Re: Marjorie Taylor Greene "likes" the Mossad-did-it Theory

On Friday, March 5, 2021 at 9:44:09 AM UTC-5, ajohnstone wrote:
> And that there is no even playing field, so who cares, eh? 

Is there supposed to be? Life is inherently unfair. That's why we need 
wheelchairs. 

> Let the 
> heavyweight boxer challenge the feather-weight boxer. After all, it is the 
> same sport and the same rules, isn't it? 

I remember the golfer Sam Snead saying there is no such thing as an even 
match. One side or the other always had an advantage. He figured, "It 
might as well be Old Sam.". Major college football teams regularly 
schedule teams that aren't even in their same class. Both play the game by 
the same rules yet it is not an even contest. Whether it is sports or 
business, the idea is to win. It is not the job of the strong to be 
concerned about the weak. It is up to the weak to get stronger if they 
want to compete.

> 
> As mentioned in the link, suppliers are forced to lower their wages 
> bill,

The aren't forced to do anything. They choose to do that as a business
strategy.

> lay off staff or out-source over-seas to meet the low price demands of 
> Walmart. Sweat-shops in the US or Myanmar, why care? 
> 

If the people in Myanmar aren't happy with their wages or conditions, it 
is up to them to do something about it. I'm betting they prefer having 
those "sweatshop" jobs to not having a job at all. Would those people be 
better off if companies didn't locate their factories in Myanmar?

> Walmart signs up businesses for contracts where the company then produces 
> the material ordered. Walmart then demands a lower price and leverages 
> another company against them. It is a race to the bottom for the 
> suppliers. 

Pretty smart of Walmart. Buying from the lowest seller makes sense. 
Whether it is done an a large scale or a small one, transactions are 
voluntary agreements between a buyer and a seller at a price that is 
acceptable to both. If manufacturers don't like the price Walmart is 
offering for their goods, they don't have to sell to them. Since the do 
choose to sell to them, they are making the decision it is in their best 
interest to sell for what Walmart offers.

> 
> And the impact is upon all those mom and pop stores that aren't able to 
> compete. These are eventually put out of business, main street shopping 
> dries up and small towns shrivel up. 

That's the way it is. People vote with their dollars. The mom and pop 
stores are largely an anachronism. They started losing that battle many 
decades ago. There are exceptions. Some small locally owned stores are 
able to keep a loyal clientele by offering superior service. One such 
example is a local hardware store in Mt. Vernon, Oh about 15 minutes from 
where I live. It's one of those old fashioned hardware stores with the 
creaky wooden floors. I sometimes choose them over Lowe's for several 
reasons. It's about another 5 minutes to get to Lowe's. When I walk in the 
door, a sales clerk will usually meet me immediately so I don't have to 
spend 10-15 minutes looking for it. If I need a handful of screws to 
complete a project, I don't have to buy a box of 50 or more. The actually 
sell screws, nuts, bolts, etc. by the piece so if I need 8, I get 8. They 
charge these items by weight. I'm sure one a per piece basis, I pay a 
little more but I don't have to buy way more than I need. The Lowe's came 
to Mt. Vernon about the same time I moved to this area about 20 years ago. 
The local hardware store is still in business and there are always cars in 
their parking lot when I go there.

> 
> Certainly don't apply any government regulation to level things up. 

Absolutely not. It's not the role of government to make things even any 
more than it is the role of a sports official to call more fouls on the 
stronger team to make the game more even. Neither sports officials nor 
governments should decide who the winners and losers are. It is up to the 
contestants to do that. If one team is much stronger than the other, 
that's just too damn bad.

> 
> I do find the Walmart field to fork logistics approach appealing, 
> displaying how easy allocation of resources can easily be directed to 
> where demand is.

Obviously Walmart has been doing things right for a very long time. Amazon 
is another company which is thriving although for not as long. The future 
is not guaranteed. Sears & Roebuck began in the late 19th century and for 
the early part of 20th century they were probably as strong a company as 
Amazon is today. You could buy just about anything from Sears, even a 
house, and many people did. Sears became the retailer of choice for many 
who lived in small towns and rural America because they would deliver to 
those places. Not as fast as Amazon of course, but fast for their day. In 
the last few decades, Sears has lost their way and is hanging on by a 
thread because they didn't react to the changing marketplace. The same 
thing might happen to Walmart or Amazon in a hundred years. Right now they 
are doing things right and Walmart's online shopping is starting to rival 
Amazon's. If I need a small item, I don't have to drive 15 minutes into 
town to get it. I just order it online from either Walmart or Amazon and 
there is a good chance it will arrive the next day. A couple days ago I 
needed a very special Sharpie. I found it right away on Amazon, ordered 
it, and it was in my mailbox the next day. I pay $100 a year for prime 
service which means I don't have to pay shipping charges on any item I buy 
direct from them. Walmart has eliminated shipping on most items as well. 
They used to have a minimum order for that but that has been waived. Sears 
and J.C. Penney's could have have been players in this new way of 
retailing but they were too complacent and continued to rely on store 
sales and snail mail catalog orders. Now both a struggling to stay alive.