Thomas Sowell: Is Wal-Mart Good for America?

Capitalism Magazine ^ | December 9, 2003 | Thomas Sowell

[lelio]

Now, try demonstrating why my "utilitarian" argument is false.

How does one argue against "The Needs of the Many outweigh the Needs of the Few"? That's the argument you put up: now we have 15 people getting xrays versus one before.

[CobaltBlue]

How about, "it's none of your frickin' business what I pay for an x-ray"? What do you call that argument?

[lelio]

What do you call that argument?

About as sensical and convincing as you trying to coach someone on their spelling as the reason they're unemployed.

You're right: its none of my business. So what? Is the debate about how much an xray costs? Its more of "when you export the high end job, what's left?" Well besides becoming a lawyer (law school applications have been going way up the last couple of years) so that you can sue the remaining businesses in this country. Just what we need, more lawyers.

[CobaltBlue]

If you follow the thread, the guy with the poor spelling still has his job making very good bucks, he's just "worried about the future of America."

If fewer people go to law school, fine with me, that makes me more valuable, no?

[DugwayDuke]

"How does one argue against "The Needs of the Many outweigh the Needs of the Few"? That's the argument you put up: now we have 15 people getting xrays versus one before."

Not really, let's recap.

Now, as I remember our discussion started when you posed the following question: "What is that radiologist that just lost his job going to do that's "more beneficial to our economy"?"

And, I responded: "The answer is obvious, if you'd stop to think. Now, for the same price we can have 15 radiologists improving the health care of all, at no greater cost. Fifteen times as many lives saved. Fifteen times as many people restored to health. I suppose you'd rather have fifteen times more sickness and death just so that one radiologist can make $300K?"

I answered your question. I explained how our economy is better off. Calling my argument "utilitarian" is just another, more formal way, of calling names.

[Salvation]

Regardless of what everyone says, Wal-Mart bump!


U gave to laugh when people ask me where I bought something I am wearing. I tell them that I bought it on the 3rd floor at Nordstrom (Of course, there is no 3rd floor). When it goes over their heads I then laughinly say "3rd floor of Nordstrom = the first floor at WalMart."

If you watch what you buy you can avoid the "made in China" clothes, too!

[Salvation]

Typo time:

U gave = I have

[staytrue]

I think the problem with Wal Mart is that they are eliminating a lot of mom and pop stores. Why is that bad ?

Mom and Pop stores are the minor leagues where young people can get a business exposure. In a small store, you have to be a generalist and be exposed to a wide variety of tasks. Working at wal mart gives only a minute slice of business exposure.

I think wal mart is eliminating the breadth and depth of our future entrepreneurs.

[CobaltBlue]

You make it sound like Luke Skywalker vs. the Death Star. Don't worry, our baby entrepreneurs can figure out how to compete with WalMart.

[elli1]

I don't see Publix soda in front of Coca-Cola. I don't have to do an Indiana Jones routine and slog through Publix brand bread to get to the edible brands. And Publix soda isn't the #1 best selling brand of soda in the world either. Ol' Roy is the top selling brand of dog food. Another example of a retailer creating a highly successful & recognizable brand name is the case of J.C. Penney creating The Original Arizona Jean Company. You will find yourself slogging thru racks of Arizona Jeans trying to get to the Levis at J.C. Penney. (But the, you can avoid the Arizona Jeans by going to Wal-Mart to buy your Levis.)

[KingNo155]

all boils down to the physic equation "every action has an equal and total opposite reaction"...Those in politics dont care of the reaction, or think they can contain the reaction! they are the fools who bring us down! 80 % are demoncrats!!!!!!!!!!!

[elli1]

"Do you want A&P to come back? I don't understand. Do you want that?" You're complaining about Ol'Roy dog food. What you don't understand is that private label/ store brand merchandise has been an accepted part of retailing since the 1800's. ( A & P was an example of a retailer that carried store brands exclusively.) Ol' Roy isn't made by Wal-Mart. It's made by a company called Doane. Doane makes dog foods that are sold under a lot of different labels. Another example of a store brand that has been highly successful is Kenmore. Kenmore used to be the only brand of appliance that Sears sold. But what did it matter? Kenmore appliances were made by Whirlpool. Doane doesn't have to market the Ol'Roy brand; as far as I can tell, Doane isn't even in the merchandising business. Wal-Mart does that. And Whirlpool was perfectly happy to make products under the Kenmore label because Whirlpool made even more products and more profits & didn't have to be bothered w/ merchandising the Kenmore brand. There is a difference between manufacturing & merchandizing and I don't think you're really understanding that those are separate endeavors.

[beckett]

I was thinking along these lines the other night while watching Farm Aid with Willie Nelson, John Mellencamp and several other headliners. A few performers, Mellencamp, Nelson, Dave Matthews, got a chance to give little 30 to 60 second speeches about the grave loss to the country should we lose the "small farmer," going so far, IIRC, as to declare that food tastes better from a family farm, and that farming practices on small farms are easier on the environment than the practices of "industrial farmers."

It was just the worst display of economic sense possible, just nonsense. But they believed it with all their hearts. They knew nothing about economies of scale, or about the resources large concerns can bring to environmental protection and quality control that are simply beyond the reach of the small farmer.

They just want that sweet little picaresque family farmhouse present in the countryside, even if it must be subsidized, good economic sense and the march of history be damned.

[Joe Bonforte]

Free trade only works if all parties play fair.

As best as I can tell, for anti-free-trade types, the following definition of "fair" and "unfair" are used:

"Fair" = "I like it"

"Unfair" = "I don't like it"

So it's "fair" for us to "protect jobs", but "unfair" for other countries to "undercut our wages", etc. The problem with your position is that there's no objective version of "fair".

As a result, this position leads to trade wars, as some small imagined unfairness is retaliated against, leading to reciprocal retaliation, ad infinitum. No turning the other cheek, just the all-purpose rationalization that "well, the other guy is playing fair, so I can do whatever I want".

Finally, any trade economist will tell you that it makes sense to trade even when the other side has tariffs, etc. that make trade "unfair". That analysis is longer than a discussion of Comparative Advantage, but it is proven by two hundreds years of trading history.

[Joe Bonforte]

Funny how they're flying under everyone's radar while WalMart gets all the attention.

Good point. I will actually shop at Target. I stopped shopping at WalMart because of the combination of employee ineptitude and low-quality merchandise. (Switched to Lowe's over Home Depot for the same reasons.)

But it's important to understand the perspective of others. I know one Russian immigrant who thinks WalMart is heaven on Earth. The idea of filling a basket with clothes, medicines, and semi-useful geegaws, and paying less than one day's wages just amazes her. Living her whole life in a socialist "paradise" where they were lucky to have food to eat gives her a very different viewpoint.

[.cnI redruM]

/s is a sarcasm tag.

The intent of the post was to make fun of the usual post stating 'industry x needs a tariff of else evil rice-eaters will steal American jobs and undermine our entire way of life.'

[philosofy123]

Wal-Mart actually opens a store near K-Mart, and price the merchandizes lower, even if it is higher at other Wal-Mart stores. Once K-Mart goes out of business, then Wal-Mart raises its prices. This predatory marketing scheme has been documented many times at numerous new Wal-Marts. The government and the media appear to be silenced on this evil practice. It is the equivalence of barricading/strangling a store until it is killed.

[af_vet_rr]

Apparently you know no families that clip coupons to get by.

Yes I do, I was asking a rhetorical question that went over some heads. There was an excellent thread/post that I should have bookmarked a while back that got into it a lot better than I could have. It was basically about the fact that we maybe saving money here and there, but if we buy less and less American made goods, and more Chinese/etc. made goods, in the long run it hurts everybody in some way (the thread got into the economics, how we'd pay higher taxes to cover the lost income/taxes from people losing their jobs, American companies going under, etc.).

I know there are plenty that have to buy/shop as cheaply as possible, I'm fortunate enough (and willing) to be able to pay a little bit more for something if I knew it was American made.

[discostu]

WalMart is definitely king of the hill and sometimes I find myself there anyway (mostly I avoid it because of the tiny aisles that are nearly impossible to navigate if there's more than three other customers in the store, WalMart is a very difficult place to control the fist of death). I just find it remarkable that Target is not running that far behind WalMart in market size, corporate muscle or ability to put small stores out of business but you almost never hear the anti-corporate types talking about Target.

I went to Lowes once, it was Home Depot in blue, I'm back to Ace hardware, not as much stuff but better organized and the employees actually know the difference between their hind-end and a 120v outlet before sticking their fingers in it.

[lasereye]

But if you look at it from Boeing's side: they lost out on another jet sale as they're facing a competitor that doesn't have to play by the rules. One could argue this is a $50M income redistribution off of the back of Boeing.

So what do you want to do? Ban Airbus sales? If you're calling that example "income redistribution", then a ban on Airbus would constitute a $50 million "income redistribution" from the airline to Boeing, from the airline's point of view. That's why analyzing things this way is nonsensical.