King tut

---Walmart---
What is "unfettered market manipulation"? What market is Walmart manipulating and how are they manipulating it? Walmart offers employment, that people can voluntarily take or not take. America is still a capitalistic meritocratic society, which means that capital is accumulated and invested, and the cream rises to the top.

I haven't seen any empirical evidence demonstrating whether or not Walmart increases or decreases the number of people in the middle class, and I would argue that it increases that number due to the positions such as manager, etc.

---Business Regulation---
The government absolutely should NOT legislate a company's ability to do business based upon "[its] effects on the economy as a whole." The sheer cost of such a study (quick, what is Microsoft's effect on the economy as a whole expressed as a single dollar figure?) is staggering. Also, I think the government's meager and already over-extended resources could be better expended elsewhere. How about focusing on crime? Infrastructure? Alternative energy? Medical research? Defense? Another big problem with the concept of the government approving or disproving businesses is that it would lead to lots of litigation; a company could argue each little point in the government's findings over and over. That would be really expensive to litigate.

---Direct Distribution---
All these plans about giving people $XX,XXX dollars don't specify who exactly will pay for it. The government? That means the taxpayers. And since America has a graduated income tax, that primarily means the corporations and the wealthy will fund it. Why on Earth should the Walmart kids, or Microsoft, be forced to pay homeless/unemployed people for being homeless/unemployed? Why should I, a non-wealthy working stiff, have to pay them? Regardless of how much any of you think is "enough" money for someone, it is not illegal to accumulate and conserve wealth, and I don't think it should be. The incentive to do better for yourself prompts a lot of the great inventions and advances we have. Also, where would we set any sort of limit? The already ultra-rich would obviously argue for a very high limit, but to someone making $20,000 a year, any limit over a million might seem unfathomable. Who is right, and who would decide who is right?

Personally, I have serious problems with just about any sort of leveling argument (leveling is the old "take from the rich and give to the poor."). I don't see why someone who has earned the money should be forced to do something with it. If I want to pass on my accumulated wealth to my kids, why shouldn't I be able to? If I can't, it might disincent me to accumulate wealth, which would then force my kids to work for their money, which opens the possibility of creating more homeless (if my kids are unable/unwilling to work). I also don't see why we would take capital from those that have demonstrated they know what to do with it and give it to those who have demonstrated that they don't. That would be like forcing Harvard, etc. to use 1/10th of its admissions spots on people who are not literate...does anyone support that plan?

---Minimum Wage---
The problem with minimum wage is that an increase in it will drive inflation, and provide a possible disincentive to create businesses. Pensions are beautiful in theory, but they are also, in practice, the main reason that the American auto industry (and much of Germany) has so many serious economic problems. I think the pension situation is analogous to a significantly higher minimum wage--great in theory, probably flawed in practice. If the government is regulating a minimum wage to give to people, it is probably because, based on skill alone, they cannot command any higher wage--which means that their labor is worth less than what the company is paying them, which means that the company is losing money on them, which means that the company must charge an artificially higher price for its goods. This makes the company vulnerable to competition, particularly global competition from companies that don't have to deal with regulations.

---Conclusion---
What exactly is your collective (the socialism implication is intentional) economic philosophy? Capitalism paired with forced redistribution of wealth together with a regulatory regime that determines who can and cannot do business?