Er well neither did I. But they did teach spelling in my highschool and I would guess that they taught it in yours. I would of course love to go down your posts merrily demolishing your assertions but it's important to know what one is getting into before one commits to such an endevor. Especially when there are such copious quantities of assertions to demolish.

While we're referring to interesting articles I'd like to reccomend Freddie's article:
http://wunderkammermag.com/politics-and-society/forgetting-fundamentals-conservatism
It's an very good bit of writing.

Yeah horray, Iraq is having some elections. It wasn't worth it.

I'd love to chat with ya Madmilker, but I'm sorry, your effected "accent" or online voice is kindof throwing me for a loop. Is it intentional or is english your second language?

So you're asserting Trizzlor that Wal-mart is successful and profitable only because of governmental support?

To be honest that's a considerably more moderate libertarian response than I expected but it is consistent. Thank you for clarifying.

Well yes I'm certainly not saying that sweatshop labor was the only work there was to do Nob. But all the things we deplore sweatshops for; unsafe working conditions, brutal hours, low wages, employment of children, were completely typical in our own countries until the populations developed enough, both in terms of wealth and in terms of consciousness to be able to demand better treatment. Are we in any position to demand that the current developing world do as we say not as we did so to speak?

A minor point Dex. We've had "sweatshops" for as long as we've had the concept of industrialized labor. It's only in recent times that we as a species have advanced economically to the point where we have the luxury of differentiating "sweatshops" from other factories. A century plus ago we didn't call em sweatshops, they were just the job.

That is certainly a very... interesting read. Very full of character. It's too late to try and touch on the substance of the post, maybe in the morning. Thank you for sharing it.

Post #5 on this list:
http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2010/03/before-resorting-to-markets/#comments

Hey I'm with you and Zic 100%. Educated shopping choices are vital. Wal-mart extracts not one slim dime from me. But we probably don't have any business dictating those choices to the people who do choose to shop there.

Amen Jay, I can't stand shopping there. But then again as half of a double income no kids urban couple I have to keep in mind that they're not marketing to me.

Joe, I agree they're really crummy. But they serve a function and I don't think they suck or have a bad influence to a degree that is either criminal or requires government intervention through some kind of special regulation.

Thanks E.D. good arguements.

Okay Joseph, I am well at (or past maybe) the limits of my own knowledge on the subject. Certainly if they are making local governments dance to their tune then it's something I'd deplore and oppose.

Socrates, I don't find that position convincing. Mom & Pop businesses pay their menial laborers minimum wage just like Wal Mart does. It's not like they'd be raking in middle class wages if all the Wal Marts vanished in a puff of smoke.

Maybe Mike. You'll not catch me defending socialist economics. By the way, what was your solution to the question of the commons?

Well we're not getting simple manufacturing back without either:
A) An enormous trade barrier (and with that a trade war and if history is any guide a real war after that) or
B) Another large jump in automation in which case you're still not getting those jobs back.

Look when you have countries where the populace is willing to work for low low wages you're not going to be able to compete for jobs making little wingdings or basic assembly line stuff. Those jobs are always going to migrate to countries at a lower level of economic development.

That seems at least plausible. Walmart as an economic solvent in essence dissolving individual town economies to the benefit of the county? regional? economy.

Well I'm no expert on W-mart, I prefer Target myself, but far as I recall they situate themselves mostly outside of community limits and purchase their lots for themselves usually from a farmer though of course the generalizations are general.

The part about low Walmart wages preventing small business formation, sorry to be harsh, sounds like pure bunkum. Gonna have to ask for a cite for that.

You won't get arguements from me Nob. I'm no market fetishist. I'll go with the revised Churchill position: Market economies are the worst economic system known to man... except for all the other systems that have been tried.

I do believe that non-market entities (governments, NGO's etc) are necessary to patch the areas where markets fail (externalities, commons) and to prevent the market loosers from falling too low (and yes I accept the cost; that means the market winners can't go as high). All that said we know that the natural inclination of human organizations and bureaucracies are to grow and self perpetuate. That means that when dealing with entities that are not controlled by market forces (AKA they can’t go bankrupt) our inclination should probably be skeptically set to strive always for a minimizing or reduction of those entities to counteract their natural inclination to grow lest they grow kudzu like over our economy and jam the works up like some of our cousins have Europe appear to be suffering.

Fair enuff Jay.

Well heck, why try them at all? Just hang the lot of em right?

Maybe he's hoping he can land some hot Nav'i chick?

Bite your tongue man! Bite. Your. Tongue.

(Or in this media would it be more apropos to say bite your fingers? Doesn't have the same ring...)