The death of small businesses

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Monday, August 10, 2026 21:52
VIEWED: 4646
PAGE 6 of 7

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE

SIGNYM

Friday, March 20, 2009 3:07 PM

Interesting concept. You might call it "equal representation"

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SERGEANTX

Friday, March 20, 2009 3:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Interesting concept. You might call it "equal representation"

Heh... yeah. Well, that's why I find it kind of odd that this isn't a bigger issue. I clearly violates that concept, which is supposed to be one of our key values as a nation.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

KWICKO

Friday, March 20, 2009 5:22 PM

But, with corporations as with people, apparently some are more equal than others...

Mike

A baby seal walks into a club...

The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

KWICKO

Friday, March 20, 2009 5:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

I've never understood why we allow local governments to grant special favors to corporations like this.

I can understand why local governments feel pressured to do it - if they don't, the next one will.

And that was one of the key points of the book - Wal Mart plays towns and cities against each other, puts them in bidding wars to get ridiculous concessions that would never in a million years be granted to a local business. And any place that doesn't play along doesn't get a store.

I've nothing against Wal Mart being in business or making a profit; what I want them to do, though, is play by the same set of rules that the rest of us are forced to play by. You can't call it a "free" market if there's no concept of a level playing field. (And this isn't aimed at you, Sarge; I'm agreeing with you and illustrating the point)

Quote:

The problem is when you get a company the size of Walmart... which dwarfs most small cities, many counties and even some states in terms of sheer economic power..."bargaining" is very unbalanced: David and Goliath (only in this scenario Goliath wins). So how do you get an entity "big enough" to go toe-to-toe with Walmart? I don't know....

Which is why it may take the federal government to come in and reign them in. Hey, they did it to Ma Bell and Microsoft, right?

Mike

A baby seal walks into a club...

The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

SERGEANTX

Friday, March 20, 2009 5:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I've nothing against Wal Mart being in business or making a profit; what I want them to do, though, is play by the same set of rules that the rest of us are forced to play by. You can't call it a "free" market if there's no concept of a level playing field. (And this isn't aimed at you, Sarge; I'm agreeing with you and illustrating the point)
...
Which is why it may take the federal government to come in and reign them in. Hey, they did it to Ma Bell and Microsoft, right?

Reign in whom? Wal-Mart, or the governments whoring it up for their benefit? That's the thing, Wal-Mart (and all the other companies playing the same game) can be faulted for unscrupulously exploiting a weakness in the system, but it does little good to reign them in if we don't fix the system.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Friday, March 20, 2009 5:56 PM

"Which is why it may take the federal government to come in and reign them in."

The problem - there is no law against monopolies. Microsoft got nailed for illegal monopolistic practices - bundling, dumping and the like. (I'm not sure what got Ma Bell broken up.)

There is some feeling that there should be a law like that - that the reason for the size of the AIG debacle was the size of AIG.

But when it comes to reining in 'big business' for being big, the tools just aren't there.

As for local entities (states, counties, cities) providing special breaks to some businesses and not others - it probably would be a good idea to pass a national law making that illegal. (I'm sure there would be kickbacks to get it done anyway, but at least there would be a legal consequence.) Until then, they're just negotiating contracts, like any other entity.
The Constitution would not be the way to go - current legal thought is that the Constitutiton protects you from the federal government - not from businesses, private parties, or other levels of government like states, counties, cities etc.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SERGEANTX

Friday, March 20, 2009 6:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The Constitution would not be the way to go - current legal thought is that the Constitutiton protects you from the federal government - not from businesses, private parties, or other levels of government like states, counties, cities etc.

State and local governments are bound by the fourteenth amendment to honor equal protection. In theory, we don't even need an explicit amendment, but this IS a constitutional concern. All we really need to do is pursue the issue on those grounds.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Friday, March 20, 2009 6:17 PM

Not so. I wish I could remember the name of the case ... if you bump this up to keep it up top I'll look it up when I have the time ...

about 2 years ago the SCOTUS ruled that state employees could NOT go to the federal court system for discrimination under the 14th - they had to go to the state court system - effectively removing SCOTUS from jurisdiction for enforcing the 14th for state, county, municipal or other entities beside the federal government.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SERGEANTX

Friday, March 20, 2009 6:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Not so. I wish I could remember the name of the case ... if you bump this up to keep it up top I'll look it up when I have the time ...

about 2 years ago the SCOTUS ruled that state employees could NOT go to the federal court system for discrimination under the 14th - they had to go to the state court system - effectively removing SCOTUS from jurisdiction for enforcing the 14th.

Well, you'd have to go through the state first, but the state is in turn bound by the federal. In any case, the point is that the local governments aren't following the rules. That needs to change. It's a little like a corrupt politician taking bribes. You can go after the people doing the bribing, but until you get to the politician, its likely to continue.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Friday, March 20, 2009 6:34 PM

Quote:
but the state is in turn bound by the federal.

Not sure this is always the case. SCOTUS seems to draw a wobbly line. For example, while the Constitution prohibits the Federal government from establishing a religion, I'm not sure the states are similarly bound. They happen to have similar clauses in their respective constitutions, but....

*taps foot*

Where is Hero when you need him???

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE