Jump to content

Wal-mart


Dark

Recommended Posts

Before I get into the actual topic, read this parallel I made:

 

(This is just a parallel. Any YCMember in this story is probably not how I depict them.)

 

You, your friends, and many other people live in a town called "YCM". It's a very nice town. The trees stay green almost all the time, it snows when it is supposed to snow, and the weather is perfect.

 

You, Dark, own a store. You are the only blacksmith in town. You love working with metal. Thus, you can sell a lot of metal for an above-average price. You make a high enough income where you can feed your family.

 

Your best friend, Felix, owns a store. He is the only herder in town. He loves working with animals. Why, the other day, he captured a herd of Mareep! Thus, he can sell his animals for an above-average price. He makes a high enough income to feed his family and himself.

 

Since I am too lazy, I'll just skip doing the whole paragraphs and just say who gets what job.

 

Belail = Magic Shop

Dismal Euphony = Music Store

YCMaker = Government [as a whole]

Opalmoon = Miner

Flame Dragon = Tourist Guide

...

et cetera

 

Everyone in YCM is living a perfect life. Everyone trades with each other often, everyone makes a pretty high income, and everyone gets almost the same luxuries.

 

But then, a new person comes into town. A very, very rich person. His name is Brushfire. He storms into YCM, and starts constructing this mega-store. When it's finished, he opens it. Dark walks inside, and is amazed. It sells metal, it sells animals, it sells jewels, it sells music, it sells magic items, it has EVERYTHING. And, for less.

 

Because we are trying to save money, we all go to this mega-store to buy our goods. Thus, our businesses collapse. We are no longer making an above-average income, and have to file bankruptcy. We really need money, so Brushfire hires us in his mega-store. He works us until we are dead, and we only get payed minimum wage. What has happened to YCM?

 

This is pretty much the same thing Wal-mart does. Discuss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I absolutely detest Walmart for this very reason depicted here. It's just unfair that they do that~

 

Although you can't completely blame them - the blame also rests upon the people who run off to buy everything from Walmart just because it's a little cheaper.

 

Sure, from an objective point, you might be saying "Queen-sama, they're just trying to make money, and people just wanna save money! <3"

 

But things like Walmart only serve to destabalize economy in the long-run. And if you live in a capitalist nation, like Her Highness, then one megastore dominating all the business in any area is most certainly not a good thing~

 

As such, I don't shop there. Ever~ <3

 

But Queen-sama can't stop other idiots from doing so. -.-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the blame also rests upon the people who run off to buy everything from Walmart just because it's a little cheaper

 

In these harsh economic times, people will do such a thing to save a few pennies here and a few dimes there. And as such, some people who shop at Wal-mart are the aformentioned people who lost their jobs because of it.

 

Whilst the blame does not completley rest with Wal-mart, the majority of it does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are the goods you produce as good as Brushfire's?

 

 

If they're better, why not make a business partnership with him to sell your superior goods in his stores, and get a cut of the profits from his vast network of chains?

 

 

Anyway......you could've all easily put him out of business and preserved your prosperity by continuing to buy from each other and ignoring his store, unless you needed to buy something nobody else was selling.

 

 

Also, having only one of anything in a community allows them to make their prices unreasonable. Competition is healthy for an economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wal-mart also makes pretty good contributions to charitable funds. But' date=' w/e. [b']I blame the gov. for not dispersing the wealth[/b], and instead wasting it on a war for oil and greedy profit.

 

The government has no right to take money away from the wealthy and give it to the poor.

 

It needs to stay out of the people's affairs, and actually govern. USA Government is practically it's own corporation now >_>

 

 

Of course, there need to be laws to make sure one person can't funk over the nation by excessively buying things for the hell of it, but other than that the government should have no involvement whatsoever in our economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The government has no right to take money away from the wealthy and give it to the poor.

 

But the government has a right to tax higher based on a higher income' date=' right?

[/quote']

 

I think tax should be based upon a percentage of income so that those with lower wages don't get all their money taken away, but I think it should hit a flat tax fairly quick, because, when you get high up there, the amount of money they're taking is ridiculous.

 

Plus, there's the fact that the people who designed our tax system still don't funking understand it in full.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wal-mart also makes pretty good contributions to charitable funds. But' date=' w/e. [b']I blame the gov. for not dispersing the wealth[/b], and instead wasting it on a war for oil and greedy profit.

 

The government has no right to take money away from the wealthy and give it to the poor.

 

It needs to stay out of the people's affairs, and actually govern. USA Government is practically it's own corporation now >_>

 

 

Of course, there need to be laws to make sure one person can't f*** over the nation by excessively buying things for the hell of it, but other than that the government should have no involvement whatsoever in our economy.

 

I'm not talking about rich people among the community. I'm talking about the rich people we don't see. The wealth I'm talking about isn't the millions some coke-whore makes for every film she stars in. It's the BILLIONS our government wastes on an unreasonable defense budget. Essentially, money wasted by the government is STOLEN from American Citizens, because the money could have been used to train workers, reform health-care, and more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wal-mart also makes pretty good contributions to charitable funds. But' date=' w/e. [b']I blame the gov. for not dispersing the wealth[/b], and instead wasting it on a war for oil and greedy profit.

 

The government has no right to take money away from the wealthy and give it to the poor.

 

It needs to stay out of the people's affairs, and actually govern. USA Government is practically it's own corporation now >_>

 

 

Of course, there need to be laws to make sure one person can't f*** over the nation by excessively buying things for the hell of it, but other than that the government should have no involvement whatsoever in our economy.

 

I'm not talking about rich people among the community. I'm talking about the rich people we don't see. The wealth I'm talking about isn't the millions some coke-whore makes for every film she stars in. It's the BILLIONS our government wastes on an unreasonable defense budget. Essentially, money wasted by the government is STOLEN from American Citizens, because the money could have been used to train workers, reform health-care, and more.

 

Ah.

 

In that case, I do agree that we're wasting money on silly things.

 

I once had someone tell me something had to be important because "the government was spending that much money on it". XD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The government has no right to take money away from the wealthy and give it to the poor.

 

But the government has a right to tax higher based on a higher income' date=' right?

[/quote']

 

I think tax should be based upon a percentage of income so that those with lower wages don't get all their money taken away, but I think it should hit a flat tax fairly quick, because, when you get high up there, the amount of money they're taking is ridiculous.

 

Plus, there's the fact that the people who designed our tax system still don't f***ing understand it in full.

 

So like, if I'm making 2 million a year, I should pay the same amount of taxes as one making 1/2 a million a year?

 

Obviously, tax rates shouldn't stay constant. But it shouldn't cap at a certain point either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The government has no right to take money away from the wealthy and give it to the poor.

 

But the government has a right to tax higher based on a higher income' date=' right?

[/quote']

 

I think tax should be based upon a percentage of income so that those with lower wages don't get all their money taken away, but I think it should hit a flat tax fairly quick, because, when you get high up there, the amount of money they're taking is ridiculous.

 

Plus, there's the fact that the people who designed our tax system still don't f***ing understand it in full.

 

So like, if I'm making 2 million a year, I should pay the same amount of taxes as one making 1/2 a million a year?

 

Obviously, tax rates shouldn't stay constant. But it shouldn't cap at a certain point either.

 

No, you did the extra mile to make the additional 1 1/2 million. It's yours, and they shouldn't be allowed to touch it.

 

They aren't entitled to take more money as you make more money. Why even make money then, if the government takes all of it, leaving us with a mediocre sum?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should poorer people be taxed the same as richer people. If you have more money to spend, it should be your duty to the government to give some of that up.

 

I'm not saying go full out crazy with a 50% tax rate. But a higher income should constitute for a higher tax rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should poorer people be taxed the same as richer people. If you have more money to spend' date=' it should be your duty to the government to give some of that up.

 

I'm not saying go full out crazy with a 50% tax rate. But a higher income should constitute for a higher tax rate.

[/quote']

 

Your wording is ambiguous for the first sentence. At first glance, it implies we're hitting the poor and the rich with a hefty tax. However it can go either way.

 

I don't mean ridiculously low taxes, but fairly small compared to what we have now.

 

An almost 30% tax rate is absurd.

 

 

 

 

I adamantly disagree with the "duty to give some up".

 

The government's duty is to it's people.

 

The people's duty is to obey the laws, vote, and to correct the government where it fails.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...