Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Conservative Case Against Wal-Mart

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
reprehensor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-25-05 01:36 PM
Original message
The Conservative Case Against Wal-Mart
OK, so there's ONE who doesn't like Wal-Mart.

The Conservative Case Against Wal-Mart

So opening a Wal-Mart has a small positive effect on consumer prices and employment for the community. The latter effect dissipates over time as Wal-Mart drives competitors out of business or, at least, the area. In addition, many of these employees appear to be part-time, according to Basker's study, who likely get smaller benefits and opportunity for advancement than full-timers. (Timothy Noah also pointed out that Wal-Mart overstates the number of full-time employees by counting as full-time anybody who works more than 34 hours a week.)

But even if Hugh is right that "the average worker who is not an owner would be better off at the WalMart," what about those owners?

In his article, Thwarting the Killing of the Corporation: Limited Liability, Democracy, and Economics, 87 Nw. U. L. Rev. 148 (1992) (Westlaw sub. req'd), law professor Stephen Presser writes eloquently about the role small business plays in our democracy. Presser explains that corporations were endowed with limited liability precisely so as to encourage the growth of small business:

The popular democratic justification for limited liability is rarely observed by modern scholars. Nevertheless, it appears that to the nineteenth-century legislators in states such as New York, who mandated limited liability for corporations' shareholders, the imposition of limited liability was perceived as a means of encouraging the small-scale entrepreneur, and of keeping entry into business markets competitive and democratic. Without limitations on individual shareholder liability, it was believed, only the very wealthiest men, industrial titans such as New York's John Jacob Astor, could possess the privilege of investing in corporations. Without the contributions of investors of moderate means, it was felt, the kind of economic progress states like New York needed would not be achieved.


more@link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
candy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-25-05 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
1. I'm sure there are more than one--they are just afraid to
open their mouths.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Momgonepostal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-25-05 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. All those mom and pop owners in red America...
...can't ALL be liberals. I'll bet almost every small business owner who has been squeezed out by Wal*Mart is anti-Wal*Mart.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC