New York City Council Wages War on Walmart

The latest dumb idea from politicians in the Big Apple.

In a city where the unemployment rate is 9.1 percent, above both the statewide and national average, you’d think that mayoral candidates would be competing to attract businesses and jobs. 

And in a city where the cost of living is so high that the city pays $3,000 a month for landlords to house the “homeless” in rooms without kitchens or private bathrooms, you’d think that mayoral candidates would be competing to welcome a discount retailer that would allow residents to save money on clothing and groceries.

Yet this is New York City. Instead of laying out a welcome mat for Walmart, the Democratic mayoral candidates are trying to keep the company out of the city. An account in The New York Times recently quoted the speaker of the City Council, Christine Quinn, declaring, “As long as Wal-Mart’s behavior remains the same, they’re not welcome in New York City…New York isn’t changing. Wal-Mart has to change.” 

Maybe Quinn can make “New York isn’t changing” the slogan of the mayoral campaign she launched over the weekend. The candidate who would be the city’s first woman and first lesbian mayor turns out to be, on economic development questions, the spokeswoman for stasis.

If previous generations of New York leaders had taken the “New York isn’t changing” approach, the place would still be called New Amsterdam, and we’d all be speaking Dutch. 

Quinn’s die-hard opposition to Walmart undercuts the claim sometimes made by her defenders that she would be a worthy successor to the current mayor, Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg, for all his nanny-state excesses — banning large soft-drinks, trans-fats, and smoking in bars — has been steadfast in articulating the principle that whether to shop at Walmart is a decision for individual consumers, not a decision for city officials to substitute their own judgments for those of individuals. "This city should be open to business for anyone who wants to come here," is how the mayor put it at a press conference in 2011, according to an account in the Wall Street Journal. "You should let the marketplace decide." 

In opposing Walmart, Quinn is acting less like Bloomberg, and more like the Democratic mayor of Boston, Thomas Menino, who explained his opposition to allowing the store to open in the city by saying, “Wal-Mart makes their money and runs to the Midwest and deposits it in the bank. I want the money to stay in our neighborhoods and employ neighborhood people.” 

Imagine if the rest of the country took that sort of narrow-minded attitude toward Boston-based businesses such as Fidelity Investments, New Balance sneakers, or Legal Sea Foods? 

The objections to Walmart by the politicians are without merit. An economic policy official in the Obama administration, Jason Furman, described the company as “a progressive success story,” observing that shopping for groceries there yields savings equivalent to a 6.5 percent raise for families in the bottom income quintile. 

As for complaints about the labor practices of Walmart’s contractors in Communist China, plenty of other vendors of China-made products are already operating in New York City, from the Apple stores to Pearl River Mart. Poor labor conditions? Walmart jobs may not be as cushy as slots volunteering for the Quinn mayoral campaign, but at least they are paid. Plenty of New Yorker labor under worse conditions washing dishes in restaurants or delivering food, or maybe without jobs at all. Who does Quinn think she is to deprive them of the choice to work at Walmart if they decide they want to do so?

Is it that Walmart employees are not represented by a labor union? Neither are most of the workers at Bloomberg News, yet we haven’t yet heard any calls by Quinn to kick the mayor’s financial news and information company out of the city. The New York Post notes that she is endorsed by a union that represents grocery store workers. 

Truth is, in a modern world, it’s hard to stop New Yorkers from shopping at Walmart. They can drive outside the city limits or go online to Walmart.com. Or they can move away from the city to a place where the politicians have a more enlightened view of economic liberty. A Quinn administration, or the prospect of one, may be enough to drive some New Yorkers to do just that.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • silent v||

    If previous generations of New York leaders had taken the “New York isn’t changing” approach, the place would still be called New Amsterdam, and we’d all be speaking Dutch.

    You say that like it would be a bad thing.

  • Richard Caverly||

    my buddy's aunt makes $62 hourly on the computer. She has been without work for 6 months but last month her income was $15706 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more on this web site... http://www.youtube.com.qr.net/kdnc

  • Enough About Palin||

    Yeah, she makes $62/hour Skype-stripping, but how do you think your buddy's cousins feel about it? I bet their friends tease them unrelentingly.

    YOUR MOMMY IS A SKYPE WHORE! YOUR MOMMY IS A SKYPE WHORE!

  • Sevo||

    And she's ugly, too!

  • wwhorton||

    Well, hey, that's a hell of a lot more than she'd make as a greeter at Wal-Mart!

