Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can we go a little deeper than that? I prosper by providing goods and services to a public that chooses my establishment over its many competitors, and judges my offerings to be most valuable for the money.
If I want to make more money on a sustainable basis, I must figure out how to be of greater service to my fellow man.
A wise man said, long ago, that we owe our dinner not to the benevolence of the butcher and baker, but to their own regard to their own self-interest.
Capitalism is a highly ethical system, in that it requires service to others in order to survive and thrive. You can label that "greed" but the end result is that the world is better off.
Please don't try to imply that most business is so short-sighted as to chase the customers away by gouging them. Those types soon fail.
People are making a lot of imaginary scenarios out of what I stated.
People generally, if someone is in dire help, will lend a hand. People generally, if given the chance, do their best to make money and give what may seem like a lot to some, but to the person is just a drop in the bucket.
Yes, there are exceptions, but they are just that: exceptions, not the rule. The same would be true if it were the opposite.
The quote "It's a dog eat dog world" does not imply equality, it implies that people will do what it takes to get to the top no matter the consequences.
We have friends who gave up everything to start a new pharmacy in a small town. As they were setting up their shop, Walgreens announced they were coming to town. Our friends were obviously nervous about the competition. They both went to compounding school so they could offer speciality things that Walgreens didn't (prescription pain meds in the form of a lollipop for people who can't swallow is one example.) They also chose to turn part of their retail space into a Mom and Baby shop with lots of breastfeeding support. They are doing a great. I asked someone in town if they thought Walgreens was hurting our friends' business, and that person replied "No, but [our friends] were definitely hurting Walgreens' business."
We own a small speciality business. Our products sell because people can't find them everywhere. We occassionally have a vendor who will decide to sell to Target or some other national chain. When that happens, we just stop carrying that brand, that product, or buy more unique niche part of that product that the chain doesn't sell. Small business has an opportunity to be more in touch with local customer needs & niches than a chain. There's room for both.
I was listening to this guy describing a (somewhat exaggerated) situation that goes like this.
Lets say there is a Coffee place that's a small business. A Starbucks is close, down the street. The place that isn't Starbucks is obviously not doing huge business compared to Starbucks, who of course are have great business and making great money regardless of whether or not that local shop is there. Starbucks opens another location on the other side of the local Coffee Shop, then another one across the street, with the sole purpose of driving that local place out of business.
Is this totally justified under the guise of Capitalism, or is this selfishness and greed?
Then isn't it ironic that every Starbucks is filled with Leftist Obama supporters. lol
A dozen Starbucks on the same block would be no threat to the one coffee shop unless they offered a superior product at a competitive price.
Personally I think coffee tastes like a mix of tree bark and cat pee but since the place manages to sell a cup for 2 to 3 times what everyone else does and still outperforms local competition, my guess is that they are offering exceptional tree bark and cat pee.
So would it be fair to the coffee drinker who prefer Starbucks' yummy concoction to push them out to save the maker of an inferior product?
A dozen Starbucks on the same block would be no threat to the one coffee shop unless they offered a superior product at a competitive price.
Personally I think coffee tastes like a mix of tree bark and cat pee but since the place manages to sell a cup for 2 to 3 times what everyone else does and still outperforms local competition, my guess is that they are offering exceptional tree bark and cat pee.
So would it be fair to the coffee drinker who prefer Starbucks' yummy concoction to push them out to save the maker of an inferior product?
Actually I think Starbucks is popular due to sheeple mentality, i.e group think. And again, the vast majority of Starbucks patrons are lefties. Gotta love the irony.
I was listening to this guy describing a (somewhat exaggerated) situation that goes like this.
Lets say there is a Coffee place that's a small business. A Starbucks is close, down the street. The place that isn't Starbucks is obviously not doing huge business compared to Starbucks, who of course are have great business and making great money regardless of whether or not that local shop is there.
Starbucks opens another location on the other side of the local Coffee Shop, then another one across the street, with the sole purpose of driving that local place out of business.
Is this totally justified under the guise of Capitalism, or is this selfishness and greed?
Yes, it is justified under capitalism (and it is likewise justified under worker owned and controlled co-ops under mutualism and socialism and most other -isms).
That's the short answer you were fishing for... most of the others were also pretty blunt in answering the same... so think of it what you will. You fished for an honest answer, and that's the answer, for better or worse.
If you have a problem with that, then I guess you have a problem when worker co-ops do it too, under mutualism and socialism where the workers own the means of production, and not just the so-called 'capitalist class.'
--------------
Could be an example of greed. On the other hand, it is also quite likely that that the [big] business truly believes that it has the better product(s), and that it is offering the community a better overall service. Whether they truly do offer the better service is beside the point of whether they truly believe they do, and so are genuinely motivated by that belief that they are acting with sincere intent.
If we made the hypothetical Borders Books versus some hole-in-the-wall independently operated bookstore, the same could be said. I am sure Borders employees and management often truly believe they have the better product, and as a consumer of books, I am inclined to agree. I despise most hole-in-the-wall independent bookstores. I think they offer a crappy product and crappy service. If Borders decided to set up shop right next door, as a consumer, I think they would be doing me a service, and likewise I have little doubt they likewise would genuinely believe in their product and service is superior to the independent store.
Big business sometimes does try to quash the competition. But that one fact doesn't erase other perfectly legitimate reasons for why one business would want to compete with another - namely because one business truly believes they have more to offer the consumer, and so they are willing to let the consumer opt for which business they will walk into.
Last edited by FreedomThroughAnarchism; 08-13-2011 at 01:49 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not quite.
