What's new

Did Reagan kill small business?

Globalization

Why don't we stop this then? Again, I'm not very knowledgeable on this subject (or fancy words, ha ha), but why don't we just put a big tax on everything imported, and force companies like Nike and Apple to manufacture their products here? Aren't we one of the top consumers in the world? Why don't we leverage the power we have?
 
Why does walmart thrive? Because of dirty underhanded tactics or because they provide the low cost goods that consumers want and that allow lower income people to enjoy a better quality of life?

What are some of the nasty monopolies? Name them. Describe why they are destructive and not in the best interest of their industry of the consumers they serve.

I'm not saying that I know that no nasty monopolies exist, I just see a lot of people bemoaning large business that succeeds because it's the best at giving the consumers what they want.

Here's the thing, they give customers what they want, but at what cost? What happens when all that is left is Walmart? Do you think prices will remain low?

The real question is this: Are we better off now with Walmart, and will this continue in the future as Wal Mart grows?
 
I don't know why it has to be political, which tends to have a way of crowding the facts out.

You're in a mature business and I would expect big business competition to out compete you. It's no different than any other retail -- grocery, hardware, auto parts... they've all been gobbled up after their industries matured.

Craft brewpubs, on the other hand, are on the leading edge of innovation and are growing at an exponential rate. Same goes for tech startups.

If you want to start a farm today you don't grow corn. You open a greenhouse selling organic foods and rarities, start an herbs farm that grows high demand essential oils, raise exotic food animals or breed the smallest dogs you possibly can. You have to go into new markets if you don't want to compete with big business.


---


I'll see if I can find the gauge of small business startups. It's been years since I looked at it and forgot what it's called.

I do agree with all of that. BUT, where do all those businesses end up? They end up being bought out.

Now, my real question is this: Has it always been this way? Am I just over-romanticizing the good ol days, or has our economy really changed? Is it start-up, knowing that the end goal is selling to a corp before they put you under or is your only other option joining the corp from the get go? Has it always been this way?

If it has, then this conversation is over. I'm not based in reality. But if it has changed, is it a good change?

BTW, just wondering, have you ever owned a small business?
 
Here's the thing, they give customers what they want, but at what cost? What happens when all that is left is Walmart? Do you think prices will remain low?

The real question is this: Are we better off now with Walmart, and will this continue in the future as Wal Mart grows?

If all we're left with is walmart and they raise prices then that opens the door to competition. They only dominate because they offer low prices and large selection at locations that are convenient.
 
This all reminds me of a case presented in one of the Freakonomics books, regarding sweat shops. They posit that the reason sweat shops even exist is because they are better than the alternative, that if there were better places to work with better conditions and higher pay then no on in those countries would work in sweat shops, and that maybe if we push to shut them all down, then we will lower the standard of living in those areas by removing the "best" employment opportunity many people there will ever get.
 
This all reminds me of a case presented in one of the Freakonomics books, regarding sweat shops. They posit that the reason sweat shops even exist is because they are better than the alternative, that if there were better places to work with better conditions and higher pay then no on in those countries would work in sweat shops, and that maybe if we push to shut them all down, then we will lower the standard of living in those areas by removing the "best" employment opportunity many people there will ever get.

Over time, as the people who work in those sweat shops gain a little financial stability and acquire things they want, like running water, nutritious food, etc. they will expect more and just as in the developed world wages will rise and conditions for everyone will improve.

This isn't some Utopian vision. It's ugly and dirty and suffering continues throughout. It's just that there isn't a better option that's based anywhere near reality.
 
This all reminds me of a case presented in one of the Freakonomics books, regarding sweat shops. They posit that the reason sweat shops even exist is because they are better than the alternative, that if there were better places to work with better conditions and higher pay then no on in those countries would work in sweat shops, and that maybe if we push to shut them all down, then we will lower the standard of living in those areas by removing the "best" employment opportunity many people there will ever get.

I will be completely honest here. I care as much about their economies as the people in sweat shops care about mine.

I am just trying to figure out if the Wal Marts and tv oligopolies are a good thing.
 
I will be completely honest here. I care as much about their economies as the people in sweat shops care about mine.

I am just trying to figure out if the Wal Marts and tv oligopolies are a good thing.

I honestly don't know if they're a good thing. I hate walmart...yet I shop there. They attract bottom of the barrel employees because their pay sucks and they don't get treated very well. But they are less than a mile from me, their prices are pretty low, they are open all the time and they typically have what I want. Sucks that I can't get those things from a company that treats their employees better (and thus has better employees, meaning the ones at walmart would be out of a job).
 
If all we're left with is walmart and they raise prices then that opens the door to competition. They only dominate because they offer low prices and large selection at locations that are convenient.

This sounds nice, but in reality, it isn't true. The way corporations are set up nowadays is that they own every aspect of the process. Wal Mart doesn't buy furniture from Martha Stewart then resell it, like a small business would. They create the Martha Stewart furniture and then sell it.

Wal Mart doesn't have Wal Mart brand food cheaper because they want poor people to be able to enjoy knock off fruity pebbles. They have knock of fruity pebbles because if they can get everyone to switch to Wal Mart fruity pebbles, they can buy out/force fruity pebbles out of business.

If all we are left with is Wal Mart, then all we will be left with is Wal Mart.

For example, there is a dental company called Aspen Dental. They have offices all across the country. They have their own in house dental labs. When they open a new office, they do free exams and xrays, and fully plan on not turning a profit for 3-5 years. Their hope is to have their prices so low, that they force the competition out of the area, and when that happens they raise their prices.

When all that is left is Aspen dental, that will be all that is left. The reason why is because nobody will be able to start up a dental practice for free. Aspen will just undercut the new office, lose money on that location until the competition is gone.

Wal Mart will do the same. As will Comcast, Disney, AT&T, etc.

This idea that there will always be a place for competition isn't reality. It sounds really nice. I spouted that off for years, but in reality, it won't happen that way.
 
I honestly don't know if they're a good thing. I hate walmart...yet I shop there. They attract bottom of the barrel employees because their pay sucks and they don't get treated very well. But they are less than a mile from me, their prices are pretty low, they are open all the time and they typically have what I want. Sucks that I can't get those things from a company that treats their employees better (and thus has better employees, meaning the ones at walmart would be out of a job).

I know what you mean. I want to find out if Reagan's policies made it so other companies couldn't pay their employees more AND have better service (open off hours), AND still compete.

A small business can't compete with a corporation who can lose 5 times the revenue what the small business is worth and not even blink an eye.
 
If all we're left with is walmart and they raise prices then that opens the door to competition. They only dominate because they offer low prices and large selection at locations that are convenient.

That's not the case with monopolies who can lower the prices in certain locations to bankrupt a new startup. It's one the reason we have utility regulating boards and set up anti-competition laws against gas stations back in the 1960's (?).

For example, there is a dental company called Aspen Dental. They have offices all across the country. They have their own in house dental labs. When they open a new office, they do free exams and xrays, and fully plan on not turning a profit for 3-5 years. Their hope is to have their prices so low, that they force the competition out of the area, and when that happens they raise their prices.

Have you looked into anti-competition laws?

I agree with you about the monopoly problem. In the US we have more of a duopoly problem though. I recently shopped for appliances and HD and Lowes had the exact same models for the exact same prices. There was no competitive marketplace. For furniture, I have RC Willy, some really high end stores, or the closeout everything must go types. There is no competition for RC Willy. For cable, nobody is offering an a la cart option which is what the customer has been asking for forever.
 
Back
Top