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.
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.
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.
Small pockets? Mike we're talking about all of Northern Europe here. Also you're leaving out that their economy is actually significantly less regulated than ours is. Just more heavily taxed.
I guess I follow David but I think I disagree. Doing well or doing badly is a relative term. Are we as humans in these economies doing well? Doing badly? Compared to when? Compared to who?
Maybe I'm being too literal here but I'm seeing comparative flourishing; less people starving; less people dying. Perhaps people say they're unhappy but aren't people always going to find ways to be unhappy in the midst of plenty? Facebook drama makes some people unhappy. Does that mean that facebook makes us flourish less? Or am I looking at this from too much of a macro perspective and we're comparing welfare from say this year to last year?
Hmm so reads as a Dutch Hitchens or something? I guess I'm still missing the point. The Dutch have political arguements over social and economic issues? Are the militiamen proof that the US is on the verge of financial collapse and dangerously close to some absolutist government?
Mike, you're lumping the Scandinavians in with the Gauls, Spanish, Greeks and Italians which strikes me as unfair since the Scandinavian European social welfare states appear to be flourishing with neither economic collapse nor tyranny threatening.
That's very interesting and to be honest a couple of your words, eudamoniacally for instance, flew right over my head. That said I believe I can say with confidence that by virtually any metric of social welfare the markets are doing well.
Falling back to Maslow's Hierarchy I'd say that the market societies have more/a higher % of people working on the social acceptance and even self actualization levels of the hierarchy and fewer working on the basic needs levels than in any other organized society of comparable size.
On “Wealth and moral character”
Post #5 on this list:
http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2010/03/before-resorting-to-markets/#comments
On “A brief defense of Walmart”
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.
On “Wealth and moral character”
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.
On “The Weekly Standard pulls a Cully Stimson”
Well heck, why try them at all? Just hang the lot of em right?
On “Hayworth FAIL”
Maybe he's hoping he can land some hot Nav'i chick?
On “The Weekly Standard pulls a Cully Stimson”
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...)
On “Wealth and moral character”
Small pockets? Mike we're talking about all of Northern Europe here. Also you're leaving out that their economy is actually significantly less regulated than ours is. Just more heavily taxed.
"
I guess I follow David but I think I disagree. Doing well or doing badly is a relative term. Are we as humans in these economies doing well? Doing badly? Compared to when? Compared to who?
Maybe I'm being too literal here but I'm seeing comparative flourishing; less people starving; less people dying. Perhaps people say they're unhappy but aren't people always going to find ways to be unhappy in the midst of plenty? Facebook drama makes some people unhappy. Does that mean that facebook makes us flourish less? Or am I looking at this from too much of a macro perspective and we're comparing welfare from say this year to last year?
"
Well so is the GOP collectively loosing their minds but I'm not predicting the end of the country based on it.
On “The Weekly Standard pulls a Cully Stimson”
The Weekly Standard publish moronic right wing screeds with little to no basis in reality or law? That's unpossible!!
On “Wealth and moral character”
Hmm so reads as a Dutch Hitchens or something? I guess I'm still missing the point. The Dutch have political arguements over social and economic issues? Are the militiamen proof that the US is on the verge of financial collapse and dangerously close to some absolutist government?
"
Geert?
"
Mike, you're lumping the Scandinavians in with the Gauls, Spanish, Greeks and Italians which strikes me as unfair since the Scandinavian European social welfare states appear to be flourishing with neither economic collapse nor tyranny threatening.
"
That's very interesting and to be honest a couple of your words, eudamoniacally for instance, flew right over my head. That said I believe I can say with confidence that by virtually any metric of social welfare the markets are doing well.
Falling back to Maslow's Hierarchy I'd say that the market societies have more/a higher % of people working on the social acceptance and even self actualization levels of the hierarchy and fewer working on the basic needs levels than in any other organized society of comparable size.
On “Markets in everything ctd.”
Civility Gentlemen
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.