Right out the gates, I will say that I don't think of corporations or whatever as bastions of virtue or pristine offerings of the free market. The dirtier sides of these companies, imo, are due to the interference of gov't. Insofar as they are given an unfair advantage because of gov't intervention, I object as well (though the gov't draws more of my ire than the ones who benefit from their favoritism). [And in all fairness, a lot of governments give preference to local businesses for, say, construction projects.]
That out of the way, let me continue.
The beauty of the market is that you are able to make an exchange in which both parties benefit. You value the gallon of gasoline more than you value the $3.43 you give for it. You may mutter under your breath about how it's not fair, but ultimately it's worth it to you or you wouldn't be buying it. And there is no coercion on either side. You also value the 42" LCD tv more than you value the $199 + tax you paid (plus the time you spent waiting in line the morning after Thanksgiving). Walmart values the money more. Both parties walk away happy.
What else is cool is that even if there were only one company offering goods, the market is still a good thing. You are not forced to buy anything. Anytime you do buy something, it's a gain for both sides.
Thankfully, there are numerous businesses in competition. A person who is smart with their money will shop around (unless they value their time more than their money) and buy the item where they can get the best price on it. [I'd argue smart people'd use the Internet since they can compare hundreds of competitors at once.]
If business A and business B both have the same product, but business A offers it for 5% less (all other things being equal), you'd be silly to buy it from business B. It's why a lot of businesses offer price match guarantees. If business A is able to cut their prices more (whether through a more efficient distribution method, leaner salaries for employees, etc.), they deserve to succeed. It is in everyone's best interest except for business B. Poor people, for instance, benefit when one company outshines another because they are able to get more for their dollar (everyone benefits, but it's more meaningful to people who have less to spend).
The reality is, mom-and-pop shops are often inefficient vestiges of yesteryear. I'm not saying they all are not worth checking out. They may have good prices on certain items. You may prefer the atmosphere. You may like shopping downtown. Pick your reason.
But realize that the people who work at Walmart or wherever else have to feed their kids too.
And realize that guilt-tripping people into spending more money to prop up a business that isn't providing a worthwhile service to the surrounding area is counterproductive in the short-term and the long-term.
Personally, I generally shop on the internet. Ohnoes, my money is leaving my area! But guess what, there is nothing saying that people in my area can't sell stuff on the web. And if I'm saving money on certain items, then I have more money to spend on stuff in my area [which some of my money will go towards since geography is a reality when it comes to providing some goods/services, e.g., a restaurant]. Better prices make everyone effectively richer.
Honestly, people would be better off turning their attention not to shoppers (who tend to follow the best deals, rightfully so) but to the governments that make running a business such a cumbersome process. Town/city and county taxes and regulations (on top of any state/federal ones) give established corporations an unfair advantage. It hurts the start-up people and the small guys the most. Get them to loosen the reigns so people can be productive instead of being hampered by paperwork and fee-paying. Hiring employees is a beast because it's not just as simple as writing a paycheck every week or two. Government meddling is the real enemy in my mind. [When I was a kid, I worked on my uncle's farm occasionally. (It was a tobacco farm if some of you want to hate me more.) He just wrote me a check at the end of each week. Hours worked x rate of pay = how much the check was for. Easy peezy, lemon squeezy.]
Furthermore, any small business that is looking to compete needs to realize it can't run the same business as a big company, just smaller. The big company has a lot of advantages due to size. However, smaller businesses can find niches that bigger ones can't. Ofc, that is assuming that there is a demand for said niche. The free market rewards people who discover the demands that aren't being met and moves in place to meet them. It does not reward inefficiency. That is disappointing for people who don't want to adapt, but ultimately, it is best for everyone if businesses are forced to constantly be reading and meeting the needs of its customers. Again, lower prices are good for everyone. It honestly reminds me of people who are all about unions. The thing is, quality employees don't need a union to hide behind.
There used to be guys who delivered ice to houses. People didn't have refrigerators or freezers, so ice was used to keep certain foodstuffs cold in iceboxes. Some with the same "shop local" mentality were shouting, I'm sure, "Buy ice. Don't buy fridges from Sears and Roebuck. What about our local icemen who will be out of jobs?" The point is, something better had come along. And it was better for all of the customers. And the smart icemen didn't continue trying to peddle blocks of ice. Instead they anticipated demand and went elsewhere (perhaps to a refrigerator factory).
Flame on.
Oh wait, chances are few enough people read this that I won't have to put up with antagonists. Cool deal.
Just in case I do, though, let me again say this: If you want to shop local, go right ahead. People don't have to offer justification to me for why they spend their money at store X instead of store Y. It's their money and they can spend it how they see fit. Their reasons can be awesome or insane or anywhere inbetween.
Just one last jab. When you purchase something, if you feel like you're paying for the product/service PLUS subsidizing a struggling business, you're probably just delaying the inevitable.
When I was in high school, I spent a year on the golf team. I sucked, but I played because I got to play golf for free four days out of the week.
In fact, our whole team pretty much sucked. Except one guy. A senior. I wouldn't be surprised if he was an alcoholic at the time. He drank every day. He came to school on days we had competitions and he'd have a hangover. But he qualified to go to the state tournament.
I bring this up because, if I were picking a superball team, I'd pick him faster than anyone else. "But what if he were drunk?" So? He could play golf drunk better than I could sober on my best day. I'm not picking a babysitter for my kids; I'm picking the person best equipped for the hitting a golf ball into a hole.
Not too long ago I made a post whining about the media fascination with women from 15 years ago accusing Herman Cain of sexual harassment. The thing is, as I alluded to in that post, so? Bill Clinton cheated on his wife and lied about it. So?
When it comes to picking a president, what matters to me is how they approach the presidency. According to my metrics, would they be good at it? Do they know what they are talking about? Are they consistent? Do they do what they say they will? Are they in favor of a lot less gov't? Do they respect the checks and balances in place? Are they against aggressive, interventionist wars? Do they honestly favor a free market or do they just give it lip service? Are they familiar with the key issues at hand? Etc.
So, going back to golf. If a bunch of my friends pointed to a horrible golfer who had a questionable track record when it came to marital fidelity, I wouldn't even consider picking him for my superball team. Why? Because of his amorous exploits? No. As far as my team is concerned, I couldn't care less. I only care how good at golf he is.
This video imo is proof positive of his ineligibility. It is like he is trying to recall information that other people had to present to him. It's like he doesn't even know where Libya is. After dead air and stalling, he grasps for anything, hoping something the interviewer can say will give him something to go off of. And what he ends up with is, "No, I would have done a better job than Obama did," even though I don't think anyone could argue that he has any detailed grasp of anything Obama did. He's a classic BSer. Anyone who has answered an essay question on a test without knowing the answer can relate to him.
Here's my Ron Paul plug. He is a yes to all the questions I asked in that paragraph earlier (well, for the "or" question, the answer isn't yes but the first of the two). He doesn't contradict himself because he speaks truthfully every time. He doesn't adjust his message to appeal more to his current audience. The message is the same whatever the venue. And it's liberty every time.
Back to Cain, here's more of the same stuff. He just doesn't know the difference between the options the questioner presents.
He's a dime-a-dozen neocon who somehow manages to know less than the rest of the candidates, which is impressive given some of the inane things that have escaped the rest of them's lips.
I guess that makes me a racist since I don't like either one of the black candidates, D or R.
One of the (many) stupid headlines I came across recently on Xanga's front page was asking how many kids is too many kids for the Duggars to have. If you're not familiar, the Duggars are a family who have a show on TLC documenting their lives, which are interesting to people like my wife. The two parents have almost twenty kids (I think just announced another pregnancy).
Why is it that people think their opinions matter on stuff like this? Afaik, the Duggars provide for their children, which is more than a lot of parents can say for their 2-3 kids. I guess if you're a taxpayer and someone who is on the gov't dole is thinking about having another kid, maybe you should get a vote on the matter. But otherwise, no one cares what you think. Your opinion is completely irrelevant.
The reality is that the Duggars are more prepared for #20 (or whatever the tally is at) than most people are prepared for 1. But even if they aren't, it's their decision and no one else's.
And for full disclosure, I think it's stupid that they're having more kids based on a faulty theological viewpoint, but like I say, at least they'll look after and provide for their kids, and few people have perfect theology (I know I don't).
Anyway, I just get so tired of posts premised on the idea that what you think matters. I guess I make posts and welcome feedback and conversation, but I just hate how people feel like their 2 cents is a million dollars and the advertisers who try to cash in on it.
I'd like to get serious for a moment. A lot of people think it's funny and for some reason acceptable to go around referring to people by a name that is hurtful to a certain group. The word that is used is derogatory and insensitive and used in a way that is harsh to people of that category. It is used to refer to behavior which is deemed uncool or stupid, and so the assigning of the hurtful word (though it denotes something entirely unrelated) to such behavior is an insult to all people of that group along with any other human being who is sensitive to the plight of others.
It's bad enough that this has gone on for years and years, but as this group of people becomes undeniably more and more prevalent in our society, I think it's time that we as a culture move past this immature, petty, and malicious behavior. People have no control over the way they are born, and others should respect that. If someone acts stupid, call their behavior stupid. If they do something mean, call it mean.
But please, quit slighting and offending people who are born to parents out of wedlock. Don't use bastard as an insult.
