Thomas Sowell: Is Wal-Mart Good for America?

Capitalism Magazine ^ | December 9, 2003 | Thomas Sowell

[JoeSchem]

He certainly avoids discussing whether We the People or Walmart is better represented in Congress.

Let me discuss that for you. The flawless, impeccable logic is that if Walmart were well-represented in Congress, they'd have a thirty percent market share while charging the highest prices. Their lack of political power is why they have to compete for the American consumer's dollar by selling at the lowest prices.

[presidio9]

Not often do posts on FR make me laugh out loud, but that one did. Thanks!

You laugh because it is easier than accepting the truth. Sure, keeping up with Reagan's miltary spending ruined the Russian economy. But it left Russia with a huge military. The people were in the exact worst position for revolt. But the depressed economy meant they had less economic freedom than ever.

[Porterville]

God I love Veracruz,one of my favorite memories is jumping wave-runners over the reef about 1/2 mile off shore....

[ridesthemiles]

I know people have the right to buy cheap goods, but what are they gaining in the long run by saving a quarter on a bag of chips or a couple of dollars on a shirt or whatever?

I made an annual trip to Wal-Mart on 11-21. I spent $165. I figure I saved at least $130 compared to the local stores. I drove 34 miles one way. Spent about $12 in gas. I'm still ahead of the game. With a limited income, I have to spend wisely. For non-perishable items, Wal-Mart saves me money and renews my info about the price differences.

[presidio9]

Our own Revolution was fought over tariffs. Or weren't you paying attention.

[Porterville]

If there was no Wal Mart I'd by cheap crap from eBay.... and that my friend is capitalism.

[ridesthemiles]

Home Depot has killed regional lumbeyard chains.
How did they do this? Through competitive pricing?

Lumberjoke killed themselves in my area.

[elli1]

I don't think that regulation or taxation drove people to buy clothes make from cotton picked in the South by slaves before the civil war -- it was price. Congress passed numerous tariffs on products to protect the industries in the North before the Civil War. Imported cotton cloth carried a tariff (25 cents per yard tariff in 1816) and the South feared that foreign countries would retaliate by imposing tariffs on raw materials produced in the South. Regulation & taxation were significant among the causes of the Civil War.

[AlexW]

"Radiology isn't a job you can remote"

Yes, it IS remoted for reading Xrays.
That is a big business now.

[lelio]

Sure, keeping up with Reagan's miltary spending ruined the Russian economy.

You should of stopped right there.

But it left Russia with a huge military. The people were in the exact worst position for revolt. But the depressed economy meant they had less economic freedom than ever.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. I thought that Big Macs were the reason why the USSR fell. Are you trying to say that the soviets modernized their politics as they had a taste of Western civilization? I can buy that -- but to say that trade had anything to do with the initial revolt is about as plausible as helping the Iraqiis overthrow Saddam by buying their oil.

[JoeBobJr]

"I can never understand people who opposed the steel tariffs..."

How about, because the steel tariffs raised the price of steel for every single user of steel in the country? Such as the auto industry.

Or, how about because the tariffs very nearly started a trade war with Europe that could have jeopardized our economic recovery? Can you say Smoot-Hawley?

[lelio]

Our own Revolution was fought over tariffs. Or weren't you paying attention.

You don't need to get snippy. Besides I can't see your point here: England wanted to control the US. We wanted to set our own destiny. The two aren't compatable.

Are you trying to equate our Revolution with the fall of the USSR along these lines? That the soviet citizens were trying to shake of the US's chains?

[PGalt]

Great article. Thanks for posting it.

[Momforgold]

Just today on CNBC they stated that a radiologist in India makes $20k a year compared to the $300k one makes here. What is that radiologist that just lost his job going to do that's "more beneficial to our economy"?-lelio

Assuming that radiologist stays in India, he has zero effect on our economy.-presidio9

I think whether he's in India or the U.S., the effect on our economy is that we just saved $280k. Obviously, the radiologist (do they really make 300k/yr? That's ridiculous!) has lost a job. But assume he retrains, say he decides to build homes. Then our economy gets the radiologist job performed for 20k, with 280k left to pay the old radiologist to build us a new home. So our country gains a new home, at the expense of the overpaid radiologist, who hopefully has a lot of money in the bank after raking us over the coals with his old $300k/yr job.

[CGTRWK]

Not one of the people who bought their disposable diapers at Wal-Mart was forced to do so. I can't remember ever having bought anything from Wal-Mart and there is not the slightest thing that they can do to make me.

Where's your choice to not shop at Wal-Mart when they have undercut and driven under every other business in town?

Which is more of a free market to you? Is is thousands of independent small businesses in competition which other, or is it the 250 billion dollar megacorp that essentially owns most of its suppliers and is in bed with all levels of government or perhaps the other way around?

Small business people are about the most independent economic block there is, and probably the most conservative. We have government rubbed in our faces more than anyone, and see that that government is usually an inept mess of taxes, fees and red tape. When Reagan said "Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." he was talking to us.

Contrast this with the people of Walmart - an inconsequential number of executives and a million plus minimum wage drones with no job security, no savings, no control, and no real expectation of any of those things ever changing. To them, government is a safety net and a check every now and then, paid for by someone else.. These people could be expected to vote socialist 10:1, and do.

Wheres the conservatism in cheering the death of the former (obsolete and inefficient you know) and the rise of the latter?

[Momforgold]

Great post, BTW, Sowell is great!