PDA

View Full Version : PROFESSOR WILLIAMS: How to understand leftists.



LWW
06-03-2011, 05:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The liberal vision of government is easily understood and makes perfect sense if one acknowledges their misunderstanding and implied assumptions about the sources of income. Their vision helps explain the language they use and policies they support, such as income redistribution and calls for the rich to give something back.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Suppose the true source of income was a gigantic pile of money meant to be shared equally amongst Americans. The reason some people have more money than others is because they got to the pile first and greedily took an unfair share. That being the case, justice requires that the rich give something back, and if they won't do so voluntarily, Congress should confiscate their ill-gotten gains and return them to their rightful owners.

A competing liberal implied assumption about the sources of income is that income is distributed, as in distribution of income. There might be a dealer of dollars. The reason why some people have more dollars than others is because the dollar dealer is a racist, a sexist, a multinationalist or a conservative. The only right thing to do, for those to whom the dollar dealer unfairly dealt too many dollars, is to give back their ill-gotten gains. If they refuse to do so, then it's the job of Congress to use their agents at the IRS to confiscate their ill-gotten gains and return them to their rightful owners. In a word, there must be a re-dealing of the dollars or what some people call income redistribution.</span>

The sane among us recognize that in a free society, income is neither taken nor distributed; for the most part, it is earned. Income is earned by pleasing one's fellow man. The greater one's ability to please his fellow man, the greater is his claim on what his fellow man produces. Those claims are represented by the number of dollars received from his fellow man.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Say I mow your lawn. For doing so, you pay me $20. I go to my grocer and demand, "Give me 2 pounds of steak and a six-pack of beer that my fellow man produced." In effect, the grocer asks, "Williams, you're asking your fellow man to serve you. Did you serve him?" I reply, "Yes." The grocer says, "Prove it."

That's when I pull out the $20 I earned from serving my fellow man. We can think of that $20 as "certificates of performance." They stand as proof that I served my fellow man. It would be no different if I were an orthopedic doctor, with a large clientele, earning $500,000 per year by serving my fellow man. By the way, having mowed my fellow man's lawn or set his fractured fibula, what else do I owe him or anyone else? What's the case for being forced to give anything back? If one wishes to be charitable, that's an entirely different matter.</span>

Contrast the morality of having to serve one's fellow man in order to have a claim on what he produces with congressional handouts. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>In effect, Congress says, "You don't have to serve your fellow man in order to have a claim on what he produces. We'll take what he produces and give it to you. Just vote for me."</span>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Who should give back? Sam Walton founded Wal-Mart, Bill Gates founded Microsoft, Steve Jobs founded Apple Computer.</span> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Which one of these billionaires acquired their wealth by coercing us to purchase their product? Which has taken the property of anyone?</span>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Each of these examples, and thousands more, is a person who served his fellow men by producing products and services that made life easier. What else do they owe? They've already given.</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>If anyone is obliged to give something back, they are the thieves and recipients of legalized theft, namely people who've used Congress, including America's corporate welfare queens, to live at the expense of others. When a nation vilifies the productive and makes mascots of the unproductive, it doesn't bode well for its future.</span> </div></div>

OH DEAR! (http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2011/05/18/understanding_liberals) Professor Williams slays thugonomic hypothesis with reality.

pooltchr
06-03-2011, 07:47 AM
A very well thought out article. Too bad it won't make a dent on those who refuse to try and understand it.

Steve

LWW
06-03-2011, 08:20 AM
Walter is a genius, and you are right ... the moonbat crazy left won't dare to attempt to debate his logic.

And we both know why.

Soflasnapper
06-03-2011, 01:46 PM
It is to laugh, all these ivory tower Libertarians with their nonsense. Nothing is more unrealistic than their version of an all-good marketplace.

As Adam Smith, father of the theory of capitalism and markets in his seminal work "Wealth of Nations" (1776), said, you get two businessmen in a room, and they immediately conspire to fix prices and corner the market in a monopolistic fashion.

As if Microsoft didn't use extreme predatory methods to quash Netscape illegally, or as if WalMart didn't violate wage and hour rules to make employees work without pay and without overtime due them by law?

Of course they did, and as has been remarked by others, behind every great fortune is a great crime. This is called history. Look into it.

LWW
06-03-2011, 02:24 PM
How does your reply have any relationship to the article?

What's that?

It doesn't?

No kidding.

Although the 2 businesspersons in a room statement is factually accurate, as it's the third and more which get the competitive pricing going, there is no industry in America ... other than gubmint protected monopolies ... which have 2 or fewer providers for a service.

Beyond that, the article wasn't about competition.

The article was about whether wealth is static or can be created and destroyed ... about whether wealth belongs to the creator or the state ... whether or not wealth should be distributed by how one contributes or by who one votes for.

IOW ... it was about questions which leftists cannot even comprehend as being debatable.

LWW
06-03-2011, 02:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As if Microsoft didn't use extreme predatory methods to quash Netscape illegally, or as if WalMart didn't violate wage and hour rules to make employees work without pay and without overtime due them by law?</div></div>

Actually ... Microsoft was harassed over providing a free web browser as part of their OS while Apple was given a pass for doing the exact same thing. The only substantive difference was that Apple was a big Clinton backer and Microsoft wasn't.

Walmart, OTOH, had a Clinton ... Hillary ... on the board of directors and also was a big Clinton backer.

Do you see a trend here?

No, you wouldn't would you.

Soflasnapper
06-04-2011, 11:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How does your reply have any relationship to the article?

What's that?

It doesn't?

No kidding.

Although the 2 businesspersons in a room statement is factually accurate, as it's the third and more which get the competitive pricing going, there is no industry in America ... other than gubmint protected monopolies ... which have 2 or fewer providers for a service.

Beyond that, the article wasn't about competition.

The article was about whether wealth is static or can be created and destroyed ... about whether wealth belongs to the creator or the state ... whether or not wealth should be distributed by how one contributes or by who one votes for.

IOW ... it was about questions which leftists cannot even comprehend as being debatable. </div></div>

The big Libertarian idea is that it is a horrible crime if any compulsory taxes are laid upon the people to serve public interests, such as providing a safety net for the elderly, sick, or disabled, or fostering public investments that benefit all, such as the interstate highway system, providing seed money to create the fiber-optic backbone required for high speed internet usage, etc.

Excuse me, but I find this a childish petulant complaint, not grounded in reality. All societies tax, and including our own from its very founding, as envisioned by the founders.

President George Washington mounted his own horse and mustered some militias to put down a tax revolt personally. Williams would have us consider Washington an arch criminal, invidiously stealing the fruits of others' labors. Most non-Libertarian Americans would strongly disagree with him.

pooltchr
06-04-2011, 12:24 PM
Most of us agree that taxes are a necessary evil in our society. The basic difference is in how much should the government take, and what should be done with it.

The interstate highway system actually benefits everyone, in that it allows for easier, more efficient, and less expensive commerce. Those Florida grapefruits we enjoy would be much more expensive is the trucks had to travel up US1 rather than I95 to get them out of the state.

We would have no military at all, if Washington couldn't raise taxes to pay for the people and equipment needed.

Where many of us draw the line is when those tax dollars are used to buy votes from various groups of individuals. Do a little research on government grants. You might be surprised how much of your tax money is being given to people who qualify. How do you qualify, you might ask. Well, if you are a member of a minority group, you probably qualify for much more than if you aren't.

Do we really need to be spending tax dollars teaching adult males in Africa how to properly wash their private parts? Explain how that is a benefit to the citizens of this country.

Government, and with it, taxes, is not an all or nothing proposition. Some of just believe that the tax and spend mentality in Washington has gotten completely out of control.

