Beyond Reason

The Great Bane of our Time: Walmart

Posted in Politics by Abigail on January 11, 2007

I had posted a bit about Walmart because I’m curious to understand the contorversy. Steve P has some good comments below. I might post again when/if I understand the controversy better. It’s interesting. (I pulled what I had here ’cause I thought it was way over the top. So, censoring myself again!)


7 Responses to 'The Great Bane of our Time: Walmart'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'The Great Bane of our Time: Walmart'.

  1. Steve P. said,

    Walmart: Public perception is now hurting that store. Talk to Steve H or Tito about China, and you will learn that the Chinese Government is NOT US friendly. They want our money (This is evident in that they are buying up all of our debt right now) and are constantly growing an army. I would not be surprised to hear that China wants to bankrupt our country. Walmart is one of the major economic factors for Chinese exports.

    In addition to the outsourcing, Walmart dictates what prices it wants to sell goods at. In the 90’s Rubbermaid was a US company that could not meet walmarts price requirement. Walmart said drop the price or we stop selling your product. Rubbermaid went under because it could no longer sustain the sales it needed to survive. A Chinese company now owns the Rubbermaid brand. This is documented in a PBS news show called Frontline, along with other such power plays.

    Walmart is not alone in this though. Target also imports many goods for its stores. The difference is that Targets sales are not as large. Walmart will continue to get more publicity until public opinion finally changes and they end up like K-mart.

    I may post on the purpose of government intervention in business, but I do not have the time now. I will say that a truly free market system is just as damaging as a government controlled one. I don’t expect you to agree, but I consider the industrial revolution and how things would be now if government had not stepped in to regulate. People are fallen and do not always opt for mutually beneficial options in their business.

  2. amandalaine said,

    Steve, thanks for your post!

    First, I do agree, almost completely with this statement: “a truly free market system is just as damaging as a government controlled one” Good point. Excellent point!

    My above post was over the top. I was just having fun and being ridiculous so I’ll probably come back and clarify a few things. Again, I almost completely agree with that statement you made.

    By the way, I’m so glad you myspace site is back up! I tried to add it into my Google Reader… but it wouldn’t let me. I think it doesn’t pick up myspace although it does Xanga.

  3. amandalaine said,

    Never mind, I figured out how to add you, Steve, to my Google Reader. It can be done!

  4. Steve P. said,

    I hope your not disapointed with my neglected myspace page. Socal networking doesn’t fill any sort of need or desire. I choose not to post most things. I also have a facebook and xanga account.

    I do want to mention that Walmart has helped curb inflation with it pricing and has given millions of people products that they may not have had otherwise. I just wanted to state why Walmart has gotten a bad rap.

  5. Matt M. said,

    The documentary entitled “Wal-Mart, The high cost of low price” explains all of this in detail. I got a copy from my library. There’s a real good part in it about how anti-union they are and the lengths they go to to prevent it. It also has that whole Rubbermaid story etc. Go to for more info.

    Matt M.

  6. amandalaine said,

    Thanks Matt! I appreciate it. I’ll check it out.

  7. Steve H said,

    Hi Amandalaine, sorry to stick this on a comment page. Well with the snow day there was time (too much perhaps) to think. I summed up my thoughts below as what I believe is a Christian philosophy of politics. I figured maybe it fit in this category of your page. Interestingly in the process I came to realize that politics is solely a consequence of the fall. If it weren’t for man desiring to the be lord, of himself or others, there would be no earthly power struggles (aka politics). I’d love to hear thoughts.

    Steve H

    A contract theory of domestic & international law – the Christian way?


    I don’t believe any earthly institution, nor its leaders, whether elected or unelected, should be trusted with spiritual issues; with deciding for its people what is moral.

    A group which has historically held this within Christian circles has been the Anabaptists. A key distinction they revived in the 1500s, possibly dormant since the days of Constantine, was their belief in the separation between church and state. Starting from this view, in the next couple paragraphs I attempt to describe my own belief, which describes a theory of earthly government based not on morality but solely on a contract betwen individuals. Sadly I fear this has been done before, but have not seen it myself. If anyone has seen this as a Christian view in particular, please do let me know. I’m not hearing it from the Christian right.


    Basically the role of any earthly nation is to physically stand between man A and man B, protecting one’s well being from other’s actions by limiting what man B can do to annoy or hurt or man A (take away man A’s physical freedom, security or well-being). The state does this through physical power, via what we call the law. For the threat to man A from foreign man C, it provides the exact same service through physical power, via what we call the military. The law is useful in the physical world because it can limit man B or foreign man C’s actions.

    While this law will almost certainly limit man B from commiting many outwardly obvious immoral acts (say against man A), it does so not because that act is immoral, but solely because it is taking away man B’s physical freedom, security or well-being. Synonymous with these 3 words would probably be liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness. Again, this is a theory of national/domestic and inter-national law that is based not on morality (a contract between man and God), but rather solely on a contract between man A and man B. They agree and put down in writing what they aren’t allowed to do threaten one another’s physical freedom, security or well-being. In our country these laws are written and unwritten through the democratic process.


    In utter contrast, the role of the one spiritual nation of Israel, aka the kingdom of God, aka the body of Christ on earth (quite literally), aka the Church, is to spiritually stand as the bridge between man A and God, or foreign man C and God. Quite opposite of the state’s blocking role between man B or foreign man C and man A, the church’s purpose is a drawing role between any of these men and God. The church does this through spiritual power, what we call grace (or love). Grace (or love) is useful in the spiritual world because it can win a man’s heart. The law has no power to affect man’s heart. I believe God knew this all too well, and that’s why He sent Jesus Christ to die for us in an act of sacrificial love instead of laying down a law to limit our behaviors. That wouldn’t win any man into a love relationship with God. In fact, He shows us with all of the Old Testament. The earthly nation of Israel and its laws between man and God showed exactly how this could never work, didn’t, and still won’t.


    Given the above, what I find disturbing in much of evangelical Christian circles in America is their belief in using a physical nation and its sole power (the law) to try and carry out the spiritual nation (the Church)’s job. It’s spiritually impossible. If anything all of the Old Testament shows this. Then Jesus showed us an example exactly opposite from that former way of a physical nation of God and reaching holiness through law(s). Then Paul’s letters consistently reiterate this point.

    In fact, by fighting their enemies in what they see as a holy war or culture war via political action (use of the law domestically, or use of the military abroad) instead loving their enemies in a spiritual war (use of grace and sacrifice like Jesus), I have to think many have been turned away from Christ by the very people calling themselves Christian. This is quite disturbing to me. In an awful twist, it probably serves the enemy’s purposes while using the very name of Christ.

    On the Anabaptists:

    If you’re also not familiar this movement started in 1500s, predating the baptists, and were called “rebaptisers” because they didn’t believe infant baptism had any value and were then publically executed for refusing to obey what was the current government’s law, that all infants be baptised into the church. While anabaptists are also known for their descendents’ (the Quakers, Mennonites, etc) refusal to serve in worldly institutions such as government and particularly the military, as you might imagine I don’t agree with them on this point. I believe we can and should serve in earthly institutions, so long as we never mistake them for being moral/spiritual institutions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: