I've been thinking...
(always a dangerous thing)
...but, I just thought I'd float this out here and see the response.
Wal-Mart's corporate competition model is based on
(1) making deals with a foreign government (China, for example) to set prices so low that that government's own citizens are not benefitting by this trade;
(2) getting to avoid any environmental regulations (you should see what the water looks like in the towns devoted to making more plastic stuff for our consumption); and then;
(3) getting subsidies from local US governments to build their stores -- subsidies that include exemption from property taxes, changes in the local infrastructure at no cost to them and outright cash payments -- in the "hopes" of there being more jobs and;
(4) under-cutting local businesses.
Eventually, you know, this means they could then raise the prices and everyone who supposedly "benefits" from these artificially-low, non-competition-based prices would suffer extra financial hardship.
Not to mention how if the "street" in town (that is, the place that is where you go to pick up a prescription, buy a paper, get an ice cream cone, see some friends and neighbors in passing, wait while you're getting an oil change) is PRIVATELY OWNED -- then we are all screwed as far as our exercise of the 1st Amendment. Theoretically, someone could be banned from being there because of the political bumpersticker on their car. Don't laugh. People have been evicted from shopping malls for wearing a No War t-shirt.
Seriously fighting this would be very, very difficult.
By now, there are hundreds of Wal-Marts, if not thousands (anyone here know the exact figure?) that are, effectively, the only place to buy a spool of thread for a radius of 60 driving miles. We see this excuse frequently here on threads discussing the problem.
So, this reminds me of those company towns where the owner of the mill/mine/land also owned the store. People got paid in "script" that was only redeemable at the company store where they were locked into whatever the prices were and whatever was actually for sale there. The Bossman decided, effectively, what people got to wear and what books they could read (if any). And, they were tightly controlled as far as hours put in at the factory and what churches were there.
When strikes happened, one of the things that needed to be taken care of was getting basic necessities to the people living there.
It was really, really hard for those strikes to happen. But, it was important to the people concerned. For a little background, Google Coal Miner's Union, for example. Or Copper Country Labor Struggle.
One of the things that had to be done was boycotting the company store.
>>>>Anyone see where I'm going with this?<<<<
So, I'm thinking, that in my dream anti-trans-national-corporation action, there would be a massive mobilization of people who would form coalitions of activists who would, first of all, not shop there. (OK, that's easy, there's tons of people who claim not to do that.) THEN, here's the harder part, would have to organize whatever local stores are left AND local people to unify against the Wal-Mart/Big Box Store and convince others to boycott as well. In order to do this, of course, people would have to be convinced of the dangers inherent in giving up their public space to a private company. This would be difficult -- especially in places that have not had a real tradition of ACTIVE democracy (like upstate NY, where politics, even local politics, is handled by a small party machine). It would require a huge dialogue with EVERYONE, not just the usual political junkies, about what it really means to live in a free society; about what the five things listed in the 1st Amendment are, really, and whether or not people are really exercising those rights. (You know what they say about muscle tone: Use it or Lose it! So, you'd better exercise it.)
People, ordinary people, would have to be willing to try to understand the tax structure to understand why those municipal goverment subsidies, explicit or semi-hidden, are DANGEROUS to their towns. And people who understand them would have to be willing to spend time explaining without being patronising. And would have to listen. Good ideas are all over the place.
And then, in those places where there really are no other places to buy rice, flour, and peanuts, people would have to open stores to "compete". And money would probably be "lost" for a while....until Wal-Mart was put out of business.
Any takers?
(always a dangerous thing)
...but, I just thought I'd float this out here and see the response.
Wal-Mart's corporate competition model is based on
(1) making deals with a foreign government (China, for example) to set prices so low that that government's own citizens are not benefitting by this trade;
(2) getting to avoid any environmental regulations (you should see what the water looks like in the towns devoted to making more plastic stuff for our consumption); and then;
(3) getting subsidies from local US governments to build their stores -- subsidies that include exemption from property taxes, changes in the local infrastructure at no cost to them and outright cash payments -- in the "hopes" of there being more jobs and;
(4) under-cutting local businesses.
Eventually, you know, this means they could then raise the prices and everyone who supposedly "benefits" from these artificially-low, non-competition-based prices would suffer extra financial hardship.
Not to mention how if the "street" in town (that is, the place that is where you go to pick up a prescription, buy a paper, get an ice cream cone, see some friends and neighbors in passing, wait while you're getting an oil change) is PRIVATELY OWNED -- then we are all screwed as far as our exercise of the 1st Amendment. Theoretically, someone could be banned from being there because of the political bumpersticker on their car. Don't laugh. People have been evicted from shopping malls for wearing a No War t-shirt.
Seriously fighting this would be very, very difficult.
By now, there are hundreds of Wal-Marts, if not thousands (anyone here know the exact figure?) that are, effectively, the only place to buy a spool of thread for a radius of 60 driving miles. We see this excuse frequently here on threads discussing the problem.
So, this reminds me of those company towns where the owner of the mill/mine/land also owned the store. People got paid in "script" that was only redeemable at the company store where they were locked into whatever the prices were and whatever was actually for sale there. The Bossman decided, effectively, what people got to wear and what books they could read (if any). And, they were tightly controlled as far as hours put in at the factory and what churches were there.
When strikes happened, one of the things that needed to be taken care of was getting basic necessities to the people living there.
It was really, really hard for those strikes to happen. But, it was important to the people concerned. For a little background, Google Coal Miner's Union, for example. Or Copper Country Labor Struggle.
One of the things that had to be done was boycotting the company store.
>>>>Anyone see where I'm going with this?<<<<
So, I'm thinking, that in my dream anti-trans-national-corporation action, there would be a massive mobilization of people who would form coalitions of activists who would, first of all, not shop there. (OK, that's easy, there's tons of people who claim not to do that.) THEN, here's the harder part, would have to organize whatever local stores are left AND local people to unify against the Wal-Mart/Big Box Store and convince others to boycott as well. In order to do this, of course, people would have to be convinced of the dangers inherent in giving up their public space to a private company. This would be difficult -- especially in places that have not had a real tradition of ACTIVE democracy (like upstate NY, where politics, even local politics, is handled by a small party machine). It would require a huge dialogue with EVERYONE, not just the usual political junkies, about what it really means to live in a free society; about what the five things listed in the 1st Amendment are, really, and whether or not people are really exercising those rights. (You know what they say about muscle tone: Use it or Lose it! So, you'd better exercise it.)
People, ordinary people, would have to be willing to try to understand the tax structure to understand why those municipal goverment subsidies, explicit or semi-hidden, are DANGEROUS to their towns. And people who understand them would have to be willing to spend time explaining without being patronising. And would have to listen. Good ideas are all over the place.
And then, in those places where there really are no other places to buy rice, flour, and peanuts, people would have to open stores to "compete". And money would probably be "lost" for a while....until Wal-Mart was put out of business.
Any takers?