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.
And once again, the repeated assertion. This is bunk. You have no clue what you're talking about, and your inability to comprehend even the most basic logical concepts speaks volumes about your entire argument.
The taxpayers are not subsidizing Walmart, and you can't counter a single point in my OP from an economic standpoint. Your theory is bunk, I destroyed it, and you don't have a rebuttal, excluding this irrelevant fluff about our "service based" economy, which means nothing.
Once again, you resort to insults and a personal attack regarding what you think of my "intelligence."
Are you not capable of asserting your position without personal INSULTS? IMO, that "speaks volumes about you and your entire argument."
Does your "economic standpoint/theory" have a name?
Once again, you resort to insults and a personal attack regarding what you think of my "intelligence."
Are you not capable of asserting your position without personal INSULTS? IMO, that "speaks volumes about you and your entire argument."
Because you keep repeating ridiculous unfounded assertions like "the taxpayer is subsidizing walmart", going off on tangents, and pulling out irrelevant facts to make it look as if you're saying something when you're actually not.
What in god's name does the fact that the minimum wage has existed since 1938 have to do with anything I'm saying? Is your theory that the existence of something proves its validity? That's just brilliant. I wonder how you feel about stoning homosexuals.
And I still want to hear if you're going to keep pushing this subsidization argument, because that's the topic of this thread. I'll be waiting for your argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000
Does your "economic standpoint/theory" have a name?
Yes, supply and demand. Perhaps you've heard of it?
Although I'd bet that you don't understand my position and haven't bothered reading my earlier posts in this thread on welfare etc.
So you can't counter my points at all? That's good to know.
Are you still pushing the subsidization argument by the way, or have you given up on that? That's really the point of this thread, I should have resisted the temptation to follow you off on this tangent.
This is the same thing you did in the TM threads, pull out random factoids while not really making any type of substantial point. Yawn.
Ahhh, so this is personal.....clearly you have no background in the law either. You're bringing up the TM threads to counter my posts here.....LMAO. That's so funny.
I have countered your points and you have done nothing but declare that I am wrong and called me stupid. LOL Indeed, WalMart is using our public assistance programs in order to pay their employees very low wages. If that weren't true, then Wal Mart employees would not qualify for "welfare."
Maybe you can explain to me once and for all how the theory of supply and demand is altered in a service based economy as opposed to a manufacturing based economy.
Ahhh, so this is personal.....clearly you have no background in the law either. You're bringing up the TM threads to counter my posts here.....LMAO. That's so funny.
I have countered your points and you have done nothing but declare that I am wrong and called me stupid. LOL Indeed, WalMart is using our public assistance programs in order to pay their employees very low wages. If that weren't true, then Wal Mart employees would not qualify for "welfare."
No you didn't. You haven't made a single argument.
I destroyed your subsidization theory in my OP. So unless you want to explain to me how need is related to wage rates, you have nothing.
Question: If welfare did not exist, would Walmart be forced to raise wages?
Question: How does welfare save Walmart money? Does welfare allow them to lower wages below what they otherwise could?
Question: What legitimate economic school of thought includes arbitrary variables such as living expenses in any theory that attempts to explain wage rates?
I mentioned the TM threads because you used an all to familiar tactic in here, in which you pull out irrelevant facts in order to fluff up your arguments enough to completely avoid the central issue.
Firstly, I'd like to see the stats that about the "vast majority". Secondly, you said that Amazon does not directly compete with box stores, and that is simply not true. Even if one person shops at Amazon instead of a box store, that is competition. Don't go changing the goal post - now it's "vast majority" and "regularly shop". Even one sale is competition.
When someone buys something on Amazon that they could buy at a box store, they are directly competing. Period. I do it all the time. I weigh whether it's worth my time and gas to drive for an item, or just buy it online.
10% of sales are still done in stores, and Amazon makes up the bulk of that 10%. So let's say 6%.
Does 90 - 6 count as a vast a majority?
Sure if you want to be completely open-ended and ignore customer segments, then yes... Amazon is a direct competitor. Just like the girl scouts are. And the hot dog vendor on the street. And the homeless guy selling a mug he found in the trash. They're all selling something that can be found in Walmart...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamBarrow
Nonsense.
Amazon is a direct competitor to any business that sells the products it sells.
Amazon is direct competitor for most small businesses about as much as the girl scouts are a direct competitor to Dominicks (or whatever mega grocery store is in your neck of the woods). So yes... technically, they're a direct competitor. Amazon doesn't do enough business in any one location to drive out small businesses in that location. Maybe every now & then, it happens, but it's not the standard. Walmart is the opposite. It directly siphons off the same segment of shoppers that make up the bulk of small business consumers.
Amazon is direct competitor for most small businesses about as much as the girl scouts are a direct competitor to Dominicks (or whatever mega grocery store is in your neck of the woods). So yes... technically, they're a direct competitor. Amazon doesn't do enough business in any one location to drive out small businesses in that location. Maybe every now & then, it happens, but it's not the standard. Walmart is the opposite. It directly siphons off the same segment of shoppers that make up the bulk of small business consumers.
But they are a direct competitor nonetheless.
I also wholly disagree with the relationship you've cited. Amazon is much more of a competitor to most retail business than the girl scouts are to anyone.
But, yes, you are correct, if you're simply saying that Amazon is not a competitor to small business to the same degree that a local Walmart would be. It is a competitor nonetheless, but most importantly, the online retail sector is growing to be more of a competitor in the future, whereas Walmart is not growing nearly as quickly if at all.
Because you keep repeating ridiculous unfounded assertions like "the taxpayer is subsidizing walmart", going off on tangents, and pulling out irrelevant facts to make it look as if you're saying something when you're actually not.
What in god's name does the fact that the minimum wage has existed since 1938 have to do with anything I'm saying? Is your theory that the existence of something proves its validity? That's just brilliant. I wonder how you feel about stoning homosexuals.
And I still want to hear if you're going to keep pushing this subsidization argument, because that's the topic of this thread. I'll be waiting for your argument.
Yes, supply and demand. Perhaps you've heard of it?
Although I'd bet that you don't understand my position and haven't bothered reading my earlier posts in this thread on welfare etc.
Again, a post full of personal insults rather than "naming" your economic theory......
economic theory - (economics) a theory of commercial activities (such as the production and consumption of goods)theory - a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory" consumerism - the theory that an increasing consumption of goods is economically beneficial Keynesianism - the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes who advocated government monetary and fiscal programs intended to stimulate business activity and increase employment liberalism - an economic theory advocating free competition and a self-regulating market Malthusian theory, Malthusianism - Malthus' theory that population increase would outpace increases in the means of subsistence monetarism - an economic theory holding that variations in unemployment and the rate of inflation are usually caused by changes in the supply of money economic science, economics, political economy - the branch of social science that deals with the production and distribution and consumption of goods and services and their management"
Are you by any chance looking for the term "Supply-side Economics" when you cite "supply and demand"????? Now exactly why wouldn't you, the expert on economics, not be able to come up with that "name"? Didn't you want to actually say it, or are you unaware of the other economic theories?
Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomics that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as lowering income tax and capital gains tax rates, and by allowing greater flexibility by reducing regulation. According to supply-side economics, consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices. Typical policy recommendations of supply-side economists are lower marginal tax rates and less regulation
Again, a post full of personal insults rather than "naming" your economic theory......
I explained the economics of my theory very clearly in my OP.
You, once again, post a bunch of stuff that you didn't write yourself. Are you really trying to squeeze the name of an economic philosophy out of me in order to test my point? It's irrelevant and meaningless to this discussion.
And no, I wasn't talking about supply side economics, this has nothing to do with that, as your own quote clearly shows.
If you've never heard of "supply and demand" I really don't know what to tell you, but if/when you want to answer some of my earlier questions, or make some type of actual argument, let me know.
Question: If welfare did not exist, would Walmart be forced to raise wages?
Question: What does the fact that the minimum wage has existed since 1938 have to do with the validity of arbitrary price floors in general?
Question: How does the supply and demand dynamic change in a service based economy as opposed to a manufacturing based economy?
I explained the economics of my theory very clearly in my OP.
You, once again, post a bunch of stuff that you didn't write yourself. Are you really trying to squeeze the name of an economic philosophy out of me in order to test my point? It's irrelevant and meaningless to this discussion.
And no, I wasn't talking about supply side economics, this has nothing to do with that, as your own quote clearly shows.
If you've never heard of "supply and demand" I really don't know what to tell you, but if/when you want to answer some of my earlier questions, or make some type of actual argument, let me know.
Question: If welfare did not exist, would Walmart be forced to raise wages?
Question: What does the fact that the minimum wage has existed since 1938 have to do with the validity of arbitrary price floors in general?
Question: How does the supply and demand dynamic change in a service based economy as opposed to a manufacturing based economy?
Technically Supply and Demand is a fact not a theory.
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.
