Thursday, August 17, 2006


Not to toot my own horn, but the only reason a campaign like this would ever work would be because voters have no concept of capitalism / supply and demand.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who was a member of Wal-Mart’s board when she lived in Arkansas, the corporation’s home state, returned a $5,000 campaign contribution from the company last year. Mrs. Clinton said she did so to protest Wal-Mart’s health care benefits, and she has continued to distance herself from the policies of a company she was close to when she was the first lady of Arkansas.

Heh. Thanks integrity. Apparently their money is only good when it benefits you. Betcha no more campaign contributions from them will be forthcoming.

“My problem with Wal-Mart is that I don’t see any indication that they care about the fate of middle-class people,” Mr. Biden said, standing on the sweltering rooftop of the State Historical Society building here. “They talk about paying them $10 an hour. That’s true. How can you live a middle-class life on that?”

As far as I'm concerned, the fewer companies concerned with the fate of middle-class people, the better. Companies ought to be concerned with the bottom line and making profits. This ties right back in to my earlier post - not everyone is going to earn a middle class life.

Stealing some quotes from the comments on the Captain's website:

Here in the Bay Area, WM recently began hiring to staff a new store in Oakland. There were 400 jobs to be filled. WM received ELEVEN THOUSAND applications for those 400 jobs, in an economy with 5% unemployment. -scott

[Unions are] really the issue. Wal-Mart has a business model so wildly successful that it confers an unelected market power that no statist can possibly live with. If they were unionized, then some of that power would be brought into line with the state and be redistributed according to the whims and values of the elites that drive it. Left free, it simply cannot be tolerated. -Lew

So if these people Democrats are so concerned about weren’t working at Walmart and earning $10 an hour with minimal benefits, where exactly do the Democrats think they’d be? Do they really think these people had better options but were forced to work at WalMart? -NoDonkey

As I've pointed out before, companies cannot force people to do anything. They can't force you to work there (employment at will doctrine) and they can't force you to buy from them. If people are working at Wal-Mart that means, effectively, they're actively not working somewhere else.

Its kind of sad that in the current political and international climate, this is the best the Dems can come up with. If it works, this country is in far worse shape than I imagined (but I don't think Americans are that stupid).

If a political party gets elected by lambasting a private company, look out. Thats about as bad a situation for capitalism as can be.