How Not to Like Wal-Mart
In this piece, I suggest a way for those who loathe Wal-Mart to be activists who make a difference: don't shop there. There are plenty of reasons not to shop there that have nothing to do with ideology. And if it makes them feel better, they don't have to live in a town that has a Wal-Mart store. Just don't expect everyone to do likewise. What they should not do is prevent others from making a different choice. Ultimately, in a market economy, it is the choices people make that determine what businesses succeed or fail. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (135)
I hate Wal-Mart, so I never shop there (and I have access to them). But there is ONE thing I really LIKE about that place where I never shop (I've tried it, and didn't like it): it keeps the places where I prefer to shop crowd-free and grateful for my business!
Let freedom ring (up the sales)!
Published: February 27, 2006 9:09 AM
I like Wal-Mart, and I wish they could somehow wiggle their merry way past the NIMBYist who utilize coercion to keep them out of New York City.
Published: February 27, 2006 9:13 AM
Dude ya stole my thunder! I have been drafting a letter to the editor of my local paper that is almost a carbon copy of Mr. Vance’s. Oh well at least the real reasons to boycott Wal Mart are out there. It is still my store of preference but I have passed it by many times after getting a look at the parking lot. I have even walked out on occasion, leaving my goods on the checkout candy shelf because five more minutes in line was worse than a splinter under a fingernail. BTW, I don’t know if this is a common occurrence, but in my burg, the number of retailers went up dramatically AFTER Wal Mart came to town and the main local grocery store actually expanded into a regional chain.
Published: February 27, 2006 9:52 AM
Best part of the article, "Wal-Mart has never caused any firm to go out of business. Wal-Mart can't close down any store but one of its own. It is the customers who no longer do business with a company or shop at a particular store who put that company out of business or closed that store."
This is the most basic economic fact which nearly everyone seems to miss - it is the customers that determine who sinks or swims. If you have a problem with Wal-Mart being "too big", you have a problem, at base, not with Wal-Mart but with the people who choose to shop there.
Published: February 27, 2006 10:16 AM
Mr. Vance has it *almost* right: If you don't like Wally World - and I despise the place - then don't shop there. Full stop.
Whether you have a "good" reason (and who appointed Mr. Vance God to make THAT decision I'll never know) or a "bad" reason...your own rationale is all that's necessary. I hate virtually everything about Wally World, so they haven't seen one red nickel from me in many years and have a snowball's chance in Houston of ever seeing another one.
The point that hacks me is this smarmly little comment about "If you don't like it, then don't live in a town with a Wal-Mart". Talk about an arrogant, intellectually bankrupt little comment.
Thank you, Mr. Vance, but I'll live wherever I damn well please - and there ain't jack you can do about it...cept live with it. If I don't want a Wally World to be built in my neighborhood I have every right to convince my elected officials to decline the permits. It's called "Freedom" - something which this Libertarian site should know a thing or two about.
If someone *wants* to live next to Wally World, I say Go For It. Buy a house RIGHT NEXT DOOR to Wally so you can just walk over instead of having to drive. Knock yourself out.
For Iceberg who doesn't liky the NIMBY's, well, it's *their* right to dislike Wally World as much as it is *your* right to adore it. So I'd say that everyone is exercising their right to free expression. Just because you've lost the battle so far doesn't make everyone else wrong. Of course, I know that doesn't fit in with the Lib perspective. In the Wonderful Land of Lib the *only* thing that counts is, well, I'm not exactly sure....and neither are Libs. But I digress.
Mr. Vance - if you want to shop, work, eat, sleep and live at or with Wally World....you go right ahead. I wouldn't want to interfere with your rights in the slightest. However, keep the smartass smug little ad hominens to yourself when it comes to those of us who'd rather eat bugs than walk in the door.
It's that pesky FREEDOM thing again.....You're free to do as you please, and, *gasp* so am I!
Published: February 27, 2006 10:25 AM
"If I don't want a Wally World to be built in my neighborhood I have every right to convince my elected officials to decline the permits."
In other words, you can't convince people not to shop there, but you can get some government bullies on your side to tell people that they can't build a store there where people want to shop. What if they got together and told you that you couldn't park your car in your driveway, or leave your window open? That's okay, right? If a politician is behind you, that must make it right, right?
Published: February 27, 2006 10:38 AM
In other words, "I have every right to point a gun at you." Beautiful reasoning.
Published: February 27, 2006 10:52 AM
Exactly, ninja. It's not whether your reasons are "good" or "bad," it's whether or not you try to impose your choices on others either directly or through the auspices of government.
Published: February 27, 2006 10:58 AM
"Wal-Mart has never caused any firm to go out of business. Wal-Mart can't close down any store but one of its own. It is the customers who no longer do business with a company or shop at a particular store who put that company out of business or closed that store."
Well, yes and no. It's not as though Wal-mart is a pure market firm, operating with no government patronage. For one thing, Wal-mart often gets the land for its stores by eminent domain. Since land obtained by eminent domain is generally land obtained below the market price (i.e., below the price at which the owner would have sold voluntarily -- otherwise eminent domain wouldn't have been needed), Wal-mart's operating costs are lower than they would have been without government help.
So, sure, customers voluntarily choose to shop at Wal-mart because of its lower prices; but those lower prices have been made possible, in part, by theft -- so it's not exactly fair competition. If I got to steal my means of production I could offer lower prices too. (And eminent domain is only one of the many ways in which big corporations are aided by state violence.)
And if Wal-mart first uses government intervention to help it defeat its competitors, and then takes advantage of the absence of such competitors in order to offer employees lower salaries than they could if the competitors hadn't been wiped out, then Wal-mart's low salaries are not exactly a pure market phenomenon either.
To be sure, Wal-mart's success isn't due solely to state patronage; there's been genuine entrepreneurial skill involved too. Still, Wal-mart's success is rather tainted.
Published: February 27, 2006 11:16 AM
The emotionalistic responses, even among those who would rightly defend Wal Mart's right to pursue their business model, is strange, peppered with words like "hate" and "despise." At the end of the day, Wal Mart is just a big box with lots of stuff in it run by people who do a much better job than others of moving stuff that people want from point A to point B. I personally don't like to shop at Wal Mart (though I often do since one is across the street from my ofice) because I think the stores are junky and too crowded. But I would be hard pressed to "despise" them for it. I'll just shop at Target more often. The one area it might be rational to muster up some hatred is their use of force with eminent domain, but no one mentions that with regard to their emotional responses.
As Mr. Long points out, their unfortunate and immoral willingess to use eminent domain definitely taints their success, though, given the economic benefits of their distribution system, I'd be very surprised if their pricing structure were any different than if they hadn't. Certainly, their balance sheet is presumably somewhat richer with ill-gotten gains. Not enough data to draw pricing or equity conclusions definitively, though. So I suppose I might hate them a little for eminent domain (something my family has been hurt by with a situation not involving Wal Mart). Of course, if they come out for a minimum wage increase they know will hurt their competitors, perhaps I'll take may hate full time, but not over crowds, parking lots, building size or other trifles that are none of my business--except as to the choices of my patronage.
Published: February 27, 2006 11:39 AM
I certainly agree that land obtained by eminent domain is theft. It may be a "good" reason to not shop at Wal-Mart, but it is not the reason usually given by Wal-Mart bashers, who prefer the "bad" reasons that I mention in my article (exploits its workers, practices predatory pricing, destroys small towns, etc.). But I wonder how many of the 3,700 Wal-Mart stores in United States and 1,500 in foreign countries were built on land obtained by eminent domain. I suspect it is a very small number. And, of course, the root of the problem with eminent domain is the federal, state, and local laws that allow governments to take property in the first place.
Published: February 27, 2006 11:59 AM
Laurence Vance is the Sean Hannity of
libertarianism.
Published: February 27, 2006 12:02 PM
I despise Sean Hannity so I take that as an insult. What exactly do you mean?
Published: February 27, 2006 12:17 PM
homeimprovementninja: Are you attempting to say that we DON'T have the right to shape our own neighborhoods? It's OUTSIDE the rights of the average citizen to say they don't want a Wally World (or a liquor store, or a brothel, or a coal mine or *whatever*) in their neighborhood?
Are you saying that zoning is a bad thing? If you are, then I wanna open a trailer park on your street.
Just because I don't want to live next to a Wally World (or a Target or Costco, for that matter) that doesn't make me anti-capitalistic. It makes me want to shape my neighborhood in a way I find acceptable. Are you willing to give up the freedom to do so in your neighborhood?
Besides, you got it ENTIRELY backwards. I don't give one red flying flip where you shop, or what you buy. I support your right to behave peacably as much as I demand my right to do so. I just don't want the usual Wally World crowd in MY neighborhood. Yep, I'm a NIMBY. There are Wally's galore within 10 or 15 minutes of every location in Dallas. You can't swing a dead cat without whacking one.
So, YES, I can petition the government whackos to enforce zoning, and deny Wally World the right to build. As far as where you shop, that's entirely up to you. So to infer these are one in the same is a red herring.
As for your comment about a gun, Mr. Wright, what in the world are you talking about? I won't shoot at you if you shop at Wally World - but it's more likely you'll BE in a gunfight at Wally's than at almost any other store in the US. And save the tired, old Lib canard about every government action being "a gun to your head". That's just a bad metaphor posing as a rational statement.
Hmmm...gunfights in the lobby of the store, huge traffic congestion, trash, an eyesore of a building, parking lots as big as subdivisions....it's NOT Wally World per se that most folks object to (in this scenario) it's all the negatives that come with one of their stores.
If Wally wants to build a store in the poor part of town, I could not care less. That's a capital improvement. Of course, you may get carjacked driving to and from it. However, when they wanna drop one of those boxes in my part of town, I want to ask them to compensate me for the loss of property value I'll experience. (Not like that will - or should - happen.)
