6 ms·

Absolute rubbish take. > No one is forcing you to buy things at Walmart When Walmart comes into a small town and uses it’s economies of scale to force smaller

by cced 3y ago

Absolute rubbish take. > No one is forcing you to buy things at Walmart When Walmart comes into a small town and uses it’s economies of scale to force smaller stores to shut down because they have the ability to operate at a loss, is this choice? Walmart has a board of executives that decide on the direction of the company, it’s a corporation the performs central planning in order to maximize profits.

HDThoreaun 3y ago
Yes, the townspeople are choosing to shop at the market that has the best prices/best selection/whatever else walmart has that makes it preferable to other stores. Walmart's executives set their prices based on the cost to get products. Prices constantly change in reaction to supply and demand. You seem to have figured out though that markets don't work without competition. Luckily the grocery market, at least in most places, is robustly competitive. And the government should step in when that is not the case.
- runarberg 3y ago
  Wallmart workers famously cannot even afford to pay Wallmart prices for their foods. How are townspeople (many of which are Wallmart workers) supposed to pay higher prices for their food when they can’t even afford the lowest price?
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    It's a market. If you don't like your job look for a better one. I mean I agree that our system isn't perfect, or even that good, but no system is. Planned economies consistently lead to famine and tens of millions of people starving to death. If the labor market is a monopsony, as it commonly is in small towns, the government should step in.
    - runarberg 3y ago
      > Planned economies consistently lead to famine and tens of millions of people starving to death. They do not. Cuba has yet to experience a famine despite being under a severe embargo for several decades. Famines also happen under capitalism. There are multitude of famines in east Africa to choose from, death count is well over tens of millions. Outside of Africa, the Bengal famine happened under British rule, death count 1-4 million people. While socialism was gaining traction inside British isles at the time, their colonies kept being ruled by harsh free market advocates. However blaming capitalism for the Bengal famine is unfair, where imperialism, colonialism, and racism is a much better explanation, similarly, blaming communism for the Great Chinese Famine in Mao’s China is unfair, when fascism is a much better explanation. Famines aren’t the only man-made disaster out there. It is hard to blame anything but global capitalism for disaster such as the Bhopal disaster, where one of the largest cities in India was poisoned in a effort to maximize profits for shareholders. Thousands died. Together the disaster of capitalism cause several orders more deadly than the disaster commonly attributed to communism.
      - HDThoreaun 3y ago
        Cuba is facing a famine right now. Communism was the cause of authoritarianism in china and the ussr. It's not possible to have a command economy run by humans without eventually having the leader be an authoritarian. Capitalism did not cause people to be greedy, they were already greedy. Capitalism just embraces our nature and aligns incentives while communism pretends people can be changed to not follow incentives.
        positron6000 3y ago
        > Cuba is facing a famine right now Because the US has embargoed Cuba for decades to cause hunger and desperation: > If such a policy is adopted, it should be the result of a positive decision which would call forth a line of action which, while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government. - https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v06/d499 https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v06... Citation needed on all your other claims.
    - positron6000 3y ago
      > It's a market. If you don't like your job look for a better one. Sure! I live in a small rural town with a poor public education system and no professional opportunities outside of manual labor. I had to leave high school to work to support my family. The most I can make is minimum wage, which means that I cannot afford basic necessities. What "better" jobs am I able to choose from? Or do I have to wait for "the government" to step in so my family doesn't starve?
      - HDThoreaun 3y ago
        Rural economies being fucked isn't capitalism's fault. If you don't create valuable things you won't get valuable things, that's true in all economic systems. If you want valuable things you should probably move somewhere where they are being created and get a job there. Forcing rural people to move to urban areas and work in factories is a classic communism move because it turns out people are more productive when near each other. Capitalism just gives people the choice of doing that or staying where they are and being poorer. Allowing poverty to exist really has nothing to do with capitalism the economic system and everything to do with the political climate in society. Capitalism is just free markets and property rights, it doesn't say anything about government redistribution. Getting rid of markets would not help poor people at all.
        PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
        You seem to conveniently ignore the externalities that most people who have investigated them agree are a major component in a corporation like Walmart existing at all. I would agree with most of what you've written if the price of goods at Walmart actually represented their true cost. But instead, Walmart relies on externalities (the most obvious one is their reliance on their staff being able to collect various forms of public assistance, but there are plenty more) in order to maintain their prices.
        runarberg 3y ago
        Just for the record, the article in which thread spun from is about the socialist question. It is asking whether there is a reason to your mentality. That is, is it worth it to regulate economies and set up social services such that people don’t have to live at the whims of free market capitalism. Unsurprisingly for an alumni of the Chicago school the author believes this is still an open question, however this article is kind of well written and everything up to the conclusion—that is the historical breakdown of this question—seems to indicate that socialism is good actually, and Laissez-faire capitalism is bad.
  - WillPostForFood 3y ago
    This data is somewhat misrepresented. To be eligible for SNAP benefits, you have to also work (unless you get an exemption, like for caretaking). So the government is trying to get people off SNAP for pushing them to work, then shaming the employer for hiring people on SNAP. Walmart is a common low skill entry level job, so not a surprise that a lot of SNAP beneficiaries end up there. The top employers that have SNAP beneficiaries also include the USPS, Amazon, Home Depot, Publix, Uber, McDonalds, Krogers...
aww_dang 3y ago
You are exactly right. They seek to maximize profits. Profits can only exist within a coherent system of prices. How can a central planner effectively determine prices across an entire economy? Price fixing has historically been disastrous, from Diocletian to the USSR. This is literally the definition of the calculation problem. Contrast this to politicians and bureaucrats who may have additional political incentives towards kickbacks, corruption or other, non-market inefficient practices.

