IM and Morality

[pocketrockets]

Did you read all 119 pages?

Do you have anything substantive to refer me to in the study, besides the summary I dissected?

Guerilla, you don't need to read all 119 pgs. A lot of the beginning just covers the general stats about the grocery industry, annual sales revenues of the big box retailers, types and numbers of stores, etc.

Skip down to the 2nd chapter on Job and Wage impacts. They break it all down for ya with pretty comparative benefit analysis tables and charts.

There are 3 main areas covered (waaaay too much data to copy and paste but here is what they covered)

1. Economic and Employment Impacts
How much will the new big-box outlet cut into existing local retail market share?

2. Municipal Finance Impacts
How much will the new development cost your municipality?
TASKS: Ò Services and capital expenditures: Calculate cost of infrastructure & utilities

(i.e., streets, sewer connections, water lines, etc.)
Ò Traffic and other service impacts?
Ò Calculate the cost of associated economic development incentives
(e.g., tax credits)
Ò Assess the impact of redevelopment zone tax-increment financing.

3. Community Impacts
Will the big-box footprint possibly expand in the future? In the same line of business?

How will the new retail outlet affect your community’s quality of life? For example, will it reduce the appeal of a downtown core that you are trying to preserve or revitalize?

If you want more current data this site has a TON of key studies on Wal-Mart and their impact on local communities and compare the municipal tax benefits

Key Studies on Wal-Mart and Big-Box Retail | The New Rules Project

ex)
Understanding the Fiscal Impacts of Land Use in Ohio - by Randall Gross, Development Economics, August 2004

This report reviews and summarizes the findings of fiscal impact studies conducted in eight central Ohio communities between 1997 and 2003. In seven of the eight communities, retail development created a drain on municipal budgets (i.e., it required more in public services, such as road maintenance and police, than it generated in tax revenue). On average, retail buildings produced a net annual loss of $0.44 per square foot. "The concept that growth is always good for a community does not seem to correlate with the findings from various fiscal analyses conducted throughout central Ohio," the report concludes. It cautions cities not to be taken in by the promise of high tax revenue from a new development without also considering the additional costs of providing services. Unlike retail, office and industrial development, as well as some types of residential, produced a net tax benefit.
​

 

[JoseArmando]

Marketing is inherently manipulative.

As marketers (especially "direct" marketers), it is our goal to convince our fellow man, through differing degrees of persuasion and/or subterfuge/dishonesty, to purchase products and services that they probably would NOT have purchased without our influence, at least not from us or through the venues we would like them to.

Many use hype copy, NLP techniques, fear, greed, scarcity, envy... and sometimes Outright Bullshit LIES, especially when the heat is on to convert or starve.

It's up to each individual to decide where there "Ethical Threshold" is, and abide accordingly. It's different for each of us.

Most sober thoughts on this issue so far. Props.

 

[Benji49]

Man, I sell stuff that's good for the customer and I make money. There's a whole universe of stuff to sell out there, it's not just berries and free IPODs.

I had dinner with a group of friends last night, one's a tax lawyer, the other's a mech engineer who works on oil refinery equipment. How come my industry gets subjected to the "is this moral?" BS every six months?

 

[wellyfish]

Morality =

function(Date, Time, Latitude, Longitude)

Fuck about with any of these variableas and you get a different version or 'morality'

 

[mikecarquote]

There are tons of quality products sold on the internet. Just pick the ones you are comfortable with.

 

[guerilla]

Guerilla, you don't need to read all 119 pgs.

I skim read all of it this morning before I replied to you.

My question remains, do you have a substantive critique to make based upon it?

1. Economic and Employment Impacts
How much will the new big-box outlet cut into existing local retail market share?

Is this a problem? Why?

2. Municipal Finance Impacts
How much will the new development cost your municipality?
TASKS: Ò Services and capital expenditures: Calculate cost of infrastructure & utilities

They don't have to cost anything. It is the politicians who impose costs, not Walmart.

3. Community Impacts
Will the big-box footprint possibly expand in the future? In the same line of business?

How will the new retail outlet affect your community’s quality of life? For example, will it reduce the appeal of a downtown core that you are trying to preserve or revitalize

So successful businesses should not be allowed to expand, and they might undermine city centers which have outlived their usefulness?

These are the arguments of planners and socialists.

If you want more current data this site has a TON of key studies on Wal-Mart and their impact on local communities and compare the municipal tax benefits

Key Studies on Wal-Mart and Big-Box Retail | The New Rules Project

This stuff is pointless to me because it presents a false choice. The issue isn't whether Walmart is good or bad, the market can decide that, the issue is whether cities will allow free commerce, or if they will try to restrict trade in order to collect more taxes.

Understanding the Fiscal Impacts of Land Use in Ohio - by Randall Gross, Development Economics, August 2004

This report reviews and summarizes the findings of fiscal impact studies conducted in eight central Ohio communities between 1997 and 2003. In seven of the eight communities, retail development created a drain on municipal budgets (i.e., it required more in public services, such as road maintenance and police, than it generated in tax revenue). On average, retail buildings produced a net annual loss of $0.44 per square foot. "The concept that growth is always good for a community does not seem to correlate with the findings from various fiscal analyses conducted throughout central Ohio," the report concludes. It cautions cities not to be taken in by the promise of high tax revenue from a new development without also considering the additional costs of providing services. Unlike retail, office and industrial development, as well as some types of residential, produced a net tax benefit.
​

The fiscal impacts relates to government. Since I think most government is a sham, and taxes are theft (and we can have a new argument where I would be happy to explain why), the entire notion of Walmart disturbing Boss Hog and Roscoe P. Coltraine's little racket is silly to me.

Walmart deserves no subsidies or special privileges. But they do deserve the right to compete, regardless of their size, and to provide low prices by way of efficiency whether it is by reducing tax burdens, by reducing footprint, lowering wages whatever.

It is somewhat bizarre to have to defend business and competition on this forum. Not the first time, and surely not the last.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

Is this a problem? Why?

Because it replaces tens of thousands of middle class business owners that would continue to grow and start more businesses with hundreds of thousands of low class WalMart greeters that will only be able to spend their measly checks at WalMart.

I used to be an AnCap too, but then reality set in and wised up. Textbooks and theory are great on paper, but the reality is you end up with a handful of people in a ruling class and a bunch of fucking peasants. It is the natural progression.

 

[riddarhusetgal]

Taxes are theft....lol

Until you need the police, a fire truck or government-subsidized work study for college....

(don't like government? Try Somalia....)

 

[riddarhusetgal]

Because it replaces tens of thousands of middle class business owners that would continue to grow and start more businesses with hundreds of thousands of low class WalMart greeters that will only be able to spend their measly checks at WalMart.

I used to be an AnCap too, but then reality set in and wised up. Textbooks and theory are great on paper, but the reality is you end up with a handful of people in a ruling class and a bunch of fucking peasants. It is the natural progression.

What, we agree on something?! I marvel how people latch on to perfect markets theories that can never be proven... Oh well, just means more people to clean the polo stables....I'm tired of caring these days

 

[guerilla]

Because it replaces tens of thousands of middle class business owners that would continue to grow and start more businesses with hundreds of thousands of low class WalMart greeters that will only be able to spend their measly checks at WalMart.

This is the luddite's argument though. It's an argument against progress.

It's like saying we shouldn't put robots on the assembly line because that results in unemployment.

Or we should stop emailing so we can hire more postal workers.

I used to be an AnCap too, but then reality set in and wised up.

No offense, but I don't think you ever were an ancap, because it's a philosophical position, not a economic one. Appeals to reality are a really weak form of argument, you're basically claiming I am not being "real" without specifically addressing how what I have written conflicts with reality. It's a short cut.

Got mad respect for you, but in these debates we're miles apart.

Textbooks and theory are great on paper, but the reality is you end up with a handful of people in a ruling class and a bunch of fucking peasants. It is the natural progression.

If this was true, then every 3rd world country would be ancap. But they're not. So that's a bit of "reality" your notion conflicts with.

If we're going to debate economics, then let's clear the air. I am absolutely for individual freedom and free trade/free markets. Based on your earlier comments, you seem to favor protectionism and central planning.

Appealing to the economic inevitability of history is Marxism (historical materialism), and I think a waste of both of our time.

Also, the textbooks and theory bit aren't what I rely on. I am reasonably well read on these topics, but I am appealing to reason and logic. To non-contradiction. Where there has been freedom, there has been prosperity. Where there has been socialism, there has been poverty. The middle ground politically, is slippery slope towards more socialism, and that, is something which history seems to agree with.

