McIlheran just doesn't like people being independent. Chicago has passed a law that would prevent WallyWorld from invading their city. McIlheran predicts doom and gloom. Somehow, I just don't see Chicago being wiped from the face of the earth for exercising their freedoms and rights. But perhaps, McIlheran was listening to this song too much lately:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Chicago does no have freedsoms and rights. It's a city. Individuals have freedoms and rights, and banning Wal-Mart entails government stamping out the rights and freedoms of those individuals.
ReplyDeleteIt also helps to exacerbate poverty, as in many south side neighborhoods there are no mom-and-pop shops to destory. Oh, and Walmart is one of the greatest anti-poverty forces of all time, saving an average family about $2000/year.
Jewel and Dominick's are huge forces in Chicago. The Trib article makes a good point about Lowe's. It's hard enough to get development through on the south side with all of the protection and regulation that already exists. South-side alderman and crony-capitalism are the #1 reason that the area stagnates. Denying Wal-Mart the ability to build on vacant land is par for the course, protecting the few businesses that do exist at the expense of their entire districts.
ReplyDeleteChicago has such terrible government. It's really quite unbelieveable.
As usual championing the corporate class. What a tool.
ReplyDeleteAfter what Wal-Mart pilled here -- http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/03/25/wal-mart-sues-scotus-screws-brain-damaged-woman/ -- suing a brain dead woman for all of her money after losing her son in Iraq -- there is absolutely no way any one should shop at Wal-Mart.
Not to mention the torpedo their "saving the average family about $2,000 a year" has given to our balance of payments and to family supporting jobs.
There is a lot that Wal-Mart does well. There is a lot that should send it to hell.
Financial regulation overhaul
ReplyDeleteBy MARTIN CRUTSINGER
AP Economics Writer
The Bush administration is proposing a sweeping overhaul of the way the nation's financial industry is regulated.
The financial crisis is another example of championong the corporate cause rather tahn the people that elect and pay the taxes.
We heard that same shtick about overhaul when the exec's were cleaning out Enron and a dozen other companies leaving the employees, 401 k's and small investors holding the bag.
Same story different set of comapnies same BS from the Bush administration on how they're going to clean it up. Yeah Yeah Yeah
Funny she only got 1-million dollars, in a settlement no less, for a severely debilitating injury. And that happens to be exactly the amount of insurance that most trucking companies carry. Her problem is that she should have sued for more money.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, there's a bunch that makes this sad, but Wal-Mart had a duty to other members of its health plan to recover that money. Her son being killed in Iraq is not relevant.
"Employers are trying to make sure these plans run as efficiently as possible," says Jay Kirschbaum, a senior vice president at global insurance broker Willis Group Holdings. "They also have a fiduciary duty to the plan and the entire group of employees that are covered by it."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119551952474798582.html?mod=hpp_us_pageone
Note also that her attorney took over half of the settlement.
I defend corporations only from stupid attacks. Enron, for instance, deserves all of it's scorn, and payed the price by going out of business.
ReplyDeleteWal-Mart screws up sometimes, but they are a force for good overall. The resistance to Wal-Mart is way out of line with any sins that they have committed, and motivated primarily by the desire for protection by those who cannot compete honestly.