quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I have been seeking slave(s) for a couple years now, with no results.  Is that market failure or market success?  I suppose it depends upon your point of view, does it not? 

quote:

ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger

Merc....

My whole point of contention and dissatisfaction is that these corporations are now way more important and influential than common people. I know for an absolute fact that Jefferson, Hamilton and the others never intended for commercial entities like these corporations to become more powerful than government made up of the people. In other words.... I don't think these corporations are part of an evolution that revolves around the small and middle-sized business. What I see evolving today is more like a diametrical plan where the corporations are the government - Much like the old model of the British East India Company, which was more powerful than the government and had a larger private army than the whole country. When corporations become that large and powerful, they destroy sovereignty - Wouldn't you agree?

And by the way..... I hope I didn't make Beth nervous.

quote:

BTW, Mercnbeth: I think you are offering a false choice here. I can be against something without having to offer an alternative to it - an alternative would be nice but is not in any way essential.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Another disassociated news article, and the point is? We don’t know because there is no commentary except for the title “Free Market Failure”. How about if the header was “Free Market Success”? After reading it, that’s my interpretation of the link.

Here was a man, Sam Walton, who while Wal-Mart was growing drove in a beat up pick-up truck from one store to the next, kicking ass and taking names. He succeeded because of his integrity and honesty; but mostly he succeeded because of his hard work. His stores provide cheap goods at reasonable prices. The guards are there to insure the safety of the shoppers, not forcing people to buy at gunpoint. The same holds for the Wal-Mart suppliers. If their margin in thinned due to Wal-Mart’s clout it’s their decision to walk away. I do it all the time. When my competitors price a deal at a rate that if I matched I would lose money, guess what? I don’t match it I walk away and work on the next deal. That is business. It is survival of the most efficient. Business is a place where you can see Darwinism at work right before your eyes. If your product is overpriced for value, obsolete, inaccessible, or just bad; you die and you deserve to die. Why is there a problem with the opposite scenario? If the product is cost/value appropriate, convenient, modern, and practical; why shouldn’t you succeed?

Is there something illegal about the Wal-Mart organization? Their negotiation with their suppliers is nothing new. Donald Trump used to be a businessman before he became a TV star. One of the keys tenants of success was becoming too big to be allowed to fail. Back in the 80’s when the economy tanked and Trump and his NJ casino projects were going down the tubes he called in all his bankers and announced; “Gentlemen, you better lend me more money because if you don’t I’m bankrupt. If Trump goes bankrupt, the loans you have with me and my companies default. If your banks carry that much on you balance sheets as a non-performing asset you, my banking friends, are also bankrupt. ‘Partners’, here’s my plan, I need $250 Million to work out of this and I know you’ll be there for me.” We all know if you or I tried this with our mortgage we’d be living on the streets; but we are talking about huge corporations. It’s not fair, but that’s the way it is. Businessmen make these decisions all the time. I have no respect for Trump and all the respect in the world for Sam Walton and his organization.

Where is the alternative? What model, theoretic or historic, can be used and pointed to as a pragmatic alternative to the existing US marketplace? Should everyone in the US make some predetermined minimum hourly wage? Who would decide that wage, the government? Would some academic organization combined with a Washington “think-tank” consulting with a social engineering firm lay out a utopian US business environment where the evil companies such as Wal-Mart couldn’t exist? All human history references regarding such an attempt failed. Attempts of social engineering have no example of success. Human nature documented throughout history indicates that working for the “common good” only works when the alternative is death and/or imprisonment. The reality of those attempts is that nothing “works” and you stand in line for a hour for toilet paper while the leaders enjoy caviar and frozen vodka. Is it that the upper echelon leaders with these privileges are favored government workers versus corporate officers that makes it okay? I’d much prefer the operating environment that they enjoyed with no tax on their bribe money, no lawyers looking for deep pockets to tap, and in the position as the government to make any environmental or industry safety law a joke. In any historical reference, what trickled down to the “common man”? But suppose it was possible to have an ideal and benevolent Orwellian 1984 style society. Whose gets to be “Big Brother” and set standards and vision of “right” and “good” that would be used and set as the law of the land?

I guess those questions are the reason it’s easier to just post a link and wait for others who agree to applaud your insight.