The death of small businesses

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Monday, August 10, 2026 21:52
VIEWED: 4646
PAGE 2 of 7

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE

RIPWASH

Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
We have a CHOICE where to shop
LOL, You're funny, Rip.

The laughing Chrisisall

That's what some people say . . . friends even.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

RUE

Thursday, March 19, 2009 3:14 PM

"That's what some people say . . . friends even. "

Hey, if all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you follow them ?

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

Silence is consent.

RIPWASH

Thursday, March 19, 2009 3:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"That's what some people say . . . friends even. "

Hey, if all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you follow them ?

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

Silence is consent.

Since being called funny is a good thing and jumping of a cliff, generally speaking, is not . . . no.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

CITIZEN

Thursday, March 19, 2009 3:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:

Oh yeah . . . I forgot the whole "Stalin = Wal-mart" equation. But Stalin wasn't a Capitalist and the majority didn't want to buy what he had to offer. We have a CHOICE where to shop, not so much a government dictatorship which is FORCED upon you. So your point is moot.

That's not the equation, I was pointing out the absurdity of blaming everyone but Walmart for Walmarts actions. Sure they wouldn't be around if people didn't shop there, but that doesn't make shoppers responsible for Walmarts executive decisions. If you didn't have a widescreen TV a burglar couldn't steal it from you, so if you're broken into and some twat makes off with your TV, I suppose that means you should be blamed for having a TV that someone wants to steal? Or is personal responsibility for ones actions something rich people (like Walmarts management) to be let off of? Personal responsibility does tend to be something only ever leveled at the bottom rungs of society.

You can't really declare my point moot, I was never trying to draw a comparison between Walmart and Stalin, I was drawing a comparison between your statement that Walmarts decisions are everyone else's fault, and a statement that Stalin's decisions were too. I was highlighting the absurdity of your point, so it's rather not moot.

Regardless, Walmart's policies are to artificially lower prices, driving competitors out of business while using their sheer size to keep afloat in the local market. If you're barely managing to keep afloat yourself, then of course you're going to go to the cheapest outlet. I'd hardly say it's a simple choice, it's more like choosing between a rock and a hard place. Plus Walmart's business plan is centred around removing choice from the American Consumer, which again renders my point (or what you thought was my point at least) a little less moot.

And for the record most people in Russia didn't only want Stalin then, but a fair sizable want him back now. Take from that what you will, but I think it rather helps prove my point.

I was reading in the paper today about this dwarf that got pickpocketed. How could anyone stoop so low?

RIPWASH

Thursday, March 19, 2009 3:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:

Oh yeah . . . I forgot the whole "Stalin = Wal-mart" equation. But Stalin wasn't a Capitalist and the majority didn't want to buy what he had to offer. We have a CHOICE where to shop, not so much a government dictatorship which is FORCED upon you. So your point is moot.

That's not the equation, I was pointing out the absurdity of blaming everyone but Walmart for Walmarts actions. Sure they wouldn't be around if people didn't shop there, but that doesn't make shoppers responsible for Walmarts executive decisions. If you didn't have a widescreen TV a burglar couldn't steal it from you, so if you're broken into and some twat makes off with your TV, I suppose that means you should be blamed for having a TV that someone wants to steal? Or is personal responsibility for ones actions something rich people (like Walmarts management) to be let off of? Personal responsibility does tend to be something only ever leveled at the bottom rungs of society.

You can't really declare my point moot, I was never trying to draw a comparison between Walmart and Stalin, I was drawing a comparison between your statement that Walmarts decisions are everyone else's fault, and a statement that Stalin's decisions were too. I was highlighting the absurdity of your point, so it's rather not moot.

Regardless, Walmart's policies are to artificially lower prices, driving competitors out of business while using their sheer size to keep afloat in the local market. If you're barely managing to keep afloat yourself, then of course you're going to go to the cheapest outlet. I'd hardly say it's a simple choice, it's more like choosing between a rock and a hard place. Plus Walmart's business plan is centred around removing choice from the American Consumer, which again renders my point (or what you thought was my point at least) a little less moot.

And for the record most people in Russia didn't only want Stalin then, but a fair sizable want him back now. Take from that what you will, but I think it rather helps prove my point.

I was reading in the paper today about this dwarf that got pickpocketed. How could anyone stoop so low?

A) I gotta remember to put those smileys in there to imply a jest. Note to self . . .
B) You take things WAY too seriously.
C) Why start with the degrading of other people right away? Calling my point absurd was a little uncalled for. It was simply a point. An opinion. Period. Not leveled at any one person or thing.

Corporate decisions aside . . . Walmart would lose money if people didn't shop there. Period. People stop going to Wal-mart, profits would go down, they'd have to close stores, etc. People decide not to listen to Stalin, they got a bullet to the head (that's my understanding of it anyway). Hey, you started the comparison, not me.