Did we really need the government, at the request of the first lady, to do away with the food pyramid, and replace it with our "personal plate"?

Do we really need the government taking on Ronald McDonald???????

Yes, we need government...we just need responsible government...and that is something we do not have at this time.

Steve

LWW
06-04-2011, 01:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How does your reply have any relationship to the article?

What's that?

It doesn't?

No kidding.

Although the 2 businesspersons in a room statement is factually accurate, as it's the third and more which get the competitive pricing going, there is no industry in America ... other than gubmint protected monopolies ... which have 2 or fewer providers for a service.

Beyond that, the article wasn't about competition.

The article was about whether wealth is static or can be created and destroyed ... about whether wealth belongs to the creator or the state ... whether or not wealth should be distributed by how one contributes or by who one votes for.

IOW ... it was about questions which leftists cannot even comprehend as being debatable. </div></div>

The big Libertarian idea is that it is a horrible crime if any compulsory taxes are laid upon the people to serve public interests, such as providing a safety net for the elderly, sick, or disabled, or fostering public investments that benefit all, such as the interstate highway system, providing seed money to create the fiber-optic backbone required for high speed internet usage, etc.

Excuse me, but I find this a childish petulant complaint, not grounded in reality. All societies tax, and including our own from its very founding, as envisioned by the founders.

President George Washington mounted his own horse and mustered some militias to put down a tax revolt personally. Williams would have us consider Washington an arch criminal, invidiously stealing the fruits of others' labors. Most non-Libertarian Americans would strongly disagree with him. </div></div>

I'm starting to believe that you simply don't want to get it.

It is impossible to discuss the issue with you so long as you keep tossing out bravo sierra positions for people to defend, which they never even suggested, in your typical Alinskyite fashion.

Soflasnapper
06-04-2011, 01:51 PM
We might all agree that the government spends on areas or things we don't think it should.

However, this is a tiny fraction of the smallest part of the spending, in the discretionary domestic non-defense part.

It is a rounding error of trivial impact considering approx. 3,500 billion in current total spending, and 1,500 billion in borrowing.

What Williams is really getting at is the whole idea of say, taxing payrolls for Medicare, and the working population supporting health care for the elderly via these payments of that tax. This is THEFT, Williams says, thundering down his moral condemnation.

Well, no it isn't-- it's the choice of a free people through their elected representatives to do this as a kind of social compact.

His claim that everyone with money got it freely in return for a fair value for their efforts ignores so-called rent-seeking behavior (which see), the extra amounts that powerful people gouge out of others using a semi-monopoly position often actually against the law (see: WalMart's 'free work' and 'no overtime pay' policies, which violate labor law and literally steal the monies due these employees).

As the economy becomes increasingly concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, entire business sectors become cartelized, and they seek and receive monopoly rents (excess payments and much higher profit rates than would otherwise be the case), because they can.

This will always be the temptation of the private sector, as when people show up where there is a water shortage and want to charge $10 for a bottle of water. In one respect, yes, this is the market at work. However, it happens to be against the law here in Florida, just as scalpers cannot get more than something like 10% over face price for tickets if they are selling them within a certain distance from the venue.

Soflasnapper
06-04-2011, 01:54 PM
By your own admission, you are the Alinsky acolyte.

Personally, I've never read him, and have never taken any tactic in discussion other than expressing my frank opinion.

Look, the Libertarians have a well-developed and coherent theory of things that I simply find incorrect and short-sighted.

I am not provocative simply to be provocative, or as some trick of rhetoric. That is your admitted technique, and you are welcome to it.

pooltchr
06-04-2011, 02:03 PM
Every man wishes to pursue his occupation and to enjoy the fruits of his labours and the produce of his property in peace and safety, and with the least possible expense. When these things are accomplished, all the objects for which government ought to be established are answered.
- Thomas Jefferson



Steve

Qtec
06-05-2011, 01:22 AM
Professor Williams is wrong.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The liberal vision of government is easily understood and makes perfect sense <u>if one acknowledges their misunderstanding</u> and implied assumptions about the sources of income </div></div>

BS...and not very objective.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Suppose the true source of income was a gigantic pile of money meant to be shared equally amongst Americans. </div></div>

OMG. Not that crap again. We don't need hypothetical fairy stories, we have the FACTS.
In the last 30 years the wealth HAS been redistributed, ie for the bottom to the top.

Q

Pathetic.

Qtec
06-05-2011, 01:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who should give back? Sam Walton founded Wal-Mart, Bill Gates founded Microsoft, Steve Jobs founded Apple Computer.
Which one of these billionaires acquired their wealth by coercing us to purchase their product? </div></div>

Eh, Wal-Mart and Microsoft.

Q

Qtec
06-05-2011, 01:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">America's corporate welfare queens </div></div>

Who is he talking about?

Q

LWW
06-05-2011, 05:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">However, this is a tiny fraction of the smallest part of the spending, in the discretionary domestic non-defense part.

It is a rounding error of trivial impact considering approx. 3,500 billion in current total spending, and 1,500 billion in borrowing. </div></div>

Actually, the welfare state is a massive outlay ... but, you never have liked being troubled by the truth.

LWW
06-05-2011, 05:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What Williams is really getting at is the whole idea of say, taxing payrolls for Medicare, and the working population supporting health care for the elderly via these payments of that tax. This is THEFT, Williams says, thundering down his moral condemnation.</div></div>

Can you show me where he said this?

What's that?

He never said it?

You just assigned another strawman to be defended?

But, I alrady knew that.

As I said earlier, other than for entertainment value, discussing this with you is pointless as you refuse to be honest.

LWW
06-05-2011, 05:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, no it isn't-- it's the choice of a free people through their elected representatives to do this as a kind of social compact.</div></div>

And the people are demanding that it end.

LWW
06-05-2011, 05:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">His claim that everyone with money got it freely in return for a fair value for their efforts ignores so-called rent-seeking behavior (which see), the extra amounts that powerful people gouge out of others using a semi-monopoly position often actually against the law (see: WalMart's 'free work' and 'no overtime pay' policies, which violate labor law and literally steal the monies due these employees).

</div></div>

And, again, with the Alinskyism.

WALMART was able to get away with this because it was defended by leftist pols on the board.

LWW
06-05-2011, 05:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As the economy becomes increasingly concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, entire business sectors become cartelized, and they seek and receive monopoly rents (excess payments and much higher profit rates than would otherwise be the case), because they can.</div></div>

Actually, the economy is in more hands today than ever before.

LWW
06-05-2011, 05:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This will always be the temptation of the private sector, as when people show up where there is a water shortage and want to charge $10 for a bottle of water. In one respect, yes, this is the market at work. However, it happens to be against the law here in Florida, just as scalpers cannot get more than something like 10% over face price for tickets if they are selling them within a certain distance from the venue.</div></div>

Thank you. You have also shown that you are either an incredibly cruel person, or incredibly naive as to how economics works, or both.

Let's look at your scenario.

Q - Why would someone pay $10.00 for a bottle of water in a populated area of a quasi free economy?

A - No potable water is otherwise available.

Q - Why is no potable water available?

A -Some type of disaster has occurred disrupting the market.

Now, in the free market analogy someone from an area 400 miles away can load a truck full of potable water (Let's say 1,000 bottles.) they purchased for $1.00 per bottle ... the normal market rate.

They can then travel 800 miles, lets call it $0.75 a mile in a full sized truck ... or $600.00.

They will also need at least 2 people to accompany them ... 2 days round trip plus a day in a disaster zone. $300.00 a day each isn't unreasonable due to the danger, or $1,800.00.

They need to pack food for 3 for 3 days ... easily $100.00. They certainly need to be armed due to the conditions they are entering. They must risk being robbed of all the water, they must risk death, they must risk arrest, they must risk damage or destruction of their vehicle, they must risk injury and disease, and they have $3,500.00 invested in 1,000 bottles of water.

At $10.00 per bottle retail, they have about the same markup ... from their $3.5K cost ... as the water retailers have during normal times. The entrepreneur makes a nice profit ... realistically figure $5K on average because some of the time it will end up in disaster for the person bringing the water in.

Oh, I forgot, people who desperately need potable water are able to get it even though traditional sources have failed to provide it.

Under your fascist economic model, the vendor is required to incur the $3.5K expense ... plus all the risks ... and still sell for $1 a bottle. That means they never make the trip. Oh, that also means that the people who want and need the potable water ... and are willing and able to pay $10 a bottle ... are prohibited from doing so and are forced to suffer dehydration so that your holier than thou sense of fairness is appeased.

Amazing.

LWW
06-05-2011, 05:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who should give back? Sam Walton founded Wal-Mart, Bill Gates founded Microsoft, Steve Jobs founded Apple Computer.
Which one of these billionaires acquired their wealth by coercing us to purchase their product? </div></div>

Eh, Wal-Mart and Microsoft.

Q </div></div>

How did they coerce you?

LWW
06-05-2011, 05:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">America's corporate welfare queens </div></div>

Who is he talking about?

Q </div></div>

Come to America and I will introduce you to some of them.

pooltchr
06-05-2011, 07:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who should give back? Sam Walton founded Wal-Mart, Bill Gates founded Microsoft, Steve Jobs founded Apple Computer.
Which one of these billionaires acquired their wealth by coercing us to purchase their product? </div></div>

Eh, Wal-Mart and Microsoft.

Q </div></div>

Please tell us when and how Wal-Mart has ever forced anyone to do business with them. And while you are at it, please explain to all the Mac usere how Microsoft has forced them to purchase their products.
If you don't want to use IE, there are plenty of other options.

Steve

LWW
06-05-2011, 09:02 AM
The silence on that one is deafening.

Soflasnapper
06-05-2011, 10:29 AM
I didn't put this law into effect-- that was the work of Florida voters through their elected representatives.

If you weren't so concerned to attack this idea, you might realize that the way it works is that in the runup to the hurricane, hoarders and speculators buy out all the local water, for its windfall potential profits.

So there is no transportation cost involved other than what was already priced into the retail price. It's pure greed markup, without any economic justification as to high costs to get it there, and if people are allowed to do this, always there would be a 'shortage' of water caused by the hoarding with intent to reap disaster zone profits.

Soflasnapper
06-05-2011, 10:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">However, this is a tiny fraction of the smallest part of the spending, in the discretionary domestic non-defense part.

It is a rounding error of trivial impact considering approx. 3,500 billion in current total spending, and 1,500 billion in borrowing. </div></div>

Actually, the welfare state is a massive outlay ... but, you never have liked being troubled by the truth. </div></div>

Well, of course, depending upon what you mean. (Back in the day, welfare per se never amounted to more than 1% of expenditures).

But this is exactly the point. While we might all agree that nonsense projects shouldn't be funded by the government, we evidently strongly disagree over whether the government should provide the safety net welfare state programs of SS, Medicare and Medicaid. (Which are supported in polling at supermajority rates of approval.)

To me, and most Americans, and for many decades now, these programs have been considered not only a core part of the government's mandate to 'promote the general welfare,' but a critical, necessary and desirable part of government.

I know Professor Williams, and all Libertarians, and some on the far right who are not Libertarians, think this is illegal (unConstitutional), unnecessary, and highly undesirable.

So let's be most clear. When Williams & Co. talk about wasteful stupid illegal spending, they include SS/MC, but close to 80% of the people disagree.

I was talking about the 1/2 million for some NSF grant (x 1,000 cases).

Soflasnapper
06-05-2011, 10:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What Williams is really getting at is the whole idea of say, taxing payrolls for Medicare, and the working population supporting health care for the elderly via these payments of that tax. This is THEFT, Williams says, thundering down his moral condemnation.</div></div>

Can you show me where he said this?

What's that?

He never said it?

You just assigned another strawman to be defended?

But, I alrady knew that.

As I said earlier, other than for entertainment value, discussing this with you is pointless as you refuse to be honest. </div></div>

So, you know nothing about Libertarianism? Or do you claim Williams is not a Libertarian?

Because if you know he is one, and know what they think, it is exactly what I said.

Their uniform position is that all those safety net programs were wrongheaded from the gitgo, should never have been put in place, and the country would be better off canceling them now and letting people get these services somehow on their own.

Soflasnapper
06-05-2011, 10:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who should give back? Sam Walton founded Wal-Mart, Bill Gates founded Microsoft, Steve Jobs founded Apple Computer.
Which one of these billionaires acquired their wealth by coercing us to purchase their product? </div></div>

Eh, Wal-Mart and Microsoft.

Q </div></div>

How did they coerce you? </div></div>

Wal-Mart puts the mom-and-pop stores and far larger out of business, and creates a local monopoly for themselves. When that happens, you either buy from them or don't buy local anymore.

When Compaq wanted to pre-load Netscape Navigator onto the hard drive of their computers to satisfy consumer demand, Microsoft threatened to pull their licensing for the operating system if they did so. Compaq knew customers wanted NN, but also knew they wanted Windows (whatever current version, maybe 3.1) pre-loaded, and backed away from their right to put whatever additional software onto their sales package under this extortionist threat.

When asked about it in Congressional hearings (which I witnessed on television), they denied they were doing that. A relatively sharp questioner asked, then, when did you stop? The answer was, 'last week.'

LWW
06-05-2011, 10:54 AM
What stops one from stockpiling water?

sack316
06-05-2011, 10:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who should give back? Sam Walton founded Wal-Mart, Bill Gates founded Microsoft, Steve Jobs founded Apple Computer.
Which one of these billionaires acquired their wealth by coercing us to purchase their product? </div></div>

Eh, Wal-Mart and Microsoft.

Q </div></div>

How did they coerce you? </div></div>

Wal-Mart puts the mom-and-pop stores and far larger out of business, and creates a local monopoly for themselves. When that happens, you either buy from them or don't buy local anymore.

When Compaq wanted to pre-load Netscape Navigator onto the hard drive of their computers to satisfy consumer demand, Microsoft threatened to pull their licensing for the operating system if they did so. Compaq knew customers wanted NN, but also knew they wanted Windows (whatever current version, maybe 3.1) pre-loaded, and backed away from their right to put whatever additional software onto their sales package under this extortionist threat.

When asked about it in Congressional hearings (which I witnessed on television), they denied they were doing that. A relatively sharp questioner asked, then, when did you stop? The answer was, 'last week.' </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wal-Mart puts the mom-and-pop stores and far larger out of business, and creates a local monopoly for themselves. When that happens, you either buy from them or don't buy local anymore. </div></div>

Just jumping in on this last part, which is a valid point but skipping a step. Maybe it caught my eye because "coerce" is such a strong word. But in the first place, how do they "coerce" the local community to switch to them as opposed to continuing to shop with Mom and Pop that have always been there?

They certainly do use their massive buying power to offer lower prices to consumers than Mom and Pop can. No doubt that is what brings people into the store. But is that "coercion"? The lower prices don't force consumers to involuntarily shop there when they first arrive, the community has a choice.

Sack

Soflasnapper
06-05-2011, 11:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who should give back? Sam Walton founded Wal-Mart, Bill Gates founded Microsoft, Steve Jobs founded Apple Computer.
Which one of these billionaires acquired their wealth by coercing us to purchase their product? </div></div>

Eh, Wal-Mart and Microsoft.

