Jump to content

Bartholomew Jones

Senior Members
  • Posts

    190
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Bartholomew Jones

  1. 26 minutes ago, iNow said:

    If only life were so simple and black and white. Your posts ignore that there are also positive aspects to these “oversized businesses” like allowing us as consumers to obtain cheaper goods and get more return on the dollars we earn. 

    They’re not without fault, they are often horrible to their workers, and frequently benefit from welfare style payouts from the government despite skimping on their tax payments, but it only hurts your argument when you fail to acknowledge the full picture.

    Basically... You make it far too easy to call you wrong when you continue speaking in absolutes because there are so many counter examples available. 

    Look I'm an accountant.  I don't mean to be rude.  Big companies are easy to steal from from when you're inside.  And it does happen indefinitely.  Theft means there are additional expenses.  If they're still keeping prices down there's more shady business going on and I'm blowing the whistle.  Call it what you want.  I'm gonna be a truthteller.

    4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

    No.  I said this to zapatos:

    This format here is lame because I have to deal with hecklers like you.

    I said that.  How'd it go on yours?

    This is what science was, while evolving: observations: the finer definitions should change over time but maintain this seminal absolute.

    8 hours ago, swansont said:

    What a lame cop-out. 

    You are not entitled to your own facts.

    Then reject it; you are entitled.

  2. 17 minutes ago, iNow said:

    If only life were so simple and black and white. Your posts ignore that there are also positive aspects to these “oversized businesses” like allowing us as consumers to obtain cheaper goods and get more return on the dollars we earn. 

    They’re not without fault, they are often horrible to their workers, and frequently benefit from welfare style payouts from the government despite skimping on their tax payments, but it only hurts your argument when you fail to acknowledge the full picture.

    Basically... You make it far too easy to call you wrong when you continue speaking in absolutes because there are so many counter examples available. 

    Cheaper?  If every gallon of milk requires a trip over the roads it's costing everybody more than necessary.  Do you know how much methane and sulfates etc. Wal-Mart's parking lot produces perpetually due to anaerobic bacteria underground?

    Do you know their policy requires them to account for wasted produce and to donate as much possible; of the USABLE portion.  Do you know that that policy is kept depending who manages that shift.  Some just toss it.

    13 minutes ago, zapatos said:

    So you went from empirical evidence to anecdotal evidence because reading is just too darn hard.  Good move.

    You debate.  That's what you do.  Utterly vain.

    13 minutes ago, zapatos said:

    So you went from empirical evidence to anecdotal evidence because reading is just too darn hard.  Good move.

    Do you know what liberal arts means?  It means I've studied fairly in depth IN MOST PRIMARY FIELDS OF STUDY.  And I've kept it up, informally, over 25 years.  I've graduated, and I continue to study face to face.  This format here is lame because I have to deal with hecklers like you; but I know some do listen, most of whom don't comment; they're actually good listeners (sic).

    10 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

    So you went from empirical evidence to anecdotal evidence because reading is just too darn hard.  Good move.

    You're the type, you'd go to work, see the guy waste the product, say to each his own, punch out, go home for 40 years, retire and die.

  3. 9 hours ago, Sensei said:

    I think you misinterpreted what he meant. I read his statement as "these days we cannot trust information, because Internet and media are full of fake news" etc. and similar kind of logic.

    Which I personally consider an exaggeration.

    But some people don't believe Earth is spherical, some don't believe science and scientists, some don't believe in modern medicine (anti-vaxxers etc.).. etc. etc.

    so.. if you tell such a person to "look up statistical data on the Internet"... you will get a rejection, if the person doesn't believe that all these data are real and trustworthy...

    Not really... I've spent above 25 years studying books and media, in continuity with prior formal liberal arts studies, and I've left that mode for this: word of mouth research and studying people instead of text.  25 years in one mode kind of burns you out if you've kind of graduated from it.

  4. 9 hours ago, CharonY said:

    I stand by my comment, if you track down data, you do have to check the source and figure out on what they are based on. If you are curious about things like food supply dominance, there are various sources you can look at. Believing your gut without doing research is just plain lazy.

    Edit: to make it more concrete. Say I assume that I think that Wal-Mart has a monopoly in groceries. So I would think that the first thought would be: is it really true? Shortly followed by how can I find it out? What is the right metric to look at? E.g. revenue, market share and so on. If I was at least bit curious about the matter I would look at what data is out there and whether my assumptions are true.

    If I start with the assumption of being right it would mean that I am more concerned about being right or pontificate my points rather than being curious about how things are and how my thoughts line up with reality.

    I've worked at Wal-Mart (that is, lived the culture) about 5 years, at 3 stores at either end of Pennsylvania, including as department manager of sporting goods with gun sales, including semi-automatics.  I'm trained as an accountant to pick up on things; I'm not concluding on those bases.  The conclusion is a determination I've long made against oversized business which has become the norm; I condemn it outright.

  5. 8 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

    "37% of data cited on the internet is made up, incorrectly attributed, or both"

    -Mahatma Ghandi

    Let me make sure I get this.  So, you're using sarcasm because Ghandis's dead; very dead.  But, you're implying the information on the internet is legit?

  6. 9 hours ago, Phi for All said:

    I was calling out the pun about crucifixion and cross-to-bear. It's a humor thing.

    Who's truth? Yours? Too subjective.

    This is a HORRIBLE way to learn. Doesn't it assume that you can't be wrong? That anyone who gives you a "strike" (argues against your position) is automatically wrong? Doesn't this also compound the mistake by reinforcing that you have to continue in the face of adversity, as opposed to considering you might be wrong?

    For example, I know this fact to be true, but I wouldn't hunt and peck around the internet to amuse someone: if you leave a gallon of milk out a few days at room temperature with the lid sealed you have a mess because the system is anaerobic.  If air can get in and out, it's still very fresh.

  7.  

    13 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

    Supporting our arguments is a cross we all must bear.

    Not so.  Truth, taking strikes is the cross.

    2 minutes ago, CharonY said:

    Especially if arguments are based on things that one can simply look up. In this case one would look for e.g. market share for groceries, which is somewhere between 50-60%. If one is not willing to anchor ones argument on any facts, one is basically just making this up. 

    "Simply looking up," these days, is very unnatural; and against nature.

  8. 3 hours ago, swansont said:

    When dealing in facts, faith isn’t the issue. Having faith the moon is made of cheese carries no weight in a discussion of the moon’s actual composition.

    I'm not using faith as a basis for argument.  I'm accusing zapatos of using it as a basis of bias.

    1 hour ago, Phi for All said:
    !

    Moderator Note

    This is the most focused of your arguments. Please show how Walmart shut down ALL the small owner-operated stores. Please show how cheating is the only way to compete with Walmart. Otherwise, this is soapboxing (claims without support shouted loudly).

     

    Then crucify it.

  9. 8 minutes ago, zapatos said:

    Do you prefer I call it 'arguing in bad faith'? How about 'violating the rules of the forum that you agreed to'.

    How can you possibly "persuade" when you refuse to back up your claims or even explain what your words mean, then simply insist people believe you because 'you said so'.

    You've been exposed to Trump for too long. This is right out of his playbook, and it is pathetic to suggest this argument is based on "faith". Give me a break. 

    You have to do with Trump.  I have to do with truth.

    Just now, StringJunky said:

    Strong convictions, as well as weak ones are worthless with data to support them. On a science forum, backing up assertions when asked is pretty much obligatory.

    That makes sense when the topic is in terms of statistical questions.  Mine isn't.  I'm accusing Wal-Mart of breaching Antitrust law.  The evidence is in the shutout of all the proprietor retail stores of yesterday.  Wal-Mart is too massive for arms length businesses to survive without compromising integrity.

    7 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

    Strong convictions, as well as weak ones are worthless with data to support them. On a science forum, backing up assertions when asked is pretty much obligatory.

    That makes sense when the topic is in terms of statistical questions.  Mine isn't.  I'm accusing Wal-Mart of breaching Antitrust law.  The evidence is in the shutout of all the proprietor retail stores of yesterday.  Wal-Mart is too massive for arms length businesses to survive without compromising integrity.

    I'm also accusing corporations in general of faulty business practices.  Also I'm accusing the SEC for not addressing financial statement fraud since the days of Enron, when they did nothing besides implement Sarbanes-Oxley.  They refuse to mandate a secondary audit by a competing public accounting firm to audit the working papers and final audit report of corporate financial statements.

  10. 7 minutes ago, zapatos said:

    Quit trolling. Every time I ask you a question about your claim you refuse to answer. That's not acceptable around here.

    You people always accuse of trolling when someone has strong faith convictions.  The motive behind trolling is amusement.  My motive is persuasion, in every case, without regard to people like you.

  11. 3 minutes ago, swansont said:

    "When consumers have to go get something for dinner or immediate use, it's Wal-Mart.  That's where they shop from day to day.  No sensible American will contest that."

    I see you've now qualified this with "most"

    Do you have numbers to back this claim up?

    This isn't in terms of numbers.  It's in terms of culture.

  12. 4 hours ago, swansont said:

    I've been to a Walmart perhaps twice in my life, and that was years ago, and when I was away from home. The convenient department store for me is a Target. There is also a Marshall's and a TJ Maxx.

    Does not having a Walmart nearby, and/or not wanting to shop at one make me "not sensible"?

     

    That's opposite what I'm saying.  The thing that I said was not sensible is the statement that it is false that the status quo American does most their shopping at Wal-Mart.

  13. 38 minutes ago, swansont said:

    A literal monopoly has 100% of the market share. They are the sole supplier. In practice it's less

    https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-2

    With Walmart and Amazon each having less than 10%, I'm not seeing where the monopoly talk comes from.

    (that's not to say they haven't engaged in anti-competetive acts, or don't dominate certain niches at a much higher market share)

    I'm talking about department store retail sales.  I should have specified.

    When consumers have to go get something for dinner or immediate use, it's Wal-Mart.  That's where they shop from day to day.  No sensible American will contest that.

    10 hours ago, iNow said:

    Some do, probably too many, but not all. 

    There’s a difference, for example, between Deloitte’s Humanitarian Innovation Network and Monsanto 

    They thought Arthur Anderson was legit.

  14. 9 hours ago, iNow said:

    Some do, probably too many, but not all. 

    There’s a difference, for example, between Deloitte’s Humanitarian Innovation Network and Monsanto 

    I'm just judging by their size and by their operations, having worked there.

  15. 11 minutes ago, studiot said:

    They used to but Wal-MArt sold them off in October this year.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cn54ndxy92yt/sainsburys-asda-merger

     

    They started as Associated Dairies of Leeds (in the North of England) a long time ago.

    By the 1980s they had grown to be the largest supermarket chain in the UK but they then lost their way and were bought by Wal-Mart I think in the early 1990s

    This acquisition was never a big success for W-M and they have been trying to sell it of for several years.

    The UK Mergers and Monopolies Commission prevented a previous sale to a rival supermarket chain, I think the new owners are venture capitalists.

    Do you know where they source their product?

    13 minutes ago, iNow said:

    The problem is with lobbying and vast unlimited and anonymous campaign contributions to those writing the laws much more than it is with the idea of a corporation or how they’re structured. 

    The thing is, corporations commit financial statement fraud because they're big enough to inflate their figures just enough to get buku bonuses to executives' private coffers.

  16. 43 minutes ago, Curious layman said:

    Not fond of them, just not familiar with them. We don't have Wal-Mart, They own ASDA over here.

    I know a lot of people don't like them, but I've never heard of anyone suggest lawsuits for antitrust violations.

    They utterly control the consumer retail market.  What's ASDA if you don't mind?

    This is radical but, the corporate company structure should be abolished.

  17. 1 hour ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

    I'm sorry.  I understand people are often fond of Wal-Mart.  But they've literally monopolized the retail market in violation of antitrust law.

    It's not Sam Walton.  It's Enron.

    And since the Sarbanes-Oxley "reforms" were the only reaction of regulators following Enron, the books of Wal-Mart and the next generation (those like Aldi), are likely treacherous too.

  18. 22 hours ago, iNow said:

    It’s possible, though Amazon is more likely as a next target given the way they control the marketplace and also at the same time compete by selling the same goods as vendors using that marketplace 

    Facebook is just easier bc they’re able to control the stories we see. The cynical part of me suggests that Facebook is being targeted in a lame attempt to change which stories (more positive than negative) get shared about politicians. It’s also a subtle way to direct more traffic to right wing sites like Parler which allow repugnant views to go unchallenged 

    Wal-Mart should have been brought down since Kmart failed, and so many smaller retailers.  The Antitrust Act is supposed to oppose monopolies like Wal-Mart and protect competitive markets.  Wal-Mart now usurps the consumer price index, which is treacherous.

    On 12/12/2020 at 5:09 PM, Curious layman said:

    A Brit here, why Wal-Mart, what have they done?

    I'm sorry.  I understand people are often fond of Wal-Mart.  But they've literally monopolized the retail market in violation of antitrust law.

  19. 1 hour ago, MigL said:

    Yes, about 50 deg F
    Not quite the optimum refrigerator temperature of less than 40 deg F, but close enough.

    What makes you think it was lost ?
    I can make a killer eggplant parmigiana, or a hearty pasta fagioli.
    And I can make my own wine, from grapes ( imported California ).

    Nevermind about that.  Maybe I can tell you what I mean later.  50F sounds perfect.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.