...yet they are not shipped directly to the stores themselves. According to your irrational renderings, it is an inherently economical exercise to ship directly to the place where the goods are being bought, thus making the actions of Wal-Mart a poor business decision in your model.
But for your analogy to be true then that would mean that the majority of goods destined for sale in, say, South Carolina would first be sent to a warehouse in New York and then sent to Charleston. Now how much sense does that make?
Depends on how much warehousing costs in New York, how much shipping between New York and Charleston costs, and any other number of related factors. In the end all that really matters is that the economic benefits of warehousing then shipping outweigh the cost in opportunity of the next best option, meaning shipping direct to Charleston. So long as they do it is inherently economical to pursue that route and, based on the widespread use of the warehousing system in the mid 19th century, it is certain that they did.
| Uncle Tom's Cabin |
||||||
| Posted by GOPcapitalist to Non-Sequitur On 12/25/2003 12:55:41 AM EST #309 of 309 |
||||||
|
And seeing your two names together, I thought to myself, before clicking on the thread "the Civil War continues at Free Republic", and of course I wasn't disappointed. LOL! Merry Christmas y'all! |
||||||
Only by your inane interpretation. If the goods coming from Europe are destined for the people of South Carolina then of course it makes perfect sense to send them hundreds of miles away. And in your world it makes even more sense that if the overwhelming majority of goods are destined for the people at Point A then you first send them hundreds of miles away to Point B. The people in Point A are happy to accept the additional shipping costs, the folks sending the goods in the first place have no problem adding to their customer's expenses, and all is right with the world.
In the end all that really matters is that the economic benefits of warehousing then shipping outweigh the cost in opportunity of the next best option, meaning shipping direct to Charleston.
But if the overwhelming majority of the imports were destined for southern consumers, as you keep claiming, then would it not have made more sense to send them directly to the consumers? It seems a matter of simple economics, ignored by you in your attempt to explain things away. The goods went to the Northen ports because that was where the customers were. The goods did not go to the southern ports because the demand for them wasn't there.