Q </div></div>

How did they coerce you? </div></div>

Wal-Mart puts the mom-and-pop stores and far larger out of business, and creates a local monopoly for themselves. When that happens, you either buy from them or don't buy local anymore.

When Compaq wanted to pre-load Netscape Navigator onto the hard drive of their computers to satisfy consumer demand, Microsoft threatened to pull their licensing for the operating system if they did so. Compaq knew customers wanted NN, but also knew they wanted Windows (whatever current version, maybe 3.1) pre-loaded, and backed away from their right to put whatever additional software onto their sales package under this extortionist threat.

When asked about it in Congressional hearings (which I witnessed on television), they denied they were doing that. A relatively sharp questioner asked, then, when did you stop? The answer was, 'last week.' </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wal-Mart puts the mom-and-pop stores and far larger out of business, and creates a local monopoly for themselves. When that happens, you either buy from them or don't buy local anymore. </div></div>

Just jumping in on this last part, which is a valid point but skipping a step. Maybe it caught my eye because "coerce" is such a strong word. But in the first place, how do they "coerce" the local community to switch to them as opposed to continuing to shop with Mom and Pop that have always been there?

They certainly do use their massive buying power to offer lower prices to consumers than Mom and Pop can. No doubt that is what brings people into the store. But is that "coercion"? The lower prices don't force consumers to involuntarily shop there when they first arrive, the community has a choice.

Sack </div></div>

It's similar to how Standard Oil New Jersey got a competitive advantage. They used their market power to extort transportation rebates from the common carriers, and used that cost advantage to drive competitors out of business.

Wal-Mart uses Chinese slave labor working under inhuman work conditions, and their multi-pronged abuse and stealing of the wages of their domestic workers here (making them work for no pay, and making them work overtime without overtime pay), to achieve great cost savings, not by using standard competitive business practices only, but also by these kinds of exploitation.

LWW
06-05-2011, 11:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">we evidently strongly disagree over whether the government should provide the safety net welfare state programs of SS, Medicare and Medicaid. (Which are supported in polling at supermajority rates of approval.)</div></div>

In correct, again.

I'm going to use SS for the example, although the rest are essentially the same as far as the argument goes.

Virtually everybody pays into SS, and they pay because the heavy hand of the state forces them to do so. Now, that is bad enough.

The next point is that virtually nobody will ever get back from the program what they would have accumulated had they been forced to pay the same amount into a market based retirement account.

Third, the money owed to citizens from SS has not been invested by the state as a wise steward would have done. It has been spent by politicians of both parties. You can wail and gnash your teeth about the IOU's in the SS trust fund ... that doesn't change the fact that the only way these IOU's can be repaid is by borrowing money or issuing more fiat currency. IOW ... the people's pension plan has been de facto stolen. If a private business did their pension the way the fed has done the nation's ... they would be jailed, and rightfully so.

Now, how do we fix it?

The only means possible are:

1 - Explode the debt.

2 - Default on SS obligations.

3 - Further destroy the currency by issuing checks backed by fiat currency.

4 - Cut spending, combined with reducing benefits for future retirees, and pay the debt out of general revenue.

Lastly, the default option grows ever more likely.

Before you claim it as impossible, the SCOTUS has already ruled that you are not owed an SS check.

sack316
06-05-2011, 11:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
It's similar to how Standard Oil New Jersey got a competitive advantage. They used their market power to extort transportation rebates from the common carriers, and used that cost advantage to drive competitors out of business.

Wal-Mart uses Chinese slave labor working under inhuman work conditions, and their multi-pronged abuse and stealing of the wages of their domestic workers here (making them work for no pay, and making them work overtime without overtime pay), to achieve great cost savings, not by using standard competitive business practices only, but also by these kinds of exploitation. </div></div>

Very fair and valid concerns. But again, how do they "coerce" the local community to shop with them in the first place? Unfair competitive advantage, I could possibly buy that. But coerce? They came here in my little town of Prattville many years ago and via the use of force or threats made my community shop with them against our will?

Sack

Soflasnapper
06-05-2011, 11:24 AM
Plenty of towns, knowing Wal-Mart's reputation, get the local Chamber of Commerce or a similar ad hoc committee of local small businesses to fight allowing them to locate there.

Wal-Mart gets their way by the usual techniques, offering quasi-illegal blandishments to the local politicians in the city councils.

Soflasnapper
06-05-2011, 11:36 AM
If a private business did their pension the way the fed has done the nation's ... they would be jailed, and rightfully so.


Ridiculous. If a private business put the proceeds of employee contributions into Treasury bonds yielding 6%, they'd be jailed?
Really?

Look, whether SS was well-planned or not, has a big problem in the future or not, or provides as good a return as some other mechanism, doesn't say determine whether that taxing is unallowable and illicit force.

The high court looked at the issue at the time of its creation, and ruled it was Constitutional.

This is how I am actually a conservative. As a rule, if something has been in place a long time, and enjoys the support of the vast majority of the people, and has already passed Constitutional muster, and its problems are amenable to smallish solutions, I prefer tweaking what's there over a radical re-writing of the whole thing. Especially if those trying to re-write the whole thing are rushing to take advantage of a situation that will pass, and if they have financial interests involved with those wholesale changes they suggest.

Why are so many so-called 'conservatives' now actually radicals, showing no deference to existing long-standing accepted policies?

LWW
06-05-2011, 12:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Plenty of towns, knowing Wal-Mart's reputation, get the local Chamber of Commerce or a similar ad hoc committee of local small businesses to fight allowing them to locate there.

Wal-Mart gets their way by the usual techniques, offering quasi-illegal blandishments to the local politicians in the city councils. </div></div>

The question was how did they coerce people to shop there.

The truth is people are getting from Walmart what they demand ... and when given the choice between getting a $29 DVD player or their neighbor having a job, far too many people will opt for the $29 DVD player.

LWW
06-05-2011, 12:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If a private business did their pension the way the fed has done the nation's ... they would be jailed, and rightfully so.


Ridiculous. If a private business put the proceeds of employee contributions into Treasury bonds yielding 6%, they'd be jailed?
Really?</div></div>

Nice spin, but that's not what happened.

Had the business invested the money in T-bills, that would have been handing it off to a third party.

Now, show us how you will blindly buy the state's fairy tales while you swoon in delight.

What they did was put the pension fund into the general fund to pay bills ... and then left a virtually worthless IOU in it's place.

Soflasnapper
06-05-2011, 01:18 PM
The private company could have bought newly issued T-bonds at auction directly from the government as well as buying on the secondary market.

In either case, those Treasury instruments have NO BACKING, since the money that bought them was put into the general fund and spent, just as you complain in this situation.

Repaying ANY Treasury instrument can only be done in exactly the manner you find abhorrent.

eg8r
06-05-2011, 02:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wal-Mart puts the mom-and-pop stores and far larger out of business, and creates a local monopoly for themselves. When that happens, you either buy from them or don't buy local anymore.
</div></div>Where exactly in south Florida do you live that Walmart put every single company out of business and you were forced to walk in and spend all your money at the only remaining store, Walmart? It is a gross exaggeration and you know it. Walmart never coreced you to buy anything.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When Compaq wanted to pre-load Netscape Navigator onto the hard drive of their computers to satisfy consumer demand, Microsoft threatened to pull their licensing for the operating system if they did so. Compaq knew customers wanted NN, but also knew they wanted Windows (whatever current version, maybe 3.1) pre-loaded, and backed away from their right to put whatever additional software onto their sales package under this extortionist threat.
</div></div>Wow, so when you bought the Compaq computer, since it was the absolute last computer company in the world, why didn't you just go download that favored browser? IE has always been the worst broswer available and has never at any point been the ONLY browser you could use.

eg8r

eg8r
06-05-2011, 02:49 PM
Gross exaggeration on sofla's part.

eg8r

LWW
06-05-2011, 03:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The private company could have bought newly issued T-bonds at auction directly from the government as well as buying on the secondary market.

In either case, those Treasury instruments have NO BACKING, since the money that bought them was put into the general fund and spent, just as you complain in this situation.

Repaying ANY Treasury instrument can only be done in exactly the manner you find abhorrent.

</div></div>

How do you get it without ever actually getting it.

LWW
06-05-2011, 03:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why are so many so-called 'conservatives' now actually radicals, showing no deference to existing long-standing accepted policies? </div></div>

Because most Americans foolishly believe that there actually is a SS trust fund.

There clearly is not.

Prior to the 1960's, when the legal tests were happening, SS was actually ran with money sitting in accounts.

Since then, every congress has used the money as revenue to mask a budget deficit and buy votes. Eventually, and it's not far off, repaying the SS debt through general revenue will destroy the nation.

Now you can bury your head in the sand ... which I have every reason to believe you will do ... or you can wake up to reality.

I can lead you to knowledge, I can't make you think.

Soflasnapper
06-05-2011, 04:42 PM
Utter nonsense.

The SS system ran on a pay as you go basis, and never had much a surplus anywhere. What small surplus they had ALWAYS went into the same Treasury bonds they go into now.

When LBJ decided to make the accounting of the deficit look a little better by formally counting the (minimal) surplus that year as against the (slight) deficit of that time, in the so-called unified budget accounting, it was purely an accounting fiction and it involved a couple billion dollars at most that year.

Are you a... (cough)... young person?

Soflasnapper
06-05-2011, 04:55 PM
Where exactly in south Florida do you live that Walmart put every single company out of business and you were forced to walk in and spend all your money at the only remaining store, Walmart? It is a gross exaggeration and you know it. Walmart never coreced you to buy anything.


This didn't happen in South Florida, to my knowledge. It may have occurred in central and north Florida, and it definitely happened throughout small towns across America.

Wow, so when you bought the Compaq computer, since it was the absolute last computer company in the world, why didn't you just go download that favored browser? IE has always been the worst broswer available and has never at any point been the ONLY browser you could use.

Never bought an IBM-compatible 'puter back in the day. But c'mon, stop playing stupid here. It's all about convenience, and the desire for end users to have a turnkey situation without any further ado.

Compaq's CUSTOMERS told them they wanted Netscape's product pre-loaded, and that was why they were doing it. MS illegally threatened them so that they would stop, and only discontinued this unfair restraint of trade when it was brought to light, just ahead of the sheriff, so to speak.

Back in those days, internet access was far more primitive, and prolly we're talking dialup 2400 baud and no world wide web. That's how I rolled around that time. Before the z-modem protocol, if the download was interrupted, you had to start all over again from scratch. And if you had call waiting, and didn't remember to turn it off with a modem initialization string add-on, you would definitely have the download interrupted.

LWW
06-05-2011, 05:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Utter nonsense.

The SS system ran on a pay as you go basis, and never had much a surplus anywhere. </div></div>

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/assets.gif

You must have one of those internets that doesn't use the google, eh?

According to the regime, since 1987 it has accumulated a surplus of <span style='font-size: 11pt'>$2,600,000,000,000.00</span>.

Had this money been invested into the US economy it would likely be twice to three times this illusory surplus.

Instead, it's merely the world's largest ever Ponzi scheme.

As far as my age, I'm soon to be 55, If I don't start collecting until 67 I will draw roughly $32,500.00 a year for roughly 13 years ... or about $420K.

If I had invested the same amounts paid in I would have well over $500K already today. Instead I have a promissory note from a gang that has their credit lines maxed out and no savings.
OOPSY! (http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/assets.html)

LWW
06-05-2011, 05:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Where exactly in south Florida do you live that Walmart put every single company out of business and you were forced to walk in and spend all your money at the only remaining store, Walmart? It is a gross exaggeration and you know it. Walmart never coreced you to buy anything.


This didn't happen in South Florida, to my knowledge. It may have occurred in central and north Florida, and it definitely happened throughout small towns across America.</div></div>

So how did they put these small businesses out of business and how did they coerce customers away?

Did they kidnap the business owners kids? Burn their buildings? Break their windows? Send thugs to stand in front of their doors?

Did they round up the citizenry and force them to shop at Wally's under threat of violence?

Or ... did they simply over broader selection at lower prices with more shopping hours available and more convenient parking?

This ain't rocket science.

As an addendum ... we locally have several downtowns in suburbia that are empty, and two that are prospering.

What's the difference?

The two that are prospering invested city dollars in convenient, safe, and free parking downtown.

The rest invested city money in meter maids that were then laid off because the fines generated weren't covering employee costs because all the businesses were closed because people were tired of having to run back to the car and dump a quarter in every hour.

As I said ... it ain't rocket science, but leftists in general have zero understanding of economics and believe in a static economy where you can punish consumers and have them continue to come back.

sack316
06-05-2011, 06:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gross exaggeration on sofla's part.

eg8r </div></div>

Indeed, which was my only contention on the post that the term "coerced" was used. Everything else he has said has been valid concerns. Obviously there are many steps in between the beginnings of Wal Mart and what it is now that are skipped over.

And I also fear the fact that we are a consumer based economy is severely overlooked when these discussions come up. In other words, Wal Mart gave "us" what "we" wanted, otherwise we wouldn't shop there and it wouldn't be the giant it is today. If we choose to support Mom and Pop, and pay a little extra for our goods then Mom and Pop would survive and Wally World wouldn't have a say in it. They gave us what we, as a society, asked for... and we blame them for it.

Sack

pooltchr
06-05-2011, 10:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[i] It's all about convenience, and the desire for end users to have a turnkey situation without any further ado.

</div></div>

I guess that's why nobody uses firefox.

Steve

Qtec
06-06-2011, 01:50 AM
Other Web definitions.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Coercion ( or ) is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation, trickery, or some other form of pressure or force. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coerce </div></div>

Wal-Mart and Microsoft to a tee.

Q

LWW
06-06-2011, 02:06 AM
Yet you can't cite a single way in which WALMART coerced anyone to anything.

eg8r
06-06-2011, 06:21 AM
It doesn't fit at all if he is referring to consumers.

eg8r

eg8r
06-06-2011, 06:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
This didn't happen in South Florida, to my knowledge. It may have occurred in central and north Florida, and it definitely happened throughout small towns across America.
</div></div>Actually, you cannot find one single example of it happening anywhere in the entire world. Walmart has never put a single company out of business through coercion. What you fail to accept is that the only way to stay in business is to offer goods that people are willing to pay for at a price they are willing to pay. Walmart did that better than the mom and pop shops and the PEOPLE put the mom and pop shops out of business by using free will to choose where to shop and they chose Walmart.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Never bought an IBM-compatible 'puter back in the day. But c'mon, stop playing stupid here. It's all about convenience, and the desire for end users to have a turnkey situation without any further ado.
</div></div>You have the audacity to call my responses "stupid" when you are the one proposing Microsoft coerced you into using IE? How stupid is that?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Compaq's CUSTOMERS told them they wanted Netscape's product pre-loaded, and that was why they were doing it. MS illegally threatened them so that they would stop, and only discontinued this unfair restraint of trade when it was brought to light, just ahead of the sheriff, so to speak.

Back in those days, internet access was far more primitive, and prolly we're talking dialup 2400 baud and no world wide web. That's how I rolled around that time. Before the z-modem protocol, if the download was interrupted, you had to start all over again from scratch. And if you had call waiting, and didn't remember to turn it off with a modem initialization string add-on, you would definitely have the download interrupted.
</div></div>So the issue here is was not coercion but rather you were just freaking lazy.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
06-06-2011, 10:44 AM
So the issue here is was not coercion but rather you were just freaking lazy.

No, as an early adapter former propeller-head guy actually I downloaded and used NN on my Mac SE30. MS's illegal restraint of trade didn't affect Mac users particularly.

Restraint of trade may not force anyone to do anything, but even by making things harder, still be a violation of the law.

If you insist that coercion can only be a gun put at someones head, of course that wasn't what happened. However, that is not the standard for an illegal restraint of trade.

eg8r
06-06-2011, 12:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Restraint of trade may not force anyone to do anything, but even by making things harder, still be a violation of the law.
</div></div>You were never coerced to use IE. It just never happened.

eg8r

sack316
06-06-2011, 02:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
....Never bought an IBM-compatible 'puter back in the day. But c'mon, stop playing stupid here. It's all about convenience, and the desire for end users to have a turnkey situation without any further ado.
</div></div>

So forgive me for making an assumption here... but did a longtime Mac user (historically the most proprietary of systems) really spend this thread making the argument I've been watching? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

(Of course I say that at risk of opening the debate of whether developers just chose not to do things for Apple or or Apple forces them away in order to do it's own thing)

Sack

Soflasnapper
06-06-2011, 08:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Restraint of trade may not force anyone to do anything, but even by making things harder, still be a violation of the law.
</div></div>You were never coerced to use IE. It just never happened.

eg8r </div></div>

I wasn't, correct. I didn't say **I** was coerced.

However, when MS bullied Compaq out of pre-loading Netscape Navigator as part of their package of included software, upon penalty of losing the ability to provide their end users with a licensed pre-loaded MS operating system, if that was completely on the up and up, why did they immediately stop that supposed allowable and legal process upon its discovery?

MS used their essentially monopoly position on the operating system to quash the far more popular NN, in restraint of trade, making it far harder for users to use their competitor.

If you were a corporate IT guy, think of the extra work in a 30 minute download and installation process x 100 desktops.

Soflasnapper
06-06-2011, 08:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
....Never bought an IBM-compatible 'puter back in the day. But c'mon, stop playing stupid here. It's all about convenience, and the desire for end users to have a turnkey situation without any further ado.
</div></div>

So forgive me for making an assumption here... but did a longtime Mac user (historically the most proprietary of systems) really spend this thread making the argument I've been watching? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

(Of course I say that at risk of opening the debate of whether developers just chose not to do things for Apple or or Apple forces them away in order to do it's own thing)

Sack </div></div>

I'll spare us both any lengthy response and just simply say, good one! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

(Although it's not quite the same situation, obviously. Back in the day, there was no Safari browser Apple pushed at the expense of the other ones, and they still don't. And they let MS create Mac-specific versions of what are now their Office suite apps, despite having a competitive set in Appleworks.)

----------

Taught my dog to play chess, but he's not that good. I beat him 4 out of 5 times.

eg8r
06-06-2011, 08:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you were a corporate IT guy, think of the extra work in a 30 minute download and installation process x 100 desktops. </div></div>They do this ONCE and then the image is loaded to all their machines. This is real basic stuff. Ghosting software has been around since the mid 90's. Also, IT departments of 100 computers or less are quite small compared to what I have had the opportunity to work in for about 2 years. We supported about 120,000 desktops and close to 20,000 laptops in the late 90's.

Soflasnapper
06-06-2011, 09:37 PM
With all due respect to your apparent expertise, the networking in the early '90s was slow, and you still had the time involved in making the imaged download install. It may have even been sneaker-net-- running around with floppies-- given the primitive state of networking. Far more trouble and time than if the IT department could simply order their cpus with this pre-installed.

While the DOJ's (and 20 states' joining in the lawsuit) win at trial was set aside, the judge's findings at law were not. He said:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> that Microsoft's dominance of the x86 based personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly, and that Microsoft had taken actions to crush threats to that monopoly, including Apple, Java, Netscape, Lotus Notes, Real Networks, Linux, and others. Then on April 3, 2000, he issued a two-part ruling: his conclusions of law were that Microsoft had committed monopolization, attempted monopolization, and tying in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act </div></div>

He also said

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Microsoft executives had "proved, time and time again, to be inaccurate, misleading, evasive, and transparently false. ... Microsoft is a company with an institutional disdain for both the truth and for rules of law that lesser entities must respect. It is also a company whose senior management is not averse to offering specious testimony to support spurious defenses to claims of its wrongdoing."</div></div>

Quotes cited from the Wiki page on this subject

LWW
06-07-2011, 06:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So the issue here is was not coercion but rather you were just freaking lazy.

No, as an early adapter former propeller-head guy actually I downloaded and used NN on my Mac SE30. MS's illegal restraint of trade didn't affect Mac users particularly.

Restraint of trade may not force anyone to do anything, but even by making things harder, still be a violation of the law.</div></div>

How was it harder for PC users than it was for Mac users?

Also ... do you condemn Apple for including Safari?

LWW
06-07-2011, 06:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Restraint of trade may not force anyone to do anything, but even by making things harder, still be a violation of the law.
</div></div>You were never coerced to use IE. It just never happened.

eg8r </div></div>

I wasn't, correct. I didn't say **I** was coerced.</div></div>

That only leaves 2 possibilities:

1 - Nobody else was coerced either.

2 - You were selected, out of a nation of 300M +/-, to be given special privilege that exempted you from said coercion.

Qtec
06-07-2011, 06:36 AM
Wal-Mart muscles in to small town obtaining special planning permission and subsidies that mom and Pop stores don't have access to.
They build their store and undercut everyone, driving them all out of business.
Unemployment, the stagnation of wages etc force people [ coerce] them into buying as cheaply as possible. They have no choice.

WM becomes the chief employer and drives down wages to maintain its 'cheap prices'...and on it goes.

A good economy is when money flows. What you have now are corps sitting on mountains of cash.

Q

LWW
06-07-2011, 06:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wal-Mart muscles in to small town obtaining special planning permission and subsidies that mom and Pop stores don't have access to.

Q </div></div>

How do they do this and how were mom and pop excluded?

LWW
06-07-2011, 06:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They build their store and undercut everyone, driving them all out of business.

Q </div></div>

That's called competition, not coercion ...

LWW
06-07-2011, 06:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Unemployment, the stagnation of wages etc force people [ coerce] them into buying as cheaply as possible. They have no choice.

Q </div></div>

Sure they did ... not shop WALMART in the first place.

Your argument reminds me of a discussion I once had at a local HARBOR FREIGHT store.

I carefully went through the store buying nothing made in China, opting for products made in free nations such as the US, UK, India, Taiwan.

In the parking lot I see my neighbor, a GM employee, loading several hundreds of dollars of Chinese tools in his Canadian built pickup and then mouthing off to his son about how I wasn't a real American because I was driving my Ford owned Japanese built Mazda that day.

LWW
06-07-2011, 06:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WM becomes the chief employer and drives down wages to maintain its 'cheap prices'...and on it goes.

Q </div></div>

And I agree with that, Americans care more about getting a DVD player for $29 than they do about their neighbor having a good job.

It's a byproduct of the "ME" generation.

LWW
06-07-2011, 06:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A good economy is when money flows. What you have now are corps sitting on mountains of cash.

Q </div></div>

1 - Irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

2 - Why do you think that is? Find the answer and you will find enlightenment Snoopy-san.

LWW
06-07-2011, 07:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wal-Mart muscles in to small town obtaining special planning permission and subsidies that mom and Pop stores don't have access to.

Q </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>MOM AND POP OPERATION MAKES GOOD IN SPITE OF LOCAL AND CORPORATE OBSTRUCTION (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walmart)</span>

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Walton%27s_Five_and_Dime_store%2C_Bentonville%2C_A rkansas.jpg

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sam Walton, a businessman from Arkansas, began his retail career when he started work on June 3, 1940, at a J. C. Penney store in Des Moines, Iowa where he remained for 18 months. In 1945, he met Butler Brothers, a regional retailer that owned a chain of variety stores called Ben Franklin and that offered him one in Newport, Arkansas.[7]

Walton was extremely successful in running the store in Newport, far exceeding expectations.[8] However, when the lease came up for renewal, Walton could neither come to agreement on the existing store's lease renewal nor find a new location in Newport. Instead, he opened a new Ben Franklin franchise in Bentonville, Arkansas, but called it "Walton's Five and Dime." There, he achieved higher sales volume by marking up slightly less than most competitors.[9]
... In 2002, it was listed for the first time as America's largest corporation on the Fortune 500 list, with revenues of $219.8 billion and profits of $6.7 billion. It has remained there every year, except for 2006. </div></div>

eg8r
06-07-2011, 08:01 AM
Sorry but you are not discussing the topic. None of the residents were coerced to shop at Walmart. None of the mom and pop businesses shut the doors forever the day Walmart opened their doors. Maybe next time you guys make outrageous and exaggerated claims about reality you will be better prepared to back it up but on this subject you failed miserably.

eg8r

pooltchr
06-07-2011, 08:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
They build their store and undercut everyone, driving them all out of business.

Q </div></div>

Wal-Mart doesn't drive anyone out of business. Wal-Mart's customers do that by choosing to shop at Wal-Mart, and not at the local businesses.

If people really don't want Wal-Mart in their community, they can keep them out. All they have to do is never set foot in their store.

The simple fact is that people prove every day that they really do like Wal-Mart.

Steve

LWW
06-07-2011, 08:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe next time you guys make outrageous and exaggerated claims about reality

eg8r </div></div>

Hold your breath waiting for that to happen, we'll just call you blue boy in the meantime. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

eg8r
06-07-2011, 08:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">With all due respect to your apparent expertise, the networking in the early '90s was slow, and you still had the time involved in making the imaged download install. It may have even been sneaker-net-- running around with floppies-- given the primitive state of networking. Far more trouble and time than if the IT department could simply order their cpus with this pre-installed.
</div></div>I don't think you are aware of how this process really works. An imaged machine only happens for 3 reasons (assuming we are referring to a competent busy IT/Security staff). 1)New machines being deployed (these never get delivered to the employee out of the box and are always imaged), 2)Machine needs to be serviced for variety of reasons and a reimage is the only necessary fix, 3)Security protocols force the re-image of existing machines.

Since you were the one that brought up a IT staff that is why I am moving in this direction. Making an image has nothing to do with networking other than the initial download of NN and back then the files were quite small considering the fact that the internet was not as multi-media driven as it is today. Making an image takes time depending on expertise and hardware but it is something that is required anyways so to include NN would have been just an additional step to something they were going to do anyways.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Far more trouble and time than if the IT department could simply order their cpus with this pre-installed.
</div></div>No competent IT/Security department delivers a PC to a user without loading their own image. Pre-installed software is always wiped clean and a fresh image loaded. Heck, I have friends and family that actually pay Best Buy to do this for them when they buy PC/Laptops (I am lazy and prefer not to spend the time doing this for them and it is cheap). Best Buy offers this service for an affordable rate simply because they also have ghosting software instituted and it takes very little time to implement and consumers are aware of the garbage loaded by the MFG.

eg8r

sack316
06-07-2011, 09:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
They build their store and undercut everyone, driving them all out of business.

Q </div></div>

Wal-Mart doesn't drive anyone out of business. Wal-Mart's customers do that by choosing to shop at Wal-Mart, and not at the local businesses.

If people really don't want Wal-Mart in their community, they can keep them out. All they have to do is never set foot in their store.

The simple fact is that people prove every day that they really do like Wal-Mart.

Steve </div></div>

I'm glad at least someone else sees this!

I mean, I'll even grant the anti-Wally World the "unfair competitive advantage" point. Because truth is, they do have that attribute over Mom and Pop. But even that it something they built up over time through hard work and wise strategic decision making. But even that hasn't stopped competitors from putting up a challenge or carving their own niche in the retail world. It's unfortunate Mom and Pop can't compete with what the industry is these days, but we consumers made it that way.

Sack

Gayle in MD
06-07-2011, 09:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
They build their store and undercut everyone, driving them all out of business.

Q </div></div>

Wal-Mart doesn't drive anyone out of business. Wal-Mart's customers do that by choosing to shop at Wal-Mart, and not at the local businesses.

If people really don't want Wal-Mart in their community, they can keep them out. All they have to do is never set foot in their store.

The simple fact is that people prove every day that they really do like Wal-Mart.

Steve </div></div>

I'm glad at least someone else sees this!

I mean, I'll even grant the anti-Wally World the "unfair competitive advantage" point. Because truth is, they do have that attribute over Mom and Pop. But even that it something they built up over time through hard work and wise strategic decision making. But even that hasn't stopped competitors from putting up a challenge or carving their own niche in the retail world. It's unfortunate Mom and Pop can't compete with what the industry is these days, but we consumers made it that way.

Sack </div></div>

So China's cheating us by unfair devaluations of the Yen, has nothing to do with it?

G.

DickLeonard
06-07-2011, 10:03 AM
lww I saw Phil Mickelson give an interview on why he had a jet airplane. He said he was put into Google at 10cents a share. Funny I never received that offer.

I know a man of your intellect must have gotten in on that sweet Deal.####

LWW
06-07-2011, 10:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DickLeonard</div><div class="ubbcode-body">lww I saw Phil Mickelson give an interview on why he had a jet airplane. He said he was put into Google at 10cents a share. Funny I never received that offer.

I know a man of your intellect must have gotten in on that sweet Deal.#### </div></div>

That simply proves that you either believe anything you are told, or make things up as you go ....

GOOGLE's IPO ... $85.00 a share. (http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/18/technology/googleipo/)

sack316
06-07-2011, 10:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
So China's cheating us by unfair devaluations of the Yen, has nothing to do with it?
</div></div>

That has nothing to do with how Wal-Mart came up to be where it is in it's industry today, no. Obviously has plenty to do with present time situations, but my reference was to something different entirely.

On your note, what they do is no different than us inflating the dollar to cheat them /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif

Sack

pooltchr
06-07-2011, 11:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
So China's cheating us by unfair devaluations of the Yen, has nothing to do with it?

G. </div></div>

China didn't make Wal Mart what it is. American consumers made Wal Mart what it is. China was an opportunity for Wal Mart to meet the wants and needs of the American consumer.

If you don't like Wal Mart, don't shop there. If enough people agree with you, they will go away.

But, as is the typical leftist way, you prefer to lay blame elsewhere, rather than accept personal responsibility for your actions.

Now, tell the truth....You have shopped at Wal Mart, haven't you?

Steve

LWW
06-07-2011, 04:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now, tell the truth....You have shopped at Wal Mart, haven't you?

Steve </div></div>

According to Charlotte's web:


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I refuse to buy anything that isn't made in America, not in my private life, and not in my business life, AND I have had this commitment since the early seventies.

G.</div></div>

Not that I believe it.

Qtec
06-07-2011, 11:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sorry but you are not discussing the topic. None of the residents were coerced to shop at Walmart. None of the mom and pop businesses shut the doors forever the day Walmart opened their doors. Maybe next time you guys make outrageous and exaggerated claims about reality you will be better prepared to back it up but on this subject you failed miserably.

eg8r </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Study proves it: Walmart super-stores kill off local small businesses.




In 2006, the big-box retailer promised to bring jobs to the cash-strapped community. But according to a landmark study by Loyola University, the company's rhetoric didn't match reality: Within two years of Walmart's opening its doors, 82 local stores went out of business.

Instead of growing Chicago's retail economy, Walmart simply overtook it - absorbing sales from other city stores, and shuttering dozens of them in the process.

Researchers at Loyola dubbed Walmart's store a wash - generating no new sales revenue for Chicago, and no new jobs for hard-off residents.

Chicago's cautionary tale isn't isolated. Countless communities, and peer-reviewed surveys across the country, all reach the same conclusion: When Walmart moves in, small businesses, and jobs, move out; Main St. dies.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/broo...l#ixzz1OeyMyFVF (http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/brooklyn/2011/05/04/2011-05-04_study_proves_it_walmart_kills_off_small_busines ses.html#ixzz1OeyMyFVF)
</div></div> link...one of many (http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/brooklyn/2011/05/04/2011-05-04_study_proves_it_walmart_kills_off_small_busines ses.html)

Q

Gayle in MD
06-08-2011, 02:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
So China's cheating us by unfair devaluations of the Yen, has nothing to do with it?
</div></div>

That has nothing to do with how Wal-Mart came up to be where it is in it's industry today, no. Obviously has plenty to do with present time situations, but my reference was to something different entirely.

On your note, what they do is no different than us inflating the dollar to cheat them /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif

Sack </div></div>

Seems to me they have been maipulating their currency since long before our economic woes came about.

G.

LWW
06-08-2011, 03:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sorry but you are not discussing the topic. None of the residents were coerced to shop at Walmart. None of the mom and pop businesses shut the doors forever the day Walmart opened their doors. Maybe next time you guys make outrageous and exaggerated claims about reality you will be better prepared to back it up but on this subject you failed miserably.

eg8r </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Study proves it: Walmart super-stores kill off local small businesses.




In 2006, the big-box retailer promised to bring jobs to the cash-strapped community. But according to a landmark study by Loyola University, the company's rhetoric didn't match reality: Within two years of Walmart's opening its doors, 82 local stores went out of business.

Instead of growing Chicago's retail economy, Walmart simply overtook it - absorbing sales from other city stores, and shuttering dozens of them in the process.

Researchers at Loyola dubbed Walmart's store a wash - generating no new sales revenue for Chicago, and no new jobs for hard-off residents.

Chicago's cautionary tale isn't isolated. Countless communities, and peer-reviewed surveys across the country, all reach the same conclusion: When Walmart moves in, small businesses, and jobs, move out; Main St. dies.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/broo...l#ixzz1OeyMyFVF (http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/brooklyn/2011/05/04/2011-05-04_study_proves_it_walmart_kills_off_small_busines ses.html#ixzz1OeyMyFVF)
</div></div> link...one of many (http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/brooklyn/2011/05/04/2011-05-04_study_proves_it_walmart_kills_off_small_busines ses.html)

Q </div></div>

You claimed coercion?

Where is your evidence?

Nobody has doubted that WALMART is a retail powerhouse.

LWW
06-08-2011, 03:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
So China's cheating us by unfair devaluations of the Yen, has nothing to do with it?
</div></div>

That has nothing to do with how Wal-Mart came up to be where it is in it's industry today, no. Obviously has plenty to do with present time situations, but my reference was to something different entirely.

On your note, what they do is no different than us inflating the dollar to cheat them /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif

Sack </div></div>

Seems to me they have been maipulating their currency since long before our economic woes came about.

G. </div></div>

Which is completely irrelevant to any of the topics in this thread.

pooltchr
06-08-2011, 07:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Study proves it: Walmart super-stores kill off local small businesses.




</div></div>

Q </div></div>

But it doesn't change the one simple fact...The customers made a conscious choice to shop there. Nobody made them walk through the doors. So, if anyone is responsible for the demise of those local businesses, it is those customers who abandoned them in favor of Wal-Mart.

Steve

LWW
06-08-2011, 07:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Study proves it: Walmart super-stores kill off local small businesses.




</div></div>

Q </div></div>

But it doesn't change the one simple fact...The customers made a conscious choice to shop there. Nobody made them walk through the doors. So, if anyone is responsible for the demise of those local businesses, it is those customers who abandoned them in favor of Wal-Mart.

Steve </div></div>

In the stunted intellectual capacity of the moonbat crazy left, WALMART sends armed troops into town after town to murder the small business owners.

eg8r
06-08-2011, 07:49 AM
Again, you are not proving the exaggerated claim that Walmart coerced their customers into shopping at Walmart. Are you even trying to find examples of Walmart coercion or not?

eg8r

LWW
06-09-2011, 04:38 AM
He is trying to regurgitate every ounce of spoon fed pap the party has fed him on the topic.

Soflasnapper
06-09-2011, 01:14 PM
There is a practice in international trade known as dumping. Dumping is selling goods that you export to another country at below cost, to acquire market share. Although it is a clever practice, it is illegal, and sanctionable through restrictive tariffs that themselves would be illegal except as a response to this behavior.

That is similar to what Wal-Mart does to its competitors, and via that tactic, they more or less buy their market share from the apparent free non-coerced choice of consumers, but with pricing only obtained via a variety of predatory practices.

Wal-Mart has been sued by other pharmacy chain companies, and ordered by German courts to raise prices, over exactly this kind of predation. When Wal-Mart lost the appeal of the appeal over there, they simply quit doing business at all in the powerhouse economy that is Germany (?). Showing that without this kind of predatory price advantage, they do not like their prospects for profiting.

Of course, when as has been shown, Wal-Mart's predatory practices run all the competition out of business, THAT is when they've now forced consumers to shop there, as I said long ago in this thread. IF they competed fairly and within the law, oh well. But they don't, and by the German example, don't even think they can themselves.

pooltchr
06-09-2011, 02:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Of course, when as has been shown, Wal-Mart's predatory practices run all the competition out of business, THAT is when they've now forced consumers to shop there, </div></div>

Name me one community in this country where Wal Mart is the only business in that community, forcing consumers to shop there.

Now I will grant that there may not be many businesses that can compete on price alone, but that's when customer service comes into play. We all know that is one area where Wal Mart is vulernable.

Steve

eg8r
06-09-2011, 02:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Of course, when as has been shown, Wal-Mart's predatory practices run all the competition out of business, THAT is when they've now forced consumers to shop there, as I said long ago in this thread. IF they competed fairly and within the law, oh well. But they don't, and by the German example, don't even think they can themselves. </div></div>You are now just blowing smoke and trying to cover your own rear end for exaggerating in the beginning and now not being able to back the claim. Man up and admit you exaggerated. This quote of yours has nothing to do with Walmart coercing anyone. What it does do is show the cause and effect of a consumer looking to pay the lowest price possible. Once given the choice the customer, at their own free-will, CHOSE Walmart. It is no more than that.

The rest of your story about how Walmart is able to offer the low prices is just the smoke. You had it all right at this point...<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That is similar to what Wal-Mart does to its competitors, and via that tactic, they more or less buy their market share from the apparent free non-coerced choice of consumers</div></div>That is all there is to say. Consumer had a choice, and they chose the cheaper price.

In your next "last breath attempt" drop all the garbage about how Walmart gets the low price since that has nothing to do with forcing customers into the door and spending their money through the use of coercion. I am not interested in how much you think you know about Walmart's business model.

eg8r