Biden's Policies Hurting Small Businesses

[Revoltingest]

Thank goodness for your personal anecdotes.

Where'd we be without them, eh?
I see many Walmarts in me travels.
Do you disagree with my observation that Walmart
typically serves as an anchor for aggregations of stores?

 

[Kooky]

The upshot...
I'd rather be exploited by capitalism than by socialism.

We've already established quite some time ago that any amount of social welfare is still capitalism, remember?
You even brought out a dictionary to prove it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I dislike answers that directly contradict known facts, but since you've told me that you just don't ever read links that are posted....

Hmmm....you just contradicted a known fact.
So you dislike your own post, eh.
I do read links. But not when they're posted
in isolation, & not in support of claims in a post.

 

[Revoltingest]

FALSE DILEMMA ALERT !!!!!

How is it false?
To prefer capitalism to socialism is a reasonable preference.
Or is this one of those situations where you're using strange
personal definitions of each?

 

[icehorse]

Where'd we be without them, eh?
I see many Walmarts in me travels.
Do you disagree with my observation that Walmart
typically serves as an anchor for aggregations of stores?

Where would we be without them (personal anecdotes)? Hmmm... we'd have a society improved by the use of math and statistics?

As for the anchor phenomenon (a Freudian slip perhaps? ), as was stated earlier, yes a certain subset of businesses will cluster around a Walmart. But many others will go under when Walmart comes to town.

 

[Revoltingest]

We've already established quite some time ago that any amount of social welfare is still capitalism, remember?
You even brought out a dictionary to prove it.

That's not how I'd phrase it, but I do see social welfare
programs fueled by a capitalist economy as a optimal.

BTW, dictionaries are only for providing commonly used
definitions. They cannot prove political & economic claims.

 

[icehorse]

How is it false?
To prefer capitalism to socialism is a reasonable preference.
Or is this one of those situations where you're using strange
personal definitions of each?

Are you saying that you shouted out your personal preference in the middle of this thread and that we shouldn't assume your declaration is in the context of this thread?

I would say that the most reasonable assumption the rest of us should make in this thread is that you're implying that the people arguing against the OP are promoting socialism. correct?

 

[Revoltingest]

Where would we be without them (personal anecdotes)? Hmmm... we'd have a society improved by the use of math and statistics?

If one ignores personal observations, then one could
never detect errors in math & statistics. Moreover,
enuf personal observations actually become statistics.

I notice that you're not disagreeing with my claim...just
bickering over the fact that I observed something.
Do you ever observe anything?
Do you have any "math & statistics" to show me?
You cannot win an argument by just exclaiming "Math!"
or "Statistics!". You need to actually employ them.

As for the anchor phenomenon (a Freudian slip perhaps? ), as was stated earlier, yes a certain subset of businesses will cluster around a Walmart. But many others will go under when Walmart comes to town.

That's business, ie, some survive competition, while others fail.
This is useful.

 

[Kooky]

That's not how I'd phrase it, but I do see social welfare
programs fueled by a capitalist economy as a optimal.

Including labor rights, minimum wages and such, correct?
Those are all capitalist policies, remember, since none deal with the collective ownership of the means of production by the working class.

 

[Kooky]

That's business, ie, some survive competition, while others fail.
This is useful.

And yet, people complain about small businesses "dying" as if that was a bad thing.

 

[Stevicus]

Now, imagine if the job market actually was a market in the same sense as markets for goods and services are.

Then increased demand would drive up prices until supply and demand are in equilibrium.

It's interesting how capitalists don't seem to understand such basic concepts as supply and demand, don't you think?

I think that they do understand it, but either they pretend to not understand in certain circumstances, or they only understand it on their own ideological terms.

As an example, you don't see capitalists react the same way if their fellow capitalists in other industries suddenly decide they want more money. If the oil companies want to raise gas prices, it's no problem, since it's the free market in action. It's simply their right as capitalists and property owners. If a business' suppliers suddenly add extra fees or raise their prices, same deal. They're capitalists and they have the right, under our current economic system. They seem to be okay with all of this, with nary a peep whenever it happens.

