Frontline: Is Wal-Mart Good for America?

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
He signed the most moderate one he got, but i still think he made a mistake in signing ANY of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, big mistake. America would be much better off if a large portion of Wal-Mart's employees were still on welfare.

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
He signed the most moderate one he got, but i still think he made a mistake in signing ANY of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, big mistake. America would be much better off if a large portion of Wal-Mart's employees were still on welfare.

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Energy isn't just another comodity, it's the basis for all other comodities. Capitalism didn't deal with the shrininking railroad industry by doing less transportation, it did it by switching to a new way of transportation. You can't switch to something else when it comes to energy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not? Energy takes all kinds of forms, many of which I'm sure we haven't even thought of yet (imagine someone telling you about electricity in the middle ages). If capitalism has proven anything it's adaptability...something centrally planned economic systems have yet to do.

[ QUOTE ]
2) The capitalist economy relies on growth. If the economy doesn't grow it will eventually implode. If you don't understand this you need to do more reading on the subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee, guess I'm too stupid to have thought of that... duh.

[ QUOTE ]
How we are to keep the economy growing while using less and less energy I have absolutely no idea, my guess would be that we can't. Thus we have to find a new economic model.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where the hell did you get the idea that we're using less energy?? That's the most absurd assumption I've heard all day. American jobs in the energy sector might be shrinking (I'd have to research it to be sure), but even that is no more a sign of alarm than when we were losing jobs in the railroads.

Industries dry up when there is no more need for them. If energy is really "the basis for all other commodities," the need won't go away.

What this has to do with Wal-Mart, I have no idea...

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
Why not? Energy takes all kinds of forms, many of which I'm sure we haven't even thought of yet

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes it does. And how many of these forms are usable to us, now, or in 30 years? On the scale that we use fossil fuels today. None.

[ QUOTE ]
If capitalism has proven anything it's adaptability...something centrally planned economic systems have yet to do.

[/ QUOTE ]
First of all, I'm not arguing for a centrally planned economic system, I'm just arguing the problems with capitalism.
Capitalism has proven is adaptability when there is an abundance of resources, not when there isn't.

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
2) The capitalist economy relies on growth. If the economy doesn't grow it will eventually implode. If you don't understand this you need to do more reading on the subject.

Gee, guess I'm too stupid to have thought of that... duh.

[/ QUOTE ]
Many people havn't really undestood that. I did not mean to offend you, sorry.

[ QUOTE ]
Where the hell did you get the idea that we're using less energy?? That's the most absurd assumption I've heard all day. American jobs in the energy sector might be shrinking (I'd have to research it to be sure), but even that is no more a sign of alarm than when we were losing jobs in the railroads.

[/ QUOTE ]
We are not using less energy today. But we will have to adapt to using less energy unless we find a new abundant source of energy to take up the slack when oil depletion kicks in and the total amount of oil produced in the world starts to shrink. Something that will happen, some argue in 30 years (USGS, but they make up numbes, by their own acount) some say withing 10 years (geologists).

[ QUOTE ]
Industries dry up when there is no more need for them. If energy is really "the basis for all other commodities," the need won't go away.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is exactly the problem. The need will not go away, but the means will. It doesn't matter how much energy you want to use if you are not able to produce it.

[ QUOTE ]
What this has to do with Wal-Mart, I have no idea...

[/ QUOTE ]
My understanding is that Walmart base its concept on cheap energy, ie. it sells almost entirely imported goods.

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, I'm not arguing for a centrally planned economic system, I'm just arguing the problems with capitalism. Capitalism has proven is adaptability when there is an abundance of resources, not when there isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the contrary, capitalism is the only economic system that effectively deals with the problems of scarcity.

[ QUOTE ]
We are not using less energy today. But we will have to adapt to using less energy unless we find a new abundant source of energy to take up the slack when oil depletion kicks in and the total amount of oil produced in the world starts to shrink. Something that will happen, some argue in 30 years (USGS, but they make up numbes, by their own acount) some say withing 10 years (geologists).

[/ QUOTE ]

There are plenty of other sources of energy that we will be able to tap. Who knows what they might be--solar panels, hydrogen cells, cow farts... doesn't matter. At the moment, we've got all the oil me need (there was even news today about OPEC fearing an oversupply). As long as there is no real incentive to invest in tapping these other energy sources, we won't see them in the market. When oil starts getting scarce (10 years? 30 years? 200 years?) then the market will respond by investing in the next logical source.

[ QUOTE ]
That is exactly the problem. The need will not go away, but the means will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ye of little faith.

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter how much energy you want to use if you are not able to produce it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a matter of producing it. Energy is all around us. It keeps the gears of the universe turning. All the energy needed to exist until the end of time is out there. It's just a matter of harnessing it and putting it to use.

[ QUOTE ]
My understanding is that Walmart base its concept on cheap energy, ie. it sells almost entirely imported goods.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think cheap labor is more of a factor than cheap energy.

[MrSoul]

[ QUOTE ]
See, I just can't wrap my head around the idea of Wal-Mart employees unionizing. Isn't the idea of a union that its members should be hard to replace? Hell, I could be a perfectly competent Wal-Mart employee with 5 hours of training, tops.

On a recent trip back to my home state of Pennsylvania, I found out that the workers at toll booths along the PA turnpike are striking, and have recently turned down a package that included $21 an hour and generous benefits. My first thought was, "Jesus, these people make more than minimum wage?"

Economically, I'm a pretty conservative guy, but I'm still not going to unilaterally denounce the role of all unions in our country. Still, I think any reasonable American can see that, propped up by government regulations, unionization has gone too far.

[/ QUOTE ]

You make some good points. The truth is unions couldn't exist in a purely competitive market, so they rely on the government to set pro-labor, pro-union laws

[MrSoul]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes it does. And how many of these forms are usable to us, now, or in 30 years? On the scale that we use fossil fuels today. None.

[/ QUOTE ]

The majority of our energy comes from oil because it's the cheapest resource.

[ QUOTE ]
Capitalism has proven is adaptability when there is an abundance of resources, not when there isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just flat out wrong. Capitalism relies on prices to dictate where resources are allocated. Whether or not a resource is abundant is irrelevant.

[ QUOTE ]
We are not using less energy today. But we will have to adapt to using less energy unless we find a new abundant source of energy to take up the slack when oil depletion kicks in and the total amount of oil produced in the world starts to shrink. Something that will happen, some argue in 30 years (USGS, but they make up numbes, by their own acount) some say withing 10 years (geologists).

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the opposite is true. Depleting known oil reserves will raise the price of oil. Rising oil prices will make it profitable for investors to drill for more oil. The truth is we won't run out of oil any time soon. I also predict that the real price of oil will not grow to obscene levels over the next few decades like experts are predicting. When geologists and environmentalists claim that we only have enough oil to last another 10-30 years, they're talking about known reserves of oil. That is much different than the notion that there will physically be no oil left in the ground.

So, why don't we discover all the oil in the world so we know how much is left? Because it doesn't pay to discover all the oil left on the planet.

[lastchance]

What came first, unions or pro-union laws? Why would workers not band together to demand more out of their employers?

The only thing a company is afraid of from the workers is a shortage of workers. You can only create this through cooperation with other workers.

[MrSoul]

[ QUOTE ]
What came first, unions or pro-union laws? Why would workers not band together to demand more out of their employers?

The only thing a company is afraid of from the workers is a shortage of workers. You can only create this through cooperation with other workers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you understand basic economics. Employers deal with labor shortages by raising the wage level. This has occurred for centuries all over the world before labor was organized by unions.

[Il_Mostro]

I was planning to let my hijacking of thread stop, but I see I will have to make a couple more posts...

[ QUOTE ]
The majority of our energy comes from oil because it's the cheapest resource.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well. Yes. But also because oil is the only energy source known to man (and explotable at a fast enough rate) that can produce enough energy to meet current demands. If you want to refute that, please include references to what other source can take up the slack. I have posted plenty of links showing that there is none.

[ QUOTE ]
This is just flat out wrong. Capitalism relies on prices to dictate where resources are allocated. Whether or not a resource is abundant is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]
I should have worded it differently. What I meant to say is that

Capitalism has proven is adaptability when there is an abundance of energy, not when there isn't.
If you have any contrary examples, please post references.

[ QUOTE ]
Rising oil prices will make it profitable for investors to drill for more oil.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, i guess that is why:
[ QUOTE ]
The world's biggest oil companies are failing to get value for money when they explore for new reserves, according to research by Wood Mackenzie, the energy consultant.

The report shows the commercial value of oil and gas discovered over the past three years by the 10 largest listed energy groups is running well below the amount they have spent on exploration.

[/ QUOTE ] energy bulletin

[ QUOTE ]
The truth is we won't run out of oil any time soon.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not arguing that we will. I am arguing that when oil depletion sets in, that is, when the production of oil starts shrinking from year to year, and we don't have anything to take up the slack (such as it is today, for example) we are in for rough times, possibly seeing the end of western civilization.

[ QUOTE ]
When geologists and environmentalists claim that we only have enough oil to last another 10-30 years, they're talking about known reserves of oil. That is much different than the notion that there will physically be no oil left in the ground.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. And you sugests we just close our eyes and say that they are wrong? What other data do we have to rely on? Modern oil exploration is very sofisticated, most petro-engineers that I've read of very much doubt that there is any more big fields to be found. You do know that the peak in oil finding was in the 60:s, right? And that today we find about 1 barell of oil for each 4-6 we consume?

[ QUOTE ]
So, why don't we discover all the oil in the world so we know how much is left? Because it doesn't pay to discover all the oil left on the planet.

[/ QUOTE ]
And why is that? Anyone who could find a new giant field (the only type that could mean any difference to us) will make absolutely silly amounts of money. So, no, we don't find the oil there is left because it is in small oil fields that it's not profitable to explore today. It may be, when the oil price is high enough, but that is not the problem, the problem is keeping the economy running in the face of using less and less energy each year.

What are your background? It seems to me you don't even have a cursory understanding of these matters, have you studied oil depletion? Do you know how many of the regions in the world that is in decline today? (almost all, ME might still have the potential to rise output, maybe Russia to, but most other places are in decline). Do you realise how much energy the world needs today? Do you understand that there is no alternative that can produce it today? Do you understand that primary reserch cannot be bought, ie. there is no law stating that we must find a new source of energy after oil.