|
|
Wal-Mart
Jonathan Cook wrote:
As far as I can tell, any capitalist ought to hold Walmart up as the acme of capitalism. Wal-Mart gives capitalism a bad name. All I can figure is that they are hated because they figured out how to do it better than anyone else. Or maybe they're hated because they don't mark their goods up enough, thus undercutting everyone else trying to make more of a profit. Their profit margin is _very_ slim. They make up for it in quantity. What's wrong with that? The list of abuses Wal-Mart engages in is long and well documented. You can find them easily on the Web. Just type "walmart" into the Google search field. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
Wal-Mart
"rw" wrote ... As far as I can tell, any capitalist ought to hold Walmart up as the acme of capitalism. Wal-Mart gives capitalism a bad name. Wal-Mart may well give a bad name to many things (social resposibility, environmental responsibility, etc.) but to say that Wal-Mart gives capitalism a bad name is entirely wrong. rant They have capitalized on every opportunity they saw. They have capitalized on the American public's indifference to their own stupidity. They have capitalized on the laissez-faire policies of the current (and, to at least some degree, former) administration(s). They have capitalized on the willingness of one nation (China) to supply cheap, slave (OK, maybe not technically 'slave', but anyone who says it's not close to that is just plain wrong) labor in order to satisy the American consumer's lust for "things"...and at a low price, complete with ridiculous "smiley guy" logo. They have capitalized on the willingness of the American government to shoulder the cost of the services they refuse to provide, most especially health care for their workers (not that they necessarily 'should' provide them, but that's a separate argument -- Wal-Mart does not, and the cost is therefore largely borne by government.) Finally, and IMO, most egregiously, they have capitalized on the total hypocrisy that is the American right today --wrap yourself in the flag, tote-n-quote from a Bible, and claim to be Christian -- all while selling our great-great-grandchildren into debt and screwing everyone and everything in order to make money.. /rant Seems to me that Wal-Mart is the absolute pinnacle of capitalism -- they do a damned fine job of making money. The bad name should go to those people that allow to exist the opportunities upon which Wal-Mart capitalizes. Dan |
Wal-Mart
"rw" wrote in message m... Wal-Mart gives capitalism a bad name. No, the capitalism give capitalism a bad name. Op |
Wal-Mart
|
Wal-Mart
You don't seem to know the difference between 'capitalism' and capitalize.
Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. Whereas to capitalize in the sense you are using it, is to turn something to one's advantage. Wal-Mart has a bad name because it comes into a town and systematically puts the small businesses out of business. For example, they will make pharmaceutical prices so low that the local pharmacy can't compete at all. Once they're out, Wal-Mart raises it's prices, then next it's the hardware store, then the clothing store, then the sporting goods store, etc. True, they can have lower prices than the local mom and pop stores anyway, but if it's only a little, enough people will shop the mom and pop to hurt Wal-Mart, so Wal-Mart's policy is 'They must go!' This is not conjecture, it has been proven in court. After some court loses, they claim to have changed that policy, but I think they've found other ways to skin that cat - China, wages, benefits, to name a few. As has been said here, we don't have to shop there, if we don't like them - that's part of capitalism - but, it seems, "Money talks, nobody walks." Gene "Daniel-San" wrote in message om... "rw" wrote ... As far as I can tell, any capitalist ought to hold Walmart up as the acme of capitalism. Wal-Mart gives capitalism a bad name. Wal-Mart may well give a bad name to many things (social resposibility, environmental responsibility, etc.) but to say that Wal-Mart gives capitalism a bad name is entirely wrong. rant They have capitalized on every opportunity they saw. They have capitalized on the American public's indifference to their own stupidity. They have capitalized on the laissez-faire policies of the current (and, to at least some degree, former) administration(s). They have capitalized on the willingness of one nation (China) to supply cheap, slave (OK, maybe not technically 'slave', but anyone who says it's not close to that is just plain wrong) labor in order to satisy the American consumer's lust for "things"...and at a low price, complete with ridiculous "smiley guy" logo. They have capitalized on the willingness of the American government to shoulder the cost of the services they refuse to provide, most especially health care for their workers (not that they necessarily 'should' provide them, but that's a separate argument -- Wal-Mart does not, and the cost is therefore largely borne by government.) Finally, and IMO, most egregiously, they have capitalized on the total hypocrisy that is the American right today --wrap yourself in the flag, tote-n-quote from a Bible, and claim to be Christian -- all while selling our great-great-grandchildren into debt and screwing everyone and everything in order to make money.. /rant Seems to me that Wal-Mart is the absolute pinnacle of capitalism -- they do a damned fine job of making money. The bad name should go to those people that allow to exist the opportunities upon which Wal-Mart capitalizes. Dan |