  • Cyto||

    Wait,I thought it was $74 hourly. Dang, now I'm confused.

  • Aresen||

    In opposing Walmart, Quinn is acting less like Bloomberg, and more like the Democratic mayor of Boston, Thomas Menino, who explained his opposition to allowing the store to open in the city by saying, “Wal-Mart makes their money and runs to the Midwest and deposits it in the bank. I want the money to stay in our neighborhoods and employ neighborhood people.”

    Mercantilism will never die. This guy would be right at home in the 1700s House of Lords in the British Parliament.

  • NeonCat||

    Wal-mart buses in workers? That explains why Bostonians hate it, I guess.

  • OldMexican||

    Or they can move away from the city to a place where the politicians have a more enlightened view of economic liberty.


    Like Canada.

    No joke.

  • Gordilocks||

    Stefan Molyneux did a great podcast examining why Canada, on many levels, is way more free and business friendly than the states.

    http://www.freedomainradio.com/Podcasts.aspx

    Podcast #2238

  • ||

    Canada is a semi-diversified, branch plant economy. It HAS to be friendly to business or whither the country.

    I guess we can live off gas and oil but Canada has no choice but to be pragmatic about it. Or you can convert your country into a bureaucrat paradise like Quebec did.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "...you’d think that mayoral candidates would be competing to welcome a discount retailer that would allow residents to save money on clothing and groceries."

    Where do you get the notion that NYC politicians have any interest in saving residents money? I think NYC pols are enormously proud of the outrageously high cost of living New Yorkers are subjected to.

  • InlineSkate||

    How else do you expect to keep them on the government teat?

  • SumpTump||

    lol, Like anyone in New York actually cares lol.

    www.EliteAnon.tk

  • ||

    Too true, Anonbot, too true.

  • XM||

    Why is Walmart despised, while your local suburban malls are spared? You might be able to work 6 hours a week at Bath and Body works, and you and your buddies have to do inventory related stuff late at night when the mall resembles a ghost town.

    Around half of the jobs gained last month was retail. The construction industry is no doubt involved in building new taco bells. The only construction I see around LA is renovations to Walmart, Ralphs, and fast food joints. Why bite the hands that feeds you?

    Walmart give your town revenues and hires pharmacists, optometrists, etc. And they give nearby businesses foot traffic. If they ain't there, they can't spend money.

  • Sevo||

    XM| 3.11.13 @ 6:25PM |#
    "Why is Walmart despised, while your local suburban malls are spared?"

    Regardless of the claims, it seems to be simple snobbishness.
    People who watch NASCAR might shop at Walmart, and you wouldn't want to breathe the same air as them, would you?

  • ||

    I think the snobbishness is at least as much a factor as the alleged concern over Walmart's low wages, anti-union stance, and all the other things that get leftists in a tizzie. I've seen plenty of posts over at DU with sneering condescension towards Walmart and those who shop there. It's the same kind of condescension I see towards trailer parks, or those who dare to enjoy such "pop trash" as American Idol. Clearly, these people should be watching C-Span, not Idol, and shopping at local stores only even if it costs them a 30% premium, and that's no exaggeration in the price differential ime.

    I've got a family and I shop at Walmart and Costco to save money. The latter is loved by libs for a # of reasons.

  • Harvard||

    Yet you are loathed by all and asundry. Go figure.

  • ||

    Haters gonna hate.

  • jameselgringo||

    Walmart benefits very few places where it operates. It does actually externalize to the hilt and suck wealth out of the places where they operate. It feels a little gross to be against so called economic liberty (if there were such a thing), but it's really like preventing a bad neighbor from moving in next to you.

    Walmart is a wealth parasite. She's doing the right thing if she cares about New York.

  • ||

    What about the benefit to CONSUMERS? That's certainly a benefit to a place that consumers can buy stuff cheaper.

    People who don't like Walmart should be, and are free to boycott, not shop there, picket or use whatever free speech methods they want.

    But govt. should absolutely not have the power to exclude them from the marketplace. It's hardly a radical libertarian stance, to believe that govt. doesn't get to decide what businesses are right for the community and what aren't. CONSUMERS make that choice by where they choose to shop.

  • Cyto||

    That is so full of stupid it is hard to even discuss. Everywhere Wal-Mart (and Target, and the Home Depot and Lowes) goes, prices go down, availability of goods goes up - way up - and customer service even gets better.

    No? Think customer service is about your local retailer knowing the 83 products on her shelves backward and forward? How about being able to return any purchase for any reason without any hassle? How about being able to special order any item carried by the chain (but not found in your local store) without having to put down a dime as a deposit? How about a supply chain that means that you never go to the store and find they are out of stock?

    Wal-Mart plays a large role in the "our poor people have flat panel TV's and smart phones" American phenomenon. Not sure how you can hate on that unless your sister owns a small shop for cheap jewelry and women's accessories and is pissed that she can buy her stock cheaper at Wal-mart than she can from her distributor.

  • Sevo||

    jameselgringo| 3.11.13 @ 6:46PM |#
    "Walmart benefits very few places where it operates."

    You're a raging ignoramus. Go suck a government regulation, idiot.

  • ||

    The typical examples that anti-walmarters give is that mom and pop stores and smaller quirky stores that give a neighborhood character bla bla are forced to shut down after losing customer base to Walmart. While I certainly feel for a business owner who is forced to close shop, govt. can't be in the position to deny Walmart the ability to open up and operate in their community. It's simply a power that govt. should not have.

    I recall the recent kerfuffle over Chik-Fil-A (sp?) and several community's politicians taking a stance against "allowing" them to operate in their community. Where do these people get off thinking that they should have the power to restrain trade like that?

  • John Galt||

    Where do these people get off thinking that they should have the power to restrain trade like that?

    Mental illness?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    The typical examples that anti-walmarters give is that mom and pop stores and smaller quirky stores that give a neighborhood character bla bla are forced to shut down after losing customer base to Walmart.


    The evidence with regard to mom-and-pops is mixed, if I recall correctly. Specialty shops (i.e. "smaller quirky stores") is pretty clear. Wal-Mart doesn't take much of their business. That kind of makes sense when you think about it. Wal-Mart isn't in the business of carrying low-volume "quirky" specialty items. It's not their business model. If anything, the savings from Wal-Mart increase consumer budgets for such purchases.

  • Bill Door||

    I'm aware of a case where Wal-Mart wanted to enter a community badly enough that they were going to modify their store to not include the grocery section. One of the city councilmen owns a grocery store in the town and refused to allow Wal-Mart in, even though Wal-Mart was willing to take out their grocery section to appease the council. They were shut out by the council, so they approached a neighboring city about 5 miles away (and in another state) who are welcoming them as a business into their community, grocery store included. I have a feeling that the idiot councilman is going to see his business tank because he fought so vehemently against Wal-Mart when they were willing to work with the city to meet their needs. People will drive 5 miles for the added convenience of Wal-Mart. Moral of the story: Don't be an idiot councilman with a conflict of interest. You may lose your city, county and state some tax revenue from allowing Wal-Mart in.

  • Kendall Rigdon||

    I am no fan of WalMart, but not for the ridiculous reasons put forward by the New York mayoral candidate. There is a great deal to be said for de-globalization. The notion has been that our world is get smaller and everyone is globally doing business.

    Any monopoly, whether it be governmental or private, is bad for individuals. Ask the Hostess bakers how they are doing these days? Better yet, ask the public employees in Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles, Newark or New York City when they lose their public pensions in the next 2-3 years.

    Politicians like Blumberg don't care about any of these issues in truth. They like are those kids in grade school that would always blurt out in class whether they knew the answer or not. They have a feverish desire to be heard and prefer not to be understood.

    WalMart should be shunned because they control too much. One out of every four tires is sold by WalMart. Half of all U.S. toy sales happen in a WalMart. They are the nation's largest purchaser of milk and ground beef. You think you are saving money, but they are destroying competition and innovation. If you are a libertarian, you necessarily believe in a free market economy. But a free market requires that everyone is allowed to compete equally. And if you think WalMart doesn't exert enormous economic pressures that affect the market, you are delusional.

    WalMart is too big. They need to go.

  • Sevo||

    Kendall Rigdon| 3.11.13 @ 8:03PM |#
    ..."There is a great deal to be said for de-globalization. "...
    Not by anyone with two brain cells.

    "Any monopoly, whether it be governmental or private, is bad for individuals"
    Nope; the only non-govermental monopoly benefited the consumer until it was broken up.
    And Walmart has no monopoly; you don't get to make up new definitions to suit your lefty politics.

  • Kendall Rigdon||

    Insults simply mean that you lack the ability to form a cogent response. I am a life long Republican that in the last few years has become libertarian. Please know that your remarks make you look oafish.

    Name calling is a tactic for the low brow intellect. So, in light of that fact, I leave you to your ignorance. Enjoy the wallow.

  • ||

    Sometimes when addressing an idiotic argument, insults are simply a short hand since actually explaining your idiocy to you would probably be fruitless.

    You might want to spend a little bit more time reading some libertarian economists before you decide whether you want to take on that moniker. I'll give you a hint: if you think Wal Mart is a monopoly as it currently exists, or that it would be bad if it became a monopoly without using coercion or fraud, you aren't a libertarian, and you should probably only claim the title when you're trying to look edgy at parties with your Republican friends.

  • ||

    KR, you claim to be libertarian, yet there was little in your explanation that is so. Define 'they have to go.'

    It makes no sense. The only entity that should have that power to decide is the CONSUMER.

    Wal-Mart is NO monopoly.

    You can protest Wal-Mart. That's your rigth. But you have NO right to determine this for others. Let the marketplace decide.

  • ||

    Right.

  • John Galt||

    AhhHAHAHAHAHA!!

  • ||

    iow, they should be punished for being successful. Get real.

  • Kevin47||

    "There is a great deal to be said for de-globalization."

    I love that you follow this up by saying literally nothing on behalf of "de-globalization". You just assert that a lot can be said for it, as though we all just agree that is true.

    "Any monopoly"

    Walmart is not remotely a monopoly. What is it with the left and pretending this word means something it does not mean?

    "One out of every four tires is sold by WalMart."

    Monopoly!

    "If you are a libertarian, you necessarily believe in a free market economy."

    And you don't believe governmental regulations are a means to achieve a free market. Oxymorons and all that.

  • ||

    Last I checked, being successful such that a substantial %age of X is sold by your company does not make you a monopoly.

    If coke sold 95% of all sodas in the country, that wouldn't make them a monopoly. There's still plenty of choice on the shelves. And people have plenty of CHOICES where to shop. They (me too) CHOOSE to shop at Walmart. That doesn't make Walmart a monopoly.

    It makes Walmart a SUCCESS

  • Kendall Rigdon||

    Your remarks are those of a dolt. You example doesn't even remotely apply. Please educate yourself on the subject before you display such boorish gaffs again.

  • ||

    Walmart is absolutely not a monopoly. Among other things, monopolies can (and often do) set prices well above what they would have to set in a PC (perfectly competitive) market. Walmart does the opposite. It has beome a leader (not a monopoly) because it uses economy of scale, and a remarkably efficient distribution system.

    Monopolies must be the only supplier of a particular commodity.

    Walmart otoh, sells stuff that other stores sell (and combines several types of stores - pharmacy, toy store, grocery store, etc.). It just does so at a better price, and thus wins more market share.

    Nobody can seriously argue Walmart is a monopoly. Feel free to read up on what monopolies are.

  • ||

    Guess what. I often go to Wal-Mart for supplies for my daycare. The distributors who 'specialize' in daycare items (toilet paper, paper towels, crayons etc.) don't necessarily offer a better price per unit than Wal-Mart and COSTCO.

    I break down shit like that.

    The balance of my stuff I simply go on the internet (when other places are exhausted) and order from the States because Canadian retail prices are too high.

    THAT'S the marketplace determining, you know, the MARKET. But a-holes like Quinn want to remove this option.

    I can't stand distributors who pretend they're the only game in town. They always inflate their prices. I'm sure they reason most operators wouldn't go as far as to buy from competitors.

    Shit, I've bought room dividers from St. Louis, got them shipped to Plattsburgh at 1/3 the price (and double the size!) they sell them here in Quebec.

  • ||

    I like that you just jumped on someone above for name calling, then proceed to rebut challenges to your infantile, 16th century economic ideas with... name calling.

  • ||

    It's clumsy trolling. Why does anyone bother to respond?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    A monopoly is a condition where there is exactly one supplier of a good or service. That's what it is. By definition. Hence the "mono-" in monopoly.

  • Sevo||

    "I love that you follow this up by saying literally nothing on behalf of "de-globalization". You just assert that a lot can be said for it, as though we all just agree that is true.

    See, oh, Begging the Question":
    "The fallacy of petitio principii, or "begging the question", is committed "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof""

  • Kendall Rigdon||

    If WalMart is not a monopoly then no one is. You should read the Sherman Anti Trust Act before you reveal your ignorance. Governmental regulations should be greatly limited. I believe that our Federal government is grossly bloated.

    But if you do not think that large corporations are just as dangerous as large government, then you are devoid of any sense of history. I believe in local markets, local government. Walmart exerts enormous influence on most of our economy. Being a free market support means that excess influence by any force, be it government or industry, hinders us all.

    Please read a book before revealing your ignorance. No doubt, this is why you hide behind a fake id. If you have any backbone, you would make comments you stand behind with your person. I am sure you hide in anonymity so that no one can know how unremarkable you are.

  • ||

    Please read a book before revealing your ignorance.

    Better advice was never spoken. You would do well to take it.

    Note that the Sherman Anti Trust Act is meaningless in a more fundamental discussion about what constitutes a monopoly in the economic sense of the term, and that even by the standard of the Sherman Anti Trust Act, Wal Mart is not a monopoly and has never been charged with violating the law... even by the mercantilist politicians you so admire.

    2/10, lurk moar.

  • Sevo||

    Kendall Rigdon| 3.12.13 @ 12:13AM |#
    "But if you do not think that large corporations are just as dangerous as large government, then you are devoid of any sense of history."

    Nope, they're not. They don't have the guns, you idiot.

  • Brubaker||

    "If you are a libertarian, you necessarily believe in a free market economy. But a free market requires that everyone is allowed to compete equally."

    So, competition is good, but not if someone excels at that competition? Perhaps they should strive for mediocrity?

  • Kendall Rigdon||

    Allow me to explain, since you obviously have not read much in the field. Free markets mean that they are free from anything that prohibits business per se. This includes the government and any business that exerts such control or influence so as to impact the laws of supply and demand.

    Walmart squashes competition through market consumption. Look up the statistics to see how many small local businesses are driven out of existence when Walmart opens in their town.

    Free markets does not mean a free for all. For the love of God, read up on the subject before you expose your oafish lack of understanding.

  • ||

    Walmart squashes competition because people CHOOSE Walmart over its competition

    That's how a market works. There is no fre for all. There's a metric assload of reguaton.

    Jesus Christ man, even some of the harshest leftwing anti-Walmart critics don't go as far as claiming it's a monopoly. They'd lose credit if they did so

  • ||

    Free markets mean that they are free from anything that prohibits business per se. coercion and fraud

    FIFY

    This includes the government

    Very good, gold star.

    and any business that exerts such control or influence so as to impact the laws of supply and demand.

    No business is capable of exerting control or influence over the laws of supply and demand. The only way you can do that is through coercive force. On extremely rare occasion a firm may become so efficient at a particular task that its cost efficiencies are maximized, creating a barrier to entry because there would be no profitability in opening a competing firm. That would be a natural monopoly, which is the unicorn of free market economic theory. In practicality, such monopolies would be both very rare, and in almost no conceivable situation permanent. The only monopolies we experience in our day to day life even in the very mixed economy in the United States are those granted by government.

    To the best of my knowledge, no one in America has ever been coerced into walking into a Wal Mart store and making a purchase. And Wal Mart has hardly realized maximum cost efficiencies in any of its businesses; in point of fact, they face strong competition across the entire retail sector.

    Ergo:

    For the love of God, read up on the subject before you expose your oafish lack of understanding.

    Please take your own advice.

  • DrAwkward||

    You come here claiming to recently have become libertarian, and then have the balls to explain to everyone here what a free market is.

    I can assure you that most posters here have read 200 times more on the subject than you have.

    Please stop claiming to be a libertarian. You are merely a blowhard.

    Also, 25% of tire sales equals a monopoly? Jesus Christ.

  • wwhorton||

    Take the monocle off, it's giving you a headache.

    ECON 101: Fairness of Process vs. Equality of Outcome.

    You correctly identify a free market as one in which the forces of supply and demand are allowed to act unfettered by outside forces, resulting in a price set at equilibrium. When the rules apply to everyone equally, it's considered "fair", and a truly free market is, by definition, also fair in process.

    Where you're consistently running off the rails, as do most who make the populist/mercantilist argument, is that you're confusing fair process with equal outcome. A large corporation can definitely drive a small, local business out if that small business attempts to compete directly in Coca-Cola sales. That's because the large corporation is better at it. It's able to leverage greater logistical capability to get cheaper prices, which it passes on to consumers, who then choose to shop there. The local business can either change what it sells to occupy niches that the large corp can't, or close up shop. Same rules, different outcomes.

    Here's a hint that you'll want to remember before you start telling libertarians how libertarian you are. Generally speaking, if you're trying to change the outcome of a fair process using laws or force, you're not taking a libertarian position. And that's fine, it just means you're not a libertarian.

  • Sevo||

    Kendall Rigdon| 3.12.13 @ 12:20AM |#
    "Allow me to explain,...Free markets does not mean a free for all."

    Don't bother. You're almost too dumb to breathe.

  • ||

    See, I don't get this. This is leftist thinking.

    Wal-Mart didn't come into the market rigging it to prevent others from competing "equally." They simply found a formula that was more efficient that led to this perception.

    They have it backwards. Essentially, it's punishing success.

    It's like this in sports. Everyone hates the Yankees, hated the Habs and loathed Ferrari during their dominance at various times.

    People forget those franchises were once NOTHING and BUILT their "empires" by beating everyone else OFTEN.

    Notice great dynasties are always charged with "cheatinG" or "buying" championships. They got the money BECAUSE they won.

    Success does that.

    So, what happens is that everyone else (ie the losers) cry, whines, bitch and complain that things are unequal.

    The Maple Leafs, Lions, Pirates, Islanders, Wizards - and the list goes on - are who they are because of bad decisions. They're shitty losers and until the mindset changes the culture of losers continues. It's why I view salary caps with suspicion. It's a way to punish the success to give the idiots a chance.

    Guess what? The best still rise to the top.

  • Cremate||

    How do libertarian's feel about loss leaders?

  • Sevo||

    Cremate| 3.12.13 @ 1:08PM |#
    "How do libertarian's feel about loss leaders?"
    Did the trade take place absent coercion? If so, just fine, thank you.

  • DrAwkward||

    No, Brubaker. See, a free market means government can't interfere, but Kendall Rigdon gets to decide which companies "need to go". Come on, read a book man!

  • John Galt||

    Without targets on which to focus their hatreds progtards immediately begin to over-heat, start putting off large volumes of toxic vapors, shortly thereafter violently imploding, often injuring or killing bystanders.

  • Stan-75||

    my best friend's step-sister makes $74/hour on the computer. She has been without work for eight months but last month her paycheck was $19194 just working on the computer for a few hours. Here's the site to read more http://www.wow92.com

  • Sevo||

    Stan-75| 3.11.13 @ 8:59PM |#
    "my best friend's step-sister makes $74/hour on the computer."

    Does she dance on it?

  • Bill Door||

    Actually, I did the math. To make that amount of money at $74/hour, she would have to work almost 9 hours/day every day for 30 days. Sounds like more than a few hour to me.

  • Sevo||

    Seems the Wally-wrold haters reallt did H&R; GONE!
    No great loss; the site has an improved IQ by their going.

  • Kendall Rigdon||

    Thank you for confirming your illiteracy. Go back to your double wide.

  • DrAwkward||

    I real douche once blurted, "Insults simply mean that you lack the ability to form a cogent response".

    Now who was the putrid turd who said that..?

  • ygsrf||

    Which is the best blog for us.we are enjoy it and will show them to everyone.

  • Sevo||

    jameselgringo| 3.11.13 @ 6:46PM |#
    "Walmart benefits very few places where it operates. It does actually externalize to the hilt and suck wealth out of the places where they operate."

    Kendall Rigdon| 3.11.13 @ 8:03PM |#
    "I am no fan of WalMart, but not for the ridiculous reasons put forward by the New York mayoral candidate. There is a great deal to be said for de-globalization. The notion has been that our world is get smaller and everyone is globally doing business."

    Both of these screeds were not off-the-cuff. Stupid, yes. Lacking in logic, of course. But carefully crafted.
    I'm going to guess that there is a union bot that searches for Walmart articles and triggers certain stock responses. Notice that they posted once and disappeared; the hallmark of a bot rather than a person.

  • Sevo||

    I am probably incorrect re: jameselgringo.
    If you click on his name, you'll find a blog written by what seems to be the standard-issue lefty ignoramus. A human impersonating a Turing-Test-Fail bot.
    OK, James, I was wrong; you're just stupid.

  • Kendall Rigdon||

    I am no bot. I am an attorney in Florida, self employed for the last 20 years. I also own a small trucking company. I employ about 15 people.