I don't know what to make of your comment about people wanting Stalin back. That makes no sense to me. But if it's true, it's true. I have nothing to add to it.

"I think you're burdened with an overabundance of schooling"

People DO have a choice of where to shop. Don't like Wal-mart or the corporate decisions they make, THEN DON'T SHOP THERE! It's as simple as that.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

SIGNYM

Thursday, March 19, 2009 3:46 PM

Quote:
Ah yes . . . the "Big, Evil Wal-Mart" routine. It's not their fault that Americans want to buy things for less. Everybody wants a bargain. That's the way we operate. We all want a bigger bang for our buck. If Wal-mart provides that, then that's where the supermajority of American shoppers will go. So it's not really Wal-mart that's evil, but Americans in general.

I agree with Geezer (big surprise, I guess). The goal of many, many people who start a company is to MAKE money. Anyone who does this is, yes, taking advantage of Capitalism.

Again, thank you for proving my point about capitalism being inherently evil.

It's not that individual business owners are evil (although some are). My point was that you could start out with the best of intentions, but as long as you do business in a PROFIT-driven system (profit: not the same as wage) you will eventually succumb to ruthless, monopolistic practices. Either personlly, or you will sell your business out to those who do, or you will fall in market share. So who the hell cares that Walmart used Chinese slave labor, right? That's capitalism! (And that's my point)

Quote:
Corporate decisions aside . . .

Why leave them aside.? They ARE part of the porblem!

Quote:
Walmart would lose money if people didn't shop there.

And people wouldn't shop at Walmart if they were paid a fair wage. Which goes back to the OTHER problem about capitalism: If the sum total of money paid out as wages does not equal the sum total value of the goods being offered for sale (the difference being profit) then the amount of goods that can be purchased follows a descending spiral.

I know that's a little complicated; if you don't follow it I'll re-explain later.

BTW- Are you sure you're not Geezer's sock-puppet?

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

CHRISISALL

Thursday, March 19, 2009 3:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
Don't like Wal-mart or the corporate decisions they make, THEN DON'T SHOP THERE! It's as simple as that.

Don't like Earth or the corporate decisions they make, THEN DON'T LIVE THERE! It's as simple as that.

The laughing Chrisisall

DEADLOCKVICTIM

Thursday, March 19, 2009 3:51 PM

the dirty fucking hippies were right

CITIZEN

Thursday, March 19, 2009 4:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
B) You take things WAY too seriously.

If you say so. I don't see much levity in your post, I do see some statements on my character though.

Quote:
C) Why start with the degrading of other people right away? Calling my point absurd was a little uncalled for. It was simply a point. An opinion. Period. Not leveled at any one person or thing.

I called you're point absurd, I didn't call you absurd. I find the idea that everyone but Walmart are responsible for Walmart's decisions pretty absurd. I could have chosen a better example perhaps, but I went with an extreme one to better show the comparison I was trying too show. Perhaps everyone but the bankers who made bad lending decisions are at fault? Makes about as much sense to me.

You accuse me of taking things too seriously, yet I'm not the one taking a dismissal of my opinion as a personal attack

.

Quote:
Corporate decisions aside . . . Walmart would lose money if people didn't shop there. Period. People stop going to Wal-mart, profits would go down, they'd have to close stores, etc. People decide not to listen to Stalin, they got a bullet to the head (that's my understanding of it anyway). Hey, you started the comparison, not me.

Actually no, I've explained what comparison I was making, by choosing to go with the distortion you're just engaging in a strawman. Not serious about it, just pointing it out. At any rate, that's not my comparison, neither is it anything like my comparison.

Quote:
I don't know what to make of your comment about people wanting Stalin back. That makes no sense to me. But if it's true, it's true. I have nothing to add to it.

"I think you're burdened with an overabundance of schooling"

He's their hero, rightly or wrongly, doesn't mean they're stupid. People worship Reagan as a demi-god, despite the fact he fulfilled none of his campaign promises and most of what he's credited with had bugger all to do with him. There's a Firefly episode on the subject of hero's.

Quote:
People DO have a choice of where to shop. Don't like Wal-mart or the corporate decisions they make, THEN DON'T SHOP THERE! It's as simple as that.

And if you can't afford to shop anywhere else, or if Walmart has already priced every other shop out of the market, then you can choose to starve, all sorts of choices are oh so simple. Unfortunately real life then gets involved and the simplicity of theoretical assumption can sometimes be left as just that.

I was reading in the paper today about this dwarf that got pickpocketed. How could anyone stoop so low?

CHRISISALL

Thursday, March 19, 2009 4:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
People worship Reagan as a demi-god, despite the fact he fulfilled none of his campaign promises and most of what he's credited with had bugger all to do with him.

FYI, he could fly, bet ya didn't know that.

The laughing Chrisisall

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE