Your various big-box stores. Which as a whole are terrible for small local economies.
So... yay, municipal protectionism unironically? Usually most people realize the absurdity of localism when presented with the point, not bite the bullet with all enthusiasm...
Yeah, I don't understand this either. Why exactly should we be working to protect and support a less efficient business model just because it is "local"?
Is it really more efficient having that money go to pinning the coffers of the 1%?
In a word, yes.
In more words, a better move would be for the Downtown association to encourage people to spend money locally by hosting fairs and mainstreet events, perhaps also getting local businesses to coupons or specials as well.
You need to provide people with a reason to shop with you. If your best argument is "I'm local, not a big box store!" then I don't see any reason why anyone should shop with you. You need to beat them on selection, service, convenience, price or some other meaningful factor.
Your various big-box stores. Which as a whole are terrible for small local economies.
So... yay, municipal protectionism unironically? Usually most people realize the absurdity of localism when presented with the point, not bite the bullet with all enthusiasm...
Yeah, I don't understand this either. Why exactly should we be working to protect and support a less efficient business model just because it is "local"?
Is it really more efficient having that money go to pinning the coffers of the 1%?
In a word, yes.
In more words, a better move would be for the Downtown association to encourage people to spend money locally by hosting fairs and mainstreet events, perhaps also getting local businesses to coupons or specials as well.
You need to provide people with a reason to shop with you. If your best argument is "I'm local, not a big box store!" then I don't see any reason why anyone should shop with you. You need to beat them on selection, service, convenience, price or some other meaningful factor.
Big box stores might save you money in the short term, but in the long term they're awful for the economy of that city because they suck away money to corporate HQ and don't produce good jobs. Many small towns in America have been completely gutted by wal mart.
It's like the prisoners dilemma, and shopping at wal mart is defecting.
Pi-r8 on
0
Options
firewaterwordSatchitanandaPais Vasco to San FranciscoRegistered Userregular
I'm pretty sure Ithaca has something like this, called Ithaca "hours." I think the basic idea is that an "hour's work" is worth $10. Or something. Everything I've seen suggests half-baked hippy BS, but hey, who knows. There's some website that explains it with a garish comic that's way too ugly to post here.
Lokah Samastah Sukhino Bhavantu
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Your various big-box stores. Which as a whole are terrible for small local economies.
So... yay, municipal protectionism unironically? Usually most people realize the absurdity of localism when presented with the point, not bite the bullet with all enthusiasm...
Yeah, I don't understand this either. Why exactly should we be working to protect and support a less efficient business model just because it is "local"?
Is it really more efficient having that money go to pinning the coffers of the 1%?
In a word, yes.
In more words, a better move would be for the Downtown association to encourage people to spend money locally by hosting fairs and mainstreet events, perhaps also getting local businesses to coupons or specials as well.
You need to provide people with a reason to shop with you. If your best argument is "I'm local, not a big box store!" then I don't see any reason why anyone should shop with you. You need to beat them on selection, service, convenience, price or some other meaningful factor.
Big box stores might save you money in the short term, but in the long term they're awful for the economy of that city because they suck away money to corporate HQ and don't produce good jobs. Many small towns in America have been completely gutted by wal mart.
It's like the prisoners dilemma, and shopping at wal mart is defecting.
If they destroy their market, then they will go out of business or change their policies. Either way, if your best sales pitch is a sob story about how your wife and kids will starve, maybe you shouldn't stay in business.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Your various big-box stores. Which as a whole are terrible for small local economies.
So... yay, municipal protectionism unironically? Usually most people realize the absurdity of localism when presented with the point, not bite the bullet with all enthusiasm...
Yeah, I don't understand this either. Why exactly should we be working to protect and support a less efficient business model just because it is "local"?
Is it really more efficient having that money go to pinning the coffers of the 1%?
In a word, yes.
In more words, a better move would be for the Downtown association to encourage people to spend money locally by hosting fairs and mainstreet events, perhaps also getting local businesses to coupons or specials as well.
You need to provide people with a reason to shop with you. If your best argument is "I'm local, not a big box store!" then I don't see any reason why anyone should shop with you. You need to beat them on selection, service, convenience, price or some other meaningful factor.
Big box stores might save you money in the short term, but in the long term they're awful for the economy of that city because they suck away money to corporate HQ and don't produce good jobs. Many small towns in America have been completely gutted by wal mart.
It's like the prisoners dilemma, and shopping at wal mart is defecting.
If they destroy their market, then they will go out of business or change their policies. Either way, if your best sales pitch is a sob story about how your wife and kids will starve, maybe you shouldn't stay in business.
Take a trip to the south, Spaceman. Walmart moves in, shuts down the competition, and then everyone's working at Walmart (I say walmart, but really it's a split between all the big boxes).
They don't need to change their policies because "Hey I need X, well Walmart's the only place to get it".
Also, who is anyone's argument for making money anything but "I don't want to starve to death" when you boil it down?
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Your various big-box stores. Which as a whole are terrible for small local economies.
So... yay, municipal protectionism unironically? Usually most people realize the absurdity of localism when presented with the point, not bite the bullet with all enthusiasm...
Yeah, I don't understand this either. Why exactly should we be working to protect and support a less efficient business model just because it is "local"?
Is it really more efficient having that money go to pinning the coffers of the 1%?
In a word, yes.
In more words, a better move would be for the Downtown association to encourage people to spend money locally by hosting fairs and mainstreet events, perhaps also getting local businesses to coupons or specials as well.
You need to provide people with a reason to shop with you. If your best argument is "I'm local, not a big box store!" then I don't see any reason why anyone should shop with you. You need to beat them on selection, service, convenience, price or some other meaningful factor.