Do you seriously think that having a Wally World in your neighborhood HELPS property values? Try selling your 6- or 7-digit home when you've got a zillion junkers full of the seething masses running to the local junk mart at all hours. Now there's a pretty picture.
No - you're confusing the issues: Shop where you want. Who cares. I don't want Wally in my neighborhood. The only guns are in Wally's lobby. Get a grip.
One last thing: BB&T has announced a policy of NOT lending to developers that "acquire" land via eminent domain. Now there's a free-market perspective for you. Just this morning I opened an account with them. They do something I like and get rewarded with my business. You gotta love that freedom!
Published: February 27, 2006 12:53 PM
antilib/Mike Huben: I don't think that's what he said at all. The libertarian position on "shaping one's community" is not that it's wrong, or that everyone is obligated to live next to any brothel that wants to set up shop near their home. The libertarian position is that *if* you want these things, you must accomplish them through explicit contract, and that you don't have a right to these goods merely because of your proximity. So go ahead – set up an agreement with the neighboring property owners that they will not permit their property to be sold to or used by Wal-mart or whomever else you don't like. But that's not what your city council does. It shoves them off, irrespective of previous ownership rights and agreements.
Published: February 27, 2006 1:03 PM
I think what beefcake meant is that Laurence makes the arguments that make libertarianism look bad. Here, we have an article that totally ignores any legitimate political complain against Wal-mart (such as eminent domain abuse). And remember his FairTax articles? He argued, and I'm not making this up, that the FairTax is a bad idea because 1) programs other than the FairTax are bad; 2) it doesn't solve all problems with government; and 3) some of its supporters aren't pure libertarians. You have to read it to believe it!
Published: February 27, 2006 1:08 PM
Person,
I would agree with your perspective - as a matter of fact I'd be delighted if that's how things worked - but as long as we have capricious city councils and eminent domain, then we cannot have the kind of world you describe.
I'm not saying that a purely voluntary, contractual world is not worth seeking. We can do both. Recognize that which *IS* and work toward that which *SHOULD BE*.
Published: February 27, 2006 1:08 PM
Person has it exactly right.
Published: February 27, 2006 1:33 PM
Antilib is Mike Huben??? Wow! I haven't crossed swords with comrad Huben since the mid 1990's in talk.politics.libertarian, and actually was recently (within the last couple of months, anyway) trying to remember his name.
Could have been that "antilib"'s overwhelming combination of arrogance and ignorance had reminded me of comrad Huben's frightful style from those heady days of yore.
Certainly nothing has changed, still frequenting forums full of people that have heard it all before, proclaiming how everyone else is wrong and he is right, and responding to any disagreement by ignoring what the person said and going directly to points never made and how using force in response to these straw-men is fine so long as he agrees with it.
At least, with a track record as long, distinguished and perfectly consistent as comrad Huben's, replies will be very easy.
No, it is not justified to force your opinion on others through political power simply because you nag a majority of the politicians into doing your will. Such a majority is not moral, any more than two thugs raping one woman in an alley is moral because it's a majority. It's not justified when WalMart uses it, either. It is always wrong because it is always an initiation of force. Period.
Published: February 27, 2006 1:34 PM
Are you attempting to say that we DON'T have the right to shape our own neighborhoods?
Yes.
What you call "shaping your neighborhood" is really just a euphemism for "telling someone else what he may or may not do with his property."
You have the right to "shape" your own property. You do not have the right to "shape" other people's property.
Published: February 27, 2006 1:54 PM
Wal-mart's efficient "distribution model" is also subsidized by the fact that the highways are tax-funded, no? Federal funding for highways means (ceteris paribus) that businesses relying more heavily on long-distance shipping have a state-funded advantage over those who don't.
Published: February 27, 2006 2:00 PM
Roderick T. Long: I appreciate that you're doing your best to fend off a "vulgar libertarian" charge by Kevin Carson by talking about the state intervention that taints Wal-mart, but you're maybe going too far with your last comment. Yes, highways are state funded. But this doesn't give it an advantage over the current competitors that its detractors laud, who have access to the same roads. Further, did Wal-mart -- or any supermarket whatsoever, have anything at all to do with the federal and state governments' long-term policy of building roads? They didn't. And who are the biggest supporters of "public roads"? The people most opposed to Wal-mart.
(They *have* of course, probably lobbied for traffic light changes near their stores. My mother has thousands of such stories, having worked in traffic planning, but Wal-mart is far from alone in this respect. Further, that to me looks more like a case of a company doing the best it can to satisfy customers in the face of tedious bureaucracy.)
On top of that, what's to say transportation costs wouldn't be even *lower* absent state intervention, and goods would be shipped from even further away, giving Wal-mart an even bigger advantage in their ability to manage distribution? One must be careful not to justify one's pre-existing dislike for a company by hunting out any intervention, no matter how small.
Published: February 27, 2006 2:12 PM
I would like to add a "good" reason to not shop at WalMart. I do not "hate" WalMart, but I find some of their business practices questionable and virtually unknown to the consumer.
The "reason" I would like to add is DECEPTION.
The example I will use is from a lawnmower manufacturer about 15 miles from me: Simplicity in Port Washington, Wisconsin.
I own a manufacturing facility here. I have 100 employees and do about 10 million a year - been in business since 1986.
We met with Simplicity (some salesmen and a VP) about 5 years ago for a project. After discussing our deal, we began making small talk. One of the things that came up was our feelings about WalMart as a customer to our companies.
I had a bad experience with WalMart prior to the meeting (basically, the buyer took my price and hammered his current vendor to match it - not illegal, but not something that will have new vendors beating down your door if word gets around - it's like a guy in highschool who screws every girl he can as quickly as he can: he gets a "bad rep" pretty quick and no girls will go out with him at all soon enough).
When I brought this up (my bad experience with WalMart, not bad reps from too much sex!), I was surprised to hear that Simplicity had recently turned down a huge deal with WalMart - until I found out why.
According to the VP in our meeting, WalMart was all set to go with a specific model of Simplicity lawnmower. On the day they went to see the buyer in Bentovnille to get the final p.o. and go over a few minor changes to the graphics, the buyer suddenly let the VP (and owner and a few others that flew down)know that in order for the purchase to go through Simplicity would have to "cheapen-up" many of the parts, but not change the name or model number in comparison to what was sold at their "mom and pop"/other dealers.
So, in a nutshell, the buyer wanted to undercut all other vendors (which is understandable) not with volume, but with DECEPTION.
I have heard so many stories like this from so many different manufacturers, that I have a hard time seeing myself using WalMart as a vendor in the future. To me, this IS "the market" working - it won't start with consumers, it will start with vendors such as myself depriving WalMart of selection due to their behavior - if WalMart responds to the concerns, they will stay in business, if they don't, they will be Kmart in 30 years.
I now must question just about any product I buy from WalMart - am I really getting a "better price" or am I just buying lower quality product that has the same name/label as the higher quality product?
With WalMart, it really may be that we are "getting what we paid for".
Published: February 27, 2006 2:13 PM
Federal funding for highways means (ceteris paribus) that businesses relying more heavily on long-distance shipping have a state-funded advantage over those who don't.
Actually, wouldn't it mean that these businesses are not subject to a natural disadvantage they would otherwise have? I don't see how that necessarily gives retailers like Wal-Mart an advantage over other businesses, although it may take away one advantage that competitors would otherwise have over Wal-Mart.
But wouldn't this non-disadvantage be measured only by extent to which competitors sold only local products? In other words, as between retailers, don't the benefits of state-funded roads have to be calculated as to all users of them?
Published: February 27, 2006 2:15 PM
Mr Howland: I don't know who Mr. Huben, so you're barking up the wrong tree. As for your calling him "Comrade", well that's between the two of you.
"Arrogance and Ignorance". Catchy. Smarmy, off point and petty. But then again, that's what one expects from you. Your comparison of zoning to rape is a huge stretch, even for your fertile imagination. I won't even attempt to argue with that one......it's just too bizarre for rational thought.
Mr. Gaskell: I disagree with your perspective vehemently. The actions of *others* can and do have an effect on my property. I don't want a cement plant on the lot next to mine, nor to I want a Wally World in my neighborhood. If those things can be done WITHOUT affecting my values, fine - but we all know they cannot. So, in your perfect world these things must not occur. In the world in which the rest of us live, they do. Pray tell, oh wise one, just how DO you set about protecting that value you've worked for? Or is that perspective beneath consideration for the great minds of this forum?
Apparently there aren't any Libs who have concern for their neighborhoods or property values. At least that's how this thread seems to be leaning. I suspect, however, that there's more than just a smattering of self-righteousness going on. If Mr. Howard's next door neighbor decided to put up a trailer park or Mr. Gaskells neighbor opened an all night liquor store, I bet we'd hear squeals of protest until doomsday. Yeah, you gentlement promote "Liberty" and "Freedom" to the water's edge....as long as it's not YOUR boat getting rocked.
Published: February 27, 2006 2:42 PM
Antilib;
"Are you saying that zoning is a bad thing? If you are, then I wanna open a trailer park on your street."
Yes, zoning IS a bad thing. There is no room for zoning in any libertarian conception of a community. I have personally seen some of the evils that zoning enables right here in my town, that of manipulation of the ordinances by developers.
There is, however, a tradition of restrictive covenants that performs the same function without force. Houston TX has no zoning and does just fine.
Antilib / Mike - I for one enjoy engaging you in discussion, but why so angry all the time? It gets tiresome. Lay out your evidence and arguments, and spend less time expounding on why and how much you hate a given allegedly evil business enterprise, while ignoring equally heinous things done by other enterprises, such as government, that you do not hate.
Published: February 27, 2006 2:50 PM
Antilib, "I won't even attempt to argue with that one."
But you did. You said it was "a huge stretch", implying that it was too huge to be reasonable. That is an argument.
"If those things can be done WITHOUT affecting my values, fine - but we all know they cannot." ...and... "Yeah, you gentlement promote "Liberty" and "Freedom" to the water's edge....as long as it's not YOUR boat getting rocked."
What an interesting double-talk. It is you, Antilib, who is talking about initiating force against those who would effect your property values. You may proclaim loudly and falsely how everyone else doing so, you cannot hide that you do it yourself.
If you are not Mike Huben, I beg your pardon. No one falsely deserves such a reputation to be laid at their feet. As far as "between the two of" us, the honorific "comrad" was earned, not gifted.
Published: February 27, 2006 3:22 PM
Vince,
Once again (Maybe all caps will help): I AIN'T MIKE. OK? Now moving along.....
"There is no room for zoning in any libertarian conception of a community"
That may be true, strictly speaking. Practically speaking, however, we don't live in a libertarian community. If it were possible for a community of people to exist under a set of restrictive covenants *only* that would be wonderful. I have yet to see one (on anything other than a minor scale) that exists.
I didn't know that Houston has no zoning. That's quite interesting. The small towns in and around Dallas are rife with it, and yet, still have myriad issues with things like rock quarries popping up in - formerly - upper-6 and lower-7 figure neighborhoods, primarily because Lot A is subject to zoning, while Lot B is not.
My initial concern is still extant: How does one, even in a pure libertarian world, meaningfully protect one's property investment if, on the adjacent lot, you may find (years after your initial purchase) a Wally World, or a brothel or trailer park? It is my perception that the canned Lib response is: Tough Luck. That doesn't answer, however, for the damage to the value of my property because my neighbor elects to do something different with his property. I agree that it doesn't give me the right to dictate what he does with his property, but is there no consideration for the negative impact on my property?
It's not like I can pick up my house and move it a distance away, and yet retain the investment. Unlike bank accounts or shares of stock, which are transportable, one's home (or any real estate) are fairly fixed.
I would not argue with you at all about the evils of developers manipulating ordinances. It goes right back to my comment about capricious city councils and eminent domain. It brings me to a question, tho: If, as you assert, zoning is bad (and I'm not convinced it is), then how does a community of individuals control their environs?
Would you assert that no one has any right to want to live in an area that adheres to a given set of rules? I live in a new development on a former ranch in which the covenants document is about 2 inches thick. I can't even paint my house without ARB approval. It's a real PITA, but it helps the area retain the character for which I bought the property. All the houses are in the mid-6 to low-7 figures. Across the street from our community are other, similar, neighborhoods, each with relatively similar price points.
There is a development about a half mile away which is being built into a moderately sized commercial center. I'm perfectly fine with it, as the centre will be composed of mostly mid-to-upper level stores. Many of my neighbors have their knickers in a serious twist.
It is my perception that the Lib philosophy says, pretty much, tough luck jack. If the development were for low-end establishments (Yes, Wally World would qualify as low-end) I'd be screaming, too. Unfortunately, I don't think any of this leads to a good answer.
The concept that you ONLY can have influence on the piece of dirt YOU own has both merit and is troublesome. If your dirt affects my dirt (meaning sale potential) then we have a conflict. On the other hand, having someone else have the right to tell me that I can, or cannot, do a thing with my dirt causes me discomfort. What to do, what to do?
With regard to your advice: thanks for the perspective. Sorry if you perceive I'm angry. I'm actually not. This forum is interesting and refreshing - even if I don't agree with a lot of it. I've tried to say in many ways that I am not a Wally World proponent, but it's absolutely OK if others are. I also don't have much good to say about governments, but have a great deal of difficulty swallowing all the "pure" arguments here about how universally BAD everything non-Lib is supposed to be.
The Lib perspective of Freedom and Liberty is awfully attractive. If it weren't I sure wouldn't spend my time trying to learn more about it. However, there's an entire line of BS that get's bandied around in here about how perfect Lib-ism is, how corrupt everyone and everything else is, and how Libs have all the answers. If the coating of intellectual arrogance and downright nastiness were stripped away, there's much to be said for the Lib philosophy. I find myself taking a more Lib approach every day. However, as my elders were fond of saying "These folks talk like a man with a paper asshole".
Libs want to talk about how universally heinous government is, to denigrate anyone and enything associated with it (Just look at some of the discussions about the Armed Forces) and yet demand "The Rule of Law" as if it's gonna magically appear. I guess my biggest complaint is that, for all the talk of Freedom, Liberty and Morality, most Libs are hypocrites - at least they have the appearance of hypocrites.
Is there such a thing as moderation in the Lib world? If so, I've yet to see it. Is there room for personally held moral perspectives? Virtually every time someone in this forum has expressed a moral objection to something, they're derided and denigrated. Is that what Liberalism is all about? Ad hominems and belittlement?
Admittedly, I'm still learning and have a lot to learn, but I can't accept the Lib world-view that everything right now is terrible, Libs are the only ones with answers and that there is no room for anything other than rank consumerism in the world. If that's all Liberalism has to offer it's never going to be much more than a sideshow - and all the really potent, powerful ideas will be overshadowed by the negative character of its proponents.
Published: February 27, 2006 3:30 PM
The actions of *others* can and do have an effect on my property.
The actions of others have an effect on the market price of everything you own and everything you do. That's the nature of economics -- everything affects everything else.
If someone were to open a business that competes with yours, even if it is across town or across the country, his doing so affects the value of your business and the prices at which you can sell your goods or services. By your logic, since his actions have "an effect" on your property and income, then you believe that you somehow have the "right" to control his ability to enter the market and operate his business.
Actually, this is the rationale behind the entire universe of economic domination and brutality called "protectionism."
It is brutality because those who employ government protectionism do so in order to force others to refrain from engaging in peaceful, non-harmful conduct. "Harm" is the key word here. It has a narrow and specific meaning. Harm (or the threat of harm) is the only thing that justifies the use of force. Peaceful conduct that "affects" prices is not harmful.
Like every other government-loving brute, you would prefer that government-violence be used whenever something merely "affects" you, not when something actually harms you.
Pray tell, oh wise one, just how DO you set about protecting that value you've worked for?
By a variety of means. But you are not yet ready to hear them, Grasshopper.
Apparently there aren't any Libs who have concern for their neighborhoods or property values.
My my. Quite the strawman-manufacturer, aren't you?
Some of us simply refuse to promote or engage in aggressive violence to control other people's non-violent, non-harmful behavior.
As for the liquor store that may open up next door to my house, the absence of zoning or road subsidies or all of the thousands of other land-use regulations would fundamentally change the structure of most neighborhoods. The entire system of land use would reorganize itself along completely different lines. It is impossible to simply say that one specific change would take place, isolated and out of context of every other change.
Published: February 27, 2006 3:37 PM
George,
"Like every other government-loving brute" Ah Ah Ah. Never said I loved government, I also never said I hated it. Keep your own prejudices to yourself, thank you.
"whenever something merely "affects" you"
OK, oh wise one, I would suppose that a large drop in the value of my real estate is not "harm" right? Or is it only an "affect" when it "affects" me, but "harm" when it "harms" you? I know, your predictable, yet wholly-unconvincing argument, is that it's an "affect" no matter who. Right. When you have no fat in the fire it's an "affect", when your buns are sizzling it's "harm".
"But you are not yet ready to hear them, Grasshopper" Well, edjumakate us masses, will ya? You seem to have all the answers....or is that just subterfuge?
"Some of us simply refuse to promote or engage in aggressive violence to control other people's non-violent, non-harmful behavior"
Oh please. I only fell off the turnip truck last week......
It's your last argument that makes sense. You're right that if all zoning, etc., were immediately gone, the entire system of land use WOULD reorganize. But that ain't gonna happen anytime soon. And if it does I suspect it won't be pretty. So, shall we deal with what IS instead of what MIGHT be?
Published: February 27, 2006 3:46 PM
I won't speak for "beefcake" as to what he meant by calling you the Sean Hannity of Libertarianism, but I would understand it to mean you are an apologist for something which is at best mixed, and at worst an actual evil, but because they are a corporation, you will say no evil, or cut them breaks just like Hannity "hannitizes" every evil word or deed of the current junta in DC.
As best I can tell, WalMart is best at getting the newly printed fiat currencies nearest the source (in China, generated through various credit shell games). Mises noted inflation is not neutral, so the first to get the currency - before it devalues much - are the beneficiaries.
The fact that a corporation and not government employees or contractors are near the source of the spring ought not make a difference to declaring the whole thing evil.
To say Wal-Mart doesn't put others out of business is technically true, but that is like saying someone didn't lost to an opponent in a sports game with a bribed referee who made calls that changed the outcome.
Mom and Pop don't have equal access to Chinese megacredit and megainflation. Nor to the regulatory arbitrage - they can't move their shop from the downtown to a greenfield just outside of the tax and regulation line, nor have all kinds of new infrastructure built around them (not doing so will cause a nuisance).
The manufacturers are in the same situation. After destroying our manufacturing base (I responded to "the incredible bread machine" with a line "not better bread nor better bakes, but bookkept games and money fakes."), I DON'T have the option to buy something american made (even expanding to mexican, etc.) except for a very narrow line of expensive specialty items.
I've noted earlier that if we don't approve of buying stolen merchandise (being apathetic to where the cheap goods come from) we do care about the merchant and merchandise. If the theft is merely well hidden like in inflation, or via some other hidden confiscation, then if WalMart is able to sell cheaply only because of the theft, fraud, or whatever you want to call it, it is immoral to support them.
But I suppose if Sean Hannity doesn't care about torture or the destruction of habeas corpus, maybe you shouldn't care about where WalMart gets its goods, as long as you can buy stuff cheaply and the stock price goes up.
Published: February 27, 2006 3:51 PM
A critical point made by Mr. Gaskill within the context of this conversation: "the absence of zoning or road subsidies...would fundamentally change the structure of most neighborhoods. The entire system of land use would reorganize itself along completely different lines. It is impossible to simply say that one specific change would take place, isolated and out of context of every other change."
An additional point to be made is that one of the reason individuals are so concerned with the impact on property values, is that governemnt policy (monetary policy, FNMA/GNMA) has RADICALLY inflated proerty values. This makes it a much more contentious issue vis a vis zoning, etc. than it would (should) otherwise be.
Published: February 27, 2006 3:53 PM
Antilib, "How does one, even in a pure libertarian world, meaningfully protect one's property investment if, on the adjacent lot, you may find (years after your initial purchase) a Wally World, or a brothel or trailer park?"
An excellent question. You are not the only person so effected, and voluntary cooperative action by more than just a small handful of people is one of the great feats that language has allowed human beings to perform.
So you, other neighbors, their neighbors, and other effected and interested individuals come together and find something that works. I have no way of knowing what that will be, because I am not there. However, I can guess at what could happen.
A blighted house? The interested individuals buy the house (cheap), invest in it and resell to someone who shares your appreciation of the community. A stone quarry or WalMart? The interested individuals either bid more than the developer, or come up with a plan to keep the mine or store from overwhelming the community and then work with the developer to make it happen. Same for a brothel or all-night pub. However, if the brothel or all-night pub is operating in such a way as to be unobtrusive, then it is not for me to say what they do with their own property and on their own time.
Keep in mind that the developer has a vested interest in their property's value also. Even a stone quarry must run out of stone eventually, and WalMart wants customers.
If a polluting industry opened up next door, I would prosecute for violating my property with their wastes. I would assist my neighbors in doing the same, thus bringing "community standard" to a functioning phrase and not something to be frightened of.
I keep using the word "community" because that is what a group of interested individuals is. Like "society", "community" pre-exists any government.
Published: February 27, 2006 3:59 PM
Practically speaking, however, we don't live in a libertarian community.
Hardly makes zoning laws moral or ethical.
How does one, even in a pure libertarian world, meaningfully protect one's property investment if, on the adjacent lot, you may find (years after your initial purchase) a Wally World, or a brothel or trailer park?
Seems hardly logical that a developer would build a trailer park in his property if the opportunity cost of developing the land for more expensive housing would be greater. My guess is that your fear of trailer parks is unfounded.
Assuming their full legal status, Brothels are businesses, and as such they would be placed where the would be more clients, like docks, city downtowns, main streets and others. It would not make any business sense to place a brothel where clients would not find the business easily, like inside a suburban community. Again, your fear is unfounded - the only reason a brothel would exist in a clandiestine setting, inside a suburban community, would be government intervention.
As for a Walmart near your home: the price of your land would depend on your client. If you manage to find Walmart-loving clients for your property, then the value of it is in pretty good shape. Uh, except, of course, if you have zoning laws, because then the property values are almost always lower than those places where there are NO zoning laws. People like to have options when buying property, bud.
Published: February 27, 2006 4:03 PM
"Post an intelligent and civil comment"
Enough said. (Antlib, that concerns you, too.)
Published: February 27, 2006 4:04 PM
Person:
"But this doesn't give it an advantage over the current competitors that its detractors laud, who have access to the same roads."
It doesn't give it an advantage over others that do the same amount of long-distance shipping, true. But doesn't it over those who have less?
"Further, did Wal-mart -- or any supermarket whatsoever, have anything at all to do with the federal and state governments' long-term policy of building roads?"
No, not as far as I know. Why does that matter?
"And who are the biggest supporters of "public roads"?"
True. Again, why does that matter?
"On top of that, what's to say transportation costs wouldn't be even *lower* absent state intervention, and goods would be shipped from even further away, giving Wal-mart an even bigger advantage in their ability to manage distribution?"
I don't know, but the question is whether govt. intervention lowers costs for A more than for B, not whether it lowers the costs more for actual-A than for possible-A.
"One must be careful not to justify one's pre-existing dislike for a company by hunting out any intervention, no matter how small."
True, but I don't have any particular animus against Wal-Mart. I'm living off tax-paid salary myself. I'm just questioning how much of Wal-mart's success story is due to free-market activities.
George Gaskell:
"Actually, wouldn't it mean that these businesses are not subject to a natural disadvantage they would otherwise have? I don't see how that necessarily gives retailers like Wal-Mart an advantage over other businesses, although it may take away one advantage that competitors would otherwise have over Wal-Mart."
If a govt. intervention removes one competitor's disadvantage I don't see how that's different from increasing the other party's advantage. It's relative advantage that matters anyway.
"But wouldn't this non-disadvantage be measured only by extent to which competitors sold only local products? In other words, as between retailers, don't the benefits of state-funded roads have to be calculated as to all users of them?"
Right, but don't local stores usually sell a higher percentage of local products compared with big-box chain stores?
Antilib:
"Apparently there aren't any Libs who have concern for their neighborhoods or property values."
Not true -- it's just that while you have a right to what you own, you don't have a right to the VALUE of what you own -- because its values consists in the beliefs and preferences of other people, and you don't own other people. (The central principle of libertarianism is: Other people are not your property. Everything else follows from that.)
"If Mr. Howard's next door neighbor decided to put up a trailer park or Mr. Gaskells neighbor opened an all night liquor store, I bet we'd hear squeals of protest until doomsday. Yeah, you gentlement promote "Liberty" and "Freedom" to the water's edge....as long as it's not YOUR boat getting rocked."
And what is your evidence for this charge?
Published: February 27, 2006 4:12 PM
If libertarians are supposed to be for the free market and opposed to the abuse of government force, I fail to understand all of the pro Wal-Mart commentary on the blogosphere.
I'm involved in fighting my third ALABAMA (same state as von Mises) Wal-Mart. In each case, they either used eminent domain to get the land, take money from the govt (which is not provided to the competition) to set up shop, or a combination of both.
My argument to some of the wording in this article is laid out here.
Published: February 27, 2006 4:29 PM
OK, oh wise one, I would suppose that a large drop in the value of my real estate is not "harm" right?
By itself, no.
There is an old, long neglected principle of English common law that provides that everyone is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his property, and therefore no one is permitted to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of anyone else's property.
Changing prices are not a form of harm. The cause of the changing price might be harm, if it takes the form of some behavior or condition that interferes with the peaceful enjoyment of one's property. Once upon a time, this meant that polluting your neighbors was not allowed. Then, in a fit of 19th century statist economic protectionism, the American courts changed the ancient common law rule to permit activities that interfered with their neighbors' uses of their property so long as the activity was "reasonable."
This use of the term "reasonable" was basically a euphemism for "we're going to let this coal-belching factory operate right here because we want it to be here." This was a bad change in the law.
As pro-commercial as free-market libertarians are, we still believe in property rights.
Or is it only an "affect" when it "affects" me, but "harm" when it "harms" you? I know, your predictable, yet wholly-unconvincing argument, is that it's an "affect" no matter who. Right. When you have no fat in the fire it's an "affect", when your buns are sizzling it's "harm".
I really don't understand what all of this means.
Well, edjumakate us masses, will ya? You seem to have all the answers....or is that just subterfuge?
Actually, it was a joke, meant to lightly tease you in return for the "wise one" crack. I had no idea you would go off on some racist tangent. Sheesh.
So, shall we deal with what IS instead of what MIGHT be?
No. That would be foolish and small-minded. If you do not understand the importance of accounting for that which does NOT come into existence as the result of some governmental action, then I highly recommend you take a look at the essays of M. Frederic Bastiat, particularly That Which Is Seen, and That Which Is Not Seen.
Published: February 27, 2006 4:34 PM
Don: Your assertion that property values are inflated is spot on. At least IMHO. I just wonder how long this house of cards can remain standing and what tiny breeze it will take to knock it down.
Curt: Your perspective on competing economic interests for the same piece of property is, indeed, one mechanism to protect one's property values. It's not the only one, but not unheard of. I don't know that it's practical in many cases, however, because not every group of homeowners happens to have a potload of cash laying about.
The comment about a quarry running out of stone is accurate - but the intermediate negative effects aren't without consideration. Not to mention that big hole in the ground. As far as Wally World wanting customers: They do, but they don't give a flip about the neighborhood. That's not what they're about, and, truthfully I'm not sure it should be.
I am concerned with "thus bringing "community standard" to a functioning phrase" because isn't that analagous to the beginning of a "City"? Yes, I know it's a discussion of a voluntary group of people right now, but isn't the establishment of "standards" exactly what folks are complaining about when the word "government" is used as opposed to "community". Aside from the argument of "force" (which may or may not have merit) once a group creates a "standard" to be imposed on others, aren't they exerting "force" as well? I'm not asking to be facetious, I'm really trying to understand the meaningful difference between "government force" and "community force" in this model.
Francisco: Thanks for your perspective about a liquor store in a 7-figure neighborhood. While I still believe that "inappropriate" businesses (or slovenly homeowners) do pay a premium to buy into an area and harm housing values, it is true that my neighbor has the same incentive as I do to maintain - or increase - or respective property values. I will admit that I'm not entirely comfortable with that being the only motivational factor, but I'm not comfortable, either, with many of the alternatives.
Averros: Grow up.
Roderick: I have absolutely no evidence whatsoever for presuming that Mr. Howard and Mr. Gaskell want to preserve their property values. I cannot fathom they would not. I could be entirely wrong. It's their adherence to a shaky perspective that I take issue with. So, to your point, I am guilty as charged.
To your previous point "you don't have a right to the VALUE of what you own" I'm not so sure I agree with you in total. If your actions render my property valueless (or of significantly less value) you have engaged in behavior which is NOT peacable and without harm. When it comes to, for example, some good I own (say my car) you if you don't damage it, then its depreciation is not your concern. However, if you engage in an activity that does harm my car (say you painted your fence, and my car as well) then your actions have harmed my property. Yes, I still own the car, but it is of less value now.
This straw-man is analogous to the property value argument. I still own both items. Both items are still functional to me, and thus, have not been rendered less than useful. It's just that my car is now more "colorful" than before, and less valuable. Did you not harm me? Or rather, harm my economic interests?
What am I missing here?
Published: February 27, 2006 4:43 PM
If a govt. intervention removes one competitor's disadvantage I don't see how that's different from increasing the other party's advantage. It's relative advantage that matters anyway.
I suppose, but that's not what you said. You first said that the subsidized roads gave Wal-Mart an advantage over other competitors. You made a direct comparison between competitors.
That is not the same thing as comparing Wal-Mart's position (given the existence of subsidized roads) with its own position (in the absence of subsidized roads).
Considering the fact that every single business in America uses subsidized roads every single day, and that these centuries-old subsidies have had a profound, multi-dimensional, transformative effect on the economy as a whole, the mental experiment of asking whether Wal-Mart gains a special advantage compared to every other retailer out there is so complex as to be impossible and meaningless.
This is what the Austrians meant when they said that economics is not a laboratory science because critical, determinative conditions can never be duplicated.
Published: February 27, 2006 4:47 PM
What am I missing here?
You do not see the difference between sending condition-altering paint balls over a property line and onto your car, and someone who merely operates a business actvity within the confines of his own real estate?
Published: February 27, 2006 4:53 PM
Antilib:
"I have absolutely no evidence whatsoever for presuming that Mr. Howard and Mr. Gaskell want to preserve their property values. I cannot fathom they would not."
Now come on, obviously I wasn't asking for evidence that they care about their property values. I was asking for evidence that they would abandon libertarian principle in order to protect their property values -- which is what you implied. It's possible to care about something yet not be willing to use aggressive violence to keep it. (For example, if I love my wife and she leaves me, the fact that I don't use violence to force her to stay doesn't show I don't care whether she leaves.)
"If your actions render my property valueless (or of significantly less value) you have engaged in behavior which is NOT peacable and without harm."
Regardless of how the result occurs? Look, once again if my wife leaves me I might be devastated, but that doesn't mean she doesn't have a right to leave.
"When it comes to, for example, some good I own (say my car) you if you don't damage it, then its depreciation is not your concern. However, if you engage in an activity that does harm my car (say you painted your fence, and my car as well) then your actions have harmed my property. Yes, I still own the car, but it is of less value now."
Exactly. But that's my whole point. If your Volvo loses its value because I start a campaign that says "Volvos look silly," I've lowered your car's value in a way I have a right to do. If instead I paint your car without your permission, I've lowered your car's in a way I don't have a right to do. It matters whether I use invasive or non-invasive MEANS to lower the value. Just lowering the value in and of itself doesn't settle whether a rights-violation has occurred.
"This straw-man is analogous to the property value argument. I still own both items. Both items are still functional to me, and thus, have not been rendered less than useful. It's just that my car is now more "colorful" than before, and less valuable. Did you not harm me? Or rather, harm my economic interests?"
But what's wrong is not that I made your car less marketable but that I invaded your property without your permission. After all, if instead I painted your car a more popular color and so INCREASED its marketability, yet still without your permission, you'd still have grounds for complaint.
George Gaskell:
"If a govt. intervention removes one competitor's disadvantage I don't see how that's different from increasing the other party's advantage. It's relative advantage that matters anyway.
I suppose, but that's not what you said. You first said that the subsidized roads gave Wal-Mart an advantage over other competitors. You made a direct comparison between competitors."
Right, and that's still what I'm saying.
"That is not the same thing as comparing Wal-Mart's position (given the existence of subsidized roads) with its own position (in the absence of subsidized roads)."
Right, so now I'm confused. You're saying the same thing I just said, but you're saying it as though it's an objection to my position. No, it IS my position. We must be getting our wires crossed somehow.
Published: February 27, 2006 5:06 PM
George:
Sorry if I missed the humor....it's kinda tough to distinguish what's sarcasm and what's not in this forum. Please accept my apologies.
The concept of "everyone is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his property" is exactly what I'm referring to. Would not a Wally World (or liquor store, et al) negatively impact my "peaceful enjoyment"? I sure perceive it would.
I would agree with the assertion that an intermediate - and unseen - shift in property value as a direct result of outside forces is not "harm". It would only be "harm" when it came time for me to sell. Ceteris paribus, if I've done all the right things to keep my property at or above its original state, and the market in general has not shifted dramatically (i.e. comparable houses NOT affected by the "bad property" in question are similarly priced as a group) and yet my property is worth LESS because of my neighboring rock quarry, I would argue that said quarry IS interfering with me - and not in a peacable way. In virtually every respect, however, there's not much I can do about it at that stage of the game. Which then gives rise to a "pre-emptive" perspective - I don't want my property values to decline, so I'm going to fight Wally World/Quarry/Brothel from coming into my neighborhood.
My point in the car/house argument takes one major point you (and others) made about "diminished use". The brothel next door and the paint spots on my car *do not diminish their use*. My car still takes me from pointA to pointB. I'm still able to live in my house. Neither of these goods have any less functionality or use. Yet, the "damage" to my home value is "unseen" and the "damage" to my car is "seen". Is this the primary factor that distinguishes between "harm" in either case?
I would assert that a brothel next door is "condition-altering" it's just not VISIBLE. Again, I know these are straw-men examples, and we're splitting some hairs, but so far I've not heard any arguments that make good sense as to why there should be no ZONING, no STANDARDS, no COMMUNITY, or no CONTROLS.
Don't get me wrong, I distrust government almost as I distrust the folks in Bentonville...the only difference is that I get a vote in my City Council composition. (Ignored though it usually is!)
Published: February 27, 2006 5:08 PM
Antilib, "I am concerned with "thus bringing "community standard" to a functioning phrase" because isn't that analagous to the beginning of a "City"? Yes, I know it's a discussion of a voluntary group of people right now, but isn't the establishment of "standards" exactly what folks are complaining about when the word "government" is used as opposed to "community"."
No, because standards cannot be imposed without initiating force. Everything I mentioned was a cooperative effort by people, not imposed force.
"Aside from the argument of "force"..."
No. No no no NO NO! What you are "missing here", as you put it, is that everything that is being said to you is directly and specifically concerning force. You cannot dismiss the initiation of force from a discussion concerning voluntary cooperation verses government force because force is the single defining element. Everything else is just opinion.
Published: February 27, 2006 5:19 PM
If your actions render my property valueless (or of significantly less value) you have engaged in behavior which is NOT peacable and without harm.
That is totally absurd, tz. If I develop a new type of vehicle that renders yours obsolete overnight, and valueless, would you accuse me of initiation of force, using the same argument?
Value is SUBJECTIVE. You cannot be certain of which actions can possibly bring the value of your property down without first marketing your property - lettint the market decide. Before that, you are just guessing.
Thanks for your perspective about a liquor store in a 7-figure neighborhood.
Ok. Even if a liquor store opens up in a 7-figure neighborhood, can you say that such will lower the property values with certainty? Even if such property values are lowered, thinking the liquor store is the culprint is nothing more than a classic case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning.
Published: February 27, 2006 5:20 PM
Sorry, I meant to say: antilib.
Published: February 27, 2006 5:21 PM
Curt,
I used your exact terms "community standard" to question HOW you can make it (Again in your words) a "functioning phrase and not something to be frightened of". If you don't use force to do so, then how can any standard, whatsoever, ever have meaning? Wouldn't YOUR standard differ from MINE? If so, what would make YOUR standard better? More "right"? Even enforceable?
Asserting that a "community standard" is not analagous to force is akin to calling it a "personal preference". A standard is no such thing unless it's adhered to. In your model, if I didn't care to adhere to your standard, what's to be done? You speak of joining your neighbors in a suit against a polluter. OK, that's certainly one method: through the courts. But that's applying tort law, and not a "community standard".
I'm just reading what you said and trying to understand it.
You said "No, because standards cannot be imposed without initiating force. Everything I mentioned was a cooperative effort by people, not imposed force." How is this different from a "community standard"?
"You cannot dismiss the initiation of force from a discussion concerning voluntary cooperation verses government force because force is the single defining element". EXACTLY! I agree with you and said as much. A "community standard", if it's to be enforced AT ALL, is an exercise in FORCE. If your "standard" is unenforceable, then it's opinion, and it's meaningless.
So a "community standard" and "government force" are of the same DNA if they're to have meaning. Otherwise they're just a lot of paper.
Francisco:
Your argument about a vehicle misses the point. If you invent a new car, my car will still get me from point A to point B. If your car is a SUBSTITUTE GOOD for my car, then you've engaged in the free market - and will, likely, make a lot of money. Good for you! That was never at issue and that particular argument doesn't address this issue.
"You cannot be certain of which actions can possibly bring the value of your property down without first marketing your property - lettint the market decide. Before that, you are just guessing." Nothing gets past you, does it. Except that part where I explicity said that it would be determined AT SALE TIME. Other than that, you're right.
"can you say that such will lower the property values with certainty?" Back to my prior statement about INTERIM, UNSEEN value shifts.
And finally, "thinking the liquor store is the culprint is nothing more than a classic case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning", didja get to the part about CETERIS PARIBUS, the whole enchilada about comparable value, etc, etc, etc? It's the whole price comparison activity that determines where changes have occurred.
Can one state with absolute certainty whether a liquor store is the cause of a negative property value? I doubt it. Does a reasonable person want to take that chance? You may, I don't.
So, while you may be right in what you say, attempting to slam me FOR SAYING MUCH THE SAME don't cut it. Was your whole point to be nasty or to show a genuine difference of opinion?
Published: February 27, 2006 5:46 PM
antilib: Here's the distinction that you're missing:
Situation One: A group of homeowners form a covenant and agree that any future home sale shall be approved by the group. Later, one homeowner decides to sell his home to WalMart and the other homeowners object. The person in the wrong is homeowner trying to sell his home.
Situation Two: A group of homeowners have no agreements between them. One of them decides to sell his home to WalMart. The homeowners successfully petition the city government to block the sale. The people in the wrong are the petitioners.
See the difference? In Situation One, a "community standard" was created by voluntary agreement. In Situation Two, a community rule was established ad hoc and after the fact. I think it is entirely reasonable to prefer situation one to situation two -- the former society is much more peaceful than the latter.
Published: February 27, 2006 6:31 PM
Antilib, a community standard does not require force. That is why every example I gave were voluntary actions by interested individuals to assert their subjective standard through their wallets. Yes, wallets, because that is the primary tool human beings have evolved for working together, measuring success and failure, and generally keeping 6 billion people alive at the same time.
Or do I have to explain the benefits of profit and loss as opposed to central planning in an Austrian economics forum?
Published: February 27, 2006 8:06 PM
What I think also warrants a mention is that the only true standards are those which are voluntarily agreed upon by the market participants. Anything enacted through force or coercion is tainted with the possibility of being the less than optimal solution.
There are plenty of standards which didn't require the state to intervene. Graphic, motion and audio codecs have standardized baselines which are operable cross industry. For example Sony's DVD discs work on Toshiba set top players.
The lesson you draw from that is that manufacturers will often find it in their interest to market materials to their customers in standardized formats. While its not a rule, it seems the only time "standards" have been ignored is when consumers deem the so-called 'standard' to be inferior to a non-standard alternative (witness the success of iTunes and its proprietary lock to the Apple iPod). When success is not the case, the usual culprit to look at is some government-created monopoly which favors the current proprietary solution.
In any case, there never is an instance when standards should need to be imposed; for if the standard is truly the optimal, it probably will be whole-heartedly supported by market participants. If the standard is less than optimal, you will see the opposite. If coercion is needed to impose the standard, its probably less than optimal, and in all cases exudes elistism on part of the enforcer.
Published: February 27, 2006 8:37 PM
Antilib;
Sorry for joining in on the "Mike" thing.
If a truly libertarian society, particularly with regard to property, ever actually comes about, it will entail a LOT of work on every property owner's part to mitigate the "harms" that you mention. I, for instance, will have to go to each of my neighbors and get them to agree to covenants regarding their use of their land, as will they and their neighbors, and so on. This will take a lot of time, money, agg, hurt feelings, and in many cases will still be unsuccessful. Rich property owners will pay people to do it, some of whom will act unethically and try to pressure people to agree to things they don't want to agree to. Tell me how this scenario, despite all the drawbacks I have mentioned (and there are, I am sure, many more) is less desirable than the current situation where the government has any number of levers with which to pry you out of your home with little or no compensation at all?
With regard to your quarry example, there are certainly a number of tangible ways the quarry might actually cause harm (alter or deplete your wells, crack your foundation, trespass on your property with pollution)that in a libertarian world with full property rights would be both actionable and compensible. The current system runs these torts through government at the expense of the private individual because of the bogus presumed "public good". The hookers in the brothel might trespass on your lawn, assault your guests, trash the place - these things would all be actionable.
Stephen Gordon;
With all due respect, none of the government evils you are fighting is unique to Wal-Mart. My current list of companies I try to have little or nothing to do with includes Costco, W-M, Home Depot, and Stop & Shop (the last one pains me greatly). All of these evils (eminent domain, zoning, taxpayer financing) are tools in the arsenal of greedy local governments and avaricious developers, and they do NOT only deploy them in favor of the reviled Wal*Mart, but seem eager to use them for ANY developer that comes along and suggests it. So either broaden your criticism a little bit to include other companies similarly situated, or continue to be painted with the broad brush of "anticapitalism". Simple.
Published: February 27, 2006 9:26 PM
Mr. Vance's number one reason against shopping at Wal-Mart is the crowds. But most people like crowds. I base this on a simple observation: Wherever I see a large crowd, there are always a lot of people around. Conversely, wherever I don't see a crowd, hardly anyone is around. Q.E.D.
Published: February 27, 2006 10:32 PM
Ruane's Theorem, to be sure.
Published: February 27, 2006 10:49 PM
"Nobody goes there anymore - it's too crowded" - Yogi Berra
Published: February 27, 2006 10:57 PM
Antilib has a lot to learn. In a society that lacks municipal zoning, cities would be laid out much better than they are now. They were a hundred years ago when it didn't exist. Zoning is the cause of suburban sprawl and poorly laid out communities.
Here are some things for you to learn about, Antilib, "covenents", "easments", "homeowners associations", "contracts".
Would you also say that Wal-Mart has a say in who is allowed to live in a community to protect its investment? Wouldn't they want to have only Wal-Mart type people living nearby?
Chicago has also been hostile to Wal-Mart wanting to locate there. Wal-Mart's strategy is to surround the city with stores in the surrounding communities that are often glad to have them. Where I live in Hammond, Indiana (next to Chicago) there was a Wal-Mart built. It is very busy at times. I think There should be a second one built. I have heard that they may build another one here.
BTW: I also dislike many of the things mentioned in the article. Much of that comes from them not being allowed to build additional stores. I also have to add their support of eminent domain as a critisism.
Published: February 27, 2006 11:29 PM
Antilib wrote:
If you invent a new car, my car will still get me from point A to point B.
Irrelevant: your basic argument states unequivocally that any, ANY, action done on an unrelated property that translates to a loss of value of your property, is akin to violence. We are not discussing usefulness, but VALUE.
didja get to the part about CETERIS PARIBUS,
This is what happens when you misapply a logic tool. Ceteris paribus, if you do nothing to change the value of your home, and the market stays the same, and then your dog barks and the value of your house goes immediately down, would you then say the mutt influenced buyers? Again, you cannot infer a consequence from an unrelated happenstance.
Besides, if the people of the community really believed the liquor store could bring the property values down, notwithstanding the truth, then the liquor store would find it difficult to gather clients. This is why liquor stores are placed in busy streets, where the most number of clients can drive by and find it.
Published: February 28, 2006 12:01 AM
My sister has a more personal reason to hate Wal-Mart. She lives on a narrow residential road that goes nowhere. Or it didn't before it became an alternate route out of the Wal-Mart parking lot. Now there's tons traffic zooming down the road, and she can no longer go for walks with her kids on their street.
The price of "progress", eh? Of course, such externalities are not grounds for a lawsuit, but it certainly hasn't helped their property value.
Published: February 28, 2006 12:13 AM
antilib:
"(i.e. comparable houses NOT affected by the "bad property" in question are similarly priced as a group)"
They're not really comparable houses then, are they?
Also, I had friends a few years back who had an empty lot next to their house. When the owner mademoves to sell it to a developer my friend bought the lot themselves. Now they preserved the value of their house AND the potential value of the lot. I don't remember them even considering asking the government to push anyone around.
Published: February 28, 2006 5:37 AM
Vince Daliessio,
I've targeted other corporations before (hosts of them in the Alabaster case, Ruby Tuesday in the Roebuck case). In the three Birmingham area situations I mentioned, Wal-Mart is the common denominator -- and there is no other non-governmental corporate entity involved in the only ongoing case.
I'm anti-corporate welfare and anti-eminent domain (but promote truly free markets) and take on targets as they encroach my life. If this makes me "anticapitalism", perhaps those doing the painting should re-examine the size of their brush.
Published: February 28, 2006 7:18 AM
Dr. Long gave the example of Wal-Mart's distribtion mechanism (using state roads). Perhaps a less contentious example might be the taxpayer funded bribes to bring Wal-Marts to town which are not shared Wal-Mart's competitors.
Specifically, Wal-Mart was given a $10 million tax abatement in a recent Birmingham (Roebuck) deal. The ongoing Birmingham (Crestwood) has an $11 million payout -- I've got the contract on my desk which the city council will like vote in favor of in a couple of hours.
Note this payout is not going to the competition (either mom and pop or major corporations -- the new Wal-Mart will share parking lot space with a K-Mart which did not get any government payola).
Do libertarians support one-sided government welfare these days? If so, this is a truly scary development.
Published: February 28, 2006 7:30 AM
LOL Stephen. Perhaps MY brush was too broad.
An illustration of my point of view - I am in favor of eliminating medical welfare (Medicare and Medicaid), though I am aware that this will create hardship for poor people in the short run. I am equally well aware that this hardship is due, for the most part, to other government-aided screwups like tax-free employer-paid insurance, the AMA and state medical boards restriction of supply of medical providers, and the role of FDA regulations and drug patents in massively increasing the price of even simple medical care. The chance of eliminating all of these government usurpations at once is virtually nil, yet it redounds to the benefit of all if even one of them is rescinded. This parallels your fight against eminent domain abusers.
My point is that Wal*Mart is a high-profile target that is in no way unique in its malfeasance, yet also still performs some genuinely useful entrepreneurial functions in our very unfree economy, and to focus solely on its malfeasance while overlooking its benefits is to bolster the case of the anticapitalists.
Sorry if it sounded like I was calling you an anticapitalist. You, like I, are probably more of an anti-state-capitalist.
Published: February 28, 2006 7:39 AM
Stephen;
Right or wrong, Kmart and the established businesses are already there, so, in the town fathers' eyes, need no inducements to do business there. The concept of tax abatements is generally looked upon by libertarians favorably, though the way it is being employed here certainly seems unfair.
But the real responsibility lies with the town government. Wal*Mart is simply exploiting the politicians greed for more tax money.
Published: February 28, 2006 7:46 AM
Unfortunately for the free market, this K-Mart (the last existing one in Birmingham proper) will now have to compete with a mega Wal-Mart which will share a common parking lot. The outcome of their future competition is almost predetermined. That $11 mil sure reduces the level playing field quite a bit.
True, the government is guilty. However, the contract proposal (from Wal-Mart) demands the $11 million. They are truly co-conspirators in this scheme.
Published: February 28, 2006 8:01 AM
Vince,
Your medical arguments strike home for this spouse of a free market physician. Toward this end, she is a member of the AAPS and not the AMA.
This said, it does us a PR disservice to pretend that Wal-Mart is not without fault.
The AAPS is not fighting all free market issues with respect to medicine, as their resources are very finite. But they are fighting the big ones (i.e. pain meds, Medicare rx plan) as they are in the forefront of the press right now.
My opinion is that we need to fight (short of blog postings, I'm fighting city hall for the most part, not Wal-Mart) the battles we can win. Eminent domain and one-sided tax abatements are examples of such battles.
Published: February 28, 2006 8:10 AM
Curt: You can make a point and not be an ass, as evidenced by "Or do I have to explain the benefits of profit and loss as opposed to central planning in an Austrian economics forum". Be more precise in what you said - as the post in question where you propound "community standard" was broad, vague and imprecise.
Entelechy: The distinction you're making is one I completely understand - I live in one right now. Curt's posting on this issue did NOT point to a private collection of homeowners, but rather to a "community standard", and made no mention whatsoever of a pre-existant covenant. What you're saying is absolutely correct, but Curt's phrasing was missing several key components.
Vince: "Tell me how this scenario, despite all the drawbacks I have mentioned (and there are, I am sure, many more) is less desirable than the current situation where the government has any number of levers with which to pry you out of your home with little or no compensation at all?"
I agree - the current system is NOT desirable. I won't argue otherwise. You're right.
Mr. Delano: "Here are some things for you to learn about, Antilib, "covenents", "easments", "homeowners associations", "contracts"."
Back it up, bud. You don't know how much you don't know. Apparently, you can't read either. Did I not just say that my covenants document was 2" thick and even discussed how it makes community standards? Criticize if you like, but at least make the criticism valid.
Francisco: "Again, you cannot infer a consequence from an unrelated happenstance." Your right, but you're talking apples versus rubber bands. Again, go back and read what I said. On second thought, don't. I'm overfull with your snide, nasty, condescending manner.
Steve: "I don't remember them even considering asking the government to push anyone around." I did the same thing at a home in Florida. But that's never been in question, has it? You act as if though it's possible for this to occur on a regular basis. Maybe in the nirvana you describe, but nowhere else.
Xteve: "They're not really comparable houses then, are they?" You've never read a CMA have you?
I'm constantly amazed that in this forum - full of supposedly intelligent people - the rhetoric has to be filled with such nasty comments and petty ad hominens. It's a big world, and none of the snottiness in here does much to advance Lib'ism. I fully admitted - many times - that I'm attempting to understand. Education isn't what you want in here - it's sycophany. Get over yourselves. I'll leave you to your mental masturbation and spend my time elsewhere. Who knows, maybe I'll made a donation to Hillary in the VMI name!
Published: February 28, 2006 8:59 AM
I think Stephen has it right that we need to fight the politicians over eminent domain and one-sided tax abatements (thus my opposition to the Brandon bill), etc. but once we start trying to use the power of the government to force our will on Wal-Mart and others we are no better than the Wal-Marts doing the same thing using the power of eminent domain for their purposes. If you do not want a Wal-Mart in your community fight tooth and nail to keep them out but do not use the power of government to do so. Once you do you lose all credibility because you obviously can't convince enough other people to be opposed to them and you end up being no better than the company you are trying to keep out if they are using the power of the gov't to get into your community. You are using the easy way out just like Wal-Mart is doing.
What it all boils down to is where the power lies. Right now it lies with the government and the money they can hand out. The power should reside with individuals and the money that the politicians are doling out should have stayed in the individuals pockets, not the government coffers, which sometimes ends up in companies like Wal-Marts pockets. If the money stayed with the taxpayer instead of the government than each individual could decide what was best for them. Now it is left up to a few politicians who are easily bought off or crave power. If this power and money was more dispersed it would be much harder for Wal-Marts to enter a community if enough people didn't want them there.
Published: February 28, 2006 9:28 AM
Terry,
FYI, I've never fought any Wal-Mart opening shop using fair and free market mechanisms. Unfortunately, that is happening less and less often in my neck of the woods.
The only political angles I try are those directed at the government for abusing the powers lawfully granted to it.
Published: February 28, 2006 9:41 AM
antilib (and others),
Like you I find the nastiness to be detrimental to the debate, so I try as hard as possible not to engage in such heated rhetoric, even when I am the one targeted (I fail occasionally, but not often). In other words, you have to practice what you preach- retaliation is almost always self-defeating in such forums.
Published: February 28, 2006 10:06 AM
Not one of us disagrees that the state has too much control, but when has there ever been a successful down sizing of the state. The more I read about the problems with our state the more I feel that we have a leviathan that is beyond repair. Inevitably I feel that our state is destined to go the way of the Dinosaur. We may some day have a libertarian society but it will not be apart of the US.
Published: February 28, 2006 10:50 AM
The Birmingham City Council just (a few minutes ago) gave Wal-Mart $11 million to compete with other businesses.
This should truly be a proud day for Wal-Mart loving libertarians.
Published: February 28, 2006 11:36 AM
Stephen,
I would be careful with the language you use when talking about tax abatements. Technically, if I understood your earlier comment, the city council wasn't giving WalMart $11 million, but, rather, was contracting not to take $11 million if WalMart opened the store.
Now, it is certainly true that the council has voted to give WalMart an advantage over its local competitors, but their competitors are free to bargain with the council as well. I would argue that the competitors could bring a suit alleging unequal treatment under the law of Birmingham. Any lawyers out there?
Published: February 28, 2006 12:35 PM
I like Wal-Mart, I can always go there when I want to feel thin again.
Published: February 28, 2006 12:42 PM
Unfortunately, there is no such thing as an equal protection claim when it comes to taxation. There should be, of course. But then again, to expect a State to restrain itself and abide by its own rules is naive.
Stephen, the whole "Wal-Mart loving libertarians" thing is a bit excessive. I believe we all get your point -- that Wal-Mart engages in the same kind of rent-seeking special government privileges that most other large companies do.
I don't want to exaggerate the size of my brush, but I believe I speak for many libertarians, or Austrians at least, when I say that our comments about Wal-Mart is more in the nature of a rebuttal to a recent flurry of typical Leftist complaints about Wal-Mart's prices, employment practices, health coverage, etc.
In other words, we are responding to the usual Left-wing claptrap, demanding that government force some business to incur costs in favor of a particular voting block, and demonizing it to garner irrational public sympathy. Leftists generally don't complain about land seizures because Leftists like broad governmental powers.
In other words, our comments have nothing to do with loving Wal-Mart per se, other than the fact that Wal-Mart happens to be the battleground du jour for debating the problems with these recycled socialist economic proposals.
In any event, I am sure that you will find no more ardent critics of subsidies and land seizures than you will among Austrians.
Published: February 28, 2006 12:57 PM
Yancey,
Sorry for the confusion. I'll clarify:
Those are two seperate measures. A couple of years ago, Birmingham provided a $10 million tax abatement for the Roebuck Wal-Mart.
This morning they simply gave away $11 million for the future Crestwood Wal-Mart. This money comes initially from the general fund, but ultimately will be paid back from a bond -- if the measure passed the way it reads in the paperwork on my desk. I haven't yet read what actually passed.
If any lawyer wishes to tackle this one, I'd recommend hooking up with the PAC Birmingham First, which has some limited resources and a lot of institutional knowledge to take them on.
Published: February 28, 2006 1:27 PM
I worked at WalMart in the early 1990's. The only reason I took the job was because we had just moved to this particular small Southern town and there were no other jobs available that provided medical insurance. They refused to start medical coverage, so I quit. My last check had deductions for medical insurance for two months, which they applied retroactively without informing me. I will never shop at WalMart due to their unfair labor practices.
Published: February 28, 2006 2:04 PM
Christine, I have a similar story regarding a retirement account I was enrolled in without my permission. Come to find out, there is no guarantee that I will ever receive any sort of payout; but the real kicker is that now they won't even let me opt out of the program. Stupid Social Security.
Published: February 28, 2006 3:34 PM
I was listening to NPR here in North Carolina recently. They were interviewing "activists" who were declaring loudly that, in order to provide services to people unemployed because of the manufacturing companies closing their doors, taxes had to be raised.
Less than 10 minutes later there was a story about Dell Computers, building a manufacturing facility near Raleigh specifically because they were given tax breaks and, ah, assistance in acquiring the property.
What astounds me is that there are people who cannot notice how these two stories are related.
Antilib, I was very specific. Just because you disagree doesn't mean I was being vague. It is also obvious that you do not understand the benefits of entrepreneurial management verses bureaucratic management since you continuously state that you believe your best interests lie in leveraging government power in your favor.
Published: February 28, 2006 4:58 PM
Curt,
I heard about the Dell deal. I believe there is a lawsuit going on arguing that the incentives given Dell were unconstitutional, the state had no right to do it, and the deal should be revoked. If that kind of thing is successful, it should happen a lot more often.
Published: February 28, 2006 5:08 PM
Antilib "If I don't want a Wally World to be built in my neighborhood I have every right to convince my elected officials to decline the permits. It's called "Freedom"
That's quite a statement. Lets see, freedom is a mob using government coercsion to prevent Walmart from buying land in their neighbourhood and building a store on it. Freedom is not the right to purchase land and set up a business on it. Interesting. Would you object then if I physically prevented you from shopping at a store you do business with or is it only freedom when a majority persuades government to do the same thing?
In todays society you may have a legal right to prevent Walmart from locating in your neighbourhood but I would hardly call that freedom. As to the fact that it may lower property values, does this priciple apply to everything we own as well.If I buy a painting worth 5 thousand dollars and then a well known art critic states publicly that the artist is over rated and subsequently the value of my painting drops can I sue the critic.
If a business locates in your neighbourhood that you approve of and furthermore the value of your house increases significantly as a result should you be required to compensate the business owner for the increase in value to your property. Does this right you proclaim to have apply to people as well. Can you and your neighbours prevent certain ethnic groups from moving in to the neighbourhood on the basis that you do not approve of them, and that it may in your opinion, right or wrong,have a detrimental effect on property values. I can't see why you would object since it fits in nicely with your definition of freedom.
Published: February 28, 2006 7:34 PM
Well, Laurence, China thanks you and Wal-Mart thanks you and thousands of small mom and pops and former mom and pops, small and mid-sized chains and many, many vendors and distributors don't thank you because you just gave Wal-Mart a great big advertisement under the guise of why not to shop there.
As someone who still holds a Wal-Mart vendor # but got out of general merchandise WHOLESALING two years ago, I can tell you you are full of it. I can give you a long list of distributors who are no longer existant because of the way Wal-Mart changed the marketplace by its direct importing techniques. Remember when its slogan used to be 'Support America Made"??? (Suppressing laughter here) Well, while they were shoving their patriotism down our throats, they were building a huge network of manufacturers in China, Bengladesh, India, etc., that could cut out American distributors and manufacturers.
Why do so many work there? So many work there because Wal-Mart has put so many other employers out of business that they are the country's largest or one of the largest employees, with over ONE MILLION of the poor, hardworking, ripped off minimum or close to minimum wage drones. Their employee turnover is unbelievable; I think (but haven't checked lately), it's almost half of their workforce every single year. If they're so HAPPY....why do they quit??? The people who don't work for the company are concerned about the lack of good health insurance for OVER ONE MILLION WAL-MART DRONES because they go on public health care assistance in many cases and we help pay Wal-Mart's insurance bill.
Published: March 1, 2006 12:01 AM
"Back it up, bud. You don't know how much you don't know. Apparently, you can't read either. Did I not just say that my covenants document was 2" thick and even discussed how it makes community standards? Criticize if you like, but at least make the criticism valid." - antilib
Is the property being developed for retail use in your developement? If so, then you have a very valid claim to stop them if you are against WMT and it violates the 2 inch thick covenant. From the way you wrote it, It sounds like it isn't in your developement.
I'm all for associations and developements with Architectural Review Boards. I just wish the ARBs knew what good design is. Most of the houses I see being built are very ugly. This includes those in the upper six figure range. They are often snout-houses with large blank walls and a hodgepodge of exterior materials that look awful togethor. Usually the front of the house has no stylistic relationship with the other sides of the house. But these are sold as "luxury".
Stephen Gordon, you are correct that K-Mart is being treated unfairly with the tax abatements. That is the real problem, not the fact that WMT may get a tax break that all property owners should get. I also agree about the way these tax abatements are written. It is often a municipality paying for part of the developement costs with bonds that are to be paid for with the future taxes collected on the property. All property owners in the municipality ultimately garantee the payment of those bonds with their future property taxes. I saw a case of one of these types of deals here in Hammond, Indiana where a store bought the bonds itself, so it is not as bad.
Published: March 1, 2006 1:05 AM
Dee, without an income tax, employer provided health care would be a non issue, as it would likely be purchased by the individual rather than the employer in nearly all cases. Also, I don't think WMT deserves much blame for the existence of state funded health care.
Published: March 1, 2006 1:18 AM
This IS a heated exchange! From what I can see so far Wal Mart is guilty of the following:
Continually striving to provide its customers the most variety at the lowest prices. It arguably has been more successful at this than any retailer in history. All the complaints boil down to the methods used to achieve this end. Some methods involve purely private contracts (such as changing distribution networks) others involve unilateral state decrees (tax breaks and eminent domain, although no one has cited an actual Wal Mart ED case…given the press over New London v. Kelo I am skeptical that one actually exists). How is Wal Mart different from any other business or even individual in this regard? Antilib started this whole ball rolling with talking of his right to petition the state to unilaterally prevent Wal Mart from opening a store in his town. How can we then criticize Wal Mart for exercising the same “right�? Every Ma & Pa’s grocery routinely changes distributors to remain profitable, how is Wal Mart wrong to do the same? All of the criticisms leveled at Wal Mart are equally applicable to most businesses and citizens. What makes Wal Mart different is that they are successful and We hate that. If a business remains a single main street store front, we find that charming and honor the owners at Rotary club meetings. If that same business grows beyond this, at some point we think them evil profiteers and decry the owners at town hall meetings. That’s the
Published: March 1, 2006 8:20 AM
Rob, everyone changes distributors, but Wal-Mart cuts them out and goes directly to China, Bengladesh, etc. I'm not going to educate you any further. If the Frontline stories, what you read in the papers and personal experiences of people like myself whose businesses have been hurt by Wal-Mart tactics in the marketplace aren't enough, you're hopeless. And don't forget the old Wal-Mart motto: "Support America Made"!!! LOL Me, I'm enjoying the new American way. I'll you try to figure out what that is. :)
Published: March 1, 2006 10:47 AM
Rob, I admire chains like In and Out Burgers, a privately owned company who pays their managers far above the industry norm, treats them well, and can give any national chain a run for their money in their region. It's not the size that people despise about Wal-Mart, it is their business practices. You really sound like you have only a very superficial understanding of Wal-Mart. It's much like people despising Halliburton not because they are a huge, profitable company, but because the reasons they are war profiteering and how they got their contracts is questionable. We don't have to admire every company that is hugely successful. I undertand some are in awe of the biggest but a much better model for awe would be the best because of standards, morals and good business practices. It seems some people always feel that defending a successful beast allows them to ride it and share somehow in that success, or makes them seem 'smart' for 'going with the winner'. Instead, it takes them on a ride they find later they might not have wanted to take.
Published: March 1, 2006 11:00 AM
I, for one, am glad Wal-Mart abandoned its nationalist rhetoric.
Published: March 1, 2006 11:00 AM
Rob, I admire chains like In and Out Burgers, a privately owned company who pays their managers far above the industry norm, treats them well, and can give any national chain a run for their money in their region. It's not the size that people despise about Wal-Mart, it is their business practices. You really sound like you have only a very superficial understanding of Wal-Mart. It's much like people despising Halliburton not because they are a huge, profitable company, but because the reasons they are war profiteering and how they got their contracts are questionable. We don't have to admire every company that is hugely successful. I understand some are in awe of the biggest but a much better model for awe would be the best because of standards, morals and good business practices. It seems some people always feel that defending a successful beast allows them to ride it and share somehow in that success, or makes them seem 'smart' for 'going with the winner'. Instead, it takes them on a ride they find later they might not have wanted to take. Americans want fast and easy, short-term instead of long-term. I can get my jeans at Wal-Mart for $15 bucks (or whatever..I don't shop there), but someone else is paying the price and that's usually some little laborer in Bengladesh. Of course, those who 'share in Wal-Mart's success' don't mind knowing that. It's all about them. Wal-Mart services them well, much like a prostitute sevices her johns.
Published: March 1, 2006 11:04 AM
Dee,
My fiance has worked for a number of small businesses for the past several years, none of which were in competition with Wal-Mart. And yet, some still managed to go out of business, leaving him without a job. Of five small business jobs, you know how many offered health insurance? Zero. His health insurance comes out of our pocket. It's naive to act as though in the absence of Wal-Mart everyone would be working for mom-and-pop stores that are paradises of high wages and generous benefits. Small businesses are struggling and trying to make a buck just like everyone else. They pay their employees according to what makes sense for their business, not out of generosity. And like Wal-Mart, sometimes they treat you well and sometimes they screw you. If you don't like Wal-Mart, fine. They're hardly an angel of the free market and deserve a lot of the criticism they get. But don't think that if the world consisted of small businesses, no one would ever be underpaid, uninsured, fired, or screwed by their employer. Those things are hardly the exclusive province of Wal-Mart.
Published: March 1, 2006 11:45 AM
I can get my jeans at Wal-Mart for $15 bucks... but someone else is paying the price and that's usually some little laborer in Bengladesh.
Wait, what? Your previous comments indicated that Wal-Mart is increasing job opportunities in Bangladesh. Please be consistent (or explain why having a job is a bad thing).
Published: March 1, 2006 12:22 PM
To antlib et. al. who seem to favor collective responses to WalMart:
To state it succintly, the reason libertarians object to the growing practice of public protests against development is that it constitutes an attempt to impose a covenant on a community retroactively. In other words, previously settled property arrangements (where one could NOT object to WalMart building a store on land it had freely purchased) are disrupted.
The practical effect of this is to render all property rights subordinate to majority will. Effectively, all property rights in that community are transfered from the title holders to whomever in their community gets a kick out of attending city council meetings. This politicization of daily life is disruptive of the social order to an extent that WalMart could never even hope to match.
Published: March 1, 2006 12:27 PM
Dee,
I am pretty up on Wal Mart business practices. I worked for M&M Mars briefly and nearly 60% of the factory production (Hackettstown NJ plant) goes to Wal Mart. If Wal Mart decides to stop selling M&Ms, that plant may well shutdown. While I don’t want to see anyone out of work, no one at Mars is entitled to their jobs. Like any other business, Wal Mart seeks reduction in operating cost to remain profitable. And like any other business, the driver for their profitability is consumer satisfaction…the one thing they may be better at than anyone else on earth. They got to the size they are now by selling what people want to buy at prices they want to pay, plain and simple. As long as they keep selling M&Ms at agreeable prices, the Hackettstown plant will keep running and many of my friends will keep their jobs.
The fact that they petition the state for favorable treatment disgusts me. But such behavior disgusts me just as much when it is done by folks who want to shut Wal Mart out of their town. I don’t boycott the businesses of these folks and I won’t boycott Wal Mart either. The reality is every consumer product in the world has some one somewhere in its production chain who brokered with the state to smile on their business, so I would quickly starve or freeze if I were to consistently boycott on this principle.
And I absolutely do not buy into the idea that Americans are more deserving of employment than Chinese or Bangladeshis. If the businesses in these countries can give me what I want for the price I want, than they will have my patronage. Some bloke in Portland, Oregon is as much a stranger to me as some dude in Guangzhou, China, so how does common political geography by accident of birth give him a higher moral