variation30 -> RE: What is your "plan" ? ~ ~ ! (12/19/2008 12:28:23 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster It's not as black and white as you believe. No, it isn't a zero-sum game, but also humans do not exhibit rational economic behavior, as postulated by classical economics. People won't go to Walmart because Main Street has 1)inferior quality, or 2) inferior service, or 3) an inferior price. They may go for reasons entirely unrelated to those factors; i.e., social pressure to shop at WalMart, or a relative works there, or they meet friends there. oh boy, sociolology. ok, let's assume these social pressures exist...is this walmart's fault? nope. does meeting friends or relatives at a store force an individual to shop at a place...no. but let's say that for some individuals this is a fact. then the 'prestige' or social value of shopping at walmart is a desirable service that other stores cannot match. so why is this a bad thing? why is it bad that individuals want to go to an eponymous restaurant where their friends eat (that also has a lot of prestige) over horrid restaurants like the olive garden or red lobster? perhaps these bonuses for taking part of a particular service IS rational economic behavior. quote:
WalMart is most certainly subsidized by local and state governments, which the mom and pops cannot compete with. A ten-year property tax abatemnt gives a distinct advantage over Joe's Hardware, who has to pay those property taxes, and thus has to build them into his price structure. mhm. end all government aid to individuals and organizations. I agree. quote:
or ot could be because of "dumping"; that is, selling goods below cost to obtain market share, like many Japanese firms did in the 70s and 80s. You WILL get put out of business if that concerted effort is made. Your service, quality, and price are no longer factors. WalMart drove Tweeter out of business, indirectly. Of course, the story is much more complicated than that http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/07/lessons-from-the-tweeter-saga.html it's my understanding that WalMart deliberately priced certain flat-screen-TVs as "loss leaders" in a thrust to eliminate competition in consumer electronics. This is great if you think an unregulated monopoly is a good thing. I do not. Once a company has eliminated competition, they can slowly raise the prices (like slowly raising the temp in a pot of water to anaesthetize a lobster) so that their prices are higher than with that little bit of competition "minimum pricing" afforded. That's why we have anti-trust laws (for all the good they do under the repubs). why is undercutting a bad thing? let's say they are undercutting and 'forcing' people out of business. if they eliminate competition (which is impossible) what will they do next? will the price gouge? probably not. if they did, it would enable competitors to spring up and take their business. competition would ensure that this technique fails in the long run. walmart is far, far, far from a monopoly. in fact, I can't think of a single monopoly that has sprung up through an unregulated market...the only monopolies I can think of were given monopolies through government intervention (tarriffs, natural monopolies, other more invasive legislation). and anti-trust laws should be abolished. if an industry can gain a monopoly without government intervention...they deserve it. if they take advantage of that position to engage in practices that consumers do not like, they will quickly lose that monopoly. but let's be honest, there isn't an industry today that could be the sole providor of a service or product without government intervention. quote:
BTW, your remark, "I doubt anything will change. my idealogies and beliefs don't change based upon what is beneficial to me - I'm more principled than that." I submit that you are no different than the vast majority of people, myself included... our behavior is mutable and changes with what we think will be advantageous. we engage in actions to better our positions, yes...but our thoughts and convictions are a completely different issue.
|
|
|
|