Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (22498)	8/28/2006 11:58:26 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Economic Simplemindedness Of The Wal-Mart War By Captain Ed on National Politics Captain's Quarters The war Democrats have declared on Wal-Mart on behalf of the poor will make that constituency worse off, Sebastion Mallaby concludes in his Washington Post column today. Not only does the cost savings at Wal-Mart and other big-box discounters allow poor families to save 25% on their food bills, it provides a better economic safety net than food stamps: <<< Hillary Clinton and Sen. John Kerry have attacked Wal-Mart for offering health coverage to too few workers. But Kerry's former economic adviser, Jason Furman of New York University, concluded in a paper last year that Wal-Mart's health benefits are about as generous as those of comparable employers. Moreover, Clinton and Kerry know perfectly well that market pressures limit the health coverage that companies can provide. After all, both senators have proposed expansions in government health provision precisely on the premise that the private sector can't pay for all of it. The truth is that none of these Democrats can resist dumb economic populism. Even though we are not in a recession, and even though the presidential primaries are more than a year away, the DLC crowd is pandering shamelessly to the left of the party -- perhaps in the knowledge that the grocery workers union, which launched the anti-Wal-Mart campaign, is strong in the key state of Iowa. For a party that needs the votes of Wal-Mart's customers, this is a questionable strategy. But there is more than politics at stake. According to a paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research by Jerry Hausman and Ephraim Leibtag, neither of whom received funding from Wal-Mart, big-box stores led by Wal-Mart reduce families' food bills by one-fourth. Because Wal-Mart's price-cutting also has a big impact on the non-food stuff it peddles, it saves U.S. consumers upward of $200 billion a year, making it a larger booster of family welfare than the federal government's $33 billion food-stamp program. >>> Mallaby bashes Democrats for surrendering to their economically-statist Left in their mid-term campaign to demonize Wal-Mart. I noted this new offensive from the party two weeks ago, and Mallaby confirms that the entire party has fallen in line. The Democratic Leadership Council, a normally centrist caucus, has its last three chairmen all taking part in anti-Wal-Mart demonstrations this season. Tom Vilsack, the Iowa governor with rumored presidential aspirations and the current DLC leader, made sure to get in front of this war to mollify the union bosses. And this is, of course, why the Democrats have adopted this mantle. They need to shore up their union support, and Wal-Mart is the bete noir of organized labor. They have had no success in penetrating Wal-Mart's labor force, and that failure has cut into their revenue -- revenue that unions can put to political uses. Since the Democrats overwhelmingly benefit from those political uses, the Democrats have decided to attack Wal-Mart to the point where the unions can gain a foothold with the retailer's employees. Democrats argue that Wal-Mart pays below-market compensation to its employees, a ludicrous argument in a free market. As Mallaby notes, Wal-Mart would have no employees if it paid below the market rate. Their average compensation matches what retailers pay their employees, at least non-union retailers. John Kerry's own economic advisor concluded that their benefits package matches that of other employers in their class. If it didn't, the better workers would gravitate towards the better-compensated jobs, leaving Wal-Mart understaffed. The Democratic cure would damage the very people that the party claims to champion. None of these economic thinkers such as Kerry, Vilsack, Clinton, or Bayh include what will happen to prices at Wal-Mart if they had to suddenly raised compensation above market levels. It would force other retailers to raise compensation, of course, but it would also force all of them to raise prices to cover for the extra expense -- or to lay off a compensatory amount of the workforce to keep internal costs stable. Low-income workers would find their buying power diminished and they would face more competition for employment from the former workers of Wal-Mart. Anyone who actually runs a business and has responsibility for a profit-and-loss statement understands the impact of the Democratic anti-business crusade. Of course, that doesn't include Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Howard Dean, and the rest of the hysterics screeching about the evils of a free market. captainsquartersblog.com washingtonpost.com captainsquartersblog.com

To: Sully- who wrote (22498)	9/6/2006 7:15:49 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

A Political Problem in Aisle 5 By Nathan Tabor Townhall.com Columnist Monday, September 4, 2006 As anyone who lives in the ‘burbs knows, the all-American pastime on Saturdays isn’t necessarily a trip to the baseball diamond. For many of us, it’s a trip to the local Wal-Mart. This is particularly true as the back-to-school season is in full swing. So, it’s a little bit disconcerting to know that, as families across the U.S. are loading up their shopping carts, the elite in the Democratic Party are scowling. While many of us are concerned about al Quaida, a number of Dems have identified Wal-Mart as public enemy number one this political season. As far as I know, the CEO of Wal-Mart isn’t running for President, but don’t tell that to Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. of Delaware, a presumed Presidential contender. In Iowa recently, Biden delivered what the New York Times described as a “blistering attack” against Wal-Mart. In addition to serving America’s need for clothes, toothbrushes, and other luxuries, Wal-Mart happens to be the nation’s biggest private employer. In other words, the company now has more than a million people on its work force. This is a business that is giving jobs to folks—but, according to the bizarre calculations of Democratic leaders, Wal-Mart is bad news for the economy. Senator Biden suggests that Wal-Mart doesn’t care about “the fate of middle-class people.” But Wal-Mart does business with middle-class people everyday. I don’t know how often the Washington elite shop at Wal-Mart, but the average-income families that I know shop there all the time, because that’s where they can get the best deals for their dollars. Granted, chances are you won’t earn a six-figure salary at Wal-Mart. But you can earn a paycheck. And you can gain the type of experience that will help you apply for jobs in the future which require more responsibility and will earn you more money. That is, after all, the American way—to start out on the first floor of business and work your way up to the boardroom. And, speaking of boardrooms, isn’t it curious that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was a member of Wal-Mart’s board, returned a campaign contribution from the company to protest Wal-Mart’s health benefits? That, apparently, was the start of the unofficial Democratic campaign against the company. Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana has claimed that the anti-Wal-Mart effort is not anti-business. But, when you attack one of the nation’s biggest businesses, it stands to reason that people are really going to wonder whether you have the best interests of business at heart. No one can be in favor of corporate corruption…bad management decisions…and mistreatment of employees. But the fact is that, without business, many of us would not have jobs. Of course, that concept is mystifying to career politicians who do not have to meet a weekly payroll or deal with constant competition. Their jobs may be safe—but the average taxpayer’s job isn’t. I may not agree with every corporate decision made at Wal-Mart headquarters, but there can be little argument that the company is a business success story. If it were not so successful, it wouldn’t be under attack. In fact, a national poll showed that Americans generally support Wal-Mart—an attitude which seems to be borne out in the company’s sales. The company posted an $11 billion profit last year. In a letter written to Iowa Wal-Mart workers, company officials said they “would never suggest to you how to vote, but we have an obligation to tell you when politicians are saying something about your company that isn’t true. After all, you are Wal-Mart.” And a lot of us are Wal-Mart shoppers—whether we want to admit it or not. townhall.com

To: Sully- who wrote (22498)	9/25/2006 10:04:47 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Liberals' views of markets are a funny thing. When Wal-Mart's aggressive tactics put the squeeze on toy or underwear makers or "mom and pop" stores, we're told the company is destroying the middle class and the American way of life. Yet when it's making meds affordable to the poor and uninsured, the company's seen as doing a selfless public service. THE DEVIL'S RX CHEAP MEDICINES- FROM WAL-MART Ryan Sager NEW YORK POST Opinion September 25, 2006 ON everything from cheap socks to cheap DVDs to cheap groceries, Wal-Mart's left-wing critics have long charged that "Always Low Prices" for consumers invariably means "Always Low Wages" and "Always Poor Health Benefits" for workers. But now that Wal-Mart is offering a month's supply of some 300 generic drugs for $4 a pop to the general public, it's time to look at the reality: Capitalism works. Competition works. Wal-Mart is good for America. The plan Wal-Mart rolled out on Thursday - initially limited to Tampa Bay, Fla. - is set to be expanded to all of Florida by January. After that, to "as many states as possible" by the end of 2007. The program covers 291 generic drugs, for conditions such as allergies, cholesterol, high blood pressure and diabetes. The $4 price is available to the insured and the uninsured alike - but people have to pick up their drugs in the store. How significant are the savings? Well, generic drugs typically sell for an average of $10 to $30 for a 30-day supply. And, while overall U.S. health-care costs exploded at 9.6 percent a year from 2000 to 2004, prescription-drug costs rose even faster - at 11.4 percent a year. The only thing even taking the edge off rising drug prices has been an increase in the use of generics. With generics only accounting for roughly 10 percent of prescription-drug sales last year, however, there's still room for people to drop their brand-name drugs and save a ton of money. On the surface, Wal-Mart's new $4-drug plan looks like an extension of its usual, "evil" tactics to a new sector of the economy - this time, one that folks on the Left are happy to see get whacked: drug companies. In fact, Wal-Mart opponents have even applauded the retail giant. The union-backed WakeUpWalMart.com immediately put out a statement grudgingly acknowledging that "lowering prescription-drug costs is a good thing." (Adding, of course, that it still hates Wal-Mart.) But the real story here is even more basic. Wal-Mart's new, lower generic-drug prices are being credited widely in the press to its much-heralded market power (a nod from Wal-Mart has been known to make a flabby, inefficient supplier either slim down or drop dead on the spot from sheer terror). They're also being credited to Wal-Mart's super-streamlined distribution network (its level of automation makes the Jetsons look like the Flintstones). In fact, neither factor has been ratcheted up significantly for the current program, according to a Wal-Mart insider. Instead, the company has simply decided to cut its profit margin on generic drugs for three basic reasons: 1) to get more people into the stores, 2) to get the people who already shop there to stop by more often, and 3) to get an advantage over its competitors, such as Walgreen, CVS and Target. In fact, hours after Wal-Mart made its announcement, Target declared that it would match Wal-Mart's program in the markets where Wal-Mart rolled it out. Shares of Walgreen Co. and CVS, meanwhile, immediately dipped 7 percent and 8 percent, respectively. (Wal-Mart's fourth reason for cutting drug prices - good publicity for a company embattled by unions attacking its health-care policies - is also not inconsiderable.) Liberals' views of markets are a funny thing. When Wal-Mart's aggressive tactics put the squeeze on toy or underwear makers or "mom and pop" stores, we're told the company is destroying the middle class and the American way of life. Yet when it's making meds affordable to the poor and uninsured, the company's seen as doing a selfless public service. In truth, Wal-Mart isn't doing a public service in either case - it's acting as any capitalist corporation should, trying to maximize its profits. And in both cases, it's offering a benefit to the public in terms of low prices. That's what the free market is. That's what the free market does. What's left for the Left to explain now is why low-income shoppers in big cities (like, say, New York City) aren't going to be able to take advantage of these $4 generic drugs. The only apparent reason is that the union-owned politicians are committed - so long as the union muscle and money keep coming - to higher prices. Always. Ryan Sager is author of "The Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians, and the Battle to Control the Republican Party," just out this month. nypost.com