Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

As many of you who have read my posts here know, one of my main concerns is the excessive stranglehold coporate America has over today's society, and my main issue is with retail. I pointed out that at the end of WWII 80 percent of retail was still family owned, where today 80 percent of thereabouts is corporate owned. Because of the intense hierarchy in large retail concerns, we have difficulty getting products into stores unless they are approved by the corporate structure. An individual store manager often has his/her hands tied by that structure as far as being able to satisfy customers. I have found this out first hand by trying to get one of my favorite products into more stores.

Many of those concerned describe Wal-Mart as Public Enemy #1, but they are certainly not alone. Think Walgreens, CVS, Blockbuster, Jiffy Lube, et al. There are "shop local" movements around, but so far they have been for the most part fairly passive, and perhaps an example of "too little, too late".

I am ready to do my part to do battle in order to limit the power of large corporations, and would welcome suggestions on whether to start, and whether it should start at the local, state or national level. Whatever we choose to do, there is sure to be someone presenting opposition or an obstacle, and corporate America's lawyers will obviously try to fight it every step of the way. Yet history has shown that you CAN fight big money, and now may be the time when we must at least try. Giving in at the first sign of confrontation will only result in losing out. I am now energized by the challenge. How you play the game is important, but so is winning.

My concern here is not to completely turn the tables regarding what big business did to mom and pop operations, but limit their power in order to level the playing field a bit. Any leads to organizations already working on this would be greatly appreciated.

During the 1930s (the last 4T) the federal government imposed "fair trade" laws which outlawed price-cutting that a manufacturer opposed. In effect, if the Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price were $19.95, then that was the price anywhere. It kept retailers like K-Mart, Wal-Mart, and Target from using their economies of scale to undercut smaller retailers.

Such laws would raise your prices. Would they be worth it?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

During the 1930s (the last 4T) the federal government imposed "fair trade" laws which outlawed price-cutting that a manufacturer opposed. In effect, if the Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price were $19.95, then that was the price anywhere. It kept retailers like K-Mart, Wal-Mart, and Target from using their economies of scale to undercut smaller retailers.

Such laws would raise your prices. Would they be worth it?

Sure if it was done in tandem with other measures. For example, rather than outlaw outsourcing, we could pass laws requiring companies that export manufactured goods to the US to adopt our labor and environmental standards. That would level the playing field in a completely different way, but to the same end.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Sure if it was done in tandem with other measures. For example, rather than outlaw outsourcing, we could pass laws requiring companies that export manufactured goods to the US to adopt our labor and environmental standards. That would level the playing field in a completely different way, but to the same end.

I concur. NAFTA wasn't as bad an idea as some claim. The fault with NAFTA was that Mexico got to join NAFTA without allowing American labor unions to organize as competition to company unions and (PRI) Party-oriented unions. There was nothing wrong with NAFTA that the Teamsters, UAW, Steelworkers, ILGWU, United Mine Workers, and the like couldn't have solved.

The American economic elite wanted to maintain Mexico as a land of cheap labor... perhaps to help drive wages down in the USA. That desire illustrate 3T economic policy to a tee.

Tom Mazanec,

So now it's late spring and no war with Iran. Was your future self failing you?

Originally Posted by 1990

Tom Mazanec,

So now it's late spring and no war with Iran. Was your future self failing you?

Over at Democratic Underground me and sever other members of the forum Skepticism, Science, & Pseudoscience group routinely mock the tin-foilers that fall for the "US INVASION OF IRAN IMMANENT" tabloid crap that pops up regularly.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The fault with NAFTA was that Mexico got to join NAFTA without allowing American labor unions to organize as competition to company unions and (PRI) Party-oriented unions. There was nothing wrong with NAFTA that the Teamsters, UAW, Steelworkers, ILGWU, United Mine Workers, and the like couldn't have solved.

You know, I never even noticed the lack of non-PRI labor organization in Mexico until you mentioned it. Mexicans probably don't even realize what they are missing; no one alive remembers a time when the unions were not part of a Party structure. The Porfiriato was a very long time ago now.

AMLO doesn't have a problem with Party-controlled unions, he just wants personal control of them. PAN is a corporatist/conservadore organization now, but could they be persuaded to allow real pluralistic unionization in Mexico? I don't have a good answer; there are no data to project upon. In the meantime, the 'fair trade' movement is an attempt to effect the same sorts of changes from north of the border.

The American economic elite wanted to maintain Mexico as a land of cheap labor... perhaps to help drive wages down in the USA. That desire illustrate 3T economic policy to a tee.

No perhaps about it. Of course then Chinese labor became cheaper than Mexican labor and upset the whole applecart.