About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 9:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You are correct, if the facts are.  The site you point to quotes itself.

Post 1

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 10:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is what happens in a mixed economy.  What are they supposed to do, deny whatever favors they can get from a government that mostly passes measures that would destroy them?

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 12:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jody writes:

This is what happens in a mixed economy.  What are they supposed to do, deny whatever favors they can get from a government that mostly passes measures that would destroy them?

They should do nothing to facilitate such legislation - if it happens outside of their control and it benefits them, so be it.  The only favors they should accept from politicians are measures to block initiations of force against Wal-Mart.   


Post 3

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 3:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
That's right, Pete.

In the bigger scheme of things, this is all quite interesting.

Does anyone remember, maybe last year, Bill Gates giving a speech about the importance of government initiatives in technology or some other related field? Maybe his speech also related to helping other nations, financially. At the time I was disgusted that Gates, the planet's richest individual, was spouting such nonsense, especially since Microsoft had been subject to vicious attacks & regulations by the Feds & the Europeans.

When Microsoft started becoming dominant in the market it was it's competitors that were the loudest criers for regulation.

The lesson here is that government doesn't only corrupt those who dwell within it but also those that are regulated by it.

If we compare this to Atlas Shrugged we can see that Microsoft & Walmart, et al, may end up being the Orren Boyles of the future and not the Hank Reardens or Ellis Wyatts as we may once have imagined.

In the last day or two, the wolves have been chomping at the heels of Exxon-Mobil for it's massive profit. At least those guys seem to have a bit more backbone... for the time being.

Ross

Post 4

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 4:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Lew Rockwell has a great article on this issue.

Post 5

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 11:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm sad to see this. Trying to recoup some of the taxes you had paid with a subsidy is one thing, but this ... it looks like Wal-Mart has just become one more on the long list of companies taking part in an unholy public/private alliance that corrupts everything it touches. The worst part is, this will do nothing to improve their image with their leftist detractors, who will hate Wal-Mart until the day its share price hits zero.

Post 6

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 2:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The more things change, etc.

Some of the most influential lobbyists in favour of the New Deal were owners and managers of large business interests.

They sought to use forced cartelization, wage control, price control, protectionism etc. to support their companies and harm their competition - as well as to prevent new competition from emerging.

Some of the controls set up by the NRA (National Recovery Administration) included restrictions on 'unfair' competition, including poaching clients & undercutting the competition's pricing structure.

When polled, ~ 90% of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wanted the New Deal to continue, but with modifications giving them the ability to write legislation controlling all of the aforementioned aspects of trade - the Government would merely have to provide the guns to enforce it.

(In case you're wondering, I've been listening to some lectures from the Mises Institute's conference on The Economics of Fascism. It makes fascinating listening, and the recordings are available online for free.)

Post 7

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 3:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think it is in the nature of big and successful corperations to choose this way, because they know they have the power to influence politics and negate the market. It is so much easier to stay a monopolist, when you know that you haven't to compete to a bunch of small enterprises in twenty states or so. Despite the large earnings of Walmart, they have not soo much unplanned money left to beat all the competition by lowering prices unnaturally low.
The costs for running a vertically organized Enterprise are much higher than a horizontal one (which is only rarely seen these days - perhaps this is also some influence of the sozialism of today).



Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.