Quote :

"In recent months, Flagler has opened its trove of some 15,000 Wal-Mart tapes to the outside world, with an eye toward selling clips. The material is proving irresistible to everyone from business historians and documentary filmmakers to plaintiffs lawyers and union organizers"

Quote :

"Flagler offered to sell the whole video archive to Wal-Mart for several million dollars, Ms. Villanueva says, although she won't disclose the exact price. Wal-Mart countered with an offer of $500,000, arguing the footage wouldn't be of interest elsewhere, the two owners say. "

With the millions that Wal-Mart spends on advertising, you'd think some executive there with some forethought would reccomend spending a measly couple million to buy off years of potentially bad publicity.

These films will be floating around the You-Tube-sphere for ages. Great job, Mega-lo-Mart.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120770260120100121.html?mod=hps_us_pageone

4/10/2008 11:10:29 AM

Oomph. Too bad it's one of the biggest companies in the world that has to learn this lesson the hard way. Come to think of it, what legal precedent is there about who actually owns the security tapes if you are using a private security company? Do they actually belong to the security company or Wal-Mart? Although, there's got to be something illegal about them releasing the actual footage of the tapes...

4/10/2008 4:07:02 PM

from what I read, they weren't security tapes.

4/10/2008 4:10:41 PM

big whop...aint gonna change shit unless theres a sex scandal

4/10/2008 5:01:19 PM

i think the only thing that's gonna make people stop shopping at wal-mart is if they continue to keep only a handful of registers open, because waiting in line behind 8 mexicans each with an entire shopping car and a half full of crap takes way too long.

4/12/2008 8:36:33 AM

^ nail on head.

That's pretty much exactly why i don't shop there.

4/12/2008 9:18:12 AM

That, and customer service is very, very poor at Wal-Mart.

I was looking for a cheap valance for my window, and, after talking with 4 different CSA's whom all possessed a very loose grasp of the english language, I just gave up.

Accompany that with only 2/26 lanes being open at any given time, the Meat-cutting debacle in which they fired all of their specialists and brought in pre-cut meat (to avoid unionizing), and their propensity for less than stellar quality products... well, I can't go there anymore.

4/12/2008 9:40:22 AM

not to mention they have "how may I help you?" written on the back of their work shirts/ aprons so you can see it as they're walking away from you.


honestly, if its something I can find at wal-mart, I can find it at target...

[Edited on April 12, 2008 at 1:23 PM. Reason : .]

4/12/2008 1:23:00 PM

Quote :

"^ nail on head. That's pretty much exactly why i don't shop there."

Also, their self checkout machines are the worst, and the people who use them are too stupid/foreign to be using electronic machines in the first place.

4/12/2008 1:26:44 PM

Quote :

"Accompany that with only 2/26 lanes being open at any given time"

ha, dude i go there at like 3am on my days off from night shift and there is like 20 people in the whole store, all of which are trying to check out at the one open lane.

4/12/2008 1:43:53 PM

Target > Walmart > Kmart > Malls in general (cause stuff at the mall is way way overpriced)

4/12/2008 7:39:36 PM

Quote :

"honestly, if its something I can find at wal-mart, I can find it at target..."

Completely disagree. The only thing you can find at target is womens clothing and cosmetics. If you need any kind of tools, screws, or anything for home repair, that basically rules out Target. They don't even sell lawn mowers. I worked for Target in high school, and they make all their money off cosmetics and clothing.

4/12/2008 10:49:40 PM

FWIW, Wal-Mart spent $1.9 billion in advertising in 2007 as per their annual report

4/13/2008 1:30:27 AM

Quote :

"If you need any kind of tools"

http://www.target.com/b/sr=1-1/qid=1208068372/ref=sr_ilm_1/602-3331538-0828668?ie=UTF8&node=277195011

Quote :

"They don't even sell lawn mowers"

http://www.target.com/Lawn-Mowers-Accessories-Garden-Patio/b?ie=UTF8&node=284861011

4/13/2008 2:35:35 AM

Quote :

"That, and customer service is very, very poor at Wal-Mart. "

poor customer service for poor customers

4/13/2008 4:23:23 AM

^^ Next time you go to a target check out their home improvement section. It will be about 2-3 isles at most. They don't have a garden center, they don't have jack shit. Occasionally they will have some stuff in the seasonal section, but it depends on the time of year. I'm not saying I like Wal-Mart, I'm just saying I hate Target.

4/13/2008 9:46:14 AM

Quote :

"Wal-Mart spent $1.9 billion in advertising in 2007 as per their annual report "

And all it would have taken was a measley couple of million to keep videos of their executives prancing around in drag off the internetz.

4/13/2008 10:24:17 AM

who cares?

4/13/2008 11:01:51 AM

Quote :

"Completely disagree. The only thing you can find at target is womens clothing and cosmetics. If you need any kind of tools, screws, or anything for home repair, that basically rules out Target. They don't even sell lawn mowers. I worked for Target in high school, and they make all their money off cosmetics and clothing."

That is why god created hardware stores.

4/13/2008 1:37:25 PM

^ This is true, but the point of Walmart, Target, etc, is for one stop shopping. At Wal-Mart if you need something for your house, you can get it there instead of having to make an extra trip to the hardware store. Then if you need a basketball you can also get that at Wal-Mart. Target's sporting goods section might as well not even exist. It's half a fucking isle of the shittiest stuff that nobody would ever buy. Target is a great discount store for women, but they don't have shit for men.

[Edited on April 13, 2008 at 2:52 PM. Reason : ]

4/13/2008 2:51:55 PM

one stop shopping is the end of local shops and is extremely evil.

4/13/2008 3:00:26 PM

Quote :

"Completely disagree. The only thing you can find at target is womens clothing and cosmetics. If you need any kind of tools, screws, or anything for home repair, that basically rules out Target. They don't even sell lawn mowers. I worked for Target in high school, and they make all their money off cosmetics and clothing."

first off, i don't buy my clothes at the same place that I can buy oil for my car. so that rules out Wal-mart AND target. Second, if i were a woman and I were to buy cosmetics, again, not from the same place I can buy oil for my car....

Third: Lowes > any other store that sells hardware. This includes lawn mowers, screws, tools....so I pretty much ruled out any reason to shop at wal-mart and target...unless its house ware, linens etc...then target is a great place to go. Personally I don't care where they make their money so long as they have what i need. which they do.

Quote :

"^ This is true, but the point of Walmart, Target, etc, is for one stop shopping. At Wal-Mart if you need something for your house, you can get it there instead of having to make an extra trip to the hardware store. Then if you need a basketball you can also get that at Wal-Mart. Target's sporting goods section might as well not even exist. It's half a fucking isle of the shittiest stuff that nobody would ever buy. Target is a great discount store for women, but they don't have shit for men."

again, you are doing something wrong in life if you are buying your mens wear at wal-mart. The only 'men' products you would buy at either store is toiletries and such. Not clothing. If you want a good sporting good selection you go to a Dick's or other sports store. Both wal-mart and target have shitty sporting goods anyway.

[Edited on April 13, 2008 at 3:21 PM. Reason : .]

4/13/2008 3:19:51 PM

[Edited on April 13, 2008 at 4:06 PM. Reason : dbl]

4/13/2008 4:05:55 PM

Quote :

"and is extremely evil."

no, it's not, dumbass

4/13/2008 4:06:37 PM

I would much rather support my local stores than megaliths. You get better products and better service and they provide more for the community.

4/13/2008 4:13:29 PM

I would much rather support my megaliths than local stores. You get better products at lower prices and thus provide more for the community by improving everyone's standard of living.

[Edited on April 13, 2008 at 5:46 PM. Reason : .,.]

4/13/2008 5:46:13 PM

^ +1

4/13/2008 6:12:16 PM

^^by removing self ownership of business which is a cornerstone in the capitalistic system of the US.

at least it was a cornerstone.

4/13/2008 9:31:23 PM

I don't see how. Wal-mart is owned by wal-mart stock holders. If what you mean is the loss of owner+managers then you are right. But I was unaware they were ever a cornerstone. Much of the nation was founded by chartered companies whose owners stayed safe and happy in England. North Carolina, for example, was owned by eight Lords Proprietors which, to my knowledge, never set foot in the colony.

[Edited on April 14, 2008 at 12:14 AM. Reason : .,.]

4/14/2008 12:11:43 AM

I guess you have never been into a local store if you claim you get better products at the megaliths.

^The US was not found on those. The colonies were found on those and they are the major reason why the colonies rose up and threw off the yoke of oppression. Also, the capitalism that we know and claim to follow wasn't devised until 1776. And this mega-corporation capitalism we practice today is the antithesis of what Adam Smith and Alexander Hamilton envisioned.

[Edited on April 14, 2008 at 1:06 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on April 14, 2008 at 1:10 AM. Reason : .]

4/14/2008 1:03:23 AM

the East India Company was one of the colonists favorite corporations.

or so Ive read.

4/14/2008 8:26:36 AM

Target ftw. wal mart ftl.

4/14/2008 8:33:17 AM

at least until 2024

target is yesterday's k-mart today

4/14/2008 8:42:19 AM

TRADER JOE'S FOR PRESIDENT!

4/14/2008 9:06:58 AM

Quote :

"The US was not found on those. The colonies were found on those and they are the major reason why the colonies rose up and threw off the yoke of oppression."

Odd. To my knowledge we rebelled against the British government and only the british government. After the revolution British companies were still fully recognized as equals in American courts and British citizens retained ownership of vast swaths of American property.

Quote :

"Also, the capitalism that we know and claim to follow wasn't devised until 1776. And this mega-corporation capitalism we practice today is the antithesis of what Adam Smith and Alexander Hamilton envisioned."

I don't see how. Adam Smith was all about the use of contracts among individuals to self organize economic activity. A mega-corporation is merely the extension of that right to contract between many more people. It is merely a difference of size, not character. It was normal even in Smith's day for groups of investors to come together and pool their resources to build a canal, bridge, or works too large for any one of them to manage.

The only difference was the introduction of limited liability by the 1860s. But, again, I would argue this is merely an extension of the right to contract, as if the investors in the consern simply announced to all would-be creditors that their liability is limited and that future creditors proceed at their own risk. Again, this would not have seemed out of the ordinary to Adam Smith, as such risk sharing deals were enforceable and would certainly have been utilized back in his day in one sense or another.

4/14/2008 10:09:53 AM

Quote :

"honestly, if its something I can find at wal-mart, I can find it at target... "

Except for firearms, ammunition, sporting goods, work clothes, an automotive section that carries more than fuzzy dice or a tool department that carries anything except light bulbs and pink screwdrivers. So yeah, if you're a teenage girl, the stores are identical.

4/14/2008 12:36:01 PM

Quote :

"Except for firearms, ammunition, sporting goods, work clothes, an automotive section that carries more than fuzzy dice or a tool department that carries anything except light bulbs and pink screwdrivers. So yeah, if you're a teenage girl, the stores are identical."

if you're going to reply to a thread....plz to read the entire thing before posting garbage.

4/14/2008 12:50:50 PM

^^ for the most part, if i want any of those, im not going to wal mart (or target)anyways, besides maybe tools. and the main targets i go to have a decent tool selection. but even then i usually go to northern tools.

4/14/2008 12:54:52 PM

This entire thread is garbage. How the fuck did you losers go from blackmail to colonialism?

4/14/2008 12:57:38 PM

Quote :

"Odd. To my knowledge we rebelled against the British government and only the british government. After the revolution British companies were still fully recognized as equals in American courts and British citizens retained ownership of vast swaths of American property. "

Guess you never heard of the Boston Tea Party or anything like that. Or have you not bothered to read the Declaration of Independence?

Quote :

"For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:"

Through what you might ask? The Companies that had monopolies over the colonies on goods.

Quote :

"I don't see how. Adam Smith was all about the use of contracts among individuals to self organize economic activity. A mega-corporation is merely the extension of that right to contract between many more people. It is merely a difference of size, not character. It was normal even in Smith's day for groups of investors to come together and pool their resources to build a canal, bridge, or works too large for any one of them to manage. "

Adam Smith despised corporations. Or did you forget about that part in your study of The Weath of Nations.

Quote :

"The only difference was the introduction of limited liability by the 1860s. But, again, I would argue this is merely an extension of the right to contract, as if the investors in the consern simply announced to all would-be creditors that their liability is limited and that future creditors proceed at their own risk. Again, this would not have seemed out of the ordinary to Adam Smith, as such risk sharing deals were enforceable and would certainly have been utilized back in his day in one sense or another. "

One of the main reasons why Smith did not trust corporations. This is one of those situations in which Smith's argument about self interest not necessarily being in the common good.

4/14/2008 1:11:40 PM

Quote :

"Guess you never heard of the Boston Tea Party or anything like that. Or have you not bothered to read the Declaration of Independence?"

I have read it and no where in there are foreign corporations (or corporations in general) condemned. Americans did have a strong dislike of the crown's tendency to grant government monopolies, and if you knew the history you would know that only British firms which held such government monopolies were mollested. And after the revolution British trading companies, including the East India Company whose tea had been dumped, were welcomed back to U.S. ports. So, again, clearly Americans after the revolution had no problem with foreign owned mega-corporations, just those with government enforced monopolies.

Quote :

"Adam Smith despised corporations. Or did you forget about that part in your study of The Weath of Nations."

Have you bothered reading anything from that era? So far every assertion has been blatantly wrong. Adam Smith despised business men because of their tendency to seek government monopoly. Other than the tendency of their owners to corrupt government policy, Adam Smith loved corporations because they enabled economies of scale. And especially in Smith's day you could be a sole-proprietorship and still attain government monopolies, so being a corporation or not was irrelevant: what Smith distrusted were owners of all stripes, big and small.

For example, small shop owners convince the city to prevent the construction of a Wal-Mart store as it would threaten their profits. Smith would be perfectly familiar with this type of government granted monopoly, as it was far more common back in his day. And he would condemn today's local business men just as he condemned those of his own time.

4/14/2008 4:34:53 PM

Quote :

"^^ for the most part, if i want any of those, im not going to wal mart (or target)anyways, besides maybe tools. and the main targets i go to have a decent tool selection. but even then i usually go to northern tools."

The Dickies that you get at Wal-Mart are the same ones that you could get anywhere else, same thing for oil, oil filters, transmission fluid, etc. I even buy bullets there too because they sell them for less than 1/2 of what gun shops do.

4/14/2008 4:42:59 PM

I actually buy my Dickies at the K-Mart on Western because their prices are screwed up and they sell $18.99 pants for $1.89. I tell them every time, but their employees are too sorry to fix the problem.

Now this is worthwhile discussion topic.

4/14/2008 5:06:12 PM

^ wait are you serious. If I lived in the area still I would go buy some.

4/14/2008 7:58:57 PM

Quote :

"I have read it and no where in there are foreign corporations (or corporations in general) condemned. Americans did have a strong dislike of the crown's tendency to grant government monopolies, and if you knew the history you would know that only British firms which held such government monopolies were mollested. And after the revolution British trading companies, including the East India Company whose tea had been dumped, were welcomed back to U.S. ports. So, again, clearly Americans after the revolution had no problem with foreign owned mega-corporations, just those with government enforced monopolies."

And yet, you deny the fundamentals of early American history. This country, did encourage trade with Europe, however, it created an open market in which American goods were favored through high tariffs. Neither does your assessment acknowledged that the British monopolies were a major factor in the American Revolution. To argue otherwise shows a complete lack of knowledge of history.

[qiuote]Have you bothered reading anything from that era? So far every assertion has been blatantly wrong. Adam Smith despised business men because of their tendency to seek government monopoly. Other than the tendency of their owners to corrupt government policy, Adam Smith loved corporations because they enabled economies of scale. And especially in Smith's day you could be a sole-proprietorship and still attain government monopolies, so being a corporation or not was irrelevant: what Smith distrusted were owners of all stripes, big and small.[/quote]

If you were to take the time to read the writings of Smith, you would see that his distrust of business men was not solely related to the formation of monopolies. You are taking only the pieces of his writings that agree with you and are completely ignoring the rest. It is true that Smith distrusted all business men, but the bulk of his mistrust was placed at the feet of the large businesses.

Quote :

"For example, small shop owners convince the city to prevent the construction of a Wal-Mart store as it would threaten their profits. Smith would be perfectly familiar with this type of government granted monopoly, as it was far more common back in his day. And he would condemn today's local business men just as he condemned those of his own time."

You are the first person I have ever seen try to claim that small businesses are a monopoly where as a company like Wal Mart is the victim. If anything, history has shown us that a small coterie of stock holders have been able to manipulate the local governments in order to get preferential treatment in establishing their megaliths.

You are entirely out of touch with reality. You have already stated that you get better products at the megaliths. It has shown that you have never shop in a smaller local shop if you believe that is the truth. Just compare the products at wal mart to the products at burke's brothers and you will not, if you are being honest, say that the items purchased at wal mart are better.

You are also ignoring one major factor in capitalism, the consumer is right. If the consumer decides that they want to band up and prevent a contract between their representatives and wal mart, that the consumers have that right. Being a company does not give the entity full reign to run rough shod over the will of the people.

4/14/2008 8:21:57 PM

Nutty, we are debating the contents of a common (but very hard to read) book. Here is the quote from which I drew my assertions:
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary."

No mentions of joint-stock companies, or corporations at all. Now, here is a searchable copy of The Wealth of Nations:
http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Smith/smWN.html

Please, enlighten me. While I read it twice it is quite possible I missed whatever section you are referring to. But my understanding of Smith's position does not allow for the condemnation of any non-governmental entity be it large or small.

Quote :

"This country, did encourage trade with Europe, however, it created an open market in which American goods were favored through high tariffs. Neither does your assessment acknowledged that the British monopolies were a major factor in the American Revolution"

Non-sense. In the beginning tariffs were quite modest, in the five to ten percent range. It was not until the 19th century that U.S. manufacturers demanded monopoly tariffs to secure their profits.

And you did not say the revolution was caused by monopolies, you said it was caused by big business, which I soundly dismissed. The unrully mobs in the port of Boston ignored ships and cargo belonging to the most capitalized foreign share-holder owned businesses in the world, namely British manufacturers, instead choosing to attack the cargo of the East India Company, which thanks to the East India Company Act of 1773 was nothing more than a puppet of the British Monarch. So, yes, Americans dressed as indians and dumped tea in the harbor, but it had nothing to do with big business or corporations and everything to do with symbols of the British Government.

Quote :

"You are the first person I have ever seen try to claim that small businesses are a monopoly where as a company like Wal Mart is the victim."

I am not that original. To suggest I am is to demonstrate your level of competence.

Quote :

"If anything, history has shown us that a small coterie of stock holders have been able to manipulate the local governments in order to get preferential treatment in establishing their megaliths."

I bet they have. And as Adam Smith would say, it is wrong when Wal-Mart does it and it is equally wrong when local business leaders do it.

Quote :

"You are also ignoring one major factor in capitalism, the consumer is right. If the consumer decides that they want to band up and prevent a contract between their representatives and wal mart, that the consumers have that right. Being a company does not give the entity full reign to run rough shod over the will of the people."

But it should. Why? Because the consumer is right. I want to shop at Walmart. That you and local business owners in persuit of their own profits would deny me my right to associate with Walmart if I choose is abhorrent. How would you feel if Walmart and I got together and convinced the city council to outlaw burke's brothers? Doing so would no doubt make Walmart more profitable, just as outlawing Walmart makes burke's brothers more profitable. It is wrong for the people to be made to suffer their free association for the profits of the few, be they Walmart or Burke's Brothers. This is all that me and Adam Smith ask for, the right to shop where we please.

4/15/2008 1:01:01 AM

Quote :

"No mentions of joint-stock companies, or corporations at all. Now, here is a searchable copy of The Wealth of Nations:"

And what are joint-stock companies, or corporations. They are nothing more than "People of the same trade."

Quote :

"Non-sense. In the beginning tariffs were quite modest, in the five to ten percent range. It was not until the 19th century that U.S. manufacturers demanded monopoly tariffs to secure their profits. "

It still violates your initial position of "Much of the nation was founded by chartered companies whose owners stayed safe and happy in England. North Carolina, for example, was owned by eight Lords Proprietors which, to my knowledge, never set foot in the colony." If that the case, the the US would have maintained the various Lord Proprietors, but we did not. You must not confuse early colonialism with the United States of America. Colonies may have been founded on that, but the country itself was not.

Quote :

"And you did not say the revolution was caused by monopolies, you said it was caused by big business, which I soundly dismissed. The unrully mobs in the port of Boston ignored ships and cargo belonging to the most capitalized foreign share-holder owned businesses in the world, namely British manufacturers, instead choosing to attack the cargo of the East India Company, which thanks to the East India Company Act of 1773 was nothing more than a puppet of the British Monarch. So, yes, Americans dressed as indians and dumped tea in the harbor, but it had nothing to do with big business or corporations and everything to do with symbols of the British Government. "

I never once made the assertion that revolution was caused by monopolies. They were a player in the call to rise up against. This is just a pitiful attempt by you to have your cake and eat it to. In every instance in which the colonialists rose up against the crown and its surrogates, chartered corporations, you will claim they weren't going against the company itself, but the symbols of British government.

Quote :

"I am not that original. To suggest I am is to demonstrate your level of competence. "

The notion that small businesses are a monopoly, yes, you are the first person to come up with that. Yes, there is the victim card you walmarteers like to throw around, but it makes as much sense as the wealthiest individuals pulling the class warfare card. None.

Quote :

"But it should. Why? Because the consumer is right. I want to shop at Walmart. That you and local business owners in persuit of their own profits would deny me my right to associate with Walmart if I choose is abhorrent. How would you feel if Walmart and I got together and convinced the city council to outlaw burke's brothers? Doing so would no doubt make Walmart more profitable, just as outlawing Walmart makes burke's brothers more profitable. It is wrong for the people to be made to suffer their free association for the profits of the few, be they Walmart or Burke's Brothers. This is all that me and Adam Smith ask for, the right to shop where we please. "

It no more prevents you the rights to free association than wal mart deciding to not carry a certain brand prevents you the right to purchase that brand. Think of the local government as a joint-stock company, where the citizenry are the stock holders. The local government has as much right to determine who it does business with, and what businesses it allows to do business within its bounds. Adam Smith does not ask for the "right to shop where we please," he asks for the rights of contracts. It is well with in the Smith vein for local elected representatives (boards) of the people (stock holders) to determine how business (goods) is operated (sold) in that town (store) and form contracts in such a manner. If the stock-holders in a company do not want Wal Mart to sell to its business, Wal Mart cannot force them to do so. It would violate the foundational metrics. Therefore it is no more reasonable for Wal mart to force a town to allow it to exist in that town, as it would violate the contract created between the citizenry and its government.

4/15/2008 10:15:25 AM