wal-mart would not enhance the quality of life. Out in the rural East Mountain area near Albuquerque, for instance, when we lived out there, I helped the local citizens block a Wal-Mart super center from moving into the area. We liked our little mom and pop shops out there and wanted to keep them and the rural flavor. We were successful.

In Albuquerque, however, with a metropolitan economy, the Wal-mart stores provide great anchors in shopping areas, provide lots and lots of jobs that can become quite good jobs for the ambitious, and provide products and services that millions of people want to buy.

Bottom line, Conservatives prefer that that market and the people determine who to do business with. Other than ensuring that the law is obeyed, government meddling in that rarely produces a better mousetrap.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Bottom line, Conservatives prefer that that market and the people determine who to do business with. Other than ensuring that the law is obeyed, government meddling in that rarely produces a better mousetrap.

That's why Wal-Mart had thrown in the towel in Germany and sold its 85 stores in 2006.
(Its German stores generated sales of around $3.1 billion in 2005. Wal-Mart is estimated to have lost as much as $300 million a year from the operation.)

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Bottom line, Conservatives prefer that that market and the people determine who to do business with. Other than ensuring that the law is obeyed, government meddling in that rarely produces a better mousetrap.

That's why Wal-Mart had thrown in the towel in Germany and sold its 85 stores in 2006.
(Its German stores generated sales of around $3.1 billion in 2005. Wal-Mart is estimated to have lost as much as $300 million a year from the operation.)

And I wonder how much in jobs and tax revenues Germany lost when it lost Wal-mart? That's the other side of the coin.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Bottom line, Conservatives prefer that that market and the people determine who to do business with. Other than ensuring that the law is obeyed, government meddling in that rarely produces a better mousetrap.

That's why Wal-Mart had thrown in the towel in Germany and sold its 85 stores in 2006.
(Its German stores generated sales of around $3.1 billion in 2005. Wal-Mart is estimated to have lost as much as $300 million a year from the operation.)

And I wonder how much in jobs and tax revenues Germany lost when it lost Wal-mart? That's the other side of the coin.

That would assume that nobody else can provide the services Wal-Mart provides, or sell the products that Wal-Mart sells, or employ thousands of people, or pay taxes, generate revenues for the state, etc. etc.

A rather one-sided point of view.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And I wonder how much in jobs and tax revenues Germany lost when it lost Wal-mart? That's the other side of the coin.

No idea. But Metro, who bought these, pays according to tariff (and above), obeys labour laws and labour court rulings - at least better as Wal-Mart.

I don't know of other stores, but three former Wal-Marts (in Solingen, Dortmund and Cologne) have nearly doubled their personal, have a better selection and variety of goods, better prices etc than during the Wal-Mart period.

Wal-Mart just couldn't stand the "cut-throat competition" and German consumer's attitude of comparing prices.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
And I wonder how much in jobs and tax revenues Germany lost when it lost Wal-mart? That's the other side of the coin.

No idea. But Metro, who bought these, pays according to tariff (and above), obeys labour laws and labour court rulings - at least better as Wal-Mart.

I don't know of other stores, but three former Wal-Marts (in Solingen, Dortmund and Cologne) have nearly doubled their personal, have a better selection and variety of goods, better prices etc than during the Wal-Mart period.

Wal-Mart just couldn't stand the "cut-throat competition" and German consumer's attitude of comparing prices.

Well the Conservative point of view is that the most productive policy is to allow the market and people set the price and what the people will or will not buy and where the people choose to shop. So if Wal-mart wasn't cutting it in Germany against German competition, then yep, they close up and move on or close down. That's how free enterprise works.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Bottom line, Conservatives prefer that that market and the people determine who to do business with. Other than ensuring that the law is obeyed, government meddling in that rarely produces a better mousetrap.

That's why Wal-Mart had thrown in the towel in Germany and sold its 85 stores in 2006.
(Its German stores generated sales of around $3.1 billion in 2005. Wal-Mart is estimated to have lost as much as $300 million a year from the operation.)

And I wonder how much in jobs and tax revenues Germany lost when it lost Wal-mart? That's the other side of the coin.