Wal-Mart
"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
... I know two women who work at the local WM. [snip]. Is everyone at WM as fortunate as they? Of course not. Would it matter if they all joined a union? Walmart's issues are out there for most to see. Is it a fair shake? I don't know. As to a union, who knows? You implied something entirely different based on two people you know and three hardware stores. As with most everything, the right answer, whatever it is lies somewhere between the poles. |
Wal-Mart
wrote in message
... I'm sure you'll understand that Walmart does not get what amounts to a subsidy on things like healthcare, etc. by virtue of public assistance programs. Not directly for healthcare but like many they have asked for and in some cases got targeted tax breaks for other purposes. Are they alone? Of course not, but the shear number of outlets and employees needing assistance makes for an easy target and does create a supportable argument that taxpayers subsidize Walmart indirectly in the employee benefit arena. When I worked in the investor owned side of healthcare, we used to use our tax payments as a selling point to local and state governements. But we darn sure weren't shy about asking for tax abatements when the situation presented itself either You may scoff, but personally I think the days when one could get a decent job at a livable wage, buy a house, raise the family, and take an annual vacation are going away for most people. Is Walmart a cause or a sympton? I'll let the social scientists figure it out It's just too easy to send the skilled stuff offshore. It is even affecting healthcare, I know of three hospitals that outsource Radiology reads to Australia via tele-radiology. Why pay 400K + each for four radiologists just to read films, when you can hire one to do interventions and get the images read cheaper elsewhere? If Walmart were to pay even part-time associates 20USD an hour with healthcare and other benefits, they'd not be able to sell things at the same prices, and so, the consumer (including the associates themselves) would have to pay more across the board, be it at Walmart or wherever. All of which most can agree with. Maybe if they weren't so damn good at it eh? And few such companies pre-Walmart offered company-wide benefits and few do today - not many "mom-n-pop" operations pay big bucks and/or provide benefits. And FWIW, at Walmart, full-timers and department managers and above generally get good benefits. As I understood it when I was in Kansas, the qualifications and coverage levels were difficult and maintain and often minimal at best.. Like I said they have a good business model, especially for the stockholders. Times are a changing and Walmart happens to be the poster child for what is good and bad in today's economy. |
Wal-Mart
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 22:24:16 -0400, "Wayne Knight"
wrote: wrote in message .. . I'm sure you'll understand that Walmart does not get what amounts to a subsidy on things like healthcare, etc. by virtue of public assistance programs. Not directly for healthcare but like many they have asked for and in some cases got targeted tax breaks for other purposes. Are they alone? Of course not, but the shear number of outlets and employees needing assistance makes for an easy target and does create a supportable argument that taxpayers subsidize Walmart indirectly in the employee benefit arena. When I worked in the investor owned side of healthcare, we used to use our tax payments as a selling point to local and state governements. But we darn sure weren't shy about asking for tax abatements when the situation presented itself either You may scoff, but personally I think the days when one could get a decent job at a livable wage, buy a house, raise the family, and take an annual vacation are going away for most people. Is Walmart a cause or a sympton? I don't scoff, I would simply point out that those days were never really here, or perhaps more accurately, those days might have gotten here until people's expectations of what constitutes "living" out-stripped the ability of the economy to provide it - your notion seems to be a rose-colored view of life in the US and some of the "western world" for a few extremely economically lucky post-WWII years combined with relatively moderate material desires, not a long-standing historical precedent now being wiped away. IOW, new cars, fancy TVs, washers and dryers, microwaves, etc., not to mention things like daily 4.00USD a cup coffee and a closet full of 75.00 jeans, 150.00 "tennis" shoes, 90.00 golf shirts, etc. being a basic necessity to which they are entitled is simply not "living" in the sense contemplated by rational people reviewing history. TC, R |
Wal-Mart
Wayne Knight wrote:
Like I said they have a good business model, especially for the stockholders. Not really. Wal-Mart's stock price is down almost 30% over the past four years. Their business model is unsustainable, depending as it does on wrecking the economies and the wages of their customer base. They're tactical geniuses and strategic morons. You'd be a fool to invest in Wal-Mart today. (Or four years ago.) Corporations can be good citizens, but not when they're driven by all-consuming growth by any means, not looking farther ahead than their noses buried in next quarterly report. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
Wal-Mart
I guess I live in a different world (pause while rw rants).
The WM's wherever I have lived have always BROUGHT BUSINESS IN. Mom and Pop went out of business long before WM spread out. Safeway and Piggly-Wiggly did that. As to the local taxpayers paying medical costs, most jobs in the small towns WM serves never did have medical bennies. Where I grew up, there never was such a thing. Medical bills were paid in cash or installment. Where, outside Marxist enclaves, did medical care become a right guaranteed by government? Of course, all our OB/GYN and anesthetists had left the state due to insane lawsuits. New law limiting torts just brought them back in. But I ramble.............. cheers oz, who lives high on low means -- and pays cash |
Wal-Mart
MajorOz wrote:
Where, outside Marxist enclaves, did medical care become a right guaranteed by government? Have you ever heard of Medicare? -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
Wal-Mart
rw wrote: MajorOz wrote: Where, outside Marxist enclaves, did medical care become a right guaranteed by government? Have you ever heard of Medicare? ....ever hear of non sequitor? If you can't stay in context, don't bother to comment. cheers oz |
Wal-Mart
MajorOz wrote:
Where, outside Marxist enclaves, did medical care become a right guaranteed by government? In pretty much all "developed" nations except the U.S. Some are better at providing the care than others, of course, but still, I'd rather be poor and sick in Italy than poor and sick in the U.S. JR |
Wal-Mart
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 00:00:03 -0700, JR wrote:
MajorOz wrote: Where, outside Marxist enclaves, did medical care become a right guaranteed by government? In pretty much all "developed" nations except the U.S. Some are better at providing the care than others, of course, but still, I'd rather be poor and sick in Italy than poor and sick in the U.S. JR I'm curious - have you been poor and sick in the US? Italy? Anywhere? And if your answer is yes, where were you sick and with what passport? TC, R |
Wal-Mart
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 21:03:38 -0400, "Gene Cottrell"
wrote: For example, they will make pharmaceutical prices so low that the local pharmacy can't compete at all. Once they're out, Wal-Mart raises it's prices, then next it's the hardware store, then the clothing store, then the sporting goods store, etc. True, they can have lower prices than the local mom and pop stores anyway, but if it's only a little, enough people will shop the mom and pop to hurt Wal-Mart, so Wal-Mart's policy is 'They must go!' This is not conjecture, it has been proven in court. Completely wrong. Believe it or not, Walmart sees its biggest competitor as its own stores, especially older ones. And here's a hint: would your average "mom-n-pop" store really want to take Walmart's customers away - IOW, have them all leave Walmart and come into their store? No? So why would Walmart want to take "mom-n-pop's?" Really think about that before you answer. As to "proven in court," VERY little is "proven" in court. Finders of fact may decide something (liable or not liable, guilty or not guilty - note, not "innocent") based on the appropriate standard (51% or greater, depending on civil or criminal). About as close as it comes is a civil action filed following a criminal conviction (and not the other way around), where the criminal conviction can be used as evidence, and even then, it's simply the law following the logic - it still isn't "proof." HTH, R |
Wal-Mart
MajorOz wrote:
rw wrote: MajorOz wrote: Where, outside Marxist enclaves, did medical care become a right guaranteed by government? Have you ever heard of Medicare? ...ever hear of non sequitor? If you can't stay in context, don't bother to comment. FYI: Medicare is a federal health insurance program for people age 65 and older and for individuals with disabilities. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
Wal-Mart
|
Wal-Mart
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 09:05:37 -0700, JR wrote:
wrote: On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 00:00:03 -0700, JR wrote: I'm curious - have you been poor and sick in the US? Yes. Italy? No. I picked Italy as an example, though, because I'm very familiar with the medical system there, having lived (and been sick) there and knowing many Italians and immigrants to Italy, "poor" by U.S. standards, who deal regularly with that system. And please define "poor." And to save time, "poor by US standards" ain't gonna impress me much - YMMV. What does that mean, anyway - they can't afford Starbucks _daily_, to supersize their McHeartAttack Meal, only 112 channels on cable/satellite, and the greatest horror of them all, Capital One will only give them a regular old Visa...what's in your wallet? I'd have picked Canada as an example, but it's spring there and I thought I'd leave poor Petah to fish in peace..... ;) Hey, we all know Canada is, by some stroke of fortune, paradise on earth, so comparing ANYTHING to what's available there just isn't a fair thing to do...hell, they aren't even burdened with real money... TC, R |