 

[Schwarzenegger]

I use to have the same mindset.

Problem is that you think that its only right to sell the best product or service. What you think is legit or not doesn't matter. You have to listen to what the customer has to say. Take the berries for example. A bottle of diet pills for $80 a month is definitely overpriced but if you let them cancel and customer continues after the trial (not from hiding the terms) then what's so immoral about that? It's a win win.

We as direct response marketers don't have the luxury to promote the best products out there. But if the customer happily gives you the benjamins then there's no issue here.

I'm not saying there aren't scams. And some people even say they have different views. BS. We all feel the same about stealing. Only difference is you've made enough excuses to justify it. There are serious scams in the aff space but there are definitely more legit offers to promote. Even in the dirty verticals (weight loss, biz opps) the strongest players are the legit ones as they bank more on the long term. Problem is these products aren't available to us affs. So you gotta succeed as an aff then make your own.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

This is the luddite's argument though. It's an argument against progress.

You're making the false assumption that it's progress.

No offense, but I don't think you ever were an ancap, because it's a philosophical position, not a economic one.

People change philosophies all the time as they gain wisdom and understanding, based on their life experiences. It's not uncommon for people to change their religious or political philosophies.

If this was true, then every 3rd world country would be ancap. But they're not. So that's a bit of "reality" your notion conflicts with.

No, that analogy doesn't work. You're reversing the logic.

If we're going to debate economics, then let's clear the air. I am absolutely for individual freedom and free trade/free markets. Based on your earlier comments, you seem to favor protectionism and central planning.

Appealing to the economic inevitability of history is Marxism (historical materialism), and I think a waste of both of our time.

Also, the textbooks and theory bit aren't what I rely on. I am reasonably well read on these topics, but I am appealing to reason and logic. To non-contradiction. Where there has been freedom, there has been prosperity. Where there has been socialism, there has been poverty. The middle ground politically, is slippery slope towards more socialism, and that, is something which history seems to agree with.

It's not all black and white, there are countless shades of gray. Here is a simple diagram to help illustrate:

One can be anywhere along this sliding scale in their beliefs - you aren't required to be one or the other.

 

[stumpyb]

go find a job and make some other dude w/ no morals rich..

 

[interwebmarketr]

I've never compromised my morals and I've been steadily pushing consistent numbers with Adsense for a while now.

 

[VonRohn]

I've never compromised my morals and I've been steadily pushing consistent numbers with Adsense for a while now.

$20/mo from Adsense = Twenty Dollar Baller :2twocents:
CURRENT GOAL: $4/day profit by 2011

You make like 4 whole dollars per day?! WOW man, you're ballin' in Burkina Faso!

 

[sak3d]

well shit, how am I able to compete in PPC versus 3 guys running double/tripple rebills :/

-edit- ^ lol above

 

[wellyfish]

People change philosophies all the time as they gain wisdom and understanding, based on their life experiences. It's not uncommon for people to change their religious or political philosophies.

I'd go along with that, maybe if your over 40 you can empathise too. Life is a transient thing, as time goes on, it's easier to approach it in a different way to your earlier years.

i acknowledge (and firmly believe) that there's diversity in every culture, good and bad (and indifferent) in every place you can, metaphorically, shine a light. Human nature though, in my experience, is a selfish thing. Reptilian cortex and all that. If it wasn't then how did we get to where we are. 'All progress depends on the unreasonable man etc.'

Talking about different financial system is, I think, futile. Generally, people want the best they can get for themselves and their family. Alternatively, they want someone else to provide the best for their family ... 'we' call that the benefits culture. Whatever system is in place, it still has to deal with human nature.

Is Wallmart/Asda/Tesco good for our cultural well-being? I don't know. what would happen if those guys were legislated out of existence? I dont know ... maybe I'd have less choice, pay more ...is that a bad thing?

Systems come and go. Is the new one any better than the old one? Being absolutist about it then we, in that part of the world we call 'The
West' have more of everything than we ever had .. is that good ... who knows.

Absolute freedom of expression would, I feel , bring anarchy. I'd be interested to hear alternative views.

Holy fuck, bloody stumps, beer is great!