3 ms·

The entire point is that having mega-corporations like Amazon or Walmart is not the goal, their very existence should be prevented. The entire point is that pr

The entire point is that having mega-corporations like Amazon or Walmart is not the goal, their very existence should be prevented. The entire point is that profit at all costs, the very system you defend when you describe it like a natural law, is a pure dystopia, and shouldn't exist. Having many small, independent stores is desirable not even just because of competition, but also to provide an environment that allows a certain kind of society to exist in the first place. A society where american mega-corporations are dominating while avoiding taxes kills competition because smaller competitors don't have the same advantages. You end up with huge stores at the edge of town, as walmart often does in the US, and as result destroy walkability and accessibility of the entire urban environment. I live in a city in Germany where exactly that is happening. I'm now 22, in my childhood we had dozens of stores nearby. Two small supermarkets, a drug store, two pharmacies, three bakeries, a post office. Nowadays out of all these, one pharmacy and one bakery are left. The next supermarket is 2km away, and everyone drives there. Instead of parents sending children to go by foot and buy that loter of milk they forgot, they drive every time. As result, roads got more congested and had to be widened. Sidewalks were the first to be removed or made smaller to give way for more lanes. Also, walking to the stores you'd always meet other people, and walk together and talk. In 18 years, this district went from being a walkable place with a healthy social environment to a suburban hellhole, just because larger chains built ever larger supermarkets and killed the small competition. I'm moving to a different city in a few months, one where this hasn't happened yet, where everyone, child or adult, can still reach everything by foot, and where the streets are still calm enough that children can walk on the wide sidewalks without much risk. A place where there are still many smaller stores, each selling different stuff, giving together much more choice than the big retailers do.

briandear 8y ago
How did those small stores get “killed?” Who’s fault is that? The town voted to kill those stores when they stopped buying from those stores. Nobody forces you to go to a large store. And, if the public actually wants cheaper products, how do you have any right to oppose them optimizing for their own situation? That’s democracy in action: people vote with their wallets. If they cared about their kids buying a liter of milk, they’d have their kids still buying those liters of milk. Big stores didn’t put the small stores out of business — the people of your perfect little town did by exercising freedom. And you seem to be arguing against freedom to assuage your selfish nostalgia? Perhaps vote for lower taxes so people could afford to shop in overpriced small shops? Perhaps vote to eliminate all tariffs so that consumer products could be cheaper? Perhaps vote for fewer regulations so small shops wouldn’t be crushed by taxes and Byzantine labor laws. Try starting a small shop in France and see how hard it is to even open the doors, let alone make a profit. But the same people that lament the death of the small shop have no trouble voting for leftist politicians that create the very regulatory environment that makes those small shops unprofitable.
- globber 8y ago
  Playing the devil's advocate here, but: - Some people may relate democracy more to a vote-with-ballots activity (among others aspects of democracy of course), more than the "vote with your wallet" thing you describe. If a town both votes for big shops with its wallet and for small shops with its ballot, which option has it voted for? - Some people may think that the outcome of indoviduals optimizing their own situation is often, but not always socially optimal. That's why for instance taxes are mandatory and not voluntary - otherwise no or few optimizing individuals would pay. Usually, the story is that central small shops have large positive externalities (sustaining what the comment you replied to call a "certain kind of society") and suburban malls have large negative externalities (congestion, decreased walkabikity for everyone else). Those exertanilities are not taken into account when people optimize their situation, leading to a suboptimal market equilibrium.
arkh 8y ago
> A society where american mega-corporations are dominating while avoiding taxes kills competition because smaller competitors don't have the same advantages. Here is an idea: remove the taxes so everyone is on an even playing field. One of the worst example of this is in France is the crédit recherche, meant to help R&D. But you need people who know the system to get this money so who get it? Huge CAC40 companies like Orange. The small companies? They pay the taxes for this so the bigger ones can enjoy their money.

briandear 8y ago

How did those small stores get “killed?” Who’s fault is that? The town voted to kill those stores when they stopped buying from those stores. Nobody forces you to go to a large store. And, if the public actually wants cheaper products, how do you have any right to oppose them optimizing for their own situation? That’s democracy in action: people vote with their wallets. If they cared about their kids buying a liter of milk, they’d have their kids still buying those liters of milk. Big stores didn’t put the small stores out of business — the people of your perfect little town did by exercising freedom. And you seem to be arguing against freedom to assuage your selfish nostalgia? Perhaps vote for lower taxes so people could afford to shop in overpriced small shops? Perhaps vote to eliminate all tariffs so that consumer products could be cheaper? Perhaps vote for fewer regulations so small shops wouldn’t be crushed by taxes and Byzantine labor laws. Try starting a small shop in France and see how hard it is to even open the doors, let alone make a profit. But the same people that lament the death of the small shop have no trouble voting for leftist politicians that create the very regulatory environment that makes those small shops unprofitable.

globber 8y ago
Playing the devil's advocate here, but: - Some people may relate democracy more to a vote-with-ballots activity (among others aspects of democracy of course), more than the "vote with your wallet" thing you describe. If a town both votes for big shops with its wallet and for small shops with its ballot, which option has it voted for? - Some people may think that the outcome of indoviduals optimizing their own situation is often, but not always socially optimal. That's why for instance taxes are mandatory and not voluntary - otherwise no or few optimizing individuals would pay. Usually, the story is that central small shops have large positive externalities (sustaining what the comment you replied to call a "certain kind of society") and suburban malls have large negative externalities (congestion, decreased walkabikity for everyone else). Those exertanilities are not taken into account when people optimize their situation, leading to a suboptimal market equilibrium.

arkh 8y ago

> A society where american mega-corporations are dominating while avoiding taxes kills competition because smaller competitors don't have the same advantages. Here is an idea: remove the taxes so everyone is on an even playing field. One of the worst example of this is in France is the crédit recherche, meant to help R&D. But you need people who know the system to get this money so who get it? Huge CAC40 companies like Orange. The small companies? They pay the taxes for this so the bigger ones can enjoy their money.