Wal-Mart
rw wrote: MajorOz wrote: rw wrote: MajorOz wrote: Where, outside Marxist enclaves, did medical care become a right guaranteed by government? Have you ever heard of Medicare? ...ever hear of non sequitor? If you can't stay in context, don't bother to comment. FYI: Medicare is a federal health insurance program for people age 65 and older and for individuals with disabilities. The subject under consideration was health benifits, whether employers provided them, and, if not, were locals paying for them. ....as I said, it is best, if you have a valid point, to stay in context and attempt to develop it. Otherwise, don't bother to comment. cheers oz.....evasion is not a virtue, unless mom asks whose fingerprint is in the cake |
Wal-Mart
|
Wal-Mart
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 10:39:37 -0700, JR wrote:
wrote: And please define "poor." And to save time, "poor by US standards" ain't gonna impress me much - YMMV. For the sake of this particular argument, let it mean anything from "lower middle class" (and, yes, that can be relative across societies) to "penniless." Regardless of nit-picking definitions, I stand by my statement, slightly rephrased, that I'd rather be a poor Italian sick in Italy than a poor American sick in the U.S. I suspect I'd also rather be a poor German sick in Germany than a poor American sick in the U.S., but I don't know the medical system there--nor the economy--well enough to say with much confidence. I mean this as a serious question - why didn't you remain in Italy and become an Italian citizen, or, why don't you return and become one? IOW, why wouldn't you rather be an Italian citizen as opposed to your current (US?) citizenship? The statement is based on experience. If you disagree, that's fine with me. I don't agree or disagree because I haven't any basis to even form an opinion on why _you_ would rather be a poor Italian sick in Italy than a poor American sick in the US. Even if I had such information, your preferences are yours and IMO, folks are perfectly entitled to their preferences. TC, R |
Wal-Mart
|
Wal-Mart
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 11:11:13 -0700, JR wrote:
wrote: I mean this as a serious question - why didn't you remain in Italy and become an Italian citizen, or, why don't you return and become one? IOW, why wouldn't you rather be an Italian citizen as opposed to your current (US?) citizenship? Honestly, I'd have thought you both educated *and* smart enough to be above falling back not just on "love it or leave it," but implying something like "if there is *even one thing* about the U.S. that you don't believe is the absolute best in the world, then leave it." Well, see, there you are...I've have no idea how educated *or* smart you are, but I allowed that you wouldn't immediately read something into the question that wasn't there, even with a flat-out statement that it was a serious question. Heck, I didn't presume that you were a US citizen. I simply asked why you didn't obtain Italian citizenship. For one thing, I am not--at least for the moment, thank God--poor. For another, there's more to life (and even to being an American) than health care. Fly fishing in Italy, for example, though nice enough, can't hold a candle...... :) And, seemingly unintentionally, you've answered my question: because there's more to life than healthcare (and actually, it'd be your cost of it, not its quality), and given a choice as to where to live, Italy wouldn't be (and, in fact, wasn't) that choice. Life is about choices, and if Walmart were forced to pay union wages and provide healthcare benefits such as, for example, GM was/is, it might be in the same financial condition as GM, and a loaf of bread or tube socks at Walmart would be 42.99USD (and the loaf of bread would only be 8 slices and have electrical problems, and the socks would only get 13 MPG highway). The public, and not limited to the US public, has decided it likes 69 cent large white loaves and tube socks, and thus, in the US, that choice means, among other things, no healthcare for every employee. It really isn't a matter of fair or unfair, simply the population choosing where it wishes to allocate its capital. You can attempt to "cafeteria plan" as to why this country or that is better than another, but when the total picture is considered, the US is still a pretty good place to call home. TC, R ....and I'm never surprised at the number of people who talk about how much better it is somewhere else...where they don't choose to live... |
Wal-Mart
|
Wal-Mart
MajorOz wrote:
Where I grew up, there never was such a thing. Medical bills were paid in cash or installment. Where, outside Marxist enclaves, did medical care become a right guaranteed by government? I have tried to avoid answering to your posts for a variety of reasons but oh well. Have you had to pay fur an unplanned major health event lately? Because of the games hospitals have to play with the insurance companies, in CA I've seen reports of hip fractures costing in excess of 6 figures. Maybe you can write a check for that should you have that happen but I sure the heck can;t. And I help run hospitals. Never considered Western European and Canada countries to be Marxist enclaves myself. But since I assume you meant the US, the current thought is that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness includes healthcare. What no one has come up with a method to pay for it. But the Fed already pays for the elderly and the poor (medicaid), those groups have a right to government paid health care in your tidy little world. |
Wal-Mart
"Wayne Knight" wrote in
oups.com: ecause of the games hospitals have to play with the insurance companies, in CA I've seen reports of hip fractures costing in excess of 6 figures. At those prices, why would anybody buy one? -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
Wal-Mart
"JR" wrote in message ... wrote: And please define "poor." And to save time, "poor by US standards" ain't gonna impress me much - YMMV. For the sake of this particular argument, let it mean anything from "lower middle class" (and, yes, that can be relative across societies) to "penniless." Regardless of nit-picking definitions, I stand by my statement, slightly rephrased, that I'd rather be a poor Italian sick in Italy than a poor American sick in the U.S. I suspect I'd also rather be a poor German sick in Germany than a poor American sick in the U.S., but I don't know the medical system there--nor the economy--well enough to say with much confidence. The statement is based on experience. If you disagree, that's fine with me. I would rather be a sick destitute American than a destitute Italian. Having used the Italian health system as a US citizen on vacation, I have high regards for their health system. But the system is paid for with high taxes. $3+ a gallon on fuel, and high tax rates. How many MRI machines per capita? In the 1970's there were 7 in the San Francisco Bay area, there was one in British Columbia. How long to wait for a major procedure? If you are poor in America, you have excellent access to medical care. No hospital will or can turn you away. The State and Federal government's transfer your tax money to the providers to pay for the care. If you are middle class, and have assets, then you can be in trouble. If no insurance, the providers will take your assets if you can not pay. After the assets are gone, then you join the first catagory and get the taxpayers to pay for your care. And with more facilities available, then you are more likely as a poor person to survive a dibilitating desease or injury here than in a lot of other countries with socialized medical care. Is why Canadians with money come to the USA for care. No 2-3 year wait for a knee replacement, or a 9 month wait for an MRI. For the poor, we have socialized medicine. MediCal in California, called something else in every other state. |
Wal-Mart
"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