That would assume that nobody else can provide the services Wal-Mart provides, or sell the products that Wal-Mart sells, or employ thousands of people, or pay taxes, generate revenues for the state, etc. etc.

A rather one-sided point of view.

If others provide the services, products, and jobs that Wal-Mart provides better than Wal-mart can provide them, then such enterprises will certainly compete against Wal-mart quite effectively. And they should. That is the Conservative way. When the government starts fixing wages and prices and putting limits or mandates on goods and services or begins punishing a business for achieving success, however, I think the end result will be far less satisfying to both the worker and the consumer.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

If others provide the services, products, and jobs that Wal-Mart provides better than Wal-mart can provide them, then such enterprises will certainly compete against Wal-mart quite effectively. And they should.

I agree. So the remaining question is: would others, in the US, have been more effective than Wal-Mart in providing the services, products, and jobs if Wal-Mart hadn't received more than $1 billion subsidies?

And: if you really believe in small government, in the driving force of the market and in free enterprise - why defend government intervention that would work against all of those?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
If others provide the services, products, and jobs that Wal-Mart provides better than Wal-mart can provide them, then such enterprises will certainly compete against Wal-mart quite effectively. And they should.

I agree. So the remaining question is: would others, in the US, have been more effective than Wal-Mart in providing the services, products, and jobs if Wal-Mart hadn't received more than $1 billion subsidies?

And: if you really believe in small government, in the driving force of the market and in free enterprise - why defend government intervention that would work against all of those?

I don't know. All I know is that Wal-Mart activities contribute many hundreds of times that $1 billion to the federal, state, and local treasuries. If that $1 billion enhanced or was instrumental in producing those contributions, then it was a very good investment indeed.

A solid economy with people with money in their pockets to spend helps EVERYBODY. So I don't see the downside frankly or that anybody else is hurt. The more people paying into the system means the less each individual has to pay. Or that's the way it should be. It is still up to Wal-mart to provide goods and services that people want to buy. The government doesn't and shouldn't do that for them.

0 Replies

Quote:

I don't know. All I know is that Wal-Mart activities contribute many hundreds of times that $1 billion to the federal, state, and local treasuries. If that $1 billion enhanced or was instrumental in producing those contributions, then it was a very good investment indeed.

A solid economy with people with money in their pockets to spend helps EVERYBODY. So I don't see the downside frankly or that anybody else is hurt. It is still up to Wal-mart to provide goods and services that people want to buy.

It seems clear to me that this successful formula ought to really set the pattern for government operations.

The proper use of taxation of citizens is to transfer those taxes over to corporate subsidies so that taxpayers can have money in their pockets to buy the goods those corporate entities produce. That and having a police force to ensure no sodomy goes on, of course.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't know. All I know is that Wal-Mart activities contribue many hundreds of times that $1 billion to the federal, state, and local treasuries. If that $1 billion enhanced or was instrumental in producing those contributions, then it was a very good investment indeed.

A solid economy with people with money in their pockets to spend helps EVERYBODY. So I don't see the downside frankly.

I think the downside is the contradiction the conservative movement.

On the one hand, you're arguing for small government. For minimal government intervention. No entitlement programs. For the free market. Lower tax rates. No redistribution of hard-earned money.

On the other hand, you're defending a massive government intervention into the free market. Redistribution of money to the tune of $1 billion dollars. Taxing all hard-working people in order to give money to one single company.

Now, of course you can say that you have no problem with that. That, as long as the returns are higher than the investments, you completely agree with the government interfering with the free market.

However, wouldn't that mean that you run into quite a few other contradictions? What, for example, would be the argument against the government heavily investing into renewable energy, and selling it to consumers? Or what would be the argument against, say, a government-run air line? Or against government-run holiday resorts?

Actually, when you're really thinking about it: doesn't your thesis that there's no problem with the government doing business, as long as it's doing so effectively and with a profit - doesn't that mean that you, essentially, are in favour of a socialist government?

0 Replies

Foxfyre is missing the point entirely.

I believe in a regulated free market. You have corporations, you have workers and you have communities-- each with interests. Sometimes these interests are aligned with one another (everyone wants successful businesses and good jobs etc) but sometimes these interests conflict.

