• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why I Shop At Wal-mart Despite My Progressive Politics

LeftyHenry said:
But do you see how unfair it is? Peter gets paid millions because he 'organizes' the Pauls. Paul get paid 25k because he works in poor conditions doing the dirty work. What??? Why not organize yourself and get Peter's money. After what is he really doing except leeching off of you?


The last Peter I worked for paid for me to go to school to learn my trade. He then spent numerous hours over the course of a year, which drastically slowed him down, teaching me the finer points of how to do the job right.
And, in the end, patted me on the back when I left him to begin working on my own in the same field.
He doesn't consider me a competitor, rather a person that he helped to get out of the rut.
No, I don't harbor him any ill will at all. He has since taken three people to replace me, and still complains that they cannot match what I could do.
We are friends, and stay that way, in spite of our current financial differences.
Compassionate and helpful people are not limited to just the poor, nor the rich. They cross all boundaries, and I begrudge no one that works hard to get ahead the fruits of their labor.
 
LeftyHenry,

What do your LTV's accomplish that money does not? Why do you hate money so much?
 
You know what is really sad? Capitalism has taught the population to be apathetic towards anything else. Do any of you who support capitalism honestly think that capitalism is going to be the form of economic system used for the rest of mankinds existence? I think the answer is no.

So tell me, if it isn't going to be the last system we use, the surely something better must exist. So why are you all so viciously opposed to finding that better system? You defend capitalism like it was your child yet we know humans will one day advance to a better society and a better economic system. So instead of attacking everyone who hates capitalism, why not join them in their pursuit of finding a better system that will benefit all of mankind and not just a small percentage that gets 95% of the entire nations wealth while 98% of the population is left with 5% of the wealth.
 
RealmOfThePureForms said:
You know what is really sad? Capitalism has taught the population to be apathetic towards anything else. Do any of you who support capitalism honestly think that capitalism is going to be the form of economic system used for the rest of mankinds existence? I think the answer is no.

So tell me, if it isn't going to be the last system we use, the surely something better must exist. So why are you all so viciously opposed to finding that better system? You defend capitalism like it was your child yet we know humans will one day advance to a better society and a better economic system. So instead of attacking everyone who hates capitalism, why not join them in their pursuit of finding a better system that will benefit all of mankind and not just a small percentage that gets 95% of the entire nations wealth while 98% of the population is left with 5% of the wealth.

Firstly its the best system anyone has thought up (opinion.) Until someone thinks up a better system, we're going to roll with this one and improve upon its shortcomings.

Secondly, I asked you to define these shortcomings in a substantive way many times, I asked how would you have it, how would it work etc...But you never answered.

And thirdly, I dont think capitalism will be the be all end all of economic systems. But I do believe its close, of course none of us know what the future will hold, but I can only hope that there will continue to be a free market, where goods and services can be traded voluntarily without nationalizing any industries.
 
LeftyHenry said:
Why must you need social mobility? What's wrong with equality and unity?


individualism and collectivism and one in the same. I of all people that everyones different but that doesn't mean we can't care for one another as a community.



But if everybody does this to everyone what would be the problem.


The problem is everyone wont do this. The poor are called the poor only in comparison to the rich. Whenever anyone earns anything that someone else didnt, they are no longer equal.

WE CANT ALL BE EQUAL. We can only have equal rights, and a fair shot at social mobility.

The only unity equality will bring is that "now everyone is poor together."

I can see you just arent reading the words im typing, perhaps you'll read this
 
Lachean said:
The problem is everyone wont do this. The poor are called the poor only in comparison to the rich. Whenever anyone earns anything that someone else didnt, they are no longer equal.

WE CANT ALL BE EQUAL. We can only have equal rights, and a fair shot at social mobility.

The only unity equality will bring is that "now everyone is poor together."

I can see you just arent reading the words im typing, perhaps you'll read this


Well said!!! Everyone comes out with the same potential opportunities as everyone else, to succeed or fail. Two people that get the exact same education and degrees, for example, both start at company 1.
Employee A works hard, studies in his off time, and manages his finances, avoiding frivolous trips and wasted money.
Employee B works hard, studies a little, and pays most of his bills, lives the good life at the upper edge of his finances, with good vacations and Plasma screens in most rooms.
Employee A leaves the company, and starts his own company after finding a few investors, that makes whatchamacallits.
In several years, he becomes a multi-millionaire and continues to cause his company to grow, with good benefits for the employees, and internal promotions.
Employee B works the rest of his life at the old company, barely maintaining his budget, and jealous of the 'luck' that Employee A had.
Whose fault is it?
 
Blue Collar Joe said:
Well said!!! Everyone comes out with the same potential opportunities as everyone else, to succeed or fail. Two people that get the exact same education and degrees, for example, both start at company 1.
Employee A works hard, studies in his off time, and manages his finances, avoiding frivolous trips and wasted money.
Employee B works hard, studies a little, and pays most of his bills, lives the good life at the upper edge of his finances, with good vacations and Plasma screens in most rooms.
Employee A leaves the company, and starts his own company after finding a few investors, that makes whatchamacallits.
In several years, he becomes a multi-millionaire and continues to cause his company to grow, with good benefits for the employees, and internal promotions.
Employee B works the rest of his life at the old company, barely maintaining his budget, and jealous of the 'luck' that Employee A had.
Whose fault is it?

Its the govenment's fault for not taking all of the money Employee A exploited from the poor and giving it to Employee B who deserves the money because he needs it. /socialist_tripe 0
 
Lachean said:
LeftyHenry,

What do your LTV's accomplish that money does not? Why do you hate money so much?

LTVs accomplish giving an incentive to workers to work hard but at the same time not creating massive inequality in wealth, poverty, and starvation. LTVs solve the glitch in socialism, thus making it the perfect ideology.

Why do I hate money? Because money is crap! It determines every aspect of your life and judges everything. It's the sole reason for crime and poverty and isn't needed. It's basically what keeps us livingly savagly as opposed to in a civilized fashion.

LTVs are sort of like a currency but not really. Technically they're just a measurment of work. The big difference is that there is no reason, unless you have a disability, why you shouldn't be making good LTVs. With money there is your qualifications, job, education, and a variety of things.
 
LeftyHenry said:
LTVs accomplish giving an incentive to workers to work hard

So does money, but ill keep following...

LeftyHentry said:
But at the same time not creating massive inequality in wealth, poverty, and starvation.

Money is the root of poverty, inequality and starvation?

No, there are two ways to cause inequality. Hard work, or functioning as a parasite on everyone. The latter includes theft, fraud, taxation, and collectivism.

LeftyHenry said:
LTVs solve the glitch in socialism, thus making it the perfect ideology.

Glitch? What glitch is this that you speak of? Socialism itself is a virus.

LeftyHenry said:
Why do I hate money? Because money is crap! It determines every aspect of your life and judges everything.

Its a standard for value, it measures what you have to trade with, how much you earn, and how much things are you trade for. What part of that is so wrong?
 
LeftyHenry said:
LTVs accomplish giving an incentive to workers to work hard but at the same time not creating massive inequality in wealth, poverty, and starvation. LTVs solve the glitch in socialism, thus making it the perfect ideology.

LTV's are merely another name for money, then. Just another way to change a name of things, but they are still the same. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, but is dressed up as a penguin, it's still a duck.
 
Blue Collar Joe said:
LTV's are merely another name for money, then. Just another way to change a name of things, but they are still the same. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, but is dressed up as a penguin, it's still a duck.

Yeah but his idea was that LTV's would be consumed on use, not re-usable like money. He wants the idea of wealth production to cease, because "that causes inequality."
 
Lachean said:
Yeah but his idea was that LTV's would be consumed on use, not re-usable like money. He wants the idea of wealth production to cease, because "that causes inequality."


This is nothing more than another name for money, period. When you spend your money, it is gone. So, what to do... I know!! Go out and work hard and make some more again!
But, in a communist society, before it is over, they'll turn around and decide that those that don't work their arses off should be given the same amount as those that do work their arses off.
LTV's or money, the situation never changes. Lets try something new and quit excusing those who are lazy and won't work and blaming those that do work like maniacs for the financial differences.
Lets let those that do work and get what they want out of life do just that, and those that don't can just do without, other than minimal requirements to stay alive, such as food and a roof over their heads.
 
Blue Collar Joe said:
This is nothing more than another name for money, period. When you spend your money, it is gone.

No you dont understand, under his "system" (i use the term system loosely, because systems tend to work) when you go to best buy to get a big screen with your LTV's, Best Buy doesnt gain LTV's, they shred em.
 
Lachean said:
No you dont understand, under his "system" (i use the term system loosely, because systems tend to work) when you go to best buy to get a big screen with your LTV's, Best Buy doesnt gain LTV's, they shred em.

OMFG!! Big Brother gone mad!! So, since I wouldn't have to worry about running a business at a profit, could I like get the government to let me run some business?
 
Lachean said:
So does money, but ill keep following...

Money is the root of poverty, inequality and starvation?

Yes. If we had no money and all vital things were collectivly shared there'd wouldn't be any of the things listed above.

No, there are two ways to cause inequality. Hard work, or functioning as a parasite on everyone. The latter includes theft, fraud, taxation, and collectivism.

Have you ever thought that maybe just by chance that these 'paracites' may not like living with a newspaper as their roof? That perhaps if there were jobs for them that they'd work hard? Because frankly, I kind of find it hard to believe that people would embrace homelessness and starvation.

The idea that poor people are leeches is idiotic because it doesn't make any sense. welfare checks give you next to nothing. Food stamps give you about $0.81 cents per meal.

The average food stamp benefit during the first half of fiscal year 2001 was less than $75 per person per month, or 81 cents per person per meal.

Link Here

You can't even buy a bag of chips with that.

Glitch? What glitch is this that you speak of? Socialism itself is a virus.

Only to people who love the cries of starving children...


Its a standard for value, it measures what you have to trade with, how much you earn, and how much things are you trade for. What part of that is so wrong?

What's wrong? It's the standard of your value that's what it is.

No you dont understand, under his "system" (i use the term system loosely, because systems tend to work) when you go to best buy to get a big screen with your LTV's, Best Buy doesnt gain LTV's, they shred em.

Oh well I guess capitalism isn't a system than. I don't consider death by starvation a sign that it's working.

There wouldn't be a best buy anyway. The way it'd work is that the factory would create the product and ship it to a store. Then the objects would be LTV priced and people would cash in there LTVs and buy these extra things.

Since best buy is collectivly owned it isn't a business like best buy just sort of an outlet.

LTV's are merely another name for money, then.

No, that's wrong because money is circulated and used for everything. LTVs are just used for electronics and furniture and those type of things. There should be no reason why you don't make LTVs in communism unless you have a disability or there is no work in which case something will be worked out. Otherwise, as long as you reach a reasonable production goal you should be fine. With money however, there are reasons why you might not be making any. No jobs on the market for you, Not qualified, bad interview, family to take care of, and etc..
 
Blue Collar Joe said:
OMFG!! Big Brother gone mad!! So, since I wouldn't have to worry about running a business at a profit, could I like get the government to let me run some business?

What? there is no big brother. you apply for your job and if you're qualified, you get it. If you're not, you don't and you apply for something else that is of interest to you.

And I know you cons are gonna spin this into 'ooo so the government chooses for you' which is false. By qualifications I mean for specialized jobs like doctor. you'll need to have gone to med school which is totally free.
 
LeftyHenry said:
Have you ever thought that maybe just by chance that these 'paracites' may not like living with a newspaper as their roof? That perhaps if there were jobs for them that they'd work hard? Because frankly, I kind of find it hard to believe that people would embrace homelessness and starvation.

No, its the Robin Hood types like you I call parasites. The ones who want to take from the rich and give the poor. Only more often you take from the hard working rich and give to the undeserving.

LeftyHenry said:
Only to people who love the cries of starving children...

What are you talking about? You've got to be kidding...

LeftyHenry said:
Oh well I guess capitalism isn't a system than. I don't consider death by starvation a sign that it's working.

The goal of capitalism wasnt that every single individual would have just as much as everyone else. It wasnt a system designed to protect everyone. Believe me, its working. What is the actual scale of people dying in America from starvation?

LeftyHenry said:
There wouldn't be a best buy anyway.

I know, there wouldnt be alot of industries left...

LeftyHenry said:
With money however, there are reasons why you might not be making any. No jobs on the market for you, Not qualified, bad interview, family to take care of, and etc..

So you're saying that the trade of value is bad for the job market? Have you ever read the wealth of the nations by Adam Smith, you should?

If people arent qualified for jobs THEY SHOULDNT WORK THEM. My god the margin for error for some jobs that NO ONE would do if there was no financial incentive to work is usually quite small.

I really wish you would read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. Its a story about the effects on the economy and industry that socialist policies have. I know its fiction, but the facts on the history of socialism dont seem to matter to you much either.

LeftyHenry said:
What? there is no big brother. you apply for your job and if you're qualified, you get it. If you're not, you don't and you apply for something else that is of interest to you.

You really think everyone would be able to work a job they want under your system? You really think that there will even be jobs? What if the people arent motivated to work. You gonna FORCE em?
 
Last edited:
LeftyHenry said:
What? there is no big brother. you apply for your job and if you're qualified, you get it. If you're not, you don't and you apply for something else that is of interest to you.

And I know you cons are gonna spin this into 'ooo so the government chooses for you' which is false. By qualifications I mean for specialized jobs like doctor. you'll need to have gone to med school which is totally free.

No big brother? You'd have to have big brother, his uncle and all his asshole relatives, too. People would not be motivated in this system. And I want to see the figures for how many children in America starved to death last year.
 
Blue Collar Joe said:
No big brother? You'd have to have big brother, his uncle and all his asshole relatives, too. People would not be motivated in this system. And I want to see the figures for how many children in America starved to death last year.

Dont know, but if its more than traffic deaths, let me know.

LeftyHenry, goodbye, and in my parting words I say that I will always be against the forced redistribution of wealth, or the destruction lf wealth. I hope some day you read this, or learn that money is not the root of all evil. Sacrifice, force and violence are.
 
Last edited:
Lachean said:
Dont know, but if its more than traffic deaths, let me know.

LeftyHenry, goodbye, and in my parting words I say that I will always be against the forced redistribution of wealth, or the destruction lf wealth. I hope some day you read this, or learn that money is not the root of all evil. Sacrifice, force and violence are.

Well than I guess there is no point in responding to this post or the last so I won't respond to the last as I responded to a similar one by you minutes ago on the capitalism vs. communism thread, but I just wanted to say that I can't read that book. It's by Ayn Rand, thus my skin will melt if I touch it :lol:

No big brother? You'd have to have big brother, his uncle and all his asshole relatives, too. People would not be motivated in this system. And I want to see the figures for how many children in America starved to death last year.

LTVs will motivate the people that are materialists. nuff said. Simple as that.

As for the statistics, Here's a link about people who are going hungry and/or run the risk of going hungry

Link Here
 
LeftyHenry said:
Walmart sucks. Their employees are paid next to nothing and many products they sell are total crap. Although I can't say I've never shopped there...

Total Crap is right
however I mean your post
if the wages are sooooo bad
get a job elsewhere, with all the magnificient skills one has acquired over their lifetime

I say Wal-mart is great because it gives a lot of retirees supplemental income and a chance to do something with their time, as well as interacting with other people

grow or die
 
LeftyHenry said:
Yes. If we had no money and all vital things were collectivly shared there'd wouldn't be any of the things listed above.

and there you have the fatal flaw
everybody does not deserve all the same things as everyone else
 
LeftyHenry said:
As for the statistics, Here's a link about people who are going hungry and/or run the risk of going hungry

Link Here

and yet they do not differentiate between those going hungry vs those running the risk
much less how many actually die as a result
 
No Galen, I think this isn't that type of hunger. I think it's actual starvation like eating once a day or sometimes not eating at all.
 
LeftyHenry said:
No Galen, I think this isn't that type of hunger. I think it's actual starvation like eating once a day or sometimes not eating at all.

think all you want, they suckered you into their B.S. hook line and sinker that is exactly the type of spin they are trying to put forth
the link you provided uses broad terms to make a problem seem FAR WORSE than it really is
otherwise they would have broken down the numbers to how many people die every day/week/month/year of starvation
they would say how many meals those 'in danger of starving' miss every day/week/month year

Wake up, the bleeding heart matrix has you
and it has suckered you into believing in a societal program, which throughout history HAS FAILED
 
Back
Top Bottom