... On 22 Apr 2006 14:19:38 -0700, "MajorOz" wrote: wrote: ...I'm still waiting to hear about y'all's favorite local home-town cheap crap purveyors that Walmart put out of business... Walmart hasn't, won't, and couldn't do many, if any, of the places with which I regularly trade any harm, much less put them out of business... That is true almost everywhere WM has located. In most cases, they IMPROVE local options, by bringing in other stores -- kind of the "anchor stor" concept in a shopping mall. And, yes, the "mom-and-pop" stores are still there -- they are called "7-11" Virtually all the whining is done by union activists and the Amy Goodman types. When Walmart opened a store in my small town, I thought that would be the end of the good hardware stores. Not so. The original three are still open after many years of WM, and they will never be displaced by them. I run a little, and I mean LITTLE, tackle shop out of my garage. With a little research I was able to find wholesalers that let me compete with walmart on price. I order very sparingly to keep the kids in fishing gear. Those customers who are really interested in good gear will come to the shop and put in an order for nice cortland Rods and high end lines and reels. Walmart isn't too far away and everyone knows thats where to get the good price. The folks looking for quality and someone who has time to chat about fishing and what to use will come to my shop. Even when I don't know what to use, i usually know who caught what fish and where.. and have asked them what they used. Walmart guys don't have time to talk about fishing for 20 minutes while they count out your worms, offer you coffee and show your kids how to cast a line out. Walmart isn't competition for me. I shop there regularly even. They have cheap prices on yummy groceries, I bought a sweet laptop there... You just can't really stop an associate and ask for an opinion or which product is best... most honestly they don't know. They can point you to where the stuff is, but not help you with your choice or offer advice. Not many can tell you what the stripers were being caught on last week or how to oil/grease a reel. They do create a helluva lot of jobs. When you are down and out, they will be hiring, and don't mind working around your availablility. I have never worked there, but as a single dad, feel a bit of comfort knowing there is a job for me there if I need one that will accept I am a parent and need to be home when the bus pulls in. How do you guys know there are so many welfare fat slobs there shopping unless... you are there shopping with them? If it offends you to shop there..... don't. Spend more money somewhere else and you will never see the folks in the Walmart store again!. Maybe the folks with less money are more concerned with product usefulness instead of paying extra for the "privilage?" of buying the same things at Target for 30% more. I would personally rather buy a product for 30% less at walmart than shop with upper middle housewives at target for the SAME thing. The housewives might be a bit prettier... but they don't save me money. Their clothing lines and what not aren't the best at walmart.. blah blah blah... but when you need to get through a business casual interview those $12.00 kahkis work just as well as the $40.00 ones. 90% of millionaires don't look like millionaires and many of them DO shop walmart, Salvation army, goodwill, and bargain lots. Millionaires have all that money because they don't spend it on status, and wasteful expenses. It could be some of those "fat slobs" have a stockpile like no one else.... could be some are just fat slobs. either way, the place saves me money everytime. When I don't know what I'm shopping for and need quality, I go to a small mom and pop, like mine. I shop a local video game shop because they give my daughter tips on what gameboy games are cool and when the prices will drop. they take time to show her the games and talk to me about what types of games I like and whats coming out, what to rent and what to buy.... and what they thought of them. Well worth the extra $3-$5 per game.... and they save my daughter that same $3-$5 in allowance money. win/win -Sprattoo -- flies from $5.60 per DOZEN! Rods/Reels and Gear www.fly-fishing-flies.com |
Wal-Mart
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 12:08:28 -0700, JR wrote:
Nor did I say I'd rather be an Italian than an American, only that if I were poor and sick, I'd get better medical treatment if I were an Italian in Italy than an American here. Er, no, this is the first time you've said that you'd "get better medical treatment if I were an Italian in Italy than an American here" and phrased that way, I'd offer that such a premise is the losing position in a debate on the issue. Thus far, all you've stated is where you'd prefer to be sick. Heck, I'd rather have a cold in Tahiti than be fit as a fiddle in Los Angeles. A wealthy Italian or whatever nationality would stand a better chance of getting _better_ medical treatment anywhere than a "poor" American or whatever nationality anywhere, but that's a different debate, too. You appear, as many do, to wish to marry the (apparent) cost to the patient with the quality/skill of the care. What you _might_ get in Italy is medical treatment of some degree at a less readily-apparent cost to you when compared to what you _might_ get in the US. TC, R ....and enjoy Uganda...but watch out for loonies with bazookas out elephant hunting - I'd rather be a poor Italian with 14 serious diseases on the sidewalk outside a US hospital than be a comfortable US citizen (with good insurance _and_ AFLAC, no less) in Uganda with a minor flesh wound... |