by cced 3y ago

HDThoreaun 3y ago

Yes, the townspeople are choosing to shop at the market that has the best prices/best selection/whatever else walmart has that makes it preferable to other stores. Walmart's executives set their prices based on the cost to get products. Prices constantly change in reaction to supply and demand. You seem to have figured out though that markets don't work without competition. Luckily the grocery market, at least in most places, is robustly competitive. And the government should step in when that is not the case.

runarberg 3y ago
Wallmart workers famously cannot even afford to pay Wallmart prices for their foods. How are townspeople (many of which are Wallmart workers) supposed to pay higher prices for their food when they can’t even afford the lowest price?
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  It's a market. If you don't like your job look for a better one. I mean I agree that our system isn't perfect, or even that good, but no system is. Planned economies consistently lead to famine and tens of millions of people starving to death. If the labor market is a monopsony, as it commonly is in small towns, the government should step in.
  - runarberg 3y ago
    > Planned economies consistently lead to famine and tens of millions of people starving to death. They do not. Cuba has yet to experience a famine despite being under a severe embargo for several decades. Famines also happen under capitalism. There are multitude of famines in east Africa to choose from, death count is well over tens of millions. Outside of Africa, the Bengal famine happened under British rule, death count 1-4 million people. While socialism was gaining traction inside British isles at the time, their colonies kept being ruled by harsh free market advocates. However blaming capitalism for the Bengal famine is unfair, where imperialism, colonialism, and racism is a much better explanation, similarly, blaming communism for the Great Chinese Famine in Mao’s China is unfair, when fascism is a much better explanation. Famines aren’t the only man-made disaster out there. It is hard to blame anything but global capitalism for disaster such as the Bhopal disaster, where one of the largest cities in India was poisoned in a effort to maximize profits for shareholders. Thousands died. Together the disaster of capitalism cause several orders more deadly than the disaster commonly attributed to communism.
    - HDThoreaun 3y ago
      Cuba is facing a famine right now. Communism was the cause of authoritarianism in china and the ussr. It's not possible to have a command economy run by humans without eventually having the leader be an authoritarian. Capitalism did not cause people to be greedy, they were already greedy. Capitalism just embraces our nature and aligns incentives while communism pretends people can be changed to not follow incentives.
      - positron6000 3y ago
        > Cuba is facing a famine right now Because the US has embargoed Cuba for decades to cause hunger and desperation: > If such a policy is adopted, it should be the result of a positive decision which would call forth a line of action which, while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government. - https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v06/d499 https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v06... Citation needed on all your other claims.
  - positron6000 3y ago
    > It's a market. If you don't like your job look for a better one. Sure! I live in a small rural town with a poor public education system and no professional opportunities outside of manual labor. I had to leave high school to work to support my family. The most I can make is minimum wage, which means that I cannot afford basic necessities. What "better" jobs am I able to choose from? Or do I have to wait for "the government" to step in so my family doesn't starve?
    - HDThoreaun 3y ago
      Rural economies being fucked isn't capitalism's fault. If you don't create valuable things you won't get valuable things, that's true in all economic systems. If you want valuable things you should probably move somewhere where they are being created and get a job there. Forcing rural people to move to urban areas and work in factories is a classic communism move because it turns out people are more productive when near each other. Capitalism just gives people the choice of doing that or staying where they are and being poorer. Allowing poverty to exist really has nothing to do with capitalism the economic system and everything to do with the political climate in society. Capitalism is just free markets and property rights, it doesn't say anything about government redistribution. Getting rid of markets would not help poor people at all.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
        You seem to conveniently ignore the externalities that most people who have investigated them agree are a major component in a corporation like Walmart existing at all. I would agree with most of what you've written if the price of goods at Walmart actually represented their true cost. But instead, Walmart relies on externalities (the most obvious one is their reliance on their staff being able to collect various forms of public assistance, but there are plenty more) in order to maintain their prices.
      - runarberg 3y ago
        Just for the record, the article in which thread spun from is about the socialist question. It is asking whether there is a reason to your mentality. That is, is it worth it to regulate economies and set up social services such that people don’t have to live at the whims of free market capitalism. Unsurprisingly for an alumni of the Chicago school the author believes this is still an open question, however this article is kind of well written and everything up to the conclusion—that is the historical breakdown of this question—seems to indicate that socialism is good actually, and Laissez-faire capitalism is bad.
- WillPostForFood 3y ago
  This data is somewhat misrepresented. To be eligible for SNAP benefits, you have to also work (unless you get an exemption, like for caretaking). So the government is trying to get people off SNAP for pushing them to work, then shaming the employer for hiring people on SNAP. Walmart is a common low skill entry level job, so not a surprise that a lot of SNAP beneficiaries end up there. The top employers that have SNAP beneficiaries also include the USPS, Amazon, Home Depot, Publix, Uber, McDonalds, Krogers...

aww_dang 3y ago

You are exactly right. They seek to maximize profits. Profits can only exist within a coherent system of prices. How can a central planner effectively determine prices across an entire economy? Price fixing has historically been disastrous, from Diocletian to the USSR. This is literally the definition of the calculation problem. Contrast this to politicians and bureaucrats who may have additional political incentives towards kickbacks, corruption or other, non-market inefficient practices.