I liked the story and the concept for a few reasons:

- The residents of the town clearly don't see the shop as just another corporation. They see it as an institution, part of their community. That in itself is cool imo.

- Someone was thoughtful enough to realize people needed help, and they thought of a good way to give it to them. Again, imo, that's cool.

- You've taken the concept of "using taxpayer money" completely out of context. People had a problem with the bank bailouts because their money was used for it whether they wanted it to be or not. This was entirely voluntary, everyone who helped "bail them out" did so because they wanted to.

- If you don't support local businesses, then there won't be any. When you buy a product, you may only look at the price, but many people also look at other factors, such as who is selling it, where it comes from, what kind of service you're going to get, etc. A good example of this is that Gamer's Gate sometimes sell games that we can get here, but a bit cheaper. I still pay the extra and get them here anyway, because this is a company I believe in and want to support. Enough of your country already belongs to China anyway - if you stick to only buying products based purely on retail pricing, your kids are going to end up living in the United States of China, afterall, the US workforce is terribly uncompetitive on an international scale if you look at pricing alone.

- Nothing about the article suggests that the business is operating on a business model that isn't financially viable in the long term under more usual circumstances. They have been going for over a century, so they must have been doing something right. I suspect the issue is more to do with the current difficulties small businesses are facing trying to acquire financing during these tough economic times. The banks probably said no, but the community said yes. Again, imo, that's awesome. The community WANTED it to be financially viable, so they made it so. You really don't see what's cool about that?

- People protest against large corporations by sitting in parks and tweeting about it on their iphones and pretending to boycott stuff. These guys did the polar opposite of that. They protested big business by supporting small business instead. I believe that's by far and away the most effective way of doing things.

Yes?
------------------------------------------------------
Being practical is good to a point, but not(imho) when it takes advantage of your fellow man in a major way to do so. Does practicality have to rule everything we do and every moment of our lives? Are emotions good for nothing except when they serve a practical purpose or benefit us financially or otherwise?
--------------------------------------------------
You asked a question and I answered it...how was I to know what was obvious to you or not by your initial statement?

Also how should I know what you've taken into account yet at a given time or not?
-------------------------------------------------
There's national success stories and then there are companies with nasty practices taking advantage of US law to hire cheap labor overseas to avoid spending that money over here....especially when our economy is hurting so badly.....along with other nasty practices like difficulty securing benefits once one has the right to obtain them, unfair competition with small stores, etc.

As for my replies I only made them because I seriously thought you didn't GET the gist of why I and Monsta were happy by the news in the article....so I kept on densely thinking that was the reason why as I provided more examples. I was only trying to do that and have a conversation btw, not get into a debate about the finer points of economic law and the moral codes of some big box stores vs. some small stores.
--------------------------------------------
Nice way of calling me dumb. No, I don't have any "edumacashuns" beyond HS, good sir, but if being a pompous ass is one thing gained from such learnings I am glad I didn't go any further.

As to why I voiced my opinions......because I can as a human being? Not good enough? Then because I feel my opinion on such matters is as validly able to be presented on an issue such as this regardless if I know the ins and outs of higher fiance or not.

All in all, as I said before you don't seem to want to change your mind on things so why continue asking me questions if you know that any answer I might give is not going to change your mind one way or the other?

We get it...you're both pro-big business.....*clap clap*.

LOL yeah pretty much...hahaha

It's odd, you both sound like you're being sarcastic, yet that concept IS the whole point. Rather than taking money from your community and shipping it off to foreign multi nationals, you keep it within your own community. If you honestly can't see the financial benefits of that at a local level, then you simply don't understand the basic principles of how economies work.

Either they're both trolling or both very pro-big business.....I don't know what's worse.

Well, my guess is they are trolling, as I myself am also pro big business in many contexts, but it's blatantly obvious that this isn't a case where the usual pro big business arguments apply. As yet, we haven't actually heard any arguments from either of them as to why this wasn't good, other that the dubious claim that the business has been running for the past 100 years on a poor business model.

I suppose from a self-centered point of view, I would rather all the money in the world be located in my neighborhood. That isn't happening, it's the cost of freedom and whatnot..

I'm glad that many third world countries are beginning to enter the modern global economy. I'm glad that the poor Chinese are working for pennies a day but living rather than dying of starvation to the extent that they used to, etc. Not perfect, not even good... but better than nothing.

