Sunday, February 13, 2011

Shop & Drop...

The Di Blasio Report

The main conclusions are shocking, to the point, and make clear what damage Wal-Mart actually managed to do to the American economy. The fundamental conclusions are these:
  1. Wal-Mart store openings kill three local jobs for every two they create. Wal-Mart is the biggest employer in the USA, with 1.4 million ‘associates’. The conclusion is that Wal-Mart alone has killed about 700,000 American jobs. Only Wall Street can boast greater destruction to the American labor market.
  2. Chain stores, like Wal-Mart, send most of their revenues out of the community, while local businesses keep more consumer dollars in the local economy: for every $100 spent in locally owned businesses, $68 stayed in the local economy, while chain stores only left $43 to re-circulate locally. This means Big Business has a deflationary effect on local economies. And this in turn explains why Big Business destroys both employment and business. These two conclusions are more than sufficient to make the study worth while, but I’ll give a few more just to further the point.
  3. Stores near a new Wal-Mart are at increased risk of going out of business. After a single Wal-Mart opened in Chicago in September 2006, 82 of the 306 small businesses in the surrounding neighborhood had gone out of business by March 2008.
  4. Wal-Mart’s average annual pay is $20,774, which is below the Federal Poverty Level for a family of four. In fact: a Wal-Mart 'spokesperson' publicly acknowledged in 2004 that ‘More than two thirds of our people . . . are not trying to support a family. That’s who our jobs are designed for.’ So, Wal-Mart is an effective accomplice in the social engineering campaign of our bosses, isolating people and consciously attacking the family unit. The above makes abundantly clear that Wal-Mart and Big Business in general have a profoundly negative impact on economies, both locally and nationally.
...


So why do people shop at major Retail Chains?
Are we just stupid? Yes, we are; we know we are. But there is also the ‘prisoner’s dilemma’.
The prisoner’s dilemma is a fundamental problem in game theory that demonstrates why two people might not cooperate even if it is in both their best interests to do so. It was originally framed by Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher working at RAND in 1950. Albert W. Tucker formalized the game with prison sentence payoffs and gave it the 'prisoner’s dilemma' name (Poundstone, 1992).
A classic example of the prisoner’s dilemma (PD) is presented as follows:
Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated the prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal. If one testifies for the prosecution against the other (defects) and the other remains silent (cooperates), the defector goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must choose to betray the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation. How should the prisoners act?
The problem is, that most people don’t trust their peers to do the right thing and therefore they just take the short-term gain themselves. This is a major trump in the hands of Big Business and basically explains why they are so successful in enslaving us. It is interesting that this behavior is defined as ‘rational’ in economic game theory.

-exerted from here


This represents the fundamental problem of a country that sees its greatest virtue in business transactions.

It is this mentality that celebrates democracy in all lands because it sees democracy as being good for business.

Ironic, since it has made slaves of its practitioners and cheerleaders.


...