# Okay, but WalMart?

## Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, CharonY said:
Quote

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

I find your lack of curiosity very unnatural.

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...

• Replies 68
• Created

#### Posted Images

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.

##### Share on other sites

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

-Mahatma Ghandi

##### Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

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

What a lame cop-out.

You are not entitled to your own facts.

##### Share on other sites

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.

##### Share on other sites

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?

##### Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

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?

Nope. Just a joke. I think we need to stay open and question our sources. At least by citing them other's can do the same.

##### Share on other sites

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.

##### Share on other sites

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.

##### Share on other sites

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.

##### Share on other sites

Just now, Bartholomew Jones said:

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.

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

##### Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Bartholomew Jones
##### Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

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.

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

##### Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Bartholomew Jones
##### Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

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.

Seems to me that’s a problem with lax enforcement and bad local management, not corporation size, market share, or anticompetitive practices

19 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Then reject it; you are entitled.

There’s no need to be so angry at everyone here. I know the world is hard sometimes, but we don’t need to make it harder for each other on top of that

In a weird way, you ARE in a debate club when you come here. Don’t get mad because you’re coming here and don’t want to debate. It’s sort of what we do. Join in the fun or don’t, but stop being mad at us for doing it

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Seems to me that’s a problem with lax enforcement and bad local management, not corporation size, market share, or anticompetitive practices

There’s no need to be so angry at everyone here. I know the world is hard sometimes, but we don’t need to make it harder for each other on top of that

In a weird way, you ARE in a debate club when you come here. Don’t get mad because you’re coming here and don’t want to debate. It’s sort of what we do. Join in the fun or don’t, but stop being mad at us for doing it

Arguing is to a purpose.  Debating is pointless.  I'd rather watch Sesame Street.

##### Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Arguing is to a purpose.  Debating is pointless.  I'd rather watch Sesame Street.

And are we somehow preventing you from doing that?

##### Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Do you know what liberal arts means?  It means I've studied fairly in depth IN MOST PRIMARY FIELDS OF STUDY.

"Liberal arts generally covers three areas: sciences, arts, and humanities. Its central academic disciplines include philosophy, logic, linguistics, literature, history, political science, sociology, and psychology.".. (good old Internet search engine)

3 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

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 ..

...and then after graduation you stuck in Wal-Mart for years..

3 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Look I'm an accountant.

...and accountant...

Jobs which have absolutely nothing to do with subjects of your studies..

You can be shopkeeper and accountant without studying anything..

Now it's more clearer where your frustration comes from at Wal-Mart ... But it is you, who took up subject of your studies..

(almost the all humanists end up like this)

Working at place you don't like for years must be mentally exhausting..

3 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

The conclusion is a determination I've long made against oversized business which has become the norm; I condemn it outright.

Let's analyze it from economical point of view (and the first on-topic post, about anti-trust)

Just an example. a small local shop buys e.g. 10 units of product per day paying $10 each, gives$3k per month. They get it from the wholesaler. The more you buy the smaller unit price the wholesaler gives you. Bigger shop buys 100 units of a product per day paying $9 each, giving$27k per month. The wholesaler buys it from a bigger wholesaler (maybe repeated couple times, especially if it is an imported product), then at the end of the chain, from producer. A similar chain of intermediaries is for goods required to create a product by a manufacturer.

On the other end of scale, a significant mall network completely bypass wholesalers, and talks directly with producers. Strips the all intermediaries between manufacturer and retail store.

The "too big to fail"-kind of mall network goes even further and buys producers too. So entire production-wholesales-delivery-retail is under their control.

If you were a powerful mall manager, you would do the same as they. This way they can offer products at unbeatable price, or have extraordinary profits (more than the sum of what separated producers-wholesalers-transport intermediaries would earn by themselves, if they would exist in the chain).

The main question is: what they will do if the all wholesalers, transport companies, and small local retail shops will bankrupt, will be intercepted, incorporated by larger entities.

Will they continue their low-price policy? or will they dictate any price they want.. ?

Knowing governments, I expect they will increase corporate taxes, and increase costs even more for ordinary clients...

They will make some nicely titled act/law, and speak to you about "fight with world corporations".

"Don't you want to fight with world corporations too-big-to-fail".. ? "Don't you support act [SOME NICELY LOOKING TITLE, MISLEADING ORDINARY PEOPLE] ??"

Example from the past:

"Don't you want to fight with world terrorism?" "Don't you support the Patriot Act"? (which has nothing to do with terrorism, just approving mass invigilation of ordinary people)

Misleading version: "How can you not support the Patriot Act?"

The true version: "How can you not support mass invigilation of all people?"

Edited by Sensei
##### Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Sensei said:
20 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Do you know what liberal arts means?  It means I've studied fairly in depth IN MOST PRIMARY FIELDS OF STUDY.

"Liberal arts generally covers three areas: sciences, arts, and humanities. Its central academic disciplines include philosophy, logic, linguistics, literature, history, political science, sociology, and psychology.".. (good old Internet search engine)

Okay, so which PRIMARY FIELDS OF STUDY aren't covered there?

16 hours ago, Sensei said:

and accountant...

Jobs which have absolutely nothing to do with subjects of your studies..

You can be shopkeeper and accountant without studying anything..

Now it's more clearer where your frustration comes from at Wal-Mart ... But it is you, who took up subject of your studies..

(almost the all humanists end up like this)

Working at place you don't like for years must be mentally exhausting..

After 30 years of working for a paycheck, I've determined I won't work for money.  It always betrays.  I work for the fruit from the ground and the superfluous goodwill of the community.  I've determined there are better things to account for than money, like the condition of the land towards posterity.

Truthfully, I loved (past tense) every moment working for Wal-Mart.  But you learn things along the way.  You have to love your job to do it honestly.

16 hours ago, Sensei said:

"Liberal arts generally covers three areas: sciences, arts, and humanities. Its central academic disciplines include philosophy, logic, linguistics, literature, history, political science, sociology, and psychology.".. (good old Internet search engine)

...and then after graduation you stuck in Wal-Mart for years..

...and accountant...

Jobs which have absolutely nothing to do with subjects of your studies..

You can be shopkeeper and accountant without studying anything..

Now it's more clearer where your frustration comes from at Wal-Mart ... But it is you, who took up subject of your studies..

(almost the all humanists end up like this)

Working at place you don't like for years must be mentally exhausting..

Let's analyze it from economical point of view (and the first on-topic post, about anti-trust)

Just an example. a small local shop buys e.g. 10 units of product per day paying $10 each, gives$3k per month. They get it from the wholesaler. The more you buy the smaller unit price the wholesaler gives you. Bigger shop buys 100 units of a product per day paying $9 each, giving$27k per month. The wholesaler buys it from a bigger wholesaler (maybe repeated couple times, especially if it is an imported product), then at the end of the chain, from producer. A similar chain of intermediaries is for goods required to create a product by a manufacturer.

On the other end of scale, a significant mall network completely bypass wholesalers, and talks directly with producers. Strips the all intermediaries between manufacturer and retail store.

The "too big to fail"-kind of mall network goes even further and buys producers too. So entire production-wholesales-delivery-retail is under their control.

If you were a powerful mall manager, you would do the same as they. This way they can offer products at unbeatable price, or have extraordinary profits (more than the sum of what separated producers-wholesalers-transport intermediaries would earn by themselves, if they would exist in the chain).

The main question is: what they will do if the all wholesalers, transport companies, and small local retail shops will bankrupt, will be intercepted, incorporated by larger entities.

Will they continue their low-price policy? or will they dictate any price they want.. ?

Knowing governments, I expect they will increase corporate taxes, and increase costs even more for ordinary clients...

They will make some nicely titled act/law, and speak to you about "fight with world corporations".

"Don't you want to fight with world corporations too-big-to-fail".. ? "Don't you support act [SOME NICELY LOOKING TITLE, MISLEADING ORDINARY PEOPLE] ??"

Example from the past:

"Don't you want to fight with world terrorism?" "Don't you support the Patriot Act"? (which has nothing to do with terrorism, just approving mass invigilation of ordinary people)

Misleading version: "How can you not support the Patriot Act?"

The true version: "How can you not support mass invigilation of all people?"

Just look at medicine in America.  It hardly exists with an insurer in between.  And people wonder why medicine is so expensive.  Common sense shows when there was no third party to pay it was less costly.

But we're too accustomed, also, to think of expense in terms of money in one person's pocket, or one household.  The real expense is the the quality of life and the grueling quality of work.  Now that money doesn't dictate what I do, I'm freer than a bird.

18 hours ago, iNow said:

And are we somehow preventing you from doing that?

What I actually said was, I'll argue.  As for you zapatos, go debate.

## Create an account

Register a new account