    You really are an embarrassment sir. You would think illiterate people would avoid exposing their lack of education. But there appears to be no limit to your witless display of poor grammar and lack of education.

  • Jim in Denver||

    No, you're not bot, you're a pompous prig. Flowery ad hominem attacks are still ad hominem attacks. Blow it out of your pretentious ass.

  • ||

    Don't feed trolls.

  • ||

    You would think illiterate people would avoid exposing their lack of education.

    Yet you continue to mindlessly repeat the word "Monopoly" with a working understanding of the concept more shallow than the Parker Brothers board game of the same name.

  • Loki||

    Yet you continue to mindlessly repeat the word "Monopoly" with a working understanding of the concept more shallow than the Parker Brothers board game of the same name.

    Where do you think he learned the word?

  • Sevo||

    "Where do you think he learned the word?"

    On a bender with other lefty idiots.

  • DrAwkward||

    Ahh, a lawyer from Florida. That explains why you are roughly 20% as smart as you think you are.

  • NealAppeal||

    "Ahh, a lawyer from Florida. That explains why you are roughly 20% as smart as you think you are."

    Just 5% more and he will have a monopoly!

  • Sevo||

    Kendall Rigdon| 3.12.13 @ 12:16AM |#
    "I am no bot."

    OK, you're an ignoramus.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    I am no bot.


    No, a well-written bot would be far more interesting and would probably have an understanding of the term monopoly beyond what a specific law doesn't call Wal-Mart. Only a lawyer can be that muddle-headed.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    Walmart is a snoopy poor man's store filled with the poorly-paid selling a shitload of products made by a country of communists exploiting the poverty-stricken of which many live in Chinese factory camps. You go 'Merican capitalism! You go! defenders of subpar plastic gadgets and hideously-tasting store-brands foods. You go! spittle-spitting ass-lickers of lifeless and detached corporate gigantism. Oh, and keep tossing that over-used 'ad hominem' line into the debate- no discussion on Walmart can ever get enough of the irrelevance accusation by the steamed.

    I'm unsettled by anything massive and with obvious fingers of levers on social control. This includes governments AND corporations which tend to quietly collude. Tho, depending on the partisan hackery exhibited by the various rags I can only be pissed at either gov or corp. Fuck it.

  • ||

    Government and corporations do collude but is this the case with Wal-Mart? If not, they did it legit.

    Geez one would think the story of Sam Walton coming from a poor, humble background to building an epic business would be the quintessential American free-enterprise story.

    Yet, people (the left mostly) attack it like a pack of wild dogs.

  • Sevo||

    Agile Cyborg| 3.12.13 @ 5:14AM |#
    "Walmart is a snoopy poor man's store filled with the poorly-paid selling a shitload of products made by a country of communists exploiting the poverty-stricken of which many live in Chinese factory camps."

    See?
    I told you it was snobbery. All the rest is red herrings.

  • Baal||

    Menino's specious reason for opposing Walmart, “Wal-Mart makes their money and runs to the Midwest", strikes me as bordering on unconstitutional if that were the explicit rationale for an ordinance or statute. I ain't no lawyer, but isn't preventing that kind of nonsense in part what the interstate commerce clause was intended for ?

  • juliabraon||

    my roomate's sister-in-law makes $74 hourly on the laptop. She has been fired from work for seven months but last month her pay check was $16116 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site http://fly38.com

  • Sevo||

    Kendall Rigdon| 3.12.13 @ 12:09AM |#
    "I am a life long Republican that in the last few years has become *libertarian*."

    You don't have the slightest clue as to what that word means.

  • DrAwkward||

    Kendall is even worse than Tony.
    At least Tony knows he's not a libertarian.

  • Sevo||

    Not sure.
    Shithead is under no illusion that he's a libertarian, but that's not saying much.
    Kendall looks to be less dangerous; just someone for whom word definitions are beyond his abilities.
    Both deserve any and all derision that can be heaped upon them.

  • gomezkeralen||

    like Clara answered I am shocked that any body able to profit $7089 in 1 month on the computer. did you look at this web site

    http://jump30.com

  • rachelpool4||

    til I looked at the bank draft saying $8075, I have faith that...my... friend could truly taking home money parttime from there labtop.. there brothers friend started doing this for less than twenty three months and by now took care of the depts on there appartment and bought themselves a Mazda. go to,
    http://jump30.com

  • rachelpool4||

    Kate. you think Bryan`s st0ry is surprising, last wednesday I bought themselves a Mazda from having earned $7947 thiss month and-over, ten/k this past month. it's by-far the easiest job Ive ever had. I began this 3 months ago and almost straight away was bringin in minimum $72 per-hour. I follow the details here,,
    http://jump30.com

  • SpartanGirl||

    Is Ira Stoll aware that government subsidized Walmart will kill all the small businesses and mom and pop shops around it?