The liberal position is that there needs to be a balance between corporate interests (i.e. their ability to make lots of money) and the interests of American workers and communities.

Government's job is to act as arbiter in the times where these interests conflict. If a corporation is polluting or mistreating its workers or acting in a way that hurts the community... it is appropriate for government to step in.

If Foxfyre will agree with this... then this becomes a debate of details (not a difference of philosophies).

The specific complaints over Wal-Mart are...

- They benefit from or support child, or prison labor.
- They illegally keep their members from joining unions against laws designed to keep the balance between the interests of corporations and the interests of their workers.
- They are pitting American workers against foreign workers in order to depress the wages of both.

Foxfyre, are you arguing against any regulation... i.e. should big corporations be able to do whatever they want to their workers or communities to maximize profits...

... or can you accept that some regulation, to make sure that the rights of workers and the interests of communities are protected, is a good thing.

0 Replies

The proper role of taxation is to provide defense, essential services, and to enable the people to strive for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (i.e. quality of life.)

If government chooses to provide incentives for a business to move into its town instead of the next town, that can absolutely be a valid use of tax payer dollars when the jobs produced can expect to produce revenues that offset the initial investment. It benefits nobody to protect businesses that won't have any business if people don't have jobs and expendable income. A wise government considers all aspects of its activities, but creating an attractive environment for commerce and industry is certainly a valid role for government.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I don't know. All I know is that Wal-Mart activities contribue many hundreds of times that $1 billion to the federal, state, and local treasuries. If that $1 billion enhanced or was instrumental in producing those contributions, then it was a very good investment indeed.

A solid economy with people with money in their pockets to spend helps EVERYBODY. So I don't see the downside frankly.

I think the downside is the contradiction the conservative movement.

On the one hand, you're arguing for small government. For minimal government intervention. No entitlement programs. For the free market. Lower tax rates. No redistribution of hard-earned money.

On the other hand, you're defending a massive government intervention into the free market. Redistribution of money to the tune of $1 billion dollars. Taxing all hard-working people in order to give money to one single company.

Correct. But the government isn't 'giving money to one single company'. The government is providing incentive for a company to provide jobs and therefore tax revenues to the community. Unless the company provides an essential service that the people must have and can't get anywhere else or in any other way, it is entirely inappropriate for government to subsidize private business. But to provide incentive for a company to generate jobs and tax revenues for the community is neither charity nor subsidy, but is more of a bribe. It's a valid function of government.

Quote:

Now, of course you can say that you have no problem with that. That, as long as the returns are higher than the investments, you completely agree with the government interfering with the free market.

The government is not interfering in the free market. The government is advertising for jobs and revenues for itself. That is a free market principle.

Quote:

However, wouldn't that mean that you run into quite a few other contradictions? What, for example, would be the argument against the government heavily investing into renewable energy, and selling it to consumers? Or what would be the argument against, say, a government-run air line? Or against government-run holiday resorts?

If the people must have an airline or bus line or commuter train or whatever, and private industry cannot be persuaded to provide it, then the government might of necessity choose to provide that. I believe most Conservatives however don't want government doing anything that cannot be done more efficiently, effectively, and economically in the private sector. The government should never compete against honorable private industry.

Quote:

Actually, when you're really thinking about it: doesn't your thesis that there's no problem with the government doing business, as long as it's doing so effectively and with a profit - doesn't that mean that you, essentially, are in favour of a socialist government?

Nope. Because I don't want government controlling either the means or the process of generating income and wealth other than what is absolutely necessary to promote the common welfare (public safety, protection of the environment, etc.) General Motors offers an attractive rebate to entice you to buy their car. A government entity can offer an attractive incentive to a business to locate in its community and provide jobs and tax revenues. Both are advertising. Both are beneficial to the consumer. Neither is socialism.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Foxfyre is missing the point entirely.

I believe in a regulated free market. You have corporations, you have workers and you have communities-- each with interests. Sometimes these interests are aligned with one another (everyone wants successful businesses and good jobs etc) but sometimes these interests conflict.

The liberal position is that there needs to be a balance between corporate interests (i.e. their ability to make lots of money) and the interests of American workers and communities.

Government's job is to act as arbiter in the times where these interests conflict. If a corporation is polluting or mistreating its workers or acting in a way that hurts the community... it is appropriate for government to step in.

If Foxfyre will agree with this... then this becomes a debate of details (not a difference of philosophies).

The specific complaints over Wal-Mart are...

- They benefit from or support child, or prison labor.
- They illegally keep their members from joining unions against laws designed to keep the balance between the interests of corporations and the interests of their workers.
- They are pitting American workers against foreign workers in order to depress the wages of both.

Foxfyre, are you arguing against any regulation... i.e. should big corporations be able to do whatever they want to their workers or communities to maximize profits...

... or can you accept that some regulation, to make sure that the rights of workers and the interests of communities are protected, is a good thing.

It is not the proper role of government to dictate morality of voluntary legal choices. I thought you liberals were really strong on that principle.

It is YOUR responsibility to determine what the community moral values are going to be. If you object to Wal-mart's business practices, then do something about it. Picket them. Distribute flyers. Convince enough people to boycott them to get their attention.

Don't expect the government to do that for you.

0 Replies

Ah. That's pretty much what I meant by "contradictions in the conservative movement".

Here you declare:

Foxfyre wrote:

Unless the company provides an essential service that the people must have and can't get anywhere else or in any other way, it is entirely inappropriate for government to subsidize private business.

Wal-Mart is a private business. It doesn't provide an essential service that the people must have and can't get anywhere else or in any other way.

Conclusion? It's entirely inappropriate for the government to subsidize Wal-Mart. Right? No. Subsidizing Wal-Mart is:

Foxfyre wrote:

a valid function of government.

Seems to be a contradiction to me.

Another example. Here you say:

Foxfyre wrote:

The government is not interfering in the free market. The government is advertising for jobs and revenues for itself. That is a free market principle.

I'm going to take that at face value. I'll even accept that, by "advertising for jobs and revenues for itself", the government is not interfering in the free market, but merely competing in it.

However, then you go on and say:

Foxfyre wrote:

The government should never compete against honorable private industry.

Do you think that's a contradiction?

Foxfyre wrote:

General Motors offers an attractive rebate to entice you to buy their car. A government entity can offer an attractive incentive to a business to locate in its community and provide jobs and tax revenues. Both are advertising. Both are beneficial to the consumer. Neither is socialism.

I agree. But I'm not the one defending an ideology that promotes minimal government intervention, reliance on individual responsibility over 'entitlement programs' or a free market approach over government regulation.

If a government offers an incentive to one specific business to locate in its community, that's interfering in the free market - but it might in fact be beneficial to the consumer. If a government subsidizes renewable energies, but not nuclear energy, that's interfering in the free market - but it might be beneficial to the consumer. If a government regulates health care providers to the point where you have universal health care, that, too, is interfering in the free market - but it might be beneficial to the consumer.

On this side of the Atlantic, we refer to this as a social market economy.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
That $1 billion dollar investment in Wal-Mart, however, has paid off hugely and provided billions upon billions of dollars that the taxpayers won't have to come up with. It was a very very good investment.

Unsupported argument.

Are you saying that americans would not have made the same amount of taxable purchases without walmart? Are you saying that Wal-mart employees are taxed differently than any other american employee? How exactly is this investment providing anything at all? I moves large amounts of capitol out of the US and simultaneously harms domestic industry and therefore jobs.

Walmart is a poor investment. It costs more than it returns. It's "the high price for low cost."

T
K
O

I accept that you, like many on the Left, have a deepseated resentment of corporate America with a special prejudice aimed at Wal-mart. That much is pretty much a given as I suggested earlier.

Swing and a miss.

I scolded you already about your assuptions. Why do this to yourself? You only make yourself seem ignorant.

Have I voiced a "deepseated resentment of corporate america" or have I simply pointed out some dangerous liasons with poor bed manners? I have only made comments about one (count them: one.) company. Your claim of prejudice would only be true if I haven't researched for myself the company, purchased/tried it's goods in the past, known Wal-mart employees first-hand.

The only given here is that you are only interested in making a strawman.

Foxfyre wrote:

The fact remains, however, that the $1 billion reported to be afforded subsidy to Wal-Mart has/will return hundreds of billions in tax revenues in return from an organization that has created hundreds of thousands of jobs and pumps $56 billion in payroll alone into the economy not counting the subsidiary industries supported by Wal-Mart.

Swing and a miss.

Even if your numbers are accurate, it is still not a net gain in taxes when you consider how many jobs are lost because of how wal-mart effects domestic industry.

It may create jobs... but it's one step forward two steps back.

Foxfyre wrote:

There is nobody with any sense of economics that can call that a poor investment.

Swing and a miss.

False, and laughable. What you propose here is that EVERY person with economics training/education views this as you. This is easily dispelled. For instance, my Uncle was on the city council for San Diego for some 15 years. In that time, Walmart tried several times to build a store there (more specifically, they wanted to build in Mission Valley, and would have required several special permits and permissions, if I remember correctly, there was some zoning issues as well). Many economic studies were conducted and the end result was the same everytime. That Wal-mart didn't offer the city anything that it didn't alreadyhave and that the local economy would actually be threatened by it's establishment. Before you start whining about southern-cali-liberal-hippies, I'd like to note that Wal-mart declined to build elsewhere (such as the Santee), so the presence (or more accurately the absence) of Wal-mart is because the company didn't get it's first choice.

Funny how when the playing field is level (the same thing would have happened if say a Costco or Gerbes was interested in buying land and building), Wal-mart isn't worth much.

Foxfyre wrote:

You can say it should never have happened because you dislike Wal-Mart so much. You can use all kinds of fuzzy logic of inequities yadda yadda. But if a community thinks a Wal-mart would be a good addition to the community and wants to provide land, tax breaks or whatever to lure Wal-mart money, jobs, and tax revenues into an area, few are disappointed with the results.

Swing and a miss.

Who are you talking to? Few are disappointed? You need to get your facts straight.

Foxfyre wrote:

Conservatives think more commerce, industry, jobs, and tax revenues produced from a growing economy are a good thing. The community simply won't accomplish the same results investing the same amount of resources into a mom and pop hotdog stand. But neither do Mom & Pop take a comparable risk when they start up their business, but Mom & Pop will definitely benefit from the Wal-Mart anchor store in the shopping center drawing shoppers into the area.

Swing and a miss.

For your reasons given, Wal-mart is a poor investment. You speak as if a Wal-mart coming to town helps only the town. Trust me, it's in Wal-mart's interest to build stores, and that is the only interest they act on. Additionally, returning to the original point, if you can justify something like this, then you aren't really standing on firm ground to argue against liberal social programs. Wal-mart does NOT need financial assistance. A wal-mart that is built with government subsidies does not make more or less money in revenue etc. Your argument is hollow.

T
Keep Swinging.
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Read it as you wish, but what I am saying is that when you can afford a political presence like walmart can, free enterprise is nothing more than a mask. There is no objective quality about walmart which entitles it to the goverment funds and legal sidesteps it recieves.

We can't get to the point where we discuss what is fair or not.

T
K
O

Boy are you gonna get in trouble for criticizing the Great Walmart of China..........

I wouldn't want to be in your shoes.

Speaking of shoes, my dad always said that before you criticize someone you should walk a mile in THEIR shoes.

This has several benefits.

If they are angry when you finish your criticism, you're safe a mile away.

And it'll take them a while to catch up, because you have their shoes. Cool

0 Replies

To OE and TKO:

I suggest you put my words in the their proper context and interpret them as I said them rather than rewording and reinterpreting them to fit your liberal agendas and rather predictable mindsets.

I won't be drawn into straw man and red herring arguments because you don't want to deal with what I've said.

I accept that you consider ANY activities of government to be socialism. I don't as I hold the Conservative point of view.

I accept that you consider a subsidy to entice a business to locate in an area is government interference in the free market. I don't as I hold the Conservative point of view.

I accept that you think I contradict myself and/or am an idiot. I may do that now and then and I may be. But I sure as hell have come up with better arguments than either of you on this. Smile

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know