Value Destruction

Reading some of the comments to my recent Wal-Mart entry is a real eye-opener. From where does such twisted logic, hate of the good, and envious destruction of major values come from?

To me, it’s got to be about the most evil thing ever. Someone like a Hitler comes along every now and then, but most everyone clearly recognizes their evil. But great values and great value producers–the true benefactors of all of mankind–are continually attacked and maligned, and not only does the average guy not protest, he jumps right on board.

It’s amazing. Some mornings I get up and I just hate anyone and everyone who’s never signed a paycheck–has no idea what’s it’s like to do that week in and week out–yet has the gall to vomit all manner of rotten runny bullshit about how some great company or great employer is a "blight to humanity" in one way or another.

Fuck. Off. Fuck you all.

Of course, you all know why the left and their hoards of useful-idiot chumps (Democrat Party) are attacking Wal-Mart, don’t you? No, it’s not because Wal-Mart is so sub-urban. If that were the standard, they’d have been after Costco and Home Depot a long time ago. Do-it-yourself home repair and improvement? Mayonnaise and shampoo by the quart? Egad. How gauche.

In reality, it would be a lot tougher to get even dumb-ass democrats to sign on to this exercise in biting the hand that feeds, if the real reason was known and understood. So instead, they spout crap such as I outlined in the foregoing, as well as diversions such as "employee benefits," "discrimination," "unfair business practices." (Like, they actually demand suppliers to sell them X quantity of Y at unit price Z, or take a hike. It’s soooo unfair.)

No, there’s one reason and one reason only that Wal-Mart is under attack. You can find the answer right here. And it’s for this reason that the attack can’t fail. It’s for this reason that this seed, planted by the left and its dumb-as-shit democrats, will eventually be cultivated by the right and its aw-shucks-stupids, the republicans. The government will eventually take the lead. The biggest and best always get taken out, eventually.

Biggest company. Most employees (over 1.2 million). Most paychecks. Biggest payroll, in dollars. Most purchases, adding up to nearly $200 billion (to thousands and thousands of vendors and suppliers, who, in-turn, have employees they pay). In short, they took the principle of the economies-of-scale of a department store and took it to its natural conclusion–and the did it better and bigger than anyone else. They won (well, so far, which is how big business works).

Save for the fact that the evil left, the evil right, and the evil government will eventually "knock them down to size" and this left-right-government trifecta will stand in the way of their growth and expansion, they would spread worldwide, would dramatically raise the standard of living everywhere–even the poorest places on earth, would eventually employ over a billion, and would be the first company worth in excess of a trillion dollars.

Never happen, though. Even people so stupid as to actually enter voting booths might eventually, and with some coaxing, see what Wal-Mart can do with only a trillion dollars–contrasted to what the world’s combined governments do stealing trillions a year from those who actually produce the values.

Since Covid killed my Cabo San Lucas vacation-rental business in 2021, this is my day job. I can't do it without you. Memberships are $10 monthly, $20 quarterly, or $65 annually. Two premium coffees per month. Every membership helps finance this work I do, and if you like what I do, please chip in. No grandiose pitches.


  1. Richard Nikoley on May 15, 2005 at 17:33

    Yep. I'd add: "because it exposes our mediocrity and incompetence."

  2. Kyle Bennett on May 15, 2005 at 18:19

    "Fuck. Off. Fuck you all."

    Sometimes you just gotta say it. I tried to write a thoughtful reply to those two substandard mentalities, and just gave up. With that level of depravity, thoughtful has the same impact as shooting a .22 into a mass of cockroaches. They just eat their dead.

  3. Kyle Bennett on May 15, 2005 at 20:44


    "If you can still pay your bills, afford insurance, afford a nice home, provide for your family on the opportunities Wal-Mart gives you"

    If anyone is trying to do those things on an entry-level Walmart salary, they're idiots. That kind of job is what you take when you have no experience and no skills, or as a supplemental part-time job, and the pay is completely appropriate for that level. Many do pay for all those things on Walmart salaries, after they have gained experience and skills and moved up within the company. Many more take the valuable experience they gained at Walmart and move on to much better paying jobs that pay better because they need the kind of experience that a Walmart job provides.

    Low-life scumbags get their first job at Walmart and start trying to buy nice cars and homes and start a family, letting the government cover their medical expenses, and then get into insurmountable debt and get on the internet and whine about it.

    You proved nothing in your previous reply, except some things about yourself.

    BTW, Walmart does not "give" anything to anybody, or take anything from anybody, they trade. Nobody at Walmart gets paid less than what they are worth. I don't just think that Walmart is not "NOT a good company", I think they are a GREAT company, and have been nothing but a boon to every community they've been in.

  4. Whymrhymer on May 15, 2005 at 22:11


    People with looser attitudes 1) can't stand success stories and 2) No matter how good they have it, they feel that the world owes them more.

    The hate for Wal-Mart is obvious but I don't believe Wal-Mart will be beaten down by the haters.

  5. Joseph (OK Democrat) on May 15, 2005 at 18:53

    I can only ask why you think Wal-Mart does so much good. I posted very real facts on your last post that prove Wal-Mart is NOT a good company and yet you honestly think they are? I have an idea. Quit your job and go work at Wal-Mart for a few years. If you can still pay your bills, afford insurance, afford a nice home, provide for your family on the opportunities Wal-Mart gives you and prove that they are not actually stealing from government coffers to pay for their operational costs I will consider myself wrong. I say this with no fear because what I just suggested is not possible.

  6. Lute Nikoley on May 15, 2005 at 19:38

    Nobody forces anyone to work for Walmart. I am sure there are some disgruntled employees, there alway are, no matter how much they earn. When I was young I worked for a 5, 10 and 25 Cent Store (predecessors to the mega stores, such as Walmart, Target and Kmart) in Reno, was payed 65 cents per hour. I was very glad I had a job at the time. I don't know anybody who works for Walmart but I am certain that most people receiving a paycheck from Walmart probably feel pretty much like I did. I suppose some of you think it's better to be on welfare or unemployment than to actually earn some money.

  7. John Lopez on May 15, 2005 at 17:09

    That Woman summed it up perfectly:

    "Hatred of the good for being the good".

  8. Richard Nikoley on May 16, 2005 at 09:51

    But Joseph, facts exist in a context. If you kill another person, that's a fact. But whether you’re a hero or an evil predator is a matter of other facts that establish a context and real meaning. Lawyers, politicians, powercrats, activists and media are all expert at manipulating facts out of context–to make the innocent and heroic appear guilty when the exact opposite is the case.

    Some Wal-Mart employees don't make it financially. That's a fact. However, reality and nature dictates that no one but one's self is responsible for one's well being. Those employees who are not making it financially are defaulting on their own responsibility to do whatever it takes to make things balance out. Instead, they whine, and then people like you come along to spout out "facts" for no other purpose that to shift responsibility from the guilty to the innocent.

    Wal-Mart offers a certain level of pay and mix of benefits for certain jobs in the company. People are free to take it, leave it, or attempt to negotiate something different. Both sides are exercising their freedom, and that's what's great.

  9. John Lopez on May 15, 2005 at 21:21

    "…stealing from government coffers…"


    Oh man: some of the stolen loot in the Mafia warehouse is getting eaten by rats. Lemme just hop-ass on down there and help stop the infestation.

    Yeah, I'll get right on that.

    Let's assume for argument that what you say is true, that WalMart is busy stuffing government loot into its metaphorical cake-hole with both hands.

    So what?

    Isn't the real problem the fact that the loot is being stolen in the first place, not that the rats are gobbling it up?

  10. Kyle Bennett on May 16, 2005 at 13:41

    Nobody could afford their stuff? You mean that somebody with even lower prices moved in and took business from the Great Untouchable Monopoly? Or do you mean that people are so poor there that literally nobody buys anything? I mean, if they can't afford Walmart, what can they afford? Dumpster diving? Flea markets?

    Your assertion is highly questionable, and your axiomatic belief in Walmart's evil leaves you with no credibility whatsoever. Maybe they left town due to all the idiots protesting them and levying million dollar fines for doing honest business. I guarantee you that it is those same idiots, with your wholehearted approval if not assistance, who ruined those economies.

    Doesn't it ever bother you that the positions you are advocating are destroying people's lives and futures? That you and your party are the enemies of honest hard working people all over the country? That the Walmarts of the world can write off the destruction you cause as a business expense, but the average guy, the waitresses, and the truck drivers, and the middle managers just have to take it, and hope they can survive, let alone get ahead?

  11. Kyle Bennett on May 16, 2005 at 14:00


    "Shouldn't somebody at least be able to feed themselves on an entry-level Walmart salary"

    "Should" is irrelevant. Of course, anyone can feed themselves on a Walmart salary, don't be ridiculous. But it's not Walmart's job to give a damn about it. It's each person's job to feed themselves. They're free to work anywhere that will have them, and "should" do whatever it takes to feed yourself. They can take Walmart's salary or leave it. If Walmart was gone, ther'd be even fewer options.

    Do you people think that Walmart sends out squads of goons with guns to round up slave labor off the street? Nobody has to work at Walmart. I don't care if Walmart paid 50 cents an hour, that's an appropriate salary if someone takes the job voluntarily. Anybody who complains about the salary of a job they take voluntarily is a fool.

    Go ahead an make the "it's the only job in town" argument. I'm ready for it.

  12. prying1 on May 16, 2005 at 07:52

    Just gotta say I agree with the post (except the cursing part but I do understand the frustration)…

  13. Kyle Bennett on May 16, 2005 at 18:27


    I don't own any stock or work at Walmart. I'm getting so worked up because it is an attack on my values. If you could think in principles, you might appreciate that.

    If it's not a benefit to anybody to work at Walmart, then why do they work there? Are they masochists? Are they suicidal?

    Whether its the fault of the educational system (privitazaion would fix that in a hurry) or something else, the people getting paid minimum wage and no benefits are not of any greater value to Walmart. If they think they are of some great value to somebody else, then go work for somebody else. Why should Walmart have to subsidize people and clean up the wreckage of public education?

    "you either have little actual knowledge of what it means to be poor or of "average" skill sets, or that you are at heart a compassionless person."

    Neither is true. Not that I have to prove my street cred to you, but I've lived in my car, I've lived with whoever would let me crash on their couch for a few days, and I've lived in samll apartments with 6 or even ten other people. My political opinions were no different then than they are now. I did what it took and never blamed my boss for my troubles.

    I'm not compassionless, but I save my compassion for those who earn it by at least trying and taking responsibillity. I don't look down on the check-out girl or the bagger, I respect them for doing what it takes. The honest and responsible ones will not be checkout girls or baggers for long, even with little or no education. The whiners will always be what they are now, even with superior education.

  14. Joseph (OK Democrat) on May 16, 2005 at 11:30

    If you folks really believe Wal-Mart is a boon, go to Missouri and Arkansas and Eastern Oklahoma where Wal-Mart moved in, destroyed the local economy, and then moved out because nobody could afford their stuff anymore. Great company indeed.

  15. Kyle Bennett on May 16, 2005 at 22:11


    The only partnership that means anything is one based on mutual self-interest. There's no conflict between profit and partnership, in fact, they are inseperable. The partnership you want is that of parasite to host, slave to master. You want one "partner" to subsidize the other for no benefit of their own, and with no choice in the matter.

    Your disdain for people is appalling. You say that the jobs that people voluntarily take and are grateful for are not really good for them. You say that the goods people buy at Walmart are not really the bargain they think they are. Everyone's just too stupid to see it. But not you, you know better, you will take these opportunities from them for their own good.

    As to the reduction in tax revenue: Halleluleah! That's one thing we all benefit from. It's not even about how much money is taken from others anymore, it's about how that money is used. Blood money can come to no good end, and the tax base you're so eager to protect is used for nothing but pure evil. Reduce it to zero! Then see how the human race soars. It'll make you whiners' heads spin to see how far you'll get carried then by the coattails of the producers.

  16. ken grandlund on May 16, 2005 at 16:59

    Kyle- Do you work for Wal-Mart's PR department or just own a bunch of their stock? I only ask because you seem to get really heated up about this issue.

    I think that the point Joseph is trying to make is that the Wal-Marts lower wages structure, nearly non-existant benefits packages, and undercutting price structures are not the benefit to economic success for anyone but themselves. What Joseph is bemoaning is the necessity of Wal-Mart employees to have second and third jobs to make ends meet. Wal-mart often keeps employee hours just below the level that requires benefit packages. Less hours and lower wages make it very tough to pay the bills.

    Tough shit, you say? People should only work at Wal-Mart to learn skills? Thanks to our ever-degrading educational system, for many people, Wal-Mart is as good as it gets. Try as they might, it is pretty tough to get a better education and a job when you are juggling two work schedules just to stay afloat. Where is the time to learn and advance.

    Your own overzealous defense of Wal-Mart shows that you either have little actual knowledge of what it means to be poor or of "average" skill sets, or that you are at heart a compassionless person. Either way, go enjoy your low priced- over-imported- piece of Wal-Mart crap, curse at the underpaid employee who helped you load it into your car, or call the check-out girl some lame epitaph on your way out the door. Just don't come looking for empathy when it's you or your family trying to get a leg up in the world.

  17. dolphin on May 16, 2005 at 13:16

    "If anyone is trying to do those things on an entry-level Walmart salary, they're idiots."

    I'll grant you that. Here's the question though. Shouldn't somebody at least be able to feed themselves on an entry-level Walmart salary.

  18. ken grandlund on May 16, 2005 at 21:37


    I stand corrected, at least as far as where you are coming from. I accept your "cred" at face value, not that you need me to.

    If your ire is truly based on an attack on your values, then at least we know what kind of discussion we are having. I assume the principals you are standing up for are those that adore profit above partnership, but also of personal responsibility and hard work. At one time, these may have been compatible, but in today's corporate climate, people (i.e. the workers on the rungs) are nothing but a means to an end. Gone are the days when an employer and their employees held a common thread of accomplishment and reward. As such, how many Wal-Mart or other low wage workers are the result of downsizing or bankrupt pension plans. At their age, even their skills won't land a similar position or benefit package…this through their own fault? They don't refuse the job because they need the money, but they certainly aren't all uneducated or lacking skills.

    Wal-Mart's business model may be great for its investors, its owners, even its shoppers. But what about on the communities that they serve? In low income areas, they may get tax breaks to build a store, on the impression that the increase the base through incomes. Bbut their lower incomes don't increase the tax base, since they keep many employees under full time. Now you have increased the decrease in tax revenue. The offer little in the way of benefits (or affordable benefits as the case may be) making employees rely on public subsidies. Another hit to the tax base. Their low cost (and frequently loq quality) goods ensures their profit margin while driving out other diverse businesses and ensuring that consumers actually pay more, since longevity is not a trademark of their merchandise. Lower costs once is lower costs. Lower costs multiple times over is higher cost long term.

    Could I go on? Probably a little bit, but I think I've made my point. Objections to Wal-Marts, especially in small and medium cities, are coming less about profilerating cheap stuff and more about standing up for partnership above profit.

  19. Ken Grandlund on May 16, 2005 at 22:51

    Kyle- Sad that my attempt at civility was lost on you. It appears you'd rather have a name calling match than a debate.

    Your strange interpretation of "slave and master" clearly shows your blind spot. Slave usually refers to one who works hard and/or long for little or no benefit. Master is the one who profits. How you see corporations as the slave is beyond me, since they reap the largest profits of all, and apparently we can not come to a concensus on this.

    Disdain for people? I suppose if wanting people to have decent pay for decent work is disdain, or if expecting decent health care and retirement for the common man is disdain, then I am gladly guilty. I would rather my brand of disdain than your brand of compassion any day.
    And who, but you, said anything about people being stupid? People buy crap because that is all they can afford on crap wages. It becomes a self-fulfilling dream to the merchants and a self-fulling money taker for the buyers. Who's really robbing whom?

    As for the tax base you so readily decry- do you like to drive on paved streets, have police to protect you, a standing military, a banking system, have pure water to drink, to name a few? Yes, the politicians are corrupt and steal our taxes when they can, but without a tax base, there are none of those things, and it becomes every one for themselves. Is this the soaring humanity you aspire to? Back to the middle ages for you Kyle! You'll fit right in.

  20. Kyle Bennett on May 17, 2005 at 07:08

    Ken, I respond to reason a lot better than false civility. When you're capable of it, maybe we'll talk. There's nothing remotely civil or reasonable about your positions.

  21. John Lopez on May 16, 2005 at 19:40

    Since Joeseph clumsily dodged my question about what his real priorities are, I snuck a peek at his archives, and lo and behold about the third thing down the page was>this:

    The news is out and the word is good. There will be no military bases closing in Oklahoma. In fact, existing bases will become larger as both military and civilian personnel are transferred to Oklahoma because of BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure). While this won't be a huge treasure trove to the state economy, it does mean that residents and local merchants can sleep easier, knowing they still have jobs and customers.

    Government loot is just fine with Joeseph, you see, as long as some of it might end up lining local pockets. Never mind the working stiffs like myself who have to cough up the tax money to pay for it, no.

    There is no reason whatsoever that Joeseph can condemn WalMart on the one hand for taking government largesse while on the other cheerleading my stolen money getting funneled into the open maws of "the local merchants" of Fumduck, OK.

    You think WalMart costs taxpayers anywhere near what Oklahoma's military bases do, Joeseph? It's ridiculous on the face of it, but you don't even see the crashing contradiction in your opinions, because you don't care about the theft, you care about who gets granted access to the stolen goods.

    You simply hate WalMart, and you're casting about for any possible club to use against them. Fortunately for folks like myself with moderate incomes, WalMart is around so that we can provide ourselves with cheap things despite the efforts of you and your ilk in siphoning off my income to support worthless towns out in the prarie, or whatever your pet cause happens to be.

    Get this, Joeseph, and get it real good: I know who the people are who want to cut me up for the cannibal pot, and it certainly isn't the people running WalMart.

    It's people like you.

    You're a human jackal.

  22. Richard Nikoley on May 17, 2005 at 10:33

    Good point, John.

    Those villifying Wal-Mart would supplant the free-will decisions being made between Wal-Mart and its employees (the free decision to offer employment and the free decision to accept that offer or not) with their will imposed upon both Wal-Mart and its employees.

    Of course, in their twisted world, Wal-Mart is exercising "force" and "coercion" while they are the "liberators."

  23. Richard Nikoley on May 17, 2005 at 13:23


    "I specified small towns in my argument about Wal-Mart moving in and destroying the community."

    How, specifically? And please don't say that they came in, undercut everyone, etc. You should know that argument is a logical impossibility (though I also understand that doesn't stop anyone from making it, or of the unsophisticated and economically illiterate swallowing it.)

    So, how'd it happen? How, specifically did Wal-Mart destroy the community?

  24. John Spain on May 17, 2005 at 07:33


    A person who works long and/or hard for no benefit is a moron, or else unlucky (a farmer whose field is hit by locusts the day before harvest. But the farmer was working toward a percieved benefit at least.)

    A slave is a person whose will is discounted; controlled by someone or something else. The master is simply the controlling will; the operator. Whether the master profits or not is irrelevant to the relationship.

    The people who work at Walmarts willfully chose to work there. The fact that they chose to shows that they percieved Walmart the best option at the time. For third parties to declare that they made the wrong decision is an act of disdain towards the Walmart workers own wills.

    In fact that was the argument used often to justify chattel slavery in the old South; "those African savages don't know how to live right, but we do so we'll bring them here and lift them up, and get some work out of them in the meantime" [call it a tax base for the plantation if you wish.]

    When complaining about unaffordable medical care products, why bitch at a the people who say "I'll give you x amount of money if you give me x amount of work. Take it or leave it, the choice is yours." Why not bitch at the protectionist doctors' union (who over the last century or so shut down, by proclamation from on high, hundreds of medical schools, which does what to the supply of doctors?) or the protectionist pharmaceutical establishment which bars competition from the market. The regulators and bureacrats who parasitize and add costs along the way because the people are too stupid to make their own medical decisions. Etc.

  25. Joseph (OK Democrat) on May 17, 2005 at 12:28

    To Kyle Bennett: Nobody can afford to shop at Wal-Mart when Wal-Mart destroys the local economy. I am sorry that concept was too hard to understand. I specified small towns in my argument about Wal-Mart moving in and destroying the community.

    To John Lopez: You looked at my archives but you ignored the parts that didn't support your view. For one thing my post was part of my "Oklahoma Report" written from the point of view of a local. Locals care much more about their community than the rest of the world, as you should know well.

    "The news is out and the word is good. There will be no military bases closing in Oklahoma. In fact, existing bases will become larger as both military and civilian personnel are transferred to Oklahoma because of BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure). While this won't be a huge treasure trove to the state economy, it does mean that residents and local merchants can sleep easier, knowing they still have jobs and customers. Oklahoma's U.S Senate delegates claim the state's location, low cost of living and effective lobbying by state officials deserve credit for keeping the state's bases open. Other states have not been so lucky. Texas, New York, Alabama and California will lose more than 10 bases apiece under the latest BRAC plan."

    This was the entire comment. I was making the point that Oklahoma has been lucky during this BRAC. Next time you want to be extremist and go around name calling ,at least get your facts straight.

  26. John Lopez on May 17, 2005 at 21:04


    What specific fact(s) don't I have straight? Are you, or are you not, cheerleading the fact that stolen tax loot is continuing to flow into Oklahoma?

    You don't even have to answer that, or the question I posed to you about your real agenda, because the answers are plain as day: you're celebrating the destruction of values, and espousing open hatred of people that produce values.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.