Wal-Mart
|
Wal-Mart
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:07:33 -0700, JR wrote:
wrote: On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 12:08:28 -0700, JR wrote: ..... only that if I were poor and sick, I'd get better medical treatment if I were an Italian in Italy than an American here. Er, no, this is the first time you've said that you'd "get better medical treatment if I were an Italian in Italy than an American here" My bad. I assumed since the topic was medical care and health care systems, that *that* was how what I wrote would be read. Why? "Better" is not the same as or even related to "at little or no apparent cost." Heck, Walmart sells tools and they are pretty inexpensive...wanna try to rebuilt a Cat diesel with 'em? OTOH, Walmart sells large white loaves and I'd guess they are probably, well, they are as good as those costing two or three times as much... The whole tube sock angle was, I confess, entirely unforeseen. Nobody expects the tube sock inqui...er, nevermind... TC, R |
Wal-Mart
"Calif Bill" wrote: the system is paid for with high taxes. $3+ a gallon on fuel, and high tax rates. (gasp) You mean middle class Italians don't drive around in 6000 pound SUV's like middle class Americans do, just because they can? What a backward and contemptible society they must be! |
Wal-Mart
Charlie Wilson wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote: the system is paid for with high taxes. $3+ a gallon on fuel, and high tax rates. (gasp) You mean middle class Italians don't drive around in 6000 pound SUV's like middle class Americans do, just because they can? What a backward and contemptible society they must be! Also, we get to have $3+ a gallon gas *without* high gas taxes used to pay for government services..... Anyway, the burden of high taxes on Italians is widely overestimated. They simply evade them! And when the financial police (yes, that's right) come around, they simply bribe them. It all works out in the end. :) No joke. The biggest problem I had finding an apartment when I first arrived was finding a landlord who didn't want me to sign two rental agreements: the "real" one showing the actual rent, and another, showing a much lower rent, he could file with the tax authorities.... |
Wal-Mart
wrote in message ... On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 21:03:38 -0400, "Gene Cottrell" wrote: Completely wrong. Believe it or not, Walmart sees its biggest competitor as its own stores, especially older ones. And here's a hint: would your average "mom-n-pop" store really want to take Walmart's customers away - IOW, have them all leave Walmart and come into their store? No? So why would Walmart want to take "mom-n-pop's?" Really think about that before you answer. HTH, R What do you mean? Those customers were Mom-n-pops before Wal-Mart came to town. You can't be serious and I doubt you're that stupid. Gene |
Wal-Mart
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 23:16:52 -0400, "Gene Cottrell"
wrote: wrote in message .. . On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 21:03:38 -0400, "Gene Cottrell" wrote: Completely wrong. Believe it or not, Walmart sees its biggest competitor as its own stores, especially older ones. And here's a hint: would your average "mom-n-pop" store really want to take Walmart's customers away - IOW, have them all leave Walmart and come into their store? No? So why would Walmart want to take "mom-n-pop's?" Really think about that before you answer. HTH, R What do you mean? Those customers were Mom-n-pops before Wal-Mart came to town. You can't be serious and I doubt you're that stupid. Gene No. They were driven out of business by a combination of larger chain groceries or hardware stores and their own ineptitude. Where I lived before, the two of three local hardware stores that gave good service managed to survive. The one that tried to be big itself, but didn't have knowledgeable clerks or good customer service went under. The grocery in walking distance went downhill with each successive owner after the original owners sold out. The quality of this and that failed as they tried