| Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Walmart; Closing Union Store in Canada? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 14 2005, 12:02 AM (833 Views) | |
| CalRed | Feb 16 2005, 09:05 AM Post #91 |
|
Member
|
|
|
Something instead of Nothing? "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." Alan Sandage | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Feb 16 2005, 09:20 AM Post #92 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
I am addressing the world view expressed in your posts. It is an argument with that view same as I argued against Churhill's world view. World view, ideas, opinions are things we express, and this we discuss, and things we argue about. That is the purpose of a forum--at least it is this forum. See our mission statement. Of course I get riled up. It motivates me to argue issues and address opinion--messages, not messengers. I do not put myself in God's shoes and deem myself judge and jury.
It is a statement about what you are saying in this thread. If it said "you are an oppressor" it could be taken as addressing the messenger and not the message. It would depend on context.
No one said you said that. No one said Wlamart is an evil abomination. My statements addressed your labeling it socialism. You definition of socialism is arbitrary. Owners work for their company, are they socialists? Stockholders of corporations are socialists? I suggest you come up with a better definition, one that does not depend on populist opinion. I am not saying socialist cannot be associated with unions. But that is not a definition. Definition by association is absurd. KKK and Identity groups are right wing Christian groups. By your reasoning all conservatives and Christians are hatefull bigots? Absurd, and I'm sure you realize that. See any neutral definition of socialism, like this one: Socialism. Importantly it includes the following restatement of what I am saying: The term has also been used by some politicians on the political right as an epithet for certain individuals who do not consider themselves to be socialists and policies that are not considered socialist by their proponents (e.g. referring to all publicly funded medicine as "socialized medicine" or to the United States Democratic Party as "socialist"). Dan "Have a nice day." And you have a fine day too. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| DanHouck | Feb 16 2005, 09:20 AM Post #93 |
|
Land of Enchantment NM
|
Cal, what is really funny is that the shirt in Sears or Penneys is almost certainly imported from the same or a similar source. And so is the one at the "upscale" department store. Now theirs may be a higher quality than WalMart but that is about the only difference. But only WalMart's business model, which is basically the same used by the rest of the retail sector, is an "abomination." Ironically, some of our esteemed posters on this thread are strident in their advocacy of exactly the same union behavior that has caused most manufacturing to move off shore--trying to force an employer to pay more than the market value of jobs and trying to force them to structure the work force in a way that hampers operations and drastically increases costs. Some people never learn. |
![]() |
|
| DanHouck | Feb 16 2005, 09:27 AM Post #94 |
|
Land of Enchantment NM
|
Chris, I can see it is really hard for you to admit when you've been caught engaged in the same behavior you're lambasting me for. That's OK, I understand. 'nuff said.
Oh, and BTW it is not "my definition" of socialism. It is from an academic site. Read it again and follow the link. The bolded part (my bolding) speaks directly to the attempt by government and the union to control a private enterprise. There are a number of sites that discuss the broad definition of socialism. That definition ranges from full governmental ownership of business down to control. The latter applies to the situation being discussed on this thread. Both you and Sylley flatter me when you attribute citations from other sources as mine but this personalization is not accurate. Sylley, I am not at all unsympathetic to the side-effects ob globilization brought up in the L.A. times you cited. But I have yet to see anyone propose an even remotely workable solution. Tariffs? Tried before and a root cause of the great depression. Governmental fiat and unionization? A root cause of the exodus of manufacturing jobs from North America. The core driving force is globalized trade, the rising capability of second and third world countries to produce goods (and increasingly services) as good OR BETTER than our own. You could say they are "cutting corners" by laxness on environmental controls and low pay. But how do you address this? We can't compel China to raise worker pay. Let's discuss some solutions. |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Feb 16 2005, 10:08 AM Post #95 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
No one is lambasting you, Dan. I am addressing your posts. I am not addressing the messenger as you continue to do. Many admire Bush for standing his ground, many of the same turn that against others for that same thing in an argument. An argument based on moral relativism. "When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff." - Cicero |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| DanHouck | Feb 16 2005, 10:16 AM Post #96 |
|
Land of Enchantment NM
|
At least I'm not alone here. LOL!
|
![]() |
|
| sylley2000 | Feb 16 2005, 10:20 AM Post #97 |
![]()
Sylvia, Grand Bend ON
|
Dan ... well I haven't just been sitting here sucking my thumb, I've been thinking about it ... Here are my thoughts: There are no easy answers for North America, and Europe competing against China and third world countries. China and India have massive populations who have never become accustomed to a consumer lifestyle. Prices will undoubtedly rise in those countries as their population becomes more educated and the demand for creature comfort begins to take hold. Global competition has become a factor that nations must meet to survive. North American Union workers will have to pledge co-operation to corporations in order for the companies to compete. That is a two-way partnership. Unionized workers will by necessity have to take responsibility for decisions that are made in a global market. I don't envision that being successful unless management gives them the responsibility to be part of the solution instead of being part of the problem. It will not be a top down paradigm, but one that challenges both management and labour for their common goal. The two will blend together because of global competition. http://www.offshoring-digest.com/item/113413.html Quote from the link: "Globalization is not a single process, it is a competition among "paradigms of globalization" and among networks of states joined together to make up a particular economic and value community, and a competition among nations that have the power to drive such communities. These are the states/communities that I see forming: 1 China and their sphere of influence within Asia. 2 US, Mexico, Canada and South America 3 Europe (I would think would include Russian)? 4 India, Pakistan, Australia, New Zealand, Africa, & the Phillipines 5 Middle East (until such time as there is a replacement for fossil fuels) I foresee more agreements between States to ensure the competitiveness of each state. I do not call that socialism. Sylvia |
![]() |
|
| DanHouck | Feb 16 2005, 06:02 PM Post #98 |
|
Land of Enchantment NM
|
Here's a really well done analysis of the situation by Joe Lieberman and his staff. IMHO shows why this guy should have been the nominee and he would have had my vote http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/white.../Offshoring.pdf I urge you to read it, you will really get a comprehensive overview of the issue. Dan |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic » |







8:22 AM Jul 11