But if workers want to play by the same rules and demand higher wages - suddenly the game changes and the goalposts move. Capitalists hate labor unions, even though unions are following the exact same laissez-faire rules which advocate minimized government intervention. But history has shown that capitalists absolutely depend on government intervention if they ever get into trouble with the unions. Capitalists also employ lawyers and bribe politicians to use and manipulate government to go against the common people.

That's the main problem with capitalists; they don't really live by their own stated principles. They keep harping on and on: "Get government off our backs!" and "Keep government out of the free market!" But they don't really mean it. What they really mean is they want government to act as their own personal stooge, whether it's against workers in the United States or business-unfriendly governments overseas.

If capitalists truly practiced what they preached, they wouldn't be able to survive. They need government more than anyone else.

 

[Revoltingest]

Including labor rights, minimum wages and such, correct?

I favor heath & safety regulation, but not wage regulation.

 

[Revoltingest]

And yet, people complain about small businesses "dying" as if that was a bad thing.

People do like their complaints.
But I'm not responsible for theirs.

 

[icehorse]

That's business, ie, some survive competition, while others fail.
This is useful.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Walmart has not been "useful" to our economy. Walmart is a parasitic corporation that has a overall negative effect on our economy.

Do you have any "math & statistics" to show me?

You've been provided with links in this very thread.

 

[Stevicus]

By the way, I'm curious, when you post links in a thread, do you ever expect people to read through them?

In fairness, I can kind of understand where @Revoltingest is coming from on this point, at least when it comes to the posting of links or videos. If I can, I usually try to post key excerpts or give a brief summary as to the subject matter, since more than a few people are put off by links to long articles or long videos.

This is more like Short Attention-Span Theater.

 

[epronovost]

Isn't it way to early to claim such a thing? Statistics on labor, unemployment and the size of the active workforce take time to gather. Usually, you have data that is a year old or more. We will know the impact of Biden's economical policies for sure in about a year. Before that, it's all opinion, conjecture and annecdotal evidence to sell newspapers. Get a grip.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Walmart has not been "useful" to our economy. Walmart is a parasitic corporation that has a overall negative effect on our economy.

You should hear what Walmart says about you.
Anyway, do you know the wages are less than
those paid by the businesses they out-competed?

You've been provided with links in this very thread.

You argued against my observation.
You & no one else provided any basis for this.
The mere existence of someone else's link for
some other purpose doesn't make your case.

 

[esmith]

I'm curious how you imagine a community that relies on a limited amount of supermarkets in their vicinity decides to "just not shop there".
Where do you imagine these people would get their food from? Do you know of any examples where people set up their own private food distribution network without relying on a new market chain setting up shop in their neighbourhood?

I don't know where you live but we have a Albertsons directly across the street from Walmart. We prefer Albertsons grocery items (even though they are more expensive) over Walmart and we go to the local butcher shop for some of our meat; although Albertsons has excellent meat. Also we earn gasoline points at Albertsons which really helps with the cost of gasoline when we don't have a reason to go to Costco. In addition we have numerous grocery stores within a 5-10 mile radius (of course it is 8 miles into town for us)

 

[Revoltingest]

In fairness, I can kind of understand where @Revoltingest is coming from on this point, at least when it comes to the posting of links or videos. If I can, I usually try to post key excerpts or give a brief summary as to the subject matter, since more than a few people are put off by links to long articles or long videos.

This is more like Short Attention-Span Theater.

Aye, how many posts do we endure where someone says....
"You'll see that I'm right....just watch this video!"
Puleeze, people...put your own thoughts on the table.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't know where you live but we have a Albertsons directly across the street from Walmart. We prefer Albertsons grocery items (even though they are more expensive) over Walmart and we go to the local butcher shop for some of our meat; although Albertsons has excellent meat. Also we earn gasoline points at Albertsons which really helps with the cost of gasoline when we don't have a reason to go to Costco. In addition we have numerous grocery stores within a 5-10 mile radius (of course it is 8 miles into town for us)

This is just an anecdote!
Where are your statistics!