They certainly do. But when they push the buttons of local governments for tax breaks that their competitors don't receive, they tip the balance far in their favor. So again, consumer choice is not really the main component here.lowing wrote:
I still have to disagree, people were shopping at mom and pop just fine before Wal Mart showed up. The consumer now has a choice stand on principle and continue t ostay loyal to mom and pop, or cut mom and pop loose and change loyalties to Wal Mart. Now, I know the obvious decision, but it still does not take away from the fact the consumer CHOSE Wal mart over mom and pop. Wal Mart just knows which bottons to push to get their way.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- EU To Vote On Worrying Proposals Regarding Internet...
Yes, but in major cities, they are competing on a level playing field, hence the greater variety of retailers in large cities.lowing wrote:
What smaller cities are you talking about? Wal MArt is in every major city in the country, apparently less NYC.Turquoise wrote:
I did not know that. Well, even if that wasn't in place, Walmart would be less able to monopolize their market as they typically do in other much smaller cities.DoctaStrangelove wrote:
The only reason Walmart isn't in NYC is because it's NYC law that if a chain employs a certain number of people, these people need to be able to unionize.
Yes it is, just because Wal MArt shows up does not mean you are forced to shop there. Mom and Pop woud still exist and still be a choice, if the consumer base were loyal. As it is they are not. Hence business is always at the mercy of the consumer and their fickle loyalties ane habits.Turquoise wrote:
They certainly do. But when they push the buttons of local governments for tax breaks that their competitors don't receive, they tip the balance far in their favor. So again, consumer choice is not really the main component here.lowing wrote:
I still have to disagree, people were shopping at mom and pop just fine before Wal Mart showed up. The consumer now has a choice stand on principle and continue t ostay loyal to mom and pop, or cut mom and pop loose and change loyalties to Wal Mart. Now, I know the obvious decision, but it still does not take away from the fact the consumer CHOSE Wal mart over mom and pop. Wal Mart just knows which bottons to push to get their way.
Yup and that compititon has driven not only mom and pop out but also K-Mart. IF the peopel stayed loyal to their local stores, they would remain open bottom line.Turquoise wrote:
Yes, but in major cities, they are competing on a level playing field, hence the greater variety of retailers in large cities.lowing wrote:
What smaller cities are you talking about? Wal MArt is in every major city in the country, apparently less NYC.Turquoise wrote:
I did not know that. Well, even if that wasn't in place, Walmart would be less able to monopolize their market as they typically do in other much smaller cities.
Lowing. How do you think Walmart offers lower prices in the first place?lowing wrote:
Yes it is, just because Wal MArt shows up does not mean you are forced to shop there. Mom and Pop woud still exist and still be a choice, if the consumer base were loyal. As it is they are not. Hence business is always at the mercy of the consumer and their fickle loyalties ane habits.Turquoise wrote:
They certainly do. But when they push the buttons of local governments for tax breaks that their competitors don't receive, they tip the balance far in their favor. So again, consumer choice is not really the main component here.lowing wrote:
I still have to disagree, people were shopping at mom and pop just fine before Wal Mart showed up. The consumer now has a choice stand on principle and continue t ostay loyal to mom and pop, or cut mom and pop loose and change loyalties to Wal Mart. Now, I know the obvious decision, but it still does not take away from the fact the consumer CHOSE Wal mart over mom and pop. Wal Mart just knows which bottons to push to get their way.
Mom and pop stores are much more likely to survive in big cities because of the larger markets. It's not solely consumer loyalty that causes this. It's also variety of consumption.lowing wrote:
Yup and that compititon has driven not only mom and pop out but also K-Mart. IF the peopel stayed loyal to their local stores, they would remain open bottom line.Turquoise wrote:
Yes, but in major cities, they are competing on a level playing field, hence the greater variety of retailers in large cities.lowing wrote:
What smaller cities are you talking about? Wal MArt is in every major city in the country, apparently less NYC.
