Healthcare The Capitalist Way

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1069361' date='Sep 21 2006, 03:38 PM']
"Big business" ....It’s what I call practical and logical efficiency

As opposed to fat bureaucratic compartmentalized wasteful oblivion of a government pigsty
[/quote]
You're right, the former sounds much better. Anything that sounds good can't be wrong! :

[Socrates]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1069464' date='Sep 21 2006, 03:48 PM']
Yes, they would be making 3,000 separate shipments, but Wal-Mart still has to pay to get that product from their national center of distribution to the local branches. The independent local store would only have to pay extra for their own individual shipment. Wal-Mart, on the other hand, has to pay to get the product to their national headquarters, and THEN they have to pay to get that product to the local branches. They may pay less to the supplier, but they have that extra expense to distribute product among their branches; whereas the independent store is just paying to have the product taken from the supplier to their central location.

So even if the supplier charged more to ship to the independent store, that independent store doesn't have the costs that Wal-Mart does to ship the product to thousands of local branches, and so the difference in savings evens itself out.
[/quote]
Basically, what Anomaly and Bullnachinashop are saying here is right. Big retailers like Wal-mart have a huge advantage over the "little guy" when it comes to being able to sell large varieties of product at lower prices. (I'm not saying this "moral" or "immoral," "just" or "unjust," but that's simply the way it is.) By being able to buy huge quantities of product in bulk, they can afford to sell them at cheaper prices than the small, local retailer.

Wal-mart and other mega-retailers are not the huge businesses they are because people say "mwahaha - we're evil conservative capitalists, so we'll shop at Wal-mart rather than the ma-and-pa corner shop!" No, people shop at Wal-mart and other big retailers because they sell stuff at cheaper prices, often have a greater variety of stock, and offer the shopper the convenience of being able to buy a variety of items at one location, rather than having to shop at a large number of different stores.
I'm not saying here that big businesses are superior to small businesses or anything, I'm simply pointing out the facts that give large retailers a business advantage over "the little guy." Of course, small local businesses have advantages too, but it is harder for the small business to profit.
If small businesses could afford to sell things at the same low prices as the mega-retailers, they would.

To use a recent concrete example, I was recently talking to the owner of a local outdoors outfitter store, asking about when a shipment of whitewater kayaks would arrive. He was explaining that the kayak company would not give him an offer that would be profitable for him, as he would have to order more kayaks than he could sell to get them at a profitably discounted rate.

I generally try to favor small locally-owned businesses when I can, but it is often cheaper and more convenient to go to a large retailer. Shoppers are free to make choices, as Era Might notes, and I generally prefer voluntary decisions to the punitive government action often advocated by so-called "distributists" against "big business." It think government should cut taxes and create other incentives that would help small businesses, rather than focus on "redistributing" property.


As to "big business" vs "big government," I think the important difference is that the customer can decide who he does business with - for instance, he can consciously decide never to shop at Wal-mart - but he cannot freely and lawfully pick and choose what government programs, etc. to pay taxes on.
And a business which is incompetent and inefficient, and cannot properly satisfy customers/clients, will soon go out of business.
The same cannot be said for government bureaucracies and programs, which we are all forced to support with our tax money, no matter how wasteful, useless, or morally repugnant they may be.

Edited September 22, 2006 by Socrates

[DAF]

Maybe somebody's already sked, but what about people with like serious drug addictions? Won't this make it easier for them to feed that habit?

Not that an international company should not sell a new product becuase people abuse it, but are there any sort of safety measures or anything?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

No matter who you are, you must admit that it was evil for Walmart to try essentially to bribe the government of Phoenix to obtain land for it from a small business owner by imminent domain.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='DAF' post='1069840' date='Sep 21 2006, 10:44 PM']
Maybe somebody's already sked, but what about people with like serious drug addictions? Won't this make it easier for them to feed that habit?

Not that an international company should not sell a new product becuase people abuse it, but are there any sort of safety measures or anything?
[/quote]
Well, you still have to have a prescription.

[desertwoman]

Wal Mart shot themselves in the foot for getting rid of law a ways. It will take time.... it will take time.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='desertwoman' post='1069899' date='Sep 22 2006, 12:32 AM']
Wal Mart shot themselves in the foot for getting rid of law a ways. It will take time.... it will take time.
[/quote]

Many major retail chains discontinued layaway programs long ago - the program has become a collective financial loss for many companies
Some retail chains are continuing layaway programs for Christmas shopping only …but the overall profitability is risky.

[homeschoolmom]

Layaways? Those are a thing of the past... with everyone being issued a new credit card every other week, who needs layaway?

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1071848' date='Sep 22 2006, 06:37 PM']
Layaways? Those are a thing of the past... with everyone being issued a new credit card every other week, who needs layaway?
[/quote]
true

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1069517' date='Sep 21 2006, 07:14 PM']
People seem to be misunderstanding.

My diversion had nothing to do with Wal-Mart offering cheap prescriptions.

I was responding to Lounge Daddy's comment about big business, and its relatedness to the conservative loathedness (is that a word?) of big government.

I think it's great that people will be able to buy cheap prescriptions. It beats organizing trips to Canada.

But then again, I think it's great that single mothers are able to apply for welfare.
[/quote]

I sincerely apologize, Era – I’ve simply been belligerent in some of my responses rather than honest rational and sincere

Naturally I trust a free market capitalist answer to a government answer…
So yes, people can purchase their necessities at an affordable price at Wal-Mart

Also, yes single mothers and anyone else can apply for government coverage via government welfare if they wish, and even become dependant on it…
And I am also free to despise that.

[Lounge Daddy]

the news of WAL*MART being competitive has drawn other stores like Target to also do the same with Target pharmacies.
Isn’t the free market beautiful?

[Anomaly]

The diff between big business and big gov is you can choose if you want to spend your $$ w/ big business, you can't choose how big gov spends YOUR $$ that it takes from you. If big business don't meet the customer's needs, it'll go out of business. If big gov don't meet the customer's needs, next year it'll take more of your money and fund another program.

Edited September 29, 2006 by Anomaly