Reminds me of the way that post WW2 Americans used to worry about the Japanese economy, and now benefit from it.
I didn't read the article. I'm sure it is good, if you say so!

I just laughed at someone's comment, because it pointed out the silly line of reasoning: step 1. let's take stuff from group A, step 2. give it to someone in group A, step 3. profit for all of group A?

I didn't even make a comment. I just LOL'd. So I don't know why you considered that trolling.

Are you kidding? Or did you not get the gist of my statement in post 11? We're talking about an electronics store here. They don't manufacture this shit themselves. They but it from the very *drumroll* slave-trading, sweatshop-exploiting large corporation suppliers. When you buy a toster from there, it doesn't have "Made by Chagrin Hardware, manufacturers since 1857" written on the side of it. These guys buy their supplies from exactly the same supplier from which Walmart and other retailers buy it from. Those suppliers get it directly from your *insert child labour exploiting country.*
So no, the money doesn't go into the community. If anything, you're taking money OUT of the community because unlike Chagrin Hardware, large retailers are able to take advantage of economies of scale. They buy the stuff en masse, meaning that they get lower prices. That's less money going to the child-exploiters. Due to the sheer volume of the sales, they are able to price much lower because they don't need to make as much profit from each sale. That's more money staying in the community.

I love supporting local, but I will only do it if they give me a reason to give them my money. I would never go to Starbucks to buy a coffee (which mostly has to do with the fact that they don't sell any coffee. I'm refusing to call that grit 'coffee.') I will go to coffee shops which I know will deliver me a fine product that I am unable to find elsewhere. And I don't mind paying extra for it.

I wouldn't buy the same product for a higher price just because a place is 'local'. The world of business is harsh, now more than ever. That's your China argument right there. If companies want to distinguish themselves, they have to do something different.

Anyway, I'm off to bed. Got to get up in two hours :S

Sorry I hadn't seen this earlier, if I had, I wouldn't have bothered replying to you at all. You yourself included zero facts, and instead chose to insult the person who had chosen to take his time to help answer your question.

Generally speaking, those who have been privileged enough to have a good education don't feel the need to belittle others for not having had the same luxury, as they are instead able to beat them with solid facts and well reasoned arguments. The fact that you were unable to do that says more about you than it does about GameRager.

It's less about businesses sending money overseas but that by frequenting such stores one is promoting their slave labor practices using overseas labor. Yes, better than nothing, but not a practice we should be encouraging. Want to encourage overseas labor usage? Then do so with companies that do so while paying such overseas labor a fair wage and while providing good benefits(adequate to that country's average standard of living or nearabouts, that is), not with big box companies that promote BAD usage of overseas labor/etc.
----------------------------------------
I thought you were laughing as you were siding with Frater 100%...sorry if I mistook that reply of yours.

Wow, thanks for clearing that up for me Einstein. I'd never have known that if it wasn't for your super awesome edumakation.

My point was that you can at least choose where *some* of the money goes.

You didn't read the news post.

It was a HARDWARE store. A place where you get tools and materials to repair your house, take care of your animals (like horses) and the like.

I wonder how many factories you could find in the third world that pay fair wages. The good news is that wages will be driven up as time goes by.

I don't think you read the exchange, because I certainly backed my arguments up. Can't say the same for Rager. I wasn't trying to belittle him at all and I certainly didn't use that line to counter his 'arguments', it was rather an observation from the quality of his points. I've had a few exchanges with him within the past couple of days and this one here simply reinforced what I already believed beforehand. There's absolutely nothing wrong with not having higher hedyumakashun, but there is a point where you need to realise that you have no idea what you're talking about. In my opinion, he had reached that point.
You're right, I probably shouldn't have expressed it that way though.

I did read the article. I suppose hardware stores have a different meaning in countries (US v UK) or in areas (rural v urban). Lots of hardware stores here and they stock almost entirely electrical components. Toasters wasn't the best example, yet the point stays - it's not the kind of stuff that you manufacture yourself. That's how it is here at least.

No, you didn't. You made a poor attempt at criticizing the business model without making any actual points as to what you thought was wrong with it. You then made a poor attempt to claim that it doesn't matter where you buy things as they are all manufactured elsewhere anyway, a standpoint that defies all common sense, and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding in how economic systems work.

Then when he didn't take the bait for either of those arguments, you resorted to belittling him based on his level of education.