Humanities desk
< December 29	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 31 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 30[edit]

Mizrahi and sephardi jews sect judaism[edit]

Do Mizrahi Jews and Sephardi Jews follow all five or six main sects of Judaism (Haredi, Hasidic, Modern Orthodox, Reconstructionist, Reform/Progressive and Conservative/Masorti) or they follow only one sect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've been told numerous times in various different ways that Conservative and Reform Judaism as practiced in the United States have a far-from-global reach, yet you never seem to understand this. What is the explanation for your apparently rather dense obtuseness quotient in this matter? -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please just answer my question. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.22.214 (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --Dweller (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really Dweller, they all follow six religious sects of Judaism? or you are just joking? --Donmust90 (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

No. You didn't stipulate "all" in your question. If you had, the answer would have been a definitive "no". As it stands, the answer to the question is unquestionably "yes". --Dweller (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you've been informed repeatedly that the premises of some of your questions don't make too much sense, yet you persist in asking slight variations on them... AnonMoos (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the following will enlighten anyone still reading here:

A new page, Jewish sects, redirects to Jewish religious movements; see also Talk: Jewish sects. These delineate the terms in use and that "sects" is improperly applied to the movements/streams/branches the OP lumped under the query heading.
Individuals of Sephardic or Mizrachi descent, now probably a generation or three removed from their community of origin, may choose to affiliate with any, or no, stream of contemporary Judaism. The relative appeal or openness of the various streams to newcomers is a matter to explore through further reading that may involve following External links to websites that have more detailed information than Wikipedia contains.
See Jewish religious movements#Sephardic movement, which describes the form of observance and worship particularly associated with the Sephardic tradition. Read the entire section carefully; it places the Sephardic tradition within Orthodox Judaism, i.e. halachic, Torah, or "observant" Judaism. Then read the entire page before posting further questions here: you may find their answers, besides the correct terminology.
This Wikipedia has a Category:Sephardi Jews topics, where the pages of noted Sephardic synagogues appear as internal links. There is no particular Category or List of Sephardic synagogues.

Questions may be directed to editors among those identified as Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Members, particular those whose names appear in the Edit history of a page on whose subject you would like further clarification. Note: I am not among them. -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

nations significant Ismaili population ethnic background and Zaidiyyah population[edit]

Which Muslim nations and non-Muslim nations have significant Ismaili population? So far, I know that Afghanistan has significant Ismaili population because of the Hazara population. Also, which Muslim nationhas significant Zaydiyyah population? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ismailism and other non-"Twelver" forms of Shi`ism are a minority everywhere in modern times. Oman apparently has a majority Ibadi population, while all other predominantly-Muslim nations have a "Twelver" or Sunni majority... AnonMoos (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bahrain is predominantly Zaidiyyah, I think, although I am having a lot of difficulty finding a citation to show it. Rabuve (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Milk subsidies[edit]

My newspaper this morning said that as part of the inactivity in the Congress, not only are we approaching a fiscal cliff, but the farm subsidy law has also expired. The article said that this means that the law covering milk subsidies goes back to the wording of the law in 1949, and as a result, the price of milk will rise to $7 a gallon. Can somebody explain to me what the 1949 language says which would cause this drastic increase in the price of milk? 216.93.234.239 (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For that unfortunate 95% of us who don't live in the USA, what's the current price? HiLo48 (talk) 04:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About $4.25 a gallon. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 04:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it varies dramatically by region. It's more like $3 a gallon in Detroit. StuRat (talk) 04:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's some deal about the price being proportional to one's distance from Eau Claire, Wisconsin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, if we have to subsidize milk prices that much, my feeling is that we shouldn't be drinking it. Soy milk or any other variety would be better (less expensive and healthier). The subsidies were started back when milk was thought to be healthy and dairy farmers were individual farmers, not massive corporations. In the modern world, including a massive US debt, subsidizing milk prices no longer makes sense. StuRat (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agriculture is one thing we do very well. If our basic food supply line gets outsourced too much, we're setting ourselves up for big trouble in the future. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason soy milk, etc., can't be made efficiently in the US (without subsidies) ? StuRat (talk) 05:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, if the US does agriculture so very well, why does it need a subsidy? HiLo48 (talk) 05:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So it won't get outsourced. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But if the US does agriculture so very well, surely it won't get outsourced, even without a subsidy. HiLo48 (talk) 07:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most everything we outsource are things we like but don't "need", like foreign cars and foreign wines and such. But if you become too dependent on other countries for your food supply, you're basically screwed in the long run. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's really a concern, for several reasons. The US has vast tracts of low cost land, plenty of water (usually), virtual slave labor in the form of illegal immigrants, a good transportation system, electricity in farm areas, an efficient agricultural factory system, etc. Combine this with many foods being unsuitable to shipping around the world, and agriculture becomes one of the more secure businesses in the US. StuRat (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think milk is somewhat immune to outsourcing, as it rots in a few days, which isn't enough time to ship it economically from overseas. This could be solved by irradiating it, but consumers might be reluctant to accept that. Condensed or evaporated milk can be shipped from overseas, but those have limited markets. StuRat (talk) 07:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The comments above – which are not even interesting – are neither here nor there. Worst of all not one of you offer even a hint of a reference. If you want to argue for or against agricultural subsidy the least you could do is arm yourselves to the teeth with references (btw there are TONS of them supporting either side. The OP asked a question, and 10 line+ after we finally have an attempted answer (by me, clap your hands everybody), pathetic. Royor (talk) 07:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The actual wording of the 1949 act is of interest (although I don't understand how you know that the parity price is $7-8 a gallon, when you don't know what the parity price is). However, the deeper issue of why the subsidy exists is even more interesting, and is highly relevant to the continuation or abolition of the price supports in the future. StuRat (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just quoting the US $7 ~ 8 as report by the general media. E.g.: $7 MSN money, $8 The Washington Post. Royor (talk) 08:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at those two sources, they say prices could rise to $6-$8, but that doesn't mean those are the "parity price". StuRat (talk) 08:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see I worded my answer poorly, corrected. Royor (talk) 08:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. StuRat (talk) 06:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Agricultural Act of 1949, or the the actual act directly from agriculture.senate.gov here.

(c) Except as provided in section 204, the price of milk shall be supported at such level not in excess of 90 per centum nor less than 75 per centum of the parity price therefor as the Secretary determines necessary in order to assure an adequate supply of pure and wholesome milk to meet current needs, reflect changes in the cost of production, and assure a level of farm income adequate to maintain productive capacity sufficient to meet anticipated future needs. Such price support shall be provided through purchases of milk and the products of milk.

So it basically stated the U.S government will buy milk @the price of 90% ~ 75% of parity price (I'm not too clear on what determine "parity price"; all I know is the government will by milk @ rougly US $7 ~ 8/gallon)~~, which is rougly US $7 ~ 8/gallon today.~~ The milk will be donated to friendly overseas countries as development aid. Royor (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting note: New Zealand, being a major exporter of dairy product, has recently had issues regarding high milk prices, inspiring the idea subsidy by the government. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As one small point of information, milk for export is heat-treated (UHT) or dried. No reference, sorry, this is easily observable in Europe. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We actually get fresh milk from California here in Asia. Some break through on not-quite-UHT processing allows the extra few days needed to make it economically viable. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for why we need subsidies: The subsidy programs give farmers extra money for their crops and guarantee a price floor. Note, price floor. Basically, US farms were producing much more agriculture than was actually needed, resulting in devaluing crops and driving farms out of business & damaging the economy in the process. See Agricultural Adjustment Act.

Since then, subsidies have been necessary to keep that price floor from dropping out from under farms. We're still quite capable of overproducing, and companies would to drive their competitors out of the market. Things like corn, like wheat or milk, are used in many products; the floor suddenly dropping out on any of those would affect basically everything in our economy. It winds up being better to give the farmers extra money to grow a smaller crop, than letting competition drive the market into the ground and destabilize the entire economy in the process. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That all runs counter to the laissez-faire/free market concepts which have generally prevailed in the US since Ronald Reagan. Note that subsidizing milk necessarily discriminates against all the milk alternatives out there, many of which are healthier, and may well be more economical, in a free market (using animals to produce food is generally less efficient and less healthy than using plant matter directly). StuRat (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corn and milk, at least, are used in so many things in the US because they are cheap and abundant, and they are cheap and abundant because they are heavily subsidised. If you're a farmer, it is more cost effective to grow the most heavily subsidised products, rather than diversify in a way that would allow them to survive in a free market. Corn syrup is ubiquitous, for example, because corn is subsidised. It is not worth using alternatives which might be tastier, healthier, or have a lower true cost, when a heavily subsidised ingredient is available so cheaply. And then people turn around and use this heavy use, and high production, as justification for why it needs to be subsidised! I do hope those in favour of these subsidies for their own farmers also support reputable fair trade schemes by buying Fair Trade products. After all, it wouldn't be fair for the price floor to drop, would it? 86.129.14.69 (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The things we subsidize, like milk, corn, wheat, and apples, aren't the healthiest choices. If we want to subsidize foods, perhaps we should move those subsidies to oats and other grains, avocados, berries, beans, greens, onions, nuts and seeds, etc. Or we could just let the market decide. StuRat (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are there votes in this? Is the subsidy driven by a particular voting block or blocks? Do the dairy manufacturers somehow have certain politicians in their pockets, or maybe it's a geographical thing? HiLo48 (talk) 00:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Are there votes in this"... Well, your typical farmer is likely to vote Republican. If the GOP were to drop the ball on this one too, they might never win another election. So, yes, there are votes in this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, almost two dozen members of Congress receive large farm subsidies: [1]. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a lovely conflict of interest, that. StuRat (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subsidized farmers become rich and powerful, and can then lobby for the continuation of those subsidies. This effect was magnified by the rise of corporate farming conglomerates. StuRat (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subsidies are the default in developed countries agriculture. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we'll find out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WTO ?[edit]

Isn't the World Trade Organization supposed to eliminate this type of massive agricultural subsidy, so everyone can compete on a level playing field ? StuRat (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have lost a fair amount of momentum with respect to new proposed sweeping adjustments since it burst into broad public consciousness at the time of the "Battle in Seattle" in 1999. The "Doha round" was supposed to make substantial progress against agricultural subsidies, but it's dragged on for over 10 years without any major agreement (there are two "Collapse of negotiations" subsection headers in the Doha Round article). If the European Union can't agree on cutting back on the subsidies which have the effect of substantially benefitting French farmers at the expense of others within the EU (thus providing the reason for the British rebate), then maybe it shouldn't be surprising that over a hundred countries can't agree on a semi-major restructuring of the world economy... AnonMoos (talk) 09:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to figure why nations wouldn't glom onto the idea of the economy being driven by a bureaucracy instead of a free market. The bureaucratic approach has always worked before. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is Fazhengnian covered in Falun Gong teachings?[edit]

Did the early books such as Zhuan Falun talk about Fazhengnian, or did this concept evolved later? I would like to get it clear.--Inspector (talk) 09:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First world vs third world - civil liberties record[edit]

This is something always made me curious why first world countries always have far better civil liberties and human rights record than third world countries? There is always a disregard for human life in third world countries. Why? --PlanetEditor (talk) 10:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First and third world cannot be precisely defined, but I suppose that the tendency is clear. Wealth and civil liberties are related. Countries who don't care about their population at all won't provide health care, access to education or let you create your own company. The fact that they also torture and execute their citizens is only more of the same. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Governments never give away rights of their own accord; citizens have to win the rights through struggle. When a country's wealth increases people's expectations rise, and they will demand a democratic government and work to keep it. See for example how democracy in Spain and Greece was preceded by the expansion of tourism. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph Error[edit]

The articles on Jane Heap and Margaret Anderson feature the same picture of three people. In the Jane Heap article they are identified as Jane Heap, Mina Loy, and Ezra Pound. In the Margaret Anderson article, the same three are identified as Jane Heap, Margaret Anderson, and Ezra Pound. One or both are in error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.162.212.95 (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the picture from Margaret Caroline Anderson. There is, for instance, another photo taken on the same occasion (the three are wearing the same outfits) here, where the taller woman is identified as Loy (with the source apparently being the book page reproduced here, about a quarter of the way down). She's also identified as Loy here. Thanks for noticing. Deor (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elie Wiesel's tattoo[edit]

I'm wondering if there exists a photograph of the tattoo given Elie Wiesel during his time at the Auschwitz concentration camp. A recent conspiracy theory claims there isn't, and I'm trying to get out ahead of any Stormfront-organized nonsense on our related articles (I'm not sure it would help, but still...). Thanks! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are pictures of his left forearm without a tattoo, which was the standard place to put it when Wiesel got into the concentration camp. I don't know whether these pictures are photoshopped or whether Wiesel let this tattoo be removed. Both possibilities are plausible. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The likelihood that photos of inmates were taken during the operation of Nazi camps is extremely slim, as such documentation was forbidden and evidence was destroyed by the Nazis themselves, usually upon evacuating and liquidating a camp when liberation forces were approaching. There were ID photos (mug-shot style) taken in some camps and ghettos, but to the best of our knowledge, the tattooing process was not photo-documented. Inmates' testimonies and memoirs don't mention photographing in the camps nor the circulation of photographs. And what would authenticate an original negative as having been photographed on a date prior to the liberation, along with the fact that the young Elie Wiesel wasn't a particularly notable person? -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In pectore[edit]

Girolamo Aleandro was the first Catholic cardinal to be appointed in pectore; the latter article says that it was done to prevent danger to him. Do we know what this danger was? At the time, he was actively involved in attempting to suppress the early Protestant Reformation; it would seem to me that Catholics wouldn't have objected to hearing about him becoming a cardinal, and Protestants would have opposed him fiercely as a persecutor, regardless of his title. Nyttend (talk) 13:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The other cardinal created together with Girolamo Aleandro on 22 December 1536 in pectore, Niccolò Caetani, was 10 years old at the moment of his promotion to the cardinalate. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 02:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Concilium Tridentinum: Actorum, 1-6 (Görres-Gesellschaft, 1904), p. 157: "Hieronymus Aleander et Nicolaus Gaetanus iam die 22. decembris 1536 a Paulo III cardinales creati, sed in pectore reservati erant, ille quidem, quia timebatur, ne Germanorum animi hoc Aleandri honore excitarentur, hic, quia admodum iuvenis erat." It doesn't answer your question, but it does at least confirm that in Aleandro's case Pope Paul III had the Germans on his mind rather than the English. Moonraker (talk) 10:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What universities promote informal logic than formal logic in their philosophy courses?[edit]

What are those most notable universities adhering to informal logic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 14:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Informal logic" is an oxymoron. Looie496 (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although we do have an article on Informal logic. Stephen Toulmin, who taught at Leeds, and Ralph Johnson, who teaches at the University of Windsor, are two of the more prominient names associated with it, but I don't know how influential the movement is in the general academic world. Tevildo (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the OP simply meant "informal reasoning", which might include Plato, for example. Yes, I know that his dialogues contain a stab at formal reasoning, but not of the sort that would impress an analytic philosopher (for the most part). I can say that in most places, a formal logic unit is a requirement for a philosophy major, but at Murdoch University, it hasn't been a requirement in the past (I haven't checked the latest). As for the general direction of philosophy departments, most I think lean towards analytic philosophy, which has a lot to do with formal logic, but is not the same as it. IBE (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Walmart[edit]

If Walmart is able to get more business than competition by selling at lower prices, and is able to sell at lower prices because it has power to get product manufacturers to sell to it for less, and if all this is possible because of the volume it sells, how did Walmart get huge in the first place? That is, in its early days, before it had the power it now has to make manufacturers sell to it for less than its competition and before when selling at such discounts compared to its competition stores would not have been possible, how did it get significantly more sales and grow more than its competition to the giant it now is? 67.163.109.173 (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wal-Mart's philosophy is, and was from the beginning, to offer the lowest prices to its customer, thereby undercutting all of its competitors. But there is more than one way of doing this than buying a lot. Its basic approach is to minimize margins and maximize returns (for example, it emphasizes the speed with which goods more through the store over the profit it makes per unit). It also doesn't pay generous salaries. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Walmart got started by establishing stores in semi-rural areas which were underserved by other "big box" retailers. The majority of inhabitants of the U.S. who did not live in the South or semi-rural areas were unlikely to have heard of Wal-Mart before the late 1980s... AnonMoos (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. I grew up in the Provo, Utah area, and for years, the closest Wal-Mart was in Evanston, Wyoming. (We'd stop in as a kind of novelty on our way to Bear Lake.) Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 15:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They also wiped out a lot of small and higher-priced "Ma and Pa" local businesses, which was bad for those stores' owners, but was presumed good for the buying public, basic Economics being what it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Walmart is good for the US economy overall. Sure, they have low prices, but they also have inferior goods, so people may end up spending more in the long run. And, since they force suppliers to move overseas to meet their price targets, this causes a loss of jobs in the US and results in an increased trade deficit with China, etc. They do employ many people, but a lot of those are kept just under full-time so they don't get benefits, and thus they create a drain on the health care system, social security, etc. Compare this with the good benefit employers they pushed out (both retailers and manufacturers). StuRat (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The history section of our Walmart article should give you some basic background on their growth. But for at least the last 20 years, probably more, it's been a superb supply chain management company. That is to say, their competitive advantage is that they manage inventory levels exceptionally well; it also helps that they have enough clout to force suppliers to give them favorable deals in terms of price, but also in implementing some of that supply chain. Think RFID tags on ~~palates~~ pallets. Shadowjams (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guessing you mean "pallets".

Oh yes, although an rfid tag in the mouth could have all sorts of interesting privacy concerns. Shadowjams (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And they also seem like they would be unpalatable. StuRat (talk) 08:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

As is Walmart itself. To anyone who's never been to one, think of it as kind of like a redneck Disneyland. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neat how you combined your elitism and your racism there in one sentence. μηδείς (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Rednecks" aren't a race. StuRat (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Apparently there is a race of rednecks; it's been proven mathematically, according to this. See also [2] and [3]. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I'm guessing Stu has never had the pure, unmitigated pleasure of visiting a Walmart at times when the rugrats are turned loose. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I remember reading in a popular economics book that Sam Walton knew instinctively that shopping was an experience for consumers, and they needed to feel something positive. That was basically how he distinguished his chain from Kmart - making the stores look attractive to offer customers a kind of escape, whilst maintaining the bottom line. Kmart, according the book I read, was based on the same idea, but with minimal presentation, and people found it kind of depressing. IBE (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would make sense. When I got a job at Sam's Club that's one of the things they hammered into us at training...make the customer's experience as good as possible so that they are more likely to return in the future and be more favorable towards the store. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 12:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ StuRat above--what do you mean they have inferior goods? Would the Samsung 43" Plasma TV I got there have been better if I had paid $20 more for it at Best Buy? Unless you are claiming they sell counterfeit goods the statement is rather hard to connect to reality. You get the brand you choose, often at the lowest price you can find. μηδείς (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that favorable return policies are a big part of their draw for large purchases. Also, for frequent travellers, they have pretty consistent floor plans and usually pricing from one to the next, so you can go in and shop in one in a town you've never been to almost like a native. Wnt (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe StuRat is referring to the process known as "binning". I'm having a hard time finding anything decent for a ref, but this YouTube vid explains it simply enough (our article would be / should be at product binning, but it's useless except in regards to semiconductors, but again, you get the gist). What the article and the vid discuss is component binning, where essentially identically made items get separated per tested benchmarks, but the next stage is completed product binning. If you're a manufacturer and you know from testing that this lot of Medeis-o-matic Betamax VCRs are slightly worse than that batch of Medeis-o-matics, would you send them to the customer that pays you enough to keep you fed or would you dump them on the customer that's crushing you on pricing demands to the point where you're making no money? Yes, of course, you send them to the guy that's a huge pain your ass. Same model, same everything, except they're not the same. Wal-mart never, ever, promises you good quality, right? It's kind of like a butcher deciding which cuts of cow to send to their local steakhouse and which get sent to the cheap-o burger shack. Matt Deres (talk) 01:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there actual evidence of this binning, or just speculation? The only real difference I have noted between Walmart and other stores is that all employees are expected to do whatever is needed at the time, rather than only do assigned jobs in limited areas of the store. I was there yesterday, and the announced over the loudspeaker "all available employees to the front lot for shopping-cart collection" and off they all went. μηδείς (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Walmart uses a price leader strategy (that link seems to go to something else) where they offer an inferior product at a lower price than the competition, in the hopes that consumers will then move up to a more expensive item, once in the store, which may very well cost as much or more than the same model at a competitive store. I saw this myself, when shopping for digital-to-analog TV converter boxes. Their cheapest model was a piece of crap. StuRat (talk) 06:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat -- the term is more often "Loss leader" (at least in the United States). One previous Walmart controversy was that for Walmart toys as a whole were pretty much a loss leader, so toy stores perceived that Walmart was trying to drive them out of business with anti-competitive monopolistic tactics... AnonMoos (talk)

That's not the same thing as what Stu is describing. Loss leaders are instances where the store intentionally decides to not make money on an item for some other benefit (such as removing competition, or getting people into the store). What he's describing is a version of bait-and-switch, where the advertised item ($99 TVs!) turns out to be a laughable piece of junk once you look at it ("Hmmm... a Sansmug TV complete with rabbit ears"). But, as long as you're there in the store anyway, check out these other models they have on display... Matt Deres (talk) 14:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Loss leader" is the term I was searching for, in that they may actually sell the piece of crap item at a loss, for those customers brave enough to buy it, and their strategy is to up-sell people who see it. This leads to them actually wanting it to look like junk, an unusual requirement for most retailers. StuRat (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the prize I saw some Black Friday shoppers cart away from them this year was a "Vizio" TV. After all these years, somebody has finally had the courage to actually make one - a TV that literally can't be turned down enough (volume 1) to make the commercials less than annoying, unless muted entirely. Wnt (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]