4 ms·

"Consolidation of our economy has been disastrous." Disastrous? Were we better off in the days of Sears and Barnes and Noble? Companies like Walmart with $500

"Consolidation of our economy has been disastrous." Disastrous? Were we better off in the days of Sears and Barnes and Noble? Companies like Walmart with $500 billion in revenue have margins of about 3%. A 10% revenue tax must increase prices, or Walmart would lose money on each transaction. What you're promoting is a tariff on goods bought from big companies. Tariffs are bad. They are regressive and anti-consumer

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Supermancho 7y ago
> They are regressive and anti-consumer Thats a perspective, not a universal fact. They are effective and useful from a political perspective, which may be beneficial to consumers long term. Alternate levers being circumstantial.
- missedthecue 7y ago
  It's a fact that they are regressive. That is in no way an opinion. Someone making $1 million per year and someone making $20,000 per year both pay the same tariff. There is no discrimination between earners like there is with progressive taxes. They are anti-consumer in the sense that they raise prices without offering more or better goods in return. Sure you may try to muscle in some roundabout logic that concludes that tariffs will punish the consumer into using their money the way you want them to, such as buying overpriced goods from domestic producers, but history has shown again and again that only free trade produces net benefits. Tariffs just obsfucate the damage. For instance, the EU guarantees European farmers a certain minimum price for agricultural goods. This price is 200% above market price. The effect is that every European consumer has reduced purchasing power because they must pay 200% more than they need to for food, African farmers are kept in poverty because they can't sell their goods to EU consumers, and the only people who win is the extremely small percentage of people in the EU who farm. In this way, they are factually anti consumer.
  - afiori 7y ago
    EDIT: I might have misunderstood the context of some of my parent comments, I do not believe that progressive tax brackets should be increase the tax rate on the entire income, just of the income over a certain limit. > They are anti-consumer in the sense that they raise prices without offering more or better goods in return. There is also to say that economy of scale is real, so (within bounds, I wouldn't meddle in guessing numbers) it is reasonable to ask the company making 10 billion per year to be more efficient per-dollar than a 2-persons shop. Regarding the EU I believe you are missing the point. Farming in the EU (outside of the Netherlands apparently) is almost by definition going to be a terrible business profit wise in an unregulated market; too little to automate too high cost of living for workers. The regulations in place exist because of an explicit consideration that keeping those industries alive (especially regional traditional products) is something with a value in and of itself. For sure many regulations have serious issues and some of them are plainly wrong, but arguing for anarcho-capitalism to me sound as reasonable as arguing for communism.
  - Supermancho 7y ago
    > It's a fact that they are regressive. It is not. You use a non gradiated tariff as a bad assumption. Good luck with whatever.
JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
Walmart's margins are low, but their employees aren't in great shape. They usually live off of state benefits and presumably have worse education and health outcomes than the average American. What kind of society do we want to be?
- missedthecue 7y ago
  Walmart pays a minimum of $11 an hour. It's impossible to be on benefits making $11 hour full time unless you are a single mother or disabled. If you tax companies extra for each employee on public benefits, they'll just stop hiring single mothers and disabled people. What kind of society is that where short sighted government policies force the disabled and single mothers into a life poverty?
  - scollet 7y ago
    You are describing a life of poverty and arguing for it. Don't be obtuse.
    - missedthecue 7y ago
      Someone making $11 is better off than someone making $0 an hour. They also have a path toward higher earrings, where a person that is unemployed does not. I'm arguing that enacting policies that force people into a life where it is impossible to find employment is a bad thing.
      - JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
        Straw man. Minimum wage doesn't "force" people into unemployment. No meaningful increases in unemployment have occurred as a consequence of raising the minimum wage.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > Walmart's margins are low, but their employees aren't in great shape. They usually live off of state benefits Even if this is true, benefits + low-wage job is better both for the worker and society than a lesser total entirely from public benefits and no job, so, the WalMart jobs are a net win. > presumably have worse education Hence why they can't get better jobs, but punishing WalMart doesn't fix that. > and health outcomes than the average American. Probably, that comes from being poor and is exacerbated by a wealth-dependent healthcare system. Again, punishing WalMart for employing them doesn't improve this.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Supermancho 7y ago

> They are regressive and anti-consumer Thats a perspective, not a universal fact. They are effective and useful from a political perspective, which may be beneficial to consumers long term. Alternate levers being circumstantial.

missedthecue 7y ago
It's a fact that they are regressive. That is in no way an opinion. Someone making $1 million per year and someone making $20,000 per year both pay the same tariff. There is no discrimination between earners like there is with progressive taxes. They are anti-consumer in the sense that they raise prices without offering more or better goods in return. Sure you may try to muscle in some roundabout logic that concludes that tariffs will punish the consumer into using their money the way you want them to, such as buying overpriced goods from domestic producers, but history has shown again and again that only free trade produces net benefits. Tariffs just obsfucate the damage. For instance, the EU guarantees European farmers a certain minimum price for agricultural goods. This price is 200% above market price. The effect is that every European consumer has reduced purchasing power because they must pay 200% more than they need to for food, African farmers are kept in poverty because they can't sell their goods to EU consumers, and the only people who win is the extremely small percentage of people in the EU who farm. In this way, they are factually anti consumer.
- afiori 7y ago
  EDIT: I might have misunderstood the context of some of my parent comments, I do not believe that progressive tax brackets should be increase the tax rate on the entire income, just of the income over a certain limit. > They are anti-consumer in the sense that they raise prices without offering more or better goods in return. There is also to say that economy of scale is real, so (within bounds, I wouldn't meddle in guessing numbers) it is reasonable to ask the company making 10 billion per year to be more efficient per-dollar than a 2-persons shop. Regarding the EU I believe you are missing the point. Farming in the EU (outside of the Netherlands apparently) is almost by definition going to be a terrible business profit wise in an unregulated market; too little to automate too high cost of living for workers. The regulations in place exist because of an explicit consideration that keeping those industries alive (especially regional traditional products) is something with a value in and of itself. For sure many regulations have serious issues and some of them are plainly wrong, but arguing for anarcho-capitalism to me sound as reasonable as arguing for communism.
- Supermancho 7y ago
  > It's a fact that they are regressive. It is not. You use a non gradiated tariff as a bad assumption. Good luck with whatever.

JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago

Walmart's margins are low, but their employees aren't in great shape. They usually live off of state benefits and presumably have worse education and health outcomes than the average American. What kind of society do we want to be?

missedthecue 7y ago
Walmart pays a minimum of $11 an hour. It's impossible to be on benefits making $11 hour full time unless you are a single mother or disabled. If you tax companies extra for each employee on public benefits, they'll just stop hiring single mothers and disabled people. What kind of society is that where short sighted government policies force the disabled and single mothers into a life poverty?
- scollet 7y ago
  You are describing a life of poverty and arguing for it. Don't be obtuse.
  - missedthecue 7y ago
    Someone making $11 is better off than someone making $0 an hour. They also have a path toward higher earrings, where a person that is unemployed does not. I'm arguing that enacting policies that force people into a life where it is impossible to find employment is a bad thing.
    - JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
      Straw man. Minimum wage doesn't "force" people into unemployment. No meaningful increases in unemployment have occurred as a consequence of raising the minimum wage.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> Walmart's margins are low, but their employees aren't in great shape. They usually live off of state benefits Even if this is true, benefits + low-wage job is better both for the worker and society than a lesser total entirely from public benefits and no job, so, the WalMart jobs are a net win. > presumably have worse education Hence why they can't get better jobs, but punishing WalMart doesn't fix that. > and health outcomes than the average American. Probably, that comes from being poor and is exacerbated by a wealth-dependent healthcare system. Again, punishing WalMart for employing them doesn't improve this.