I think you're attributing a little too much of all this to loyalty.
irrelevant. The consumer can choose mom and pop, and keep it just the way it was BEFORE Wal MArt. As it is, Wal MArt will sell 5 cents cheaper and that loyalty dissolves because the consumer CHOSE to leave mom and popTurquoise wrote:
Lowing. How do you think Walmart offers lower prices in the first place?lowing wrote:
Yes it is, just because Wal MArt shows up does not mean you are forced to shop there. Mom and Pop woud still exist and still be a choice, if the consumer base were loyal. As it is they are not. Hence business is always at the mercy of the consumer and their fickle loyalties ane habits.Turquoise wrote:
They certainly do. But when they push the buttons of local governments for tax breaks that their competitors don't receive, they tip the balance far in their favor. So again, consumer choice is not really the main component here.
Last edited by lowing (2009-04-22 16:24:39)
The price difference is usually a lot greater than 5 cents. This is why the loyalty isn't usually there.lowing wrote:
irrelevant. The consumer can choose mom and pop, and keep it just the way it was BEFORE Wal MArt. As it is, Wal MArt will sell 5 cents cheaper and that loyalty dissolves because the consumer CHOSE to leave mom and popTurquoise wrote:
Lowing. How do you think Walmart offers lower prices in the first place?lowing wrote:
Yes it is, just because Wal MArt shows up does not mean you are forced to shop there. Mom and Pop woud still exist and still be a choice, if the consumer base were loyal. As it is they are not. Hence business is always at the mercy of the consumer and their fickle loyalties ane habits.
However, the extent to which Walmart can lower its prices is partially due to tax breaks, therefore, it is completely relevant.
In many cases, Walmart will even sell things at a loss in order to drive out competition. Once a price difference becomes great enough, expecting consumer loyalty becomes farcical.
I use loyalty in the sense that people have a choice, if the people was against what Wal Mart was doing and against the big evil corporations, they have it well with in their power to boycott them and even drive them out of business.Turquoise wrote:
Mom and pop stores are much more likely to survive in big cities because of the larger markets. It's not solely consumer loyalty that causes this. It's also variety of consumption.lowing wrote:
Yup and that compititon has driven not only mom and pop out but also K-Mart. IF the peopel stayed loyal to their local stores, they would remain open bottom line.Turquoise wrote:
Yes, but in major cities, they are competing on a level playing field, hence the greater variety of retailers in large cities.
I think you're attributing a little too much of all this to loyalty.
Why do you think all of these corporations spend billions on advertising to get our attention and make thenselves look so good? Because they know WE make or break them. If we did not matter or could not make a difference aI am quite sure advertising would not exist to the extent it does today.
Walmart triumphs by more than 5c
They advertise everything under one roof - attractive
Much cheaper (stack em high, sell em cheap) - attractive
Far more financial backing- better advertising, more brands - attractive
They advertise everything under one roof - attractive
Much cheaper (stack em high, sell em cheap) - attractive
Far more financial backing- better advertising, more brands - attractive
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
I'm not suggesting consumption isn't relevant. I'm just saying that the current situation involves a lot more than just consumption. You're ignoring a lot of other factors with this emphasis on consumption.lowing wrote:
I use loyalty in the sense that people have a choice, if the people was against what Wal Mart was doing and against the big evil corporations, they have it well with in their power to boycott them and even drive them out of business.Turquoise wrote:
Mom and pop stores are much more likely to survive in big cities because of the larger markets. It's not solely consumer loyalty that causes this. It's also variety of consumption.lowing wrote:
Yup and that compititon has driven not only mom and pop out but also K-Mart. IF the peopel stayed loyal to their local stores, they would remain open bottom line.
I think you're attributing a little too much of all this to loyalty.
Why do you think all of these corporations spend billions on advertising to get our attention and make thenselves look so good? Because they know WE make or break them. If we did not matter or could not make a difference aI am quite sure advertising would not exist to the extent it does today.