to cut prices and then they turned their garage / storage area into a video game shop that got closed down for lots of noise and scum violations. But up until the original owners, who did quality (not to mention credit) and service sold it, that little grocery stayed busy enough. We now live where there's a hardware store and a meat store right across the street from a newer WalMart. They're both still doing good business. I'll go to that little hardware store first every time, because I can walk in there with a washer, hand it to any of them, and ask for one just like it and they'll show me two they think will work and tell me to return the one that doesn't. Not that I would, after taking it out of the plastic packaging. Then I'll go over to the meat market and be able to actually special order something. Or get the baby back ribs and they'll snip the integument to save me the time and trouble. The WalMart and the two very nearby grocery stores and the fairly near big hardware / lumber store haven't hurt either of those smaller stores. Neither of the little stores knows me by name, but they've seen me fairly often and they greet everyone in a friendly manner anyway. Not like the official 'greeter' at the WalMart. Oh, the 'greeters' try, but... And fat people shop at WalMart because they carry the sizes that Target doesn't. Now that I've lost a bunch of weight, I could find slacks that would fit at Target, but I'll hardly bother. I know that unless I get model skinny (and maybe still then), I'll find something adequate at WalMart. It's not as if I care much about my clothing, other than decently respectable and comfortable and it's nice if they're inexpensive. -- r.bc: vixen Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc.. Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless. Really. |
Wal-Mart
"JR" wrote in message ... Charlie Wilson wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote: the system is paid for with high taxes. $3+ a gallon on fuel, and high tax rates. (gasp) You mean middle class Italians don't drive around in 6000 pound SUV's like middle class Americans do, just because they can? What a backward and contemptible society they must be! Also, we get to have $3+ a gallon gas *without* high gas taxes used to pay for government services..... Anyway, the burden of high taxes on Italians is widely overestimated. They simply evade them! And when the financial police (yes, that's right) come around, they simply bribe them. It all works out in the end. :) No joke. The biggest problem I had finding an apartment when I first arrived was finding a landlord who didn't want me to sign two rental agreements: the "real" one showing the actual rent, and another, showing a much lower rent, he could file with the tax authorities.... That is $3+ in taxes. |
Wal-Mart
"Charlie Wilson" wrote in message . .. "Calif Bill" wrote: the system is paid for with high taxes. $3+ a gallon on fuel, and high tax rates. (gasp) You mean middle class Italians don't drive around in 6000 pound SUV's like middle class Americans do, just because they can? What a backward and contemptible society they must be! Actually there are a lot of BMW x5 etc driving around Europe, Italy included. They may not be a Hummer, but they do not get great milage either. And the reason they do not drive a Hummer, etc, as the roads are too narrow in a lot of cities and towns. Since they were designed for ox carts. |
Wal-Mart
"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message ... ...They work 40 hour weeks, and are married to other folks who are employed.... Well, unless they're gay. Wolfgang |
Wal-Mart
wrote in message ... ...I mean this as a serious question.... HA HA HA! DAMN!, you crack me up! :) I don't agree or disagree because I haven't any basis to even form an opinion on why _you_ would rather be a poor Italian sick in Italy than a poor American sick in the US. Even if I had such information, your preferences are yours and IMO, folks are perfectly entitled to their preferences. In other words, you have absolutely nothing to say. You COULD have done it with fewer words, you know. Wolfgang |
Wal-Mart
"Scott Seidman" wrote in message . 1.4... "Wayne Knight" wrote in oups.com: ecause of the games hospitals have to play with the insurance companies, in CA I've seen reports of hip fractures costing in excess of 6 figures. At those prices, why would anybody buy one? Status. Wolfgang it's the bumper nuts i can't figure out. :( |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:50 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter