Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: We should make it illegal for corporations to own more than one store in American cities...

Posted 2 years ago on July 31, 2012, 2:22 p.m. EST by freewriterguy (882)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

and enforce the principles behind monopolies and anti-trust so that each corporate store MUST BE OWNED by a local business man in the area that the store is located in. and if more than one store is located in one American city, each of the other stores must be owned by a different business man. Such store ownership should entitle equal say in how the store is run, and extreme limits should be placed upon retaliatory franchise fees that corporates would and will try to place upon these newly free american business owners.

Just look around you in your cities, from every chevron gas station, JC Pennys, Walmart, and grocery store you shop at, they have taken over our movement of goods and services using a system of monopoly that alludes the people of America, as they continue to support a system that is on a one way direction of destitution for many American families.

It has been said for years that as we see our goods outsources to foreign countries, that pretty soon the only jobs that will be left will be for us to sell insurance to each other. Those days are fast approaching if not here already.

10 Comments

10 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

No chain stores would certainly bring back the small town. Could we sell that? Or close to your idea, all chain outlets would have to be franchised to local owners (how local, city, state, 100 mile radius, ?). Great post.

In addition, each media outlet needs to be independently owned. No corpoRAT cross ownership of media.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

People had the small town, they left those small shops to die when they found the big chains had better prices, better parking, better location.

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4784) 2 years ago

Hello freewriterguy,

Anything that limits power of the corporation/dictatorship, is good.

Best Regards

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

The chain stores came into being because people wanted cheaper goods. Everyone wants outsourcing to end, but they still insist on buying less expensive items made by foreign workers. If people would put aside their own self interest and personal greed, you wouldn't need any regulation.

[-] 2 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

This is a common misperception of how the world works. As economists have said forever, people make economic decisions for economic reasons.

But if everybody had good jobs, outsourcing was outlawed by a government by, for and of the people (i.e., we need to take it back), then no one would mind paying higher prices. Power (i.e., government power) is necessary to enforce decisions on what is right for a country economically, individuals on their own cannot accomplish this task. That's just reality.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Sorry, I see it as natural for people to get the most benefit for the least effort. In this case that would be buy for the lowest price. Unless you make it legally impossible for chain stores to offer lower prices people, no matter what their income, will buy based on price, convenience, and quality. They will not naturally place the long term good of the nation, their neighbors, or even themselves over their short term desires.

I've worked in a retail business where our customers were mostly rich individuals. The local small business eventually failed because we were unable to meet the lower prices of the chain stores. Even though getting the better price meant driving half an hour to save just a few dollars. I watched our sales drop for the four years I was there until expenses were equal to income.

This isn't something new just because of this latest recession. It's been happening to small shops across the country since the development of strip malls. It doesn't matter if people need the savings or not, they simply want it.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

It seems to me that we are suddenly in agreement. Consumers absolutely will follow the path of least cost. Governments, acting in the name of the people and elected to carry out their programs, need to protect national economies.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Hey, what's wrong with every person of legal age to work be required to start their own business?

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Because then I'd be forced to innovate for a system I don't totally respect. I'd be tantamount to taxing me for in action.

It seems to me that The reason that Capitalism needs an under class is because they are the ones who innovate more often, not out of loyalty but out of desperation. Coming from this perspective I find my being forced to make it rich in America would be synonymous with a mouse running through a maze for a hunk of cheese. Though this idea was only a passing notion when I first heard about the intricacies of our nation, it is an idea that is germane to our nation, in fact i believe it was an idea that Rand tried to get across in "Atlas... Why should I innovate for a nation that forces me to partake in the exploitation of the people i grew up with, the working class?

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Well then, how do you expect to become self sufficient without either working for someone or having your own business working for yourself - expecting the government to do it for you?

No other options - and if the thought of being forced to "partake in the exploitation of people" is the issue do the work yourself.