Walmart Continued - They're still evil, but maybe not anti-capitalism

I started this conversation over at my other blog, IProbablyhateyourteam, which you can find here. After a day and after talking to Chris, I realized I had several errors in what I initially posted. See below for an explanation.


Chris: wrong

see also comment #1

10:01 AM me: I agree, but that is NOT the case in a lot of areas

they are your only option

Chris: no

there is always an option

me: so capitalism is null and void

Chris: if they murdered their customers at the door, would they be the only choice?

me: see, that is where capitalists are naive and don't have a real sense of reality

Chris: what would happen if they were the "only option", but they murdered randomly 1 out of 10 customers?

they would cease to be the only option, right???

10:02 AM if the answer is "yes", then that means that at some point, there is a level of "evilness" at which people will stop shopping there

and people have decided for themselves that they have not reached that point

me: in your crazy situation, yes

10:04 AM Chris: I don't even need any of the stuff that Walmart sells. They're not a life necessity

only food & shelter are

i haven't been to a target or walmart in months

and the internet gives me virtually unlimited options

10:05 AM me: but what about this situation. a rural town that is far from other towns (50+ miles). Their only option in their town to buy food and clothing is Walmart. Most people are poor and can't afford to drive 100 miles for to do shopping. So what do they do? They shop and work at Walmart

10:06 AM walmart will put their prices at what the market dictates for that area, else they'll go out of business

10:07 AM but if they pollute the environment, treat their workers shitty, the consumer has virtually no other option

these people can't afford the internet, they can't afford to drive other places

10:08 AM so what if there is no other option

stand up to your principles and drive 100 miles, spend $20 on gas, and you give up eating for a day

or you just have to continue shopping at Walmart

10:09 AM when it comes to survival, people will chose to keep valuable resources such as eating and shelter over their principles

10:10 AM Chris: well then that means that they are deciding that those things are more important

but

the internet is so cheap

it's going to save you way more money than shopping at walmart

in the long run

10:11 AM me: true

but it's not like you can just subscribe to the internet chris

you have to buy a computer

Chris: OLPC

$100 laptop!

me: you have to pay more on your electric bill

Chris: meh, if I left my computer on all day

10:12 AM and this is a desktop, mind you

that's 300W

7.2 kW-hr per day

me: you probably have to have a credit card

Chris: so we're talking about dirt-poor, barely affording a trailer park, communities here?

me: possibly

i don't know 100%

10:13 AM Chris: i doubt walmart is making much jmoney off of them

10:14 AM me: well there could be other consumers in the area who could care less about Walmart's practices - low price is their bottom line, so they shop there

Chris: so....that means that the market doesn't care about walmart's "evilness"?

me: but part of the market does

10:15 AM Chris: how much of it?

if that were true, you could open a new store in that community

charge more money than walmart, but some segmnet of people would think it was worth it

me: believe me Chris, I want you to prove me wrong, because thinking like this is anticapitalism, and in my opinion capitalism is by far out best option

Chris: it wouldn't matter that walmart undercuts you, because the "evil" people would shop at walmart and the "righteous" people would shop at Dave's Goods

10:16 AM me: yes, but again its like the having to drive somewhere else...what do these people have to give up to pay more, to uphold their principles?

10:17 AM Chris: well, walmart's prices are so cheap because they are so "evil"

if you don't want to be "evil", you have to charge more

they're not giving up anything

they're just gaining if they shop at walmart

gaining in lower prices, that is

10:18 AM so it's not that they're trading more money for less evilness if they shop at Dave's

it's that they're trading more evilness for less money if they shop at Walmart

me: but my point was, what if they CAN'T afford to shop at Dave's goods

Chris: then they can't afford to shop anywhere except for evil places

because you can't do it for that cheap

10:19 AM me: right

Chris: unless you start recovering medical costs and cutting corners

it just can't be done

walmart is saying "look, we know you need dirt-cheap stuff, and this is how we have to run things to make it dirt cheap. We're not sorry, because we're providing a service"

10:20 AM me: but the whole point of that post was to inform consumers who can afford to shop elsewhere that they should. I'll concede that I should say Walmart is anti-capitalism but rather the ugly side of capitalism

Chris: i think it's the beautiful side of capitalism

it's showing that even in the most dire circumstances, the market will ifnd a way to provide a product

it's showing that there's always a way to get a service or goods

10:21 AM me: even if it means screwing the consumer

Chris: but that these things aren't "free" in every sense and that there are always tradeoffs

but "Dave's goods" is screwing the consumer by charging more money!

who is to say that recovering medical expenses is screwing the consumer any more than charging an extra dollar per good?

me: I feel like the bad part about capitalism is that it often screws individuals and small groups in order to provide a better "service" to a larger group

10:22 AM Chris: well, i feel that way about democracy, the whole idea of pleasing the majority at the expense of the minority

10:23 AM but in the free market, the minority can often make up its own submarket

that's the whole idea of niche markets

if you have more value to offer them, then you can make money

me: well, don't get me going about "democracy"

Chris: but we can't just give things away for free

because then the market would be screwing Dave

10:24 AM me: but walmart wasn't giving things away for "free" in this case...that woman paid into their insurance plan

Chris: right, right i know

what i meant is

Dave's Goods can't give the same price as Walmart and also stop all the "bad" things that Walmart does

the reason walmart has those prices is because of the way they run things

so you can't have both

10:25 AM (maybe you can actually, but Walmart has put a lot of research into these things so it's unlikely that they're missing something)

10:26 AM me: right, i don't disagree with you there

10:27 AM but what about this scenario..

walmart is the only place in town to get food

10:30 AM you dislike walmart and don't want to shop there but you have no other option. hmm...I might actually be arguing against myself here, but i'll continue anyway

10:31 AM i guess if you can't afford to shop at anywhere but walmart, then walmart being there, although doing things you don't like, is better then them not being there and you not being able to get the services they offer otherwise?

10:34 AM Chris: well, yeah

but, i see what you're trying to get at

if they are, in present time, the only option, then that sucks

10:35 AM but my point is, if you were sincere and honest in saying that you didn't like walmart

then you would have supported the other business that came in and offered better servcies at slightly higher prices

people who hate walmart say that other companies can't compete because walmart always undercuts them

but undercutting them shouldn't matter if people are honest in saying that they don't like walmart's services

so the people that write these articles and walmart diatribes are trying to have it both ways

10:36 AM they are trying to say that people would be willing to pay a premium for a company that was less evil than walmart

but then saying that those companies don't succeed because walmart undercuts them

so the argument is inconsistent

either the premium is worth the services, or it's not

10:37 AM also, free shipping and automatically weekly delivery of cheap groceries: http://www.amazon.com/grocery-breakfast-foods-snacks-organic/b?ie=UTF8&node=16310101

me: yeah, you're 100% right

10:38 AM Chris: I for one think that walmart's prices are not worth it

i hate walmart

10:39 AM but only because the employees are rude, and the store is filthy

and the customers are awful

so that's why i don't shop there, even though their prices are low

it's not because i think that the employ_er_ is awful

i'd soooo much rather shop at Target

but, i totally support those who decide for themselves that walmart is worth it

10:40 AM and i think it's cool that walmart can provide super cheap goods to people who might need it

10:41 AM however, telling people to wake up and not shop at walmart is one way to get them to start being willing to pay that premium for better services and more "moral" practices"

but you'll always have people that need cheaper goods

luckily, the internet is going to make that easier

me: I think I just had an epiphany about that. People a lot of times talk the talk but don't walk the walk. We were actually talking about that yesterday in terms of pollution. you can tell people different ways to reduce pollution and people will often times say they'll do that, but then won't. So unless you have a way to show others how much each person pollutes, and make them exposed to criticism, they won't alter their behavior.

10:43 AM Chris: agreed 100%

so complaining about it does have a purpose, as long as you focus it the correct way

me: true

Chris: a lot of people just say "walmart shouldn't do these tings"

instead of saying "you should be willing to pay more for a company that doesn't do these things, and here's why"

ditto w/ pollution

10:44 AM but it's so hard to get people to see the long-term for pollution, so i sympathize and appreciate your difficulties there

10:45 AM same thing w/ organics (if indeed they are better). I know a lot of people who say they support "small farms" (even though i loathe the artificial support of small farms), but when it comes time to do grocery shopping, they buy whichever milk is cheapest\

10:46 AM me: exactly

well, you shouldn't hate small farms

you should love them

small farms get about 1% of federal farm subsidies

and you can buy a share of a small farm and they'll deliver whatever crops they sell to you

10:47 AM and they receive no federal subsidies

what you should really hate are subsidies on sugar, corn, cotton and other good

Chris: well, i originally was going to say i hate small farms

but i don't

what i hate is the artificial support of them

if they are good, they shoudl succeed

10:48 AM and if they're not, then they fail

but i do go to the farmer's market and such

because i like fresh produce

me: all of the products that come from those goods (shirts, sugar based drinks - soda, juices, etc.) are super artificially cheap

10:49 AM so when its cheaper to buy a case of soda then it is 5 oranges, people drink more soda

its part of the obesity problem facing the U.S.

things that are bad for you are cheap

because of these subsidies

and then you have the issue of crop insurance

10:50 AM Chris: yeah, here's a funny chart of that actually

http://www.iwillteachyoutoberich.com/blog/food-and-personal-finance-are-similar

soft drinks have had the biggest decrease in prices

10:51 AM wrt to this specific walmart article, btw, i do think it's kinda fucked up. However, one could also argue that the trucking company is evil for not paying the money

if the lawyers had known, they would have sued the trucking company for walmart's recovery, plus the long-term care costs

10:52 AM so if we expect walmart to pay them back, we should also expect the trucking company to pay them back

after all, it's the truck co's fault that she needs the care

the article is so biased against walmart, it pulls the classic "they made 90 billion, they can afford it" shindig

10:53 AM if i'm supposed to get reimbursed $5 for parking at a company event, and then they try to take it back, i'm going to be pissed

but i don't "need" the $5 either

10:54 AM fortunately, the legal system and i get to decide if i really need it or not, not the guy who owes me the money

10:56 AM me: very valid point

their lawyer should be partially responsible for this

Chris: (also, note that government is totally different than capitalism, in that we can't have multiple competing but distinct niche markets. This is essentially what anarchocapitalism and some forms of libertarianism argue for, turning the government into a free market so that we don't oppress minorities at the behest of majorities)

agreed

me: based on the article, i feel if they got $1 from the trucking company Walmart could then recover all of their medical costs

Chris: he obviously knew about the clause, since he's the one that told Walmart about the settlement

10:57 AM me: yeah

Chris: right, they'd recover $470,000, leaving 530,000 for expenses

10:58 AM me: the family gets screwed because of it all. maybe someone should suggest that the family than sue the lawyer for not acting in the best interest of their client?

Chris: so walmart could be noble, but so could a lot of other people

it's a big clusterfuck, to be sure

me: true

10:59 AM Chris: but it's easy to blame walmart since they're rich, and therefor evil

me: I mean, I can see Walmart's argument in saying listen, if you get this huge settlement for the person/entity that did this, why should we be the ones taking that hit?

i don't think walmart is evil because they're rich

11:00 AM it's your goal in capitalism to be rich

Chris: well, it's your goal to be justly rewarded for the services that you provide

me: if someone thinks they can do it better, I'm sure walmart would welcome them to

11:01 AM Chris: let's say it's your goal to maximize your own utitlity

which could be good deeds

or money

or freedom, or whatever

but a lot of (mostly hippies) think that rich people must have done it by being evil

in reality they did it because the hippies and a lot of other people didn't walk the walk, as you say

if they did walk the walk, then it would be a hippie company that was rich

11:02 AM and the "evil" people would be complaining that all the rich companies are socialist

instead of the hippies complaining that all the rich companies are immoral

me: haha, its so true

11:05 AM Chris: now go forth and post this conversation ;-)

5 minutes

11:10 AM me: I was thinking about just posting the entire thing

11:11 AM do you have a blog? I'll link to your blog in my post if you'd like...

Chris: i have one set up, but unfortunately there's no posts yet

i'm thinking of writing an introduction though, so maybe this will give me a good reason to start

11:12 AM so gimme a day and then post it later with a link

me: k

sounds good

11:13 AM i might actually switch the whole thing over to my other blog, "Random Stuff"

11:16 AM btw, that article on regrowing body parts was amazing

Chris: true

totally crazy

me: buy god forbid we do stem cell research

11:18 AM that could be one of the biggest medical breakthroughs since the discovery of penicillin

Chris: don't even get me started on that

me: actually, its not science

its just a miracle of god