If the consumer who is supposedly so against big corporations would continue to shop at mom and pop even if it meant paying more. Wal Mart will loose. A decision must be made to shop on principle or economics. IF you hate big business, do not support them. plain and simple. But to trash big corporations then feed them money is rediculous. Power to the people, and the people has made its choice.Turquoise wrote:
The price difference is usually a lot greater than 5 cents. This is why the loyalty isn't usually there.lowing wrote:
irrelevant. The consumer can choose mom and pop, and keep it just the way it was BEFORE Wal MArt. As it is, Wal MArt will sell 5 cents cheaper and that loyalty dissolves because the consumer CHOSE to leave mom and popTurquoise wrote:
Lowing. How do you think Walmart offers lower prices in the first place?
However, the extent to which Walmart can lower its prices is partially due to tax breaks, therefore, it is completely relevant.
In many cases, Walmart will even sell things at a loss in order to drive out competition. Once a price difference becomes great enough, expecting consumer loyalty becomes farcical.
I can't disagree with that. But again, even before consumption comes into play, a lot of other things take place that allow corporations to triumph over small businesses.lowing wrote:
If the consumer who is supposedly so against big corporations would continue to shop at mom and pop even if it meant paying more. Wal Mart will loose. A decision must be made to shop on principle or economics. IF you hate big business, do not support them. plain and simple. But to trash big corporations then feed them money is rediculous. Power to the people, and the people has made its choice.Turquoise wrote:
The price difference is usually a lot greater than 5 cents. This is why the loyalty isn't usually there.lowing wrote:
irrelevant. The consumer can choose mom and pop, and keep it just the way it was BEFORE Wal MArt. As it is, Wal MArt will sell 5 cents cheaper and that loyalty dissolves because the consumer CHOSE to leave mom and pop
However, the extent to which Walmart can lower its prices is partially due to tax breaks, therefore, it is completely relevant.
In many cases, Walmart will even sell things at a loss in order to drive out competition. Once a price difference becomes great enough, expecting consumer loyalty becomes farcical.
nope, I am simply saying once all the fat is cut away everything hinges on what the consumer will buy, and how much they will spend for it. everything else is nothing more than manuvering to that end.Turquoise wrote:
I'm not suggesting consumption isn't relevant. I'm just saying that the current situation involves a lot more than just consumption. You're ignoring a lot of other factors with this emphasis on consumption.lowing wrote:
I use loyalty in the sense that people have a choice, if the people was against what Wal Mart was doing and against the big evil corporations, they have it well with in their power to boycott them and even drive them out of business.Turquoise wrote:
Mom and pop stores are much more likely to survive in big cities because of the larger markets. It's not solely consumer loyalty that causes this. It's also variety of consumption.
I think you're attributing a little too much of all this to loyalty.
Why do you think all of these corporations spend billions on advertising to get our attention and make thenselves look so good? Because they know WE make or break them. If we did not matter or could not make a difference aI am quite sure advertising would not exist to the extent it does today.
Ah, it's hilarious to read these arguments over the faults of capitalist communism vs. communist capitalism.DonFck wrote:
If you knew even a little over what the EU is, how it works and what it does, you'd know that for one, the European Union consists of sovereign countries as opposed to states (Yes, we can make up our own minds). You'd also know what the current political stances of the governments of these countries are.lowing wrote:
So how is that govt. control over your lives, I.E. socialism working out for ya?
Since your statement makes no sense when we have established the fact that the EU is currently lead by capitalism (which sucks serious balljuice), you should probably revise or shut up. The proposals in question are worrying for the people and a slam dunk for corporations. So much for your argument.
Go talk about Obama in another thread, please.
P.S: We, the people area bunch of pussies. Everything is going down the shitter and we do nothing. No, lowing, this wasn't an Obama comment, but a general view on how our lives will be looking like 1984, capitalist style.Tyler Durden wrote:
When deep space exploration ramps up, it'll be the corporations that name everything, the IBM Stellar Sphere, the Microsoft Galaxy, Planet Starbucks.
Doublethink mass-media debates are the exact reason why there is no progress for the world's working man.
Last edited by Marinejuana (2009-04-22 18:08:13)
/facepalmlowing wrote:
nope, I am simply saying once all the fat is cut away everything hinges on what the consumer will buy, and how much they will spend for it. everything else is nothing more than manuvering to that end.Turquoise wrote:
I'm not suggesting consumption isn't relevant. I'm just saying that the current situation involves a lot more than just consumption. You're ignoring a lot of other factors with this emphasis on consumption.lowing wrote:
I use loyalty in the sense that people have a choice, if the people was against what Wal Mart was doing and against the big evil corporations, they have it well with in their power to boycott them and even drive them out of business.
Why do you think all of these corporations spend billions on advertising to get our attention and make thenselves look so good? Because they know WE make or break them. If we did not matter or could not make a difference aI am quite sure advertising would not exist to the extent it does today.
sleep well, america, your lowings are watching over you...
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
If you disagree with me show me where companies have failed where consumer traffic had nothing to do with it. try keeping it in the context of what turquoise and I are discussingShahter wrote:
/facepalmlowing wrote:
nope, I am simply saying once all the fat is cut away everything hinges on what the consumer will buy, and how much they will spend for it. everything else is nothing more than manuvering to that end.Turquoise wrote:
I'm not suggesting consumption isn't relevant. I'm just saying that the current situation involves a lot more than just consumption. You're ignoring a lot of other factors with this emphasis on consumption.
sleep well, america, your lowings are watching over you...
^last little point made, i'm pretty sure lowings dead on.
aahhhh the pain
aahhhh the pain
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
In case anyone's interested, I got this response back from one of my MEP's.
Dear Matthew,
Thank you very much for your email raising concerns about the Telecoms
Package. I entirely agree with you that consumers should be able to
freely use the Internet and benefit from its immense potential. We
should all be able to decide which service we wish to subscribe to, in
line with our own preferences with respect to the type of service and
content we want to access.
Unfortunately I fear that you have been misled with respect to the
proposed changes to the EU communications framework laws. The reforms
are intended to open up choice and competition, not restrict it.
Existing National laws across the EU already allow operators to provide
differentiated services, accommodating the diverse needs and desires of
consumers across the market place.
The purpose of this review is to increase consumer protection, by
strengthening operators' obligations to be transparent and provide
information on contract conditions, including any limitations or
restrictions which may apply to the services in question. In order for
competition to operate effectively in the consumer interest, consumers
need to be fully informed of the terms on which the services they
contract for are provided, and they should also be free to switch
providers easily and at no additional cost.
In addition, we are also increasing the enforcement powers of national
regulators, enabling them to take action against operators who are in
breach of regulatory obligations, and empowering them to impose minimum
quality of service requirements on all operators.
These quality obligations would ensure that operators are not able to
degrade, throttle or block applications, content or services in ways
which are anticompetitive.
The current Framework has worked very well in driving the development of
Internet services, and promoting fierce competition and high levels of
innovation, to the benefit of all European citizens and European
competitiveness. The major improvements we are making to the rules will
provide incentives for investment in new broadband and wireless
services.
Conservative MEPs in the European Parliament are committed to strong and
active consumers in an open and competitive market. We will continue to
work, in this and other initiatives, to ensure that your rights to
access a wide range of content and services over the Internet continue
to be safeguarded.
With best wishes,
Malcolm
Malcolm Harbour
Member of the European Parliament for the West Midlands, UK
How bout we all agree that the US and the EU people are getting the short end of the stick(in the keister) by people that think they know what's good for us... and time and time again the govt nannies are wrong and it costs us all...coming and going...
2010 and 2012 can't come fast enough... vote out all incumbents...
2010 and 2012 can't come fast enough... vote out all incumbents...
Love is the answer
Too many 'career' politicians in my opinion.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
"in context of what you and turq have been discussing", huh? what context? basically, you were saying that ants have the ability to choose what stick to gnaw at - yeah, sure, they have such an ability and - surprise! - they utilize it to choose the closest and the most nutritious one because that's what they have this ability for in the first place. turq and others have already pointed out how corporations can make their sticks the most attractive to the ants. it would take enormous crowd of lowings all acting in impractical ways AND impossible level of agreement and co-operation between them to put a thorn in the side of those corps - that's why regulation is required. but, unfortunately, the power to regulate this comes with the power to exploit it for personal gain - and this too have already been mentioned by others here.lowing wrote:
If you disagree with me show me where companies have failed where consumer traffic had nothing to do with it. try keeping it in the context of what turquoise and I are discussingShahter wrote:
/facepalmlowing wrote:
nope, I am simply saying once all the fat is cut away everything hinges on what the consumer will buy, and how much they will spend for it. everything else is nothing more than manuvering to that end.
sleep well, america, your lowings are watching over you...
so, yeah, you've a "choiсe" there - it's a choice between a "chewing stick" and a "stick-to-gnaw-at" - whatever you choose, corps win.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
It is called competition, and it benefits consumers.Shahter wrote:
"in context of what you and turq have been discussing", huh? what context? basically, you were saying that ants have the ability to choose what stick to gnaw at - yeah, sure, they have such an ability and - surprise! - they utilize it to choose the closest and the most nutritious one because that's what they have this ability for in the first place. turq and others have already pointed out how corporations can make their sticks the most attractive to the ants. it would take enormous crowd of lowings all acting in impractical ways AND impossible level of agreement and co-operation between them to put a thorn in the side of those corps - that's why regulation is required. but, unfortunately, the power to regulate this comes with the power to exploit it for personal gain - and this too have already been mentioned by others here.lowing wrote:
If you disagree with me show me where companies have failed where consumer traffic had nothing to do with it. try keeping it in the context of what turquoise and I are discussingShahter wrote:
/facepalm
sleep well, america, your lowings are watching over you...
so, yeah, you've a "choiсe" there - it's a choice between a "chewing stick" and a "stick-to-gnaw-at" - whatever you choose, corps win.
IF the consumer had a hard on for companies like Wal Mart all you need to do is boycott them. Enough people boycott and they go away. The reason Wal Mart is so successful is CONSUMER demand was over-whelming. the politicians who also are very interested in what the CONSUMER has to say ( votes ya know) are motivated to do whatever they can to satisfy the demand and look good come re-election.
Again Power to the people and the people have spoken. Wal Mart is successful because the consumers WANT Wal-Mart.
K-Mart has failed even though it sells the same crap as Wal-Mart, and why? Because the CONSUMER has fallen in love with Wal-Mart even though K mart had a head start in the market.
The lowing OS must have a very rudimentary filtration system; it can only seem to filter dialogue through two streams: "Islam" and "Socialism".lowing wrote:
So how is that govt. control over your lives, I.E. socialism working out for ya?
This is not really a socialism issue lowing, there is nothing inherently socialist about this. In fact, it is more in line with Capitalist thinking i.e. forget about the human factor and focus on profitability. You lived in a right-wing Capitalist, George Bush-led America for the last eight years and gave your Government the right to monitor your phone calls and private correspondences... how's that working out for you?
Or worse:ghettoperson wrote:
"The EU have decided that you need to pay more tax and they're going to use it all to give to some fucking French farmers".
The EU has decided that you need to pay more tax and they are going to give it to Hamas to buy more weapons the poor Palestinian people to rebuild Gaza.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- EU To Vote On Worrying Proposals Regarding Internet...