Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   Coming full cycle

   

   Anonymous Coward, Aug 15th, 2003 @ 2:28am

   
   

   During the 1950s, with U.S. government guidance, a bunch of discount stores along the lines of Wal-mart sprang up to sell middle-class goods to low-income customers, a kind of mini-socialist phenomenon (though you couldn't dare call it that at the time). As the years went by, people developed a stigma against such stores, so they moved to more "upscale" stores like Macy's or Saks during the 70s/80s. In the 90s, we had a revival of low-quality stores via the Wal-mart/Costco model, which offered a quality-over-quantity approach. China's industrialization was the real reason behind the revival, in which the Chinese imitated Japanese economies of the 1950s/60s.
   
   Today, though, there is once again a backlash against the hulking grey warehouse stores; all the low-quality chains (walmart, target, costco) are trying to move up the socioeconomic ladder, while China is too.
   

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   Re: Coming full cycle

   

   Anonymous Coward, Aug 15th, 2003 @ 2:29am

   
   

   Ah dang, I meant quantity over quality.
   

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   Re: Coming full cycle

   

   Ash, Aug 15th, 2003 @ 9:14am

   
   

   How in the hell is pure capitalism (Selling the best goods for the lowest price) mini-socialism???
   
   Please read up on the two economies and rethink this.
   
   If they were socialist, they would take the same amount from every shopper and give them all the same(very little)in return.
   

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   Re: Coming full cycle

   

   Brad Moses, Aug 15th, 2003 @ 1:48pm

   
   

   
   "Please read up on the two economies and rethink this.
   
   If they were socialist, they would take the same amount from every shopper and give them all the same(very little)in return."
   
   
   
   What?
   No, you're getting Marxist communism and socialism mixed up. This is a dangerous misconception.
   
   Put simply socialism is a system that allows a government to own and fund social programs that benefit citizens on a specified level. Period. Some do it to a greater extent than others.
   Although, the term is usually used to describe government owned utilities and organizations like bus companies and sports teams.
   
   There is absolutely no reason socialism and capitalism cannot co-exist in a single society. In fact, I would wager that they SHOULD both co-exist in any society.
   
   Marxist communism is about as much about socialism as War and Peace (you know, the book) is about flying butt monkeys. It's a system that was built around utopian ideals of a working class and equal distribution of wealth that didn't quite pan out in the end. Cuba is a good modern example of this.
   
   I know I'm asking a lot here, but it would be nice if you had at least a general idea or knowledge of what you were talking about before you say something stupid.
   
   

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment