|
sigh.
ace, we wet around about walmart already in another thread--the arguments against your position outlined there fully obtain here as well.
you choose for whatever reason to separate pricing from other factors that enable/condition it.
you do not provide any basis for making this separation, you simply assume that you can talk about walmart using an economics 101 type framework and have claims you make appear coherent.
well, if one does not accept your assumptions, then your conclusions dont make sense.
all that is happening here (again) is that you and other folk are talking byeach other because there is no agreement on how to look at something like walmart--whether the game rules are such that walmart's pricing can be understood to the exclusion of its distribution processes, its labour practices, its routine occupation of the bottom of the barrel in terms of wage levels, etc etc etc.
your position seems to be: anything goes.
but if that is your position, then i dont see the point of the thread because there is nothing to discuss. you think walmart is a dandy company. you think capitalism is chock full of dandy companies and that the social consequences of capitalist activity are like facts of nature.
i find that kind of position totally indefensable.
you dont.
i try to talk about how you get to your arguments.
you repeat the arguments.
what is there to discuss about that if you wont put the premises upon which you build your arguments up for discussion?
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|