Big box stores might save you money in the short term, but in the long term they're awful for the economy of that city because they suck away money to corporate HQ and don't produce good jobs. Many small towns in America have been completely gutted by wal mart.
It's like the prisoners dilemma, and shopping at wal mart is defecting.
If they destroy their market, then they will go out of business or change their policies. Either way, if your best sales pitch is a sob story about how your wife and kids will starve, maybe you shouldn't stay in business.
Take a trip to the south, Spaceman. Walmart moves in, shuts down the competition, and then everyone's working at Walmart (I say walmart, but really it's a split between all the big boxes).
They don't need to change their policies because "Hey I need X, well Walmart's the only place to get it".
Also, who is anyone's argument for making money anything but "I don't want to starve to death" when you boil it down?
That's your reason to work, not your reason people should transact with you. That's the difference.
If they destroy their market, then they will go out of business or change their policies. Either way, if your best sales pitch is a sob story about how your wife and kids will starve, maybe you shouldn't stay in business.
Yes. Because the Walmart finally being closed will be so much of a comfort to the no one that still lives in the economic wasteland that it has created. And not that Walmart cares, because they already extracted a profit by destroying the town.
Also, I'm pretty sure these currencies are also a way to get around the lack of available credit. I'm unemployed, and Bob down the street is unemployed, so neither of has $ but if I can get localcurrency for fixing his roof, and give him local currency for fixing my car, we can have a functioning economy again.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
If they destroy their market, then they will go out of business or change their policies. Either way, if your best sales pitch is a sob story about how your wife and kids will starve, maybe you shouldn't stay in business.
Yes. Because the Walmart finally being closed will be so much of a comfort to the no one that still lives in the economic wasteland that it has created. And not that Walmart cares, because they already extracted a profit by destroying the town.
Also, I'm pretty sure these currencies are also a way to get around the lack of available credit. I'm unemployed, and Bob down the street is unemployed, so neither of has $ but if I can get localcurrency for fixing his roof, and give him local currency for fixing my car, we can have a functioning economy again.
That only works of that currency is backed by something, which it wouldn't be because you need USD to trade outside of town. How will the roofer get his supplies from the lumberyard two towns over if all he has are townbucks?
If they destroy their market, then they will go out of business or change their policies. Either way, if your best sales pitch is a sob story about how your wife and kids will starve, maybe you shouldn't stay in business.
Yes. Because the Walmart finally being closed will be so much of a comfort to the no one that still lives in the economic wasteland that it has created. And not that Walmart cares, because they already extracted a profit by destroying the town.
Also, I'm pretty sure these currencies are also a way to get around the lack of available credit. I'm unemployed, and Bob down the street is unemployed, so neither of has $ but if I can get localcurrency for fixing his roof, and give him local currency for fixing my car, we can have a functioning economy again.
That only works of that currency is backed by something, which it wouldn't be because you need USD to trade outside of town. How will the roofer get his supplies from the lumberyard two towns over if all he has are townbucks?
What you're missing is that local currency is not intended to be the sole currency, just a supplement for regular USD. You can take all the regular USD you'd have normally and use them to pay your regular bills, and then just use the local currencies just for what's available in town. By paying for those things with local currency, it saves you USD that you can use for everything else.
Your various big-box stores. Which as a whole are terrible for small local economies.
So... yay, municipal protectionism unironically? Usually most people realize the absurdity of localism when presented with the point, not bite the bullet with all enthusiasm...
Yeah, I don't understand this either. Why exactly should we be working to protect and support a less efficient business model just because it is "local"?
Is it really more efficient having that money go to pinning the coffers of the 1%?
In a word, yes.
In more words, a better move would be for the Downtown association to encourage people to spend money locally by hosting fairs and mainstreet events, perhaps also getting local businesses to coupons or specials as well.
You need to provide people with a reason to shop with you. If your best argument is "I'm local, not a big box store!" then I don't see any reason why anyone should shop with you. You need to beat them on selection, service, convenience, price or some other meaningful factor.
Big box stores might save you money in the short term, but in the long term they're awful for the economy of that city because they suck away money to corporate HQ and don't produce good jobs. Many small towns in America have been completely gutted by wal mart.
It's like the prisoners dilemma, and shopping at wal mart is defecting.
If they destroy their market, then they will go out of business or change their policies. Either way, if your best sales pitch is a sob story about how your wife and kids will starve, maybe you shouldn't stay in business.
It's kinda weird that you started a thread about how you're suddenly feeling so patriotic about America, but you don't have any sense of civic duty for your city? You'd happily watch the town around you fall apart just so you can save a few bucks?
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
If they destroy their market, then they will go out of business or change their policies. Either way, if your best sales pitch is a sob story about how your wife and kids will starve, maybe you shouldn't stay in business.
Yes. Because the Walmart finally being closed will be so much of a comfort to the no one that still lives in the economic wasteland that it has created. And not that Walmart cares, because they already extracted a profit by destroying the town.
Also, I'm pretty sure these currencies are also a way to get around the lack of available credit. I'm unemployed, and Bob down the street is unemployed, so neither of has $ but if I can get localcurrency for fixing his roof, and give him local currency for fixing my car, we can have a functioning economy again.
You sound like the Lorax. If the economy destroys small towns and concentrates people more densely, I'm not sure that I see why that is a problem. Aggrobusiness is supplying all out food, so we don't really need people in sparsely populated areas.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
If they destroy their market, then they will go out of business or change their policies. Either way, if your best sales pitch is a sob story about how your wife and kids will starve, maybe you shouldn't stay in business.
Yes. Because the Walmart finally being closed will be so much of a comfort to the no one that still lives in the economic wasteland that it has created. And not that Walmart cares, because they already extracted a profit by destroying the town.
Also, I'm pretty sure these currencies are also a way to get around the lack of available credit. I'm unemployed, and Bob down the street is unemployed, so neither of has $ but if I can get localcurrency for fixing his roof, and give him local currency for fixing my car, we can have a functioning economy again.
You sound like the Lorax. If the economy destroys small towns and concentrates people more densely, I'm not sure that I see why that is a problem. Aggrobusiness is supplying all out food, so we don't really need people in sparsely populated areas.
People don't all want to live in suburban and urban squalor? And where do you think agro businesses are located
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
If they destroy their market, then they will go out of business or change their policies. Either way, if your best sales pitch is a sob story about how your wife and kids will starve, maybe you shouldn't stay in business.
Yes. Because the Walmart finally being closed will be so much of a comfort to the no one that still lives in the economic wasteland that it has created. And not that Walmart cares, because they already extracted a profit by destroying the town.
Also, I'm pretty sure these currencies are also a way to get around the lack of available credit. I'm unemployed, and Bob down the street is unemployed, so neither of has $ but if I can get localcurrency for fixing his roof, and give him local currency for fixing my car, we can have a functioning economy again.
You sound like the Lorax. If the economy destroys small towns and concentrates people more densely, I'm not sure that I see why that is a problem. Aggrobusiness is supplying all out food, so we don't really need people in sparsely populated areas.
People don't all want to live in suburban and urban squalor? And where do you think agro businesses are located
Aggrobusiness has decreased our need to have people in rural areas. All we need is enough people there to run those farms. If choosing to live in a rural area becomes an economically infeasible lifestyle, we should we distort the market to reverse that trend?
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
No one is saying we should distort the market, but there's nothing wrong with towns trying to reignite their downtown districts (which, btw, is where small businesses are born and thrive).
If they destroy their market, then they will go out of business or change their policies. Either way, if your best sales pitch is a sob story about how your wife and kids will starve, maybe you shouldn't stay in business.
Yes. Because the Walmart finally being closed will be so much of a comfort to the no one that still lives in the economic wasteland that it has created. And not that Walmart cares, because they already extracted a profit by destroying the town.
Also, I'm pretty sure these currencies are also a way to get around the lack of available credit. I'm unemployed, and Bob down the street is unemployed, so neither of has $ but if I can get localcurrency for fixing his roof, and give him local currency for fixing my car, we can have a functioning economy again.
You sound like the Lorax. If the economy destroys small towns and concentrates people more densely, I'm not sure that I see why that is a problem. Aggrobusiness is supplying all out food, so we don't really need people in sparsely populated areas.
People don't all want to live in suburban and urban squalor? And where do you think agro businesses are located
Aggrobusiness has decreased our need to have people in rural areas. All we need is enough people there to run those farms. If choosing to live in a rural area becomes an economically infeasible lifestyle, we should we distort the market to reverse that trend?
Well the reason to promote rural farms over agribusiness would be the longterm health and environmental damage associated with agribusiness... but that's a subject for another thread. Local currency doesn't really work for rural areas- you need a certain critical mass of people for it to be viable. It's more to promote cities and towns as opposed to an endless series of suburbs.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Your various big-box stores. Which as a whole are terrible for small local economies.
So... yay, municipal protectionism unironically? Usually most people realize the absurdity of localism when presented with the point, not bite the bullet with all enthusiasm...
Yeah, I don't understand this either. Why exactly should we be working to protect and support a less efficient business model just because it is "local"?
Is it really more efficient having that money go to pinning the coffers of the 1%?
In a word, yes.
In more words, a better move would be for the Downtown association to encourage people to spend money locally by hosting fairs and mainstreet events, perhaps also getting local businesses to coupons or specials as well.
You need to provide people with a reason to shop with you. If your best argument is "I'm local, not a big box store!" then I don't see any reason why anyone should shop with you. You need to beat them on selection, service, convenience, price or some other meaningful factor.
Big box stores might save you money in the short term, but in the long term they're awful for the economy of that city because they suck away money to corporate HQ and don't produce good jobs. Many small towns in America have been completely gutted by wal mart.
It's like the prisoners dilemma, and shopping at wal mart is defecting.
If they destroy their market, then they will go out of business or change their policies. Either way, if your best sales pitch is a sob story about how your wife and kids will starve, maybe you shouldn't stay in business.
It's kinda weird that you started a thread about how you're suddenly feeling so patriotic about America, but you don't have any sense of civic duty for your city? You'd happily watch the town around you fall apart just so you can save a few bucks?
Civic duty? I'll gladly do my civic duty of paying taxes to my town. But I'm not going to support businesses with failing business models just because they are in my town. I don't shop in walmart because the shopping experience there is terrible. But I also prefer shopping in bloomingdales to a lot of boutiques, because the shopping experience in the boutiques is also awful, and the prices are crazy high. Also, supporting big box stores in your town means supporting the commercial tax base just like supporting local businesses.
Your various big-box stores. Which as a whole are terrible for small local economies.
So... yay, municipal protectionism unironically? Usually most people realize the absurdity of localism when presented with the point, not bite the bullet with all enthusiasm...
Yeah, I don't understand this either. Why exactly should we be working to protect and support a less efficient business model just because it is "local"?
Is it really more efficient having that money go to pinning the coffers of the 1%?
In a word, yes.
In more words, a better move would be for the Downtown association to encourage people to spend money locally by hosting fairs and mainstreet events, perhaps also getting local businesses to coupons or specials as well.
You need to provide people with a reason to shop with you. If your best argument is "I'm local, not a big box store!" then I don't see any reason why anyone should shop with you. You need to beat them on selection, service, convenience, price or some other meaningful factor.
Big box stores might save you money in the short term, but in the long term they're awful for the economy of that city because they suck away money to corporate HQ and don't produce good jobs. Many small towns in America have been completely gutted by wal mart.
It's like the prisoners dilemma, and shopping at wal mart is defecting.
If they destroy their market, then they will go out of business or change their policies. Either way, if your best sales pitch is a sob story about how your wife and kids will starve, maybe you shouldn't stay in business.
It's kinda weird that you started a thread about how you're suddenly feeling so patriotic about America, but you don't have any sense of civic duty for your city? You'd happily watch the town around you fall apart just so you can save a few bucks?
Civic duty? I'll gladly do my civic duty of paying taxes to my town. But I'm not going to support businesses with failing business models just because they are in my town. I don't shop in walmart because the shopping experience there is terrible. But I also prefer shopping in bloomingdales to a lot of boutiques, because the shopping experience in the boutiques is also awful, and the prices are crazy high. Also, supporting big box stores in your town means supporting the commercial tax base just like supporting local businesses.
Hmm... supporting the town with taxes and government spending rather than free-enterprise... that sounds like socialism to me!
Well you can shop wherever you want of course. But I think shopping at any kind of large chain is a short-term savings that comes at the expense of the long-term welfare of the average person. It basically just creates a race for the bottom where businesses compete only to see who can pay their employees the lowest possible wages. Right now Wal-mart is the worst because they force their employees to depend on food stams and medicaid to live on, which they spend at the same Wal-mart store they work at.
If they destroy their market, then they will go out of business or change their policies. Either way, if your best sales pitch is a sob story about how your wife and kids will starve, maybe you shouldn't stay in business.
Yes. Because the Walmart finally being closed will be so much of a comfort to the no one that still lives in the economic wasteland that it has created. And not that Walmart cares, because they already extracted a profit by destroying the town.
Also, I'm pretty sure these currencies are also a way to get around the lack of available credit. I'm unemployed, and Bob down the street is unemployed, so neither of has $ but if I can get localcurrency for fixing his roof, and give him local currency for fixing my car, we can have a functioning economy again.
That only works of that currency is backed by something, which it wouldn't be because you need USD to trade outside of town. How will the roofer get his supplies from the lumberyard two towns over if all he has are townbucks?
What you're missing is that local currency is not intended to be the sole currency, just a supplement for regular USD. You can take all the regular USD you'd have normally and use them to pay your regular bills, and then just use the local currencies just for what's available in town. By paying for those things with local currency, it saves you USD that you can use for everything else.
So what happens after X months when everyone in the local economy has spent all of their U.S. Treasury-backed currency outside of the locality, and all anyone has left to pay their Federal taxes are Confederate dollars?
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Your various big-box stores. Which as a whole are terrible for small local economies.
So... yay, municipal protectionism unironically? Usually most people realize the absurdity of localism when presented with the point, not bite the bullet with all enthusiasm...
Yeah, I don't understand this either. Why exactly should we be working to protect and support a less efficient business model just because it is "local"?
Is it really more efficient having that money go to pinning the coffers of the 1%?
In a word, yes.
In more words, a better move would be for the Downtown association to encourage people to spend money locally by hosting fairs and mainstreet events, perhaps also getting local businesses to coupons or specials as well.
You need to provide people with a reason to shop with you. If your best argument is "I'm local, not a big box store!" then I don't see any reason why anyone should shop with you. You need to beat them on selection, service, convenience, price or some other meaningful factor.
Big box stores might save you money in the short term, but in the long term they're awful for the economy of that city because they suck away money to corporate HQ and don't produce good jobs. Many small towns in America have been completely gutted by wal mart.
It's like the prisoners dilemma, and shopping at wal mart is defecting.
If they destroy their market, then they will go out of business or change their policies. Either way, if your best sales pitch is a sob story about how your wife and kids will starve, maybe you shouldn't stay in business.
It's kinda weird that you started a thread about how you're suddenly feeling so patriotic about America, but you don't have any sense of civic duty for your city? You'd happily watch the town around you fall apart just so you can save a few bucks?
Civic duty? I'll gladly do my civic duty of paying taxes to my town. But I'm not going to support businesses with failing business models just because they are in my town. I don't shop in walmart because the shopping experience there is terrible. But I also prefer shopping in bloomingdales to a lot of boutiques, because the shopping experience in the boutiques is also awful, and the prices are crazy high. Also, supporting big box stores in your town means supporting the commercial tax base just like supporting local businesses.
Hmm... supporting the town with taxes and government spending rather than free-enterprise... that sounds like socialism to me!
Well you can shop wherever you want of course. But I think shopping at any kind of large chain is a short-term savings that comes at the expense of the long-term welfare of the average person. It basically just creates a race for the bottom where businesses compete only to see who can pay their employees the lowest possible wages. Right now Wal-mart is the worst because they force their employees to depend on food stams and medicaid to live on, which they spend at the same Wal-mart store they work at.
The answer is to provide better service (which you should be able to if you are paying more) or a better product, imo. Warning, annecdote time: I had a neighbor growing up who ran a hardware store. When home depot came into town, everyone got run out of business. My neighbor decided to start selling nothing but sheds instead, and was able to not only stay in business, but thrive, because he had a larger selection, more price points, and better installers. That is how you keep your local business alive.
If they destroy their market, then they will go out of business or change their policies. Either way, if your best sales pitch is a sob story about how your wife and kids will starve, maybe you shouldn't stay in business.
Yes. Because the Walmart finally being closed will be so much of a comfort to the no one that still lives in the economic wasteland that it has created. And not that Walmart cares, because they already extracted a profit by destroying the town.
Also, I'm pretty sure these currencies are also a way to get around the lack of available credit. I'm unemployed, and Bob down the street is unemployed, so neither of has $ but if I can get localcurrency for fixing his roof, and give him local currency for fixing my car, we can have a functioning economy again.
That only works of that currency is backed by something, which it wouldn't be because you need USD to trade outside of town. How will the roofer get his supplies from the lumberyard two towns over if all he has are townbucks?
What you're missing is that local currency is not intended to be the sole currency, just a supplement for regular USD. You can take all the regular USD you'd have normally and use them to pay your regular bills, and then just use the local currencies just for what's available in town. By paying for those things with local currency, it saves you USD that you can use for everything else.
So what happens after X months when everyone in the local economy has spent all of their U.S. Treasury-backed currency outside of the locality, and all anyone has left to pay their Federal taxes are Confederate dollars?
...If you're living in a town that really has no influx of money at all then you're screwed anyway. But in the US every town should at the very least have some sort of minimal income from federal government spending, plus selling gas to travelers and stuff like that.
Your various big-box stores. Which as a whole are terrible for small local economies.
So... yay, municipal protectionism unironically? Usually most people realize the absurdity of localism when presented with the point, not bite the bullet with all enthusiasm...
Yeah, I don't understand this either. Why exactly should we be working to protect and support a less efficient business model just because it is "local"?
Is it really more efficient having that money go to pinning the coffers of the 1%?
In a word, yes.
In more words, a better move would be for the Downtown association to encourage people to spend money locally by hosting fairs and mainstreet events, perhaps also getting local businesses to coupons or specials as well.
You need to provide people with a reason to shop with you. If your best argument is "I'm local, not a big box store!" then I don't see any reason why anyone should shop with you. You need to beat them on selection, service, convenience, price or some other meaningful factor.
Big box stores might save you money in the short term, but in the long term they're awful for the economy of that city because they suck away money to corporate HQ and don't produce good jobs. Many small towns in America have been completely gutted by wal mart.
It's like the prisoners dilemma, and shopping at wal mart is defecting.
If they destroy their market, then they will go out of business or change their policies. Either way, if your best sales pitch is a sob story about how your wife and kids will starve, maybe you shouldn't stay in business.
It's kinda weird that you started a thread about how you're suddenly feeling so patriotic about America, but you don't have any sense of civic duty for your city? You'd happily watch the town around you fall apart just so you can save a few bucks?
Civic duty? I'll gladly do my civic duty of paying taxes to my town. But I'm not going to support businesses with failing business models just because they are in my town. I don't shop in walmart because the shopping experience there is terrible. But I also prefer shopping in bloomingdales to a lot of boutiques, because the shopping experience in the boutiques is also awful, and the prices are crazy high. Also, supporting big box stores in your town means supporting the commercial tax base just like supporting local businesses.
Hmm... supporting the town with taxes and government spending rather than free-enterprise... that sounds like socialism to me!
Well you can shop wherever you want of course. But I think shopping at any kind of large chain is a short-term savings that comes at the expense of the long-term welfare of the average person. It basically just creates a race for the bottom where businesses compete only to see who can pay their employees the lowest possible wages. Right now Wal-mart is the worst because they force their employees to depend on food stams and medicaid to live on, which they spend at the same Wal-mart store they work at.
The answer is to provide better service (which you should be able to if you are paying more) or a better product, imo. Warning, annecdote time: I had a neighbor growing up who ran a hardware store. When home depot came into town, everyone got run out of business. My neighbor decided to start selling nothing but sheds instead, and was able to not only stay in business, but thrive, because he had a larger selection, more price points, and better installers. That is how you keep your local business alive.
That's still only on the level of short-term, libertarian, ruthless capitalist thinking. The idea is to work together as a community so that it doesn't have to be just dog-eat-dog. You can all agree to spend a little extra in the short term for mutual profit in the long term. Extra perks from the local businesses can be nice but they shouldn't be necessary, if you can get enough people to understand the situation.
If they destroy their market, then they will go out of business or change their policies. Either way, if your best sales pitch is a sob story about how your wife and kids will starve, maybe you shouldn't stay in business.
Yes. Because the Walmart finally being closed will be so much of a comfort to the no one that still lives in the economic wasteland that it has created. And not that Walmart cares, because they already extracted a profit by destroying the town.
Also, I'm pretty sure these currencies are also a way to get around the lack of available credit. I'm unemployed, and Bob down the street is unemployed, so neither of has $ but if I can get localcurrency for fixing his roof, and give him local currency for fixing my car, we can have a functioning economy again.
That only works of that currency is backed by something, which it wouldn't be because you need USD to trade outside of town. How will the roofer get his supplies from the lumberyard two towns over if all he has are townbucks?
What you're missing is that local currency is not intended to be the sole currency, just a supplement for regular USD. You can take all the regular USD you'd have normally and use them to pay your regular bills, and then just use the local currencies just for what's available in town. By paying for those things with local currency, it saves you USD that you can use for everything else.
So what happens after X months when everyone in the local economy has spent all of their U.S. Treasury-backed currency outside of the locality, and all anyone has left to pay their Federal taxes are Confederate dollars?
...If you're living in a town that really has no influx of money at all then you're screwed anyway. But in the US every town should at the very least have some sort of minimal income from federal government spending, plus selling gas to travelers and stuff like that.
See, I'm not really picturing an out-of-market consumer choosing to spend money in one local market where he has to worry about currency exchange rates or potentially receiving change in a currency he can't spend back in his home market when he could instead conduct his purchasing in a neighboring municipality where he does't have to worry about that.
0
Options
Tiger BurningDig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tuberegular
edited February 2012
I'm not sure that the math works out, though. If the incentive is that paying with Funbucks! saves you 5%, and that's enough to get people to buy from local merchants, then couldn't the local merchants accomplish the same thing by just cutting their prices by 5%?
I'm not sure that the math works out, though. If the incentive is that paying with Funbucks! saves you 5%, and that's enough to get people to buy from local merchants, then couldn't the local merchants accomplish the same thing by just cutting their prices by 5%?
Especially since the local merchants are, themselves, losing 5% of the value of the currency in their pocket everytime they walk into a bank and ask them to exchange a fistful of Monopoly Money into something they can pay their power bill with. And that's before anyone figures in the cost of the time you're forced to spend trying to move wealth between currencies.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
On a side note, it's agribusiness. Aggrobusiness is what tanks do in World of Warcraft.
And everyone knows it doesn't do any good to have an overpopulation of tanks in one area
0
Options
Tiger BurningDig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tuberegular
edited February 2012
The barter currency thing works in some cases, I think. Cooperatives of various kinds use that model. The limitation is that you need a critical mass of people participating who are offering wide range of valuable services which they are nevertheless not able to find a buyer for in the real money economy. I guess it would work better in places that are especially depressed, economically.
The notion that we are morally obliged to assign a premium to local businesses actually seems slightly separate topic from the notion of non-legal-tender quasi-currency floating about.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Your various big-box stores. Which as a whole are terrible for small local economies.
So... yay, municipal protectionism unironically? Usually most people realize the absurdity of localism when presented with the point, not bite the bullet with all enthusiasm...
Yeah, I don't understand this either. Why exactly should we be working to protect and support a less efficient business model just because it is "local"?
Is it really more efficient having that money go to pinning the coffers of the 1%?
In a word, yes.
In more words, a better move would be for the Downtown association to encourage people to spend money locally by hosting fairs and mainstreet events, perhaps also getting local businesses to coupons or specials as well.
You need to provide people with a reason to shop with you. If your best argument is "I'm local, not a big box store!" then I don't see any reason why anyone should shop with you. You need to beat them on selection, service, convenience, price or some other meaningful factor.
Big box stores might save you money in the short term, but in the long term they're awful for the economy of that city because they suck away money to corporate HQ and don't produce good jobs. Many small towns in America have been completely gutted by wal mart.
It's like the prisoners dilemma, and shopping at wal mart is defecting.
If they destroy their market, then they will go out of business or change their policies. Either way, if your best sales pitch is a sob story about how your wife and kids will starve, maybe you shouldn't stay in business.
It's kinda weird that you started a thread about how you're suddenly feeling so patriotic about America, but you don't have any sense of civic duty for your city? You'd happily watch the town around you fall apart just so you can save a few bucks?
Civic duty? I'll gladly do my civic duty of paying taxes to my town. But I'm not going to support businesses with failing business models just because they are in my town. I don't shop in walmart because the shopping experience there is terrible. But I also prefer shopping in bloomingdales to a lot of boutiques, because the shopping experience in the boutiques is also awful, and the prices are crazy high. Also, supporting big box stores in your town means supporting the commercial tax base just like supporting local businesses.
Hmm... supporting the town with taxes and government spending rather than free-enterprise... that sounds like socialism to me!
Well you can shop wherever you want of course. But I think shopping at any kind of large chain is a short-term savings that comes at the expense of the long-term welfare of the average person. It basically just creates a race for the bottom where businesses compete only to see who can pay their employees the lowest possible wages. Right now Wal-mart is the worst because they force their employees to depend on food stams and medicaid to live on, which they spend at the same Wal-mart store they work at.
The answer is to provide better service (which you should be able to if you are paying more) or a better product, imo. Warning, annecdote time: I had a neighbor growing up who ran a hardware store. When home depot came into town, everyone got run out of business. My neighbor decided to start selling nothing but sheds instead, and was able to not only stay in business, but thrive, because he had a larger selection, more price points, and better installers. That is how you keep your local business alive.
That's still only on the level of short-term, libertarian, ruthless capitalist thinking. The idea is to work together as a community so that it doesn't have to be just dog-eat-dog. You can all agree to spend a little extra in the short term for mutual profit in the long term. Extra perks from the local businesses can be nice but they shouldn't be necessary, if you can get enough people to understand the situation.
And the situation is what, exactly? You have two stores selling identical products, and one store sells them for more money, but you should support them anyway because they're local? How is this any less socialist than taxing me and giving the money to the store owner, or having the town take over the store, pay the former owner wages to run it, and make sure it stays open no matter what?
It's not less capitalist to spend your own money on some perceived local cause, fwiw. But it is fair to acknowledge that this doesn't make people better off in the aggregate and it is only very weakly capable of making people in your local area better off (insofar as you are able to spend without simply displacing someone else from said local business).
The "#!!!!#@ the rich, so I'm going to take it out on foreigners" attitude is always a bizarre one, to me. We always knew it was possible to persuade even the most passionate labour movement to tear itself apart for nationalist reasons - see Europe circa World War I - but it seems oddly easy to provoke this for fairly trivial stakes.
It's not less capitalist to spend your own money on some perceived local cause, fwiw.
This is absolutely true. Wholesalers and retailers set prices, but it's up to each individual consumer to decide what he assigns value to in a free market.
It's not less capitalist to spend your own money on some perceived local cause, fwiw. But it is fair to acknowledge that this doesn't make people better off in the aggregate and it is only very weakly capable of making people in your local area better off (insofar as you are able to spend without simply displacing someone else from said local business).
The "#!!!!#@ the rich, so I'm going to take it out on foreigners" attitude is always a bizarre one, to me. We always knew it was possible to persuade even the most passionate labour movement to tear itself apart for nationalist reasons - see Europe circa World War I - but it seems oddly easy to provoke this for fairly trivial stakes.
I disagree that it doesn't make people better off.
First of all there's a real sense of alienation in working for a giant corporate chain that you have no control over, as opposed to a small business that you own yourself or where you're friends with the owner. It might not show up in GDP or economics models but it is real nonetheless.
Also, I maintain that even in strict GDP terms we're better off with small businesses rather than corporate chains (and big box stores in particular). Say you have a town where everyone works in local small businesses for $12 an hour plus health insurance. Wal Mart builds a store there, paying $8 an hour no benefits, but sells everything the small businesses did for 20% less. The townspeople all rush to shop at Wal-Mart because, hey, 20% savings! As a result, all the small businesses go bankrupt, and everyone is forced to work and do all their shopping at Wal Mart, which expands its businesses. The townspeople have thus taken a 33% cut in wages in order to get a 20% cut in prices. Plus they lost their health insurance and will have to depend on Medicaid instead.
You might argue that Wal Mart will then take the extra profit and spend it somewhere else, thus making some other town richer. That might if the economy is booming. But right now, there's not enough places to invest so big businesses just don't have anything to do with their cash. They're buying back stock, paying high dividends, or just letting it sit in bank accounts. All of which benefits noone but the rich.
I think it came up in the economics thread recently, but things which benefit the rich do form part of GDP. As regrettably as one might regard that to be the case, GDP is a fairly mechanical measure of things.
Be careful of waving short-run logic around ("right now"...?), too...
I've never understood the 'buy local' argument because it ignores the simple fact that you can't grow/make everything locally nor can you count all the turtles to the bottom of the universe. I very much enjoy both coffee and tea. They do not grow in temperate climates. Are you suggesting that I never drink another cup? Clearly that isn't the case. Instead you are suggesting that I buy from Cafe con Leche rather than Starbucks. However, where does Cafe con Leche get their tasty beans? Should I favour Starbucks if it turns out that their supplier engages in unfair trade practices? What about the impact that Starbuck's practices have on local economic conditions by driving up rent in the area due to an influx of new workers? And so forth and so on.
This whole stream of thought also seems to draw strength from the inherent dislike of cookie cutter development. But the thing about cookie cutters is that they're how we get lots of cookies. Personally I want ambiance and a diversity of offerings. These things cost a premium and I'm willing to pay for them, up to a point. If Monopoly Money helps you drive the price point down so that it's within my budget then great. But why didn't you just have a sale/holiday/rewards card instead? At least that way I can still use the contents of my wallet.
I think it came up in the economics thread recently, but things which benefit the rich do form part of GDP. As regrettably as one might regard that to be the case, GDP is a fairly mechanical measure of things.
Be careful of waving short-run logic around ("right now"...?), too...
It's not that I'm opposed to benefiting the rich, but I'm opposed to giving money to people who will simply stick it in a bank account and forget about it when extra currency would help so many people right now. And I don't see what's wrong with focusing on the immediate problems first and worrying about the long run later (when we're all dead and so forth).
I think it is fair for me to ask that you acknowledge that it is, in fact, a strict improvement in real GDP terms, for the same reason a new technology that causes people invested in the incumbent to take a 50% wage cut for a 20% decline in prices would nonetheless create an improvement in real GDP in the aggregate.
This strays off-topic a little, but I should ask: how much money do you think should be stuffed in bank accounts, as a long-run sort of optimum? Taking it for granted that, indeed, 'right now' it would be nice to have less of such money?
I think it came up in the economics thread recently, but things which benefit the rich do form part of GDP. As regrettably as one might regard that to be the case, GDP is a fairly mechanical measure of things.
Be careful of waving short-run logic around ("right now"...?), too...
It's not that I'm opposed to benefiting the rich, but I'm opposed to giving money to people who will simply stick it in a bank account and forget about it when extra currency would help so many people right now. And I don't see what's wrong with focusing on the immediate problems first and worrying about the long run later (when we're all dead and so forth).
Posts
You need to provide people with a reason to shop with you. If your best argument is "I'm local, not a big box store!" then I don't see any reason why anyone should shop with you. You need to beat them on selection, service, convenience, price or some other meaningful factor.
It's like the prisoners dilemma, and shopping at wal mart is defecting.
If they destroy their market, then they will go out of business or change their policies. Either way, if your best sales pitch is a sob story about how your wife and kids will starve, maybe you shouldn't stay in business.
Take a trip to the south, Spaceman. Walmart moves in, shuts down the competition, and then everyone's working at Walmart (I say walmart, but really it's a split between all the big boxes).
They don't need to change their policies because "Hey I need X, well Walmart's the only place to get it".
Also, who is anyone's argument for making money anything but "I don't want to starve to death" when you boil it down?
That's your reason to work, not your reason people should transact with you. That's the difference.
Yes. Because the Walmart finally being closed will be so much of a comfort to the no one that still lives in the economic wasteland that it has created. And not that Walmart cares, because they already extracted a profit by destroying the town.
Also, I'm pretty sure these currencies are also a way to get around the lack of available credit. I'm unemployed, and Bob down the street is unemployed, so neither of has $ but if I can get localcurrency for fixing his roof, and give him local currency for fixing my car, we can have a functioning economy again.
That only works of that currency is backed by something, which it wouldn't be because you need USD to trade outside of town. How will the roofer get his supplies from the lumberyard two towns over if all he has are townbucks?
You sound like the Lorax. If the economy destroys small towns and concentrates people more densely, I'm not sure that I see why that is a problem. Aggrobusiness is supplying all out food, so we don't really need people in sparsely populated areas.
People don't all want to live in suburban and urban squalor? And where do you think agro businesses are located
Aggrobusiness has decreased our need to have people in rural areas. All we need is enough people there to run those farms. If choosing to live in a rural area becomes an economically infeasible lifestyle, we should we distort the market to reverse that trend?
Civic duty? I'll gladly do my civic duty of paying taxes to my town. But I'm not going to support businesses with failing business models just because they are in my town. I don't shop in walmart because the shopping experience there is terrible. But I also prefer shopping in bloomingdales to a lot of boutiques, because the shopping experience in the boutiques is also awful, and the prices are crazy high. Also, supporting big box stores in your town means supporting the commercial tax base just like supporting local businesses.
Well you can shop wherever you want of course. But I think shopping at any kind of large chain is a short-term savings that comes at the expense of the long-term welfare of the average person. It basically just creates a race for the bottom where businesses compete only to see who can pay their employees the lowest possible wages. Right now Wal-mart is the worst because they force their employees to depend on food stams and medicaid to live on, which they spend at the same Wal-mart store they work at.
So what happens after X months when everyone in the local economy has spent all of their U.S. Treasury-backed currency outside of the locality, and all anyone has left to pay their Federal taxes are Confederate dollars?
The answer is to provide better service (which you should be able to if you are paying more) or a better product, imo. Warning, annecdote time: I had a neighbor growing up who ran a hardware store. When home depot came into town, everyone got run out of business. My neighbor decided to start selling nothing but sheds instead, and was able to not only stay in business, but thrive, because he had a larger selection, more price points, and better installers. That is how you keep your local business alive.
That's still only on the level of short-term, libertarian, ruthless capitalist thinking. The idea is to work together as a community so that it doesn't have to be just dog-eat-dog. You can all agree to spend a little extra in the short term for mutual profit in the long term. Extra perks from the local businesses can be nice but they shouldn't be necessary, if you can get enough people to understand the situation.
See, I'm not really picturing an out-of-market consumer choosing to spend money in one local market where he has to worry about currency exchange rates or potentially receiving change in a currency he can't spend back in his home market when he could instead conduct his purchasing in a neighboring municipality where he does't have to worry about that.
Especially since the local merchants are, themselves, losing 5% of the value of the currency in their pocket everytime they walk into a bank and ask them to exchange a fistful of Monopoly Money into something they can pay their power bill with. And that's before anyone figures in the cost of the time you're forced to spend trying to move wealth between currencies.
And everyone knows it doesn't do any good to have an overpopulation of tanks in one area
And the situation is what, exactly? You have two stores selling identical products, and one store sells them for more money, but you should support them anyway because they're local? How is this any less socialist than taxing me and giving the money to the store owner, or having the town take over the store, pay the former owner wages to run it, and make sure it stays open no matter what?
It's not less capitalist to spend your own money on some perceived local cause, fwiw. But it is fair to acknowledge that this doesn't make people better off in the aggregate and it is only very weakly capable of making people in your local area better off (insofar as you are able to spend without simply displacing someone else from said local business).
The "#!!!!#@ the rich, so I'm going to take it out on foreigners" attitude is always a bizarre one, to me. We always knew it was possible to persuade even the most passionate labour movement to tear itself apart for nationalist reasons - see Europe circa World War I - but it seems oddly easy to provoke this for fairly trivial stakes.
This is absolutely true. Wholesalers and retailers set prices, but it's up to each individual consumer to decide what he assigns value to in a free market.
First of all there's a real sense of alienation in working for a giant corporate chain that you have no control over, as opposed to a small business that you own yourself or where you're friends with the owner. It might not show up in GDP or economics models but it is real nonetheless.
Also, I maintain that even in strict GDP terms we're better off with small businesses rather than corporate chains (and big box stores in particular). Say you have a town where everyone works in local small businesses for $12 an hour plus health insurance. Wal Mart builds a store there, paying $8 an hour no benefits, but sells everything the small businesses did for 20% less. The townspeople all rush to shop at Wal-Mart because, hey, 20% savings! As a result, all the small businesses go bankrupt, and everyone is forced to work and do all their shopping at Wal Mart, which expands its businesses. The townspeople have thus taken a 33% cut in wages in order to get a 20% cut in prices. Plus they lost their health insurance and will have to depend on Medicaid instead.
You might argue that Wal Mart will then take the extra profit and spend it somewhere else, thus making some other town richer. That might if the economy is booming. But right now, there's not enough places to invest so big businesses just don't have anything to do with their cash. They're buying back stock, paying high dividends, or just letting it sit in bank accounts. All of which benefits noone but the rich.
edited for math.
Be careful of waving short-run logic around ("right now"...?), too...
This whole stream of thought also seems to draw strength from the inherent dislike of cookie cutter development. But the thing about cookie cutters is that they're how we get lots of cookies. Personally I want ambiance and a diversity of offerings. These things cost a premium and I'm willing to pay for them, up to a point. If Monopoly Money helps you drive the price point down so that it's within my budget then great. But why didn't you just have a sale/holiday/rewards card instead? At least that way I can still use the contents of my wallet.
This strays off-topic a little, but I should ask: how much money do you think should be stuffed in bank accounts, as a long-run sort of optimum? Taking it for granted that, indeed, 'right now' it would be nice to have less of such money?
That's not how bank accounts work.