    When people look for jobs they look for them in NYC not on Long Island where you see nothing but big box stores. People in NYC don't want Walmart, they fiercely oppose it and that's why it can't get built in NYC. Small businesses are the future.

  • Sevo||

    SpartanGirl| 3.13.13 @ 1:33PM |#
    "Is Ira Stoll aware that government subsidized Walmart will kill all the small businesses and mom and pop shops around it?"

    Is SpartanGirl aware that she spouts lies? Go peddle your lefty propaganda elsewhere; your lies are tired.

  • SpartanGirl||

    Assumptions and ad hominem. You have no argument do you?

  • jameselgringo||

    @sevo Thank you for calling me stupid and an ignoramus. I'm quite accustomed to the (usually) closed-minded attitudes and perspectives of libertarians, who are *always* right (to a fault). I'll keep reading to see if you actually say anything intelligent. Until then, I'll reserve judgement.

    First of all (apologies if any heads explode), Walmart isn't *all* bad. They are simultaneously a marvel of capitalism and an example of most of the major problems of capitalism. I would argue (and a real debate would actually be nice) that Walmart is more bad than good, for America, for Americans, for the world, for the ecology, for other businesses big and small, and for good taste (the most subjective part so it’s pointless to address this as taste is personal).

    While Walmart isn't a monopoly, it is anti-competitive. For example, it operate any individual store at a loss until it claims a sufficient portion of market share. How does the average business compete against that? Books have been written about how Walmart is anti-competitive, so I won't belabor this, but I'd *love* to hear any arguments about how Walmart is good for competition.

  • jameselgringo||

    For those who can take off the idealist hat for a moment and look objectively at government regulation and protection, wouldn't it make sense to protect your voters from an organization that would make your voters' lives worse? (One must rant...) It sucks to work for Walmart. It sucks to supply Walmart. It sucks to own a business or live in a community near a Walmart. It sucks to be a supplier to Walmart. Walmart sucks wealth from everyone/everything it touches. Walmart isn't anyone's friend, and it's a bad neighbor. If we had a mutually beneficial relationship with Walmart, it would be one thing. Walmart acts much more like a parasite. (To name a few reasons to oppose them.)

  • jameselgringo||

    Many American small towns that have lost agriculture, manufacturing, and mining jobs are kind of on life support through welfare and social security. Some would argue that these towns might crumble (economically speaking) on their own. Many do manage a sort of equilibrium or (at least over time) can evolve and possible develop new industries or populations, ...unless Walmart shows up. They turn on the wealth vacuum and suck up a large chunk of the money people have to spend in the area. If it tips the balance and the area's economy goes down the toilet, Walmart has been known to leave the market just as quickly as it entered. Also conveniently, above and beyond the locals on welfare and ss, 44% of Walmart employees are on government benefits. How do you feel about Walmart profiting immensely from your tax money given to its customers? How do you feel about Walmart externalizing its employees hardships on the rest of us instead of paying them a little better?

    Are Walmart's extra low prices good for America if they destroy other business and competition? I'll check back for answers more profound than simple free market idealism.

  • SpartanGirl||

    Some of the "libertarians" here are nothing but corporate cheerleaders. They cheer for corporates who take money from the government, who got bailed out by the government and couldn't get this big without the government. Actually in a truly free market system corporates couldn't get this big and powerful.

    Anyone with an IQ above 50 can figure out a Walmart will provide 200 hundred jobs while wiping away 2000 jobs in the surrounding area and these 200 Walmart employees will be added to the government welfare recipients since the wages are so low. I mean we're talking about NY here. In any other place maybe you can survive with a 7$ per/h salary but in NY you can't. Besides racing down to the bottom is never a good business strategy.

  • ||

    Justin. I agree that Francisco`s story is terrific... on tuesday I bought a new Mazda sincee geting a check for $6390 this - 4 weeks past and in excess of 10k last munth. without a question it is the most-financialy rewarding I've ever had. I actually started 6 months ago and practically straight away startad making at least $77, per-hour. I follow the details here, http://www.fly38.com

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement