Md. forces Wal-Mart to spend more on health

[razor2025]

Also, last time I checked, finance is VERY different from economics. Finance deals with how to manage money and trades in REAL world. Economics is academic study of how trades can happen, whether it be possible or not. You're obviously applying the wrong mentality into the subject. I never EVER mentioned "fairness" into my arguments. Yet, you've continuosly argued in that direction. If "free-market" existed, it is NATURALLY fair by definition. Why? Because both players can make a transaction where BOTH players feel they got what they wanted.

 

[razor2025]

I still can't believe JLGatsby's quote:

"Necessity for survival? The human race made most of it's greatest advances without widespread healthcare. "

I'm gonna add it to my sig.

 

[razor2025]

To: JLGatsby

I've briefed through our arguments, and I think I know the source of your misconception on my argument. When I mentioned "no cost", I described it as no cost to enter and exit markets. It has nothing to do with the cost of running the business itself. It simply means, there will be no hinderance for a business to enter the market. Somehow, that definition was lost in your understanding of my position.

 

[JLGatsby]

razor, Well it looks like you admitted that I was correct about what a "free market" is. It has nothing to do with "no cost."

This is what an IDEAL free-market creates. Do we live in an ideal society? HECK NO. The article completely basis itself upon an impossible utopian world, where EVERYONE is at relatively same starting point. Is our world like that? No. Do you know what happens when Walmart becomes monopoly in distribution of goods? It will have ABSOLUTE dictatorship on distribution of goods. Walmart can and WILL dictate its own terms in any trade in the market. There is NO ALTERNATIVE.

A market where companies are ALLOWED to have a monopoly is the sort of economy that gives the entrepreneurs the best chance at surviving.

Learn a little about personal freedom and global trade until you "attempt" to refute that statement because you know nothing.

It is also obvious you still live within the confines of your parent's abode and know very little about economics.

Finish your schooling and then we'll talk. For now you know nothing.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: razor2025

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

A free market does not mean you force people to be equal.

A free market is where you get to throw your weight around, the weight you earned.

If you don't want to work for Walmart because of their poor health benefits, don't. Find a job elsewhere. That's a free market.

I suggest you take a good class on Micro-Economics. Free market is just what it is. FREE. No cost to enter, no cost to exit. If you have someone throwing the weight around, how is it free entry? For example, if(lol) Walmart is large company with "weight" around, then the labor market also need to form a coalition to match Walmart's "weight". Usually, the labor market = the population, so the people create a representative government as its coalition against Walmart. Without coalition, the labor will lose out in any labor negotiations, thus their entry to the market is no longer free. They have to take a loss(cut in wage/benefit) to enter the market. Of course, ideals and reality never mix, but someone has to start with an idea.

hmm i do not think you are 100% correct on this. or just not very clear.
Free Market (from here)
A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control. A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy where buyers and sells are allowed to transact freely (i.e. buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without state intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or regulation.

a free market is where a person can sale or buy from who they choose. It is not "Free" as in no cost to enter or exit (taxes, licence etc ).

 

[Metron]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby
...
Do you know what happens when Walmart becomes monopoly in distribution of goods? It will have ABSOLUTE dictatorship on distribution of goods. Walmart can and WILL dictate its own terms in any trade in the market. There is NO ALTERNATIVE.
...
A market where companies are ALLOWED to have a monopoly is the sort of economy that gives the entrepreneurs the best chance at surviving.
...

Walmart becomes eligible for prosecution by the Federal Trade Commission under the Clayton and Sherman Anti-Trust acts... that's what happens.

Too bad your entrepreneurian utopia is illegal. Instead of attacking razor2025's education, perhaps you should re-visit your own.

A case like that might arouse NY Attorney General Elliot Spitzer's attention, and then Walmart would be in real trouble.

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: waggy
a free market is where a person can sale or buy from who they choose. It is not "Free" as in no cost to enter or exit (taxes, licence etc ).

:thumbsup:

But don't try to confuse him with facts, he's already got his mind made up.

 

[Ornery]

Facts are, Walmart will NOT put a store where it can't make money.

• 20 stores near 92069
• 20 stores near 85020
• 20 stores near 19059

The majority of certain people's elected officials are of the opinion it's preferable to existing... ?

 

[Metron]

Since you're so supportive of businesses, perhaps I can frame my point this way.

If the City Council of Dallas were run as a business, why should they give away $1 million in potential "revenue" (the tax incentives they forego by granting an abatement to Walmart) when Walmart is already going to make money by opening that store anyway?

There was no need for Dallas to grant the abatement because as you point out above, Walmart will not build a store where it's going to lose money.

Therefore, Walmart is guilty of the same shameless panhandling of which you accuse Walmart employees when they expect their employer to provide health benefits.

As I've said before in this thread, you can't have it both ways. You can't bemoan the employees for expecting reasonable health benefits as a "handout" when Walmart accepts abatement "handouts" from local governments.

 

[Ornery]

There was no need for Dallas to grant the abatement...

The majority of your elected councilmen thought otherwise. Their offer was thrown out there for anyone, and Walmart accepted. That's how it works.