Walmart – High Cost of Low Prices



4 Responses to “Walmart – High Cost of Low Prices”

  1. mad dog Says:

    A rebuttal:

  2. briankoontz Says:

    That’s not a rebuttal. That’s just a guy with a lot of abusive invective and a few carefully chosen facts.

    The perhaps most amusing part was calling Walmart a “winner” for what they do. Well, at least the corporate managers and stockholders are winning (strictly economically). It’s too bad the majority of the company is made up not of them but of the employees.

    The best criticism against anti-Walmart I’ve seen is that other companies do what Walmart does, just either less effectively or to a lesser extent. Best Buy for example is like a mini-Walmart, from their corporate brainwashing to their managerial abuse to their anti-Union practices.

    However, this criticism is hardly a pro-capitalist position. When Penn and Teller point out the wage slaves not working at Walmart that’s not to say that Walmart is good but that the whole economy is fundamentally bad (that is to say, exploitative… those holding the whip rarely see it as bad).

    I very much agree that the criticism of American capitalism should move beyond just criticizing Walmart. They are merely the worst of the worst.

    Based on the invective it’s clear that the legacy of Rush Limbaugh lives on.

  3. mad dog Says:

    I think that the ‘High Cost of Low Prices’ (I’ve seen it by the way) is right to criticize Walmart, but it leaves out important things like how Wal-Mart has made comfy deals with the state to undermine the market to their advantage, like through the use of eminent domain, and sometimes using the state to bully competitors.

    I will also say that I agree with Penn more often than not, but I wonder if he realizes that corporations are creations of the state.

  4. briankoontz Says:

    If someone is primarily using invective and rhetoric it hardly matters if I agree with them – they need to stop with the invective and rhetoric. It’s very possible to have a politically and emotionally charged piece without such things – Chomsky is a good example. Limbaugh is an example of when the invective and rhetoric dominate the presentation.

    The underlying support for such creatures as Limbaugh is the idea that only through invective and rhetoric can one get a point across. According to this idea, shocking and terrorizing *work*. Not only is this false, the prevalence of the idea itself is a serious threat to a good society.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: