Thursday, December 01, 2011

How Terrible: Walmart Plans to "Dump" Six Stores, 1,600 Jobs and $21 Million in Charity on Wash. D.C.

Washington, D.C.'s unemployment rate has been rising over the last year, and at 11.1% in September was more than two percent above the 9% jobless rate for the country (which has been falling, see chart above).  Further, more people in the District are now unemployed - 37,034 - than at any other time in the city's history.  So you would think that if an employer promised to bring 1,600 permanent jobs and 600 construction jobs to the city, and also pledged $21 million in charitable donations over the next seven years, that District residents would be thankful, grateful and appreciative, and would welcome that employer with open arms.  

Well, think again if that employer is Walmart, and if the District resident is Washington Examiner columnist Jonetta Rose Barras who editorialized yesterday in a column titled "Occupied by Walmart":

"It was bad enough that District elected officials, particularly Mayor Vincent C. Gray, stood by as Walmart announced its intention to dump six stores into neighborhood commercial corridors, creating an environment ripe for the retail behemoth to bully small businesses. The executive exacerbated that short-sighted economic development strategy by signing the "Community Partnership Initiative."
 
Despite the peacocking by Gray and others after the agreement was signed, the District is receiving mostly crumbs. Walmart has committed to providing $21 million in charitable donations over the next seven years, an average of $3 million a year. That's a pittance."

MP: So instead of gratitude for the thousands of new jobs and millions of dollars of charity Walmart will bring to the District, Ms. Barras ungratefully describes that as "mostly crumbs" and is outraged because Walmart is "dumping six stores" into the District and giving "only" $21 million in charity to the city??  

I'm pretty sure that most District residents view this differently, and are grateful that Walmart is "dumping" six stores, 1,600 permanent jobs, 600 construction jobs and $21 million on the District.  Especially the 37,000 residents who are unemployed.

Update in response to some of the comments:

A few years ago, when Walmart opened a store on Chicago's west side it created more than 400 good-paying jobs, made the neighborhood safer and helped to revitalize and stabilize the area, which then attracted new stores including a Menards, a CVS pharmacy, two new banks and an Aldi Grocery Store. Local Chicago alderwomen Emma Mitts credited Walmart for attracting many new stores to the neighborhood, and says that "traffic is so heavy on the weekends that it's hard to get up and down the strip, and that's a good thing and I'm so grateful for it."

Although Walmart frequently gets blamed for putting local merchants out of business when it opens a new store, this story provides some evidence to the contrary - by stabilizing a rough area on Chicago's West Side and attracting thousand of customers for "everyday low prices," Walmart actually helped to attract new businesses to this Chicago neighborhood, including direct competitors like Menards, CVS and Aldi.  

In other words, Walmart provides many significantly "positive externalities" and "spillover benefits" to the communities in which it operates, even though it frequently gets more attention for some of the "negative externalities" and "spillover costs" it might impose. For neighborhoods like the west side of Chicago, it sure looks like the positive externalities (jobs, tax revenues, great safety, more commercial activity, etc.) far outweigh any negative externalities.

129 Comments:

At 12/01/2011 8:55 AM, Blogger John B. Chilton said...

Not to mention that the 99% shop at Walmart -- co-opting the "Occupy" name by titling her op-ed "Occupied by Walmart" is just plain arrogant and offensive.

 
At 12/01/2011 9:09 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

Opposing Walmarts expansion in DC is just nuts.

That said Walmart has made some pretty arogant moves of its own. At one location the town and the county created big box ordinances to keep giant retailers out.

Wlamart purchased a site that straddled the town and county line, building to the max size allowed on each side.

Whether that was just smart business or arrogantly defying the wishes of local government and many protestoers is an open question.

However, it was amusing for a time to visit a Walmart in another jurisdiction, only to see cars there with no walmart stickers on them.

And the final irony was that having lost the battle to prevent walmart, the town annexed the land in order to get the tax revenue.

Arrogance, it seems, has plenty of room to go around.

 
At 12/01/2011 9:19 AM, Blogger geoih said...

Quote from Hydra: "At one location the town and the county created big box ordinances to keep giant retailers out."

Yeah, that's not arrogant, using guns to stop people from voluntarily doing business with each other, then when out smarted, using guns to confiscate some of their property.

There certainly was plenty of errogance to go around, but none of it was Walmart's.

 
At 12/01/2011 9:39 AM, Blogger efimpp said...

OK freedom of business is good, though there is also a freedom of municipality to do zoning.

but what about these 1600 new jobs? it's a net gain in jobs for region? no old jobs in retail will be lost?

 
At 12/01/2011 9:50 AM, Blogger rjs said...

efimpp, a 2008 study from research firm Civic Economics found that locally-owned businesses tend to spend a higher percentage of their revenue on payroll than chains... ie, for every $1 million in revenue, chain restaurants employed 9.7 people while independent restaurants employed 14.8...the same is probably true in retail...

& btw, i shop at walmart & home depot, and dont pretend im creating good jobs doing it...

 
At 12/01/2011 9:52 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

yes.. I also question the "new jobs" narrative.

it presumes that whatever Walmart is going to sell is not currently sold there.

WalMart will undoubtedly take sales from existing small businesses ..ultimately causing many to close which is the principal reason for some of the anti-WalMart sentiment.

there is stark testament to this in virtually every small town in America where small stores close when WalMart comes to town.

It's not a bad thing in my view.

It provides a much wider array of products at lower prices and WalMart does provide SOME benefits that most Mom & Pops do not.

but "new jobs" is a skeptical claim.

by the way.. WalMart has been tentatively dipping into the small store format similar in footprint to Family Dollar and Dollar General - which also replace Mom&Pop stores rather than "new" jobs.

WalMart/Family Dollar/Dollar General/Home Depot/Lowes/etc

are all ..inevitable .....as retailing evolves to (what I think) is better for almost everyone but not mom & pop - who in many towns where the original "job creators" and usually had higher than average incomes.

Now.. Mom & pop ..work for WalMart or have a 7-11 franchise.

 
At 12/01/2011 9:56 AM, OpenID moneyjihad said...

Yet the liberals wanted to move the Gitmo detainees to a super-max prison in the U.S. because it would help stimulate the local economy and increase corrections officers/security guard jobs.

So, Al Qaeda inmates are a "moral" economic base, but Walmart is persona non grata.

 
At 12/01/2011 10:10 AM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

I think, Wal-Mart is a threat to those who control the masses.

 
At 12/01/2011 10:11 AM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

Wal-Mart represents efficiency and consumer surplus, which actually raise living standards.

It's a threat to those ignorant of business-capitalism-economics.

 
At 12/01/2011 10:26 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

re: "it's a threat"

if you look at the folks who own mom&pop stores...though...

most of them are:

1. - small businesses - you know the ones that get LOTS and LOTS of lip service

2. - they are "job creators"

3. - they are often fiscally conservative

4. - they are often active members of their community often directly lending their name to support local causes - and allow signage in their windows...etc

5. - are more often Republican than Dem.... ??

so... WalMart KILLS local community job-creating small businesses...

right?

 
At 12/01/2011 10:58 AM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

Larry says: "WalMart KILLS local community job-creating small businesses."

So, you believe, the labor, capital, raw materials, energy, land, etc. disappear or are buried somewhere?

 
At 12/01/2011 11:02 AM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

Wal-Mart doesn't kill, it releases.

 
At 12/01/2011 11:03 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

larry-

that's a preposterous argument full of silly claims and economic nonsense.

walrmart doe not kill jobs, it increases real living standards.

if you can buy cereal at walmart for $3 instead of $5 at the mom and pop, you have an extra $2. you spend, save, or invest it which creates jobs and ups your well being.

competition and low prices do NOT harm well being.

your attempt to claim that small business and thus job creation is harmed by walmart is just one factor thinking masquerading as logic.

what about all the small businesses it helps?

how about larry's lawn care? you get cheaper rakes etc which lets you hire more and get more return on your capital investment. you customers have more money to hire you too, as they saved it on cereal.

you try to point out only the harm and ignore the benefits (which greatly exceed the harm).

your argument misses the big picture entirely.

i have no idea why you think the politics of a small business matters or where you get this idyllic view of some 1950's dream town with the grocer sponsoring the 4th of july parade (and who care's if it's bob's grocery or larry's lawn care doing it?).

do you really not understand how lower prices from increase competition provides more good than harm?

this is just the silly protectionist argument again. you see the harm because it's focused on a few store owners and ignore the benefit because it is diffused to many consumers.

banning walmart acts EXACTLY like a tariff and ALWAYS has a deadweight loss for the community for the exact same reasons.

 
At 12/01/2011 11:04 AM, Blogger Pulverized Concepts said...

Walmart isn't the only problem for businesses in the smaller communities. For years, construction of new court houses, high schools and other public facilities has taken place away from the main business districts, moving activity to just the locations available to big box retailers. Hard to believe local existing businesses wouldn't use their influence to keep those things in close proximiity.

 
At 12/01/2011 11:32 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

There certainly was plenty of errogance to go around, but none of it was Walmart's.

================================

Maybe. But there is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.

Clearly the town and the county said there are certain things that they wished to limit.

Walmart found a way around the limits.

If Walmart found a similar way to get around the speed limits instead of the space limits, which allowed them to go twice as fast as everyone else, would you still feel the same way, or would you feel threatened by Walmart trucks running 100 when everyone else is running 50?

You can bet that the town will change the regulation so this does not happen again, and then someone will scream about stupid, over restrictive regulations.

The funny thing about that story was that after all the bickering and lawsuits, the town annexed Walmart anyway, and thereby created a nonconforming use that violated their own previous limits.

The other funny part was the anti WalMart letters to the editor claiming that walmart would increase traffic AND harm other businesses. Usually more traffic is good for business, no?

 
At 12/01/2011 11:38 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

For years, construction of new court houses, high schools and other public facilities has taken place away from the main business districts,

============================

The main business districts usually suffer from lack of parking, as a result of too much stuff built in close proximity.


In one town the plan was to preserve the central business district by openeing up the roads on either side of main street, and put all the parking behind the existing stores.

The do-gooders were insulted when I pointed out to them that they had just created a plan for two opposite facing strip malls, and the result would be that main street would be little used.

 
At 12/01/2011 11:43 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

Mom and Pop want to be able to control the plans for their business.

Walmart wants to control the plans for their buiness.

Local jurisdictions want to be able to control the plans for their business.


Everyone wants their OWN central planning, no one wants someone else's central planning.

 
At 12/01/2011 11:53 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

Here's a video that covers the Chicago Walmart that Dr. Perry points to:

When Walmart Comes to Town: A Success Story

 
At 12/01/2011 12:01 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

"Maybe. But there is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law."

isn't that kind of a weal argument when the law was deliberately written to punish one retailer but disguised as something "impartial" by using square footage standards?

when they hide the real "spirit" of the law behind technical details, they should not be surprised when others circumvent it in similar fashion.

good for the goose, good for the gander, no?

 
At 12/01/2011 12:03 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

The Vancouver Sun argues that Walmart deserves to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, and perhaps beatification by the Vatican: Saint Wal-Mart? well, let's look at the record

 
At 12/01/2011 12:11 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

As this D.C. Democrat points out, the presence of a Walmart poses certain risks:

"Brenda Speaks, a Ward 4 ANC commissioner, actually urged blocking construction of the planned store in her ward at Georgia and Missouri avenues NW partly because of that risk. Addressing a small, anti-Wal-Mart rally at City Hall on Monday, Speaks said young people would get criminal records when they couldn’t resist the temptation to steal."

Unbelievable. And this community continues to support the Democrat Party?

 
At 12/01/2011 12:17 PM, Blogger Marko said...

To echo some of the sentiments above - why do you think those local small business go under when Walmart comes to town? It is because people would rather shop at Walmart - much better prices, selection and service. Period. Some of you people act like Walmart employees are showing up at these businesses with clubs and trashing the place.

So, when a small local business goes under, what do you think happens to the employees there? Some of them (maybe most) will go work at Walmart, where they will likely receive better pay and benefits then they got at the ma and pa store. How is that not a win-win?

Plus, have you ever been to these neighborhoods in downtown DC? Didn't think so. Most non-rich residential areas in DC look like war zones. The stores put out of business will likely be liquor stores, check cashing places and pawn shops. Have you ever tried to feed a family of four out of a dollar store or gas station convenience store? Sucks, I am sure. Better a walmart!!

The blatant hypocrisy (or much worse) of well off white liberals telling poor folks they can't have a nice clean big cheap place to shop is outrageous. Liberals (and other confused people) seem to prefer people to suffer worse depredations to prevent a private enterprise solution to suffering. Talk about the perfect being the enemy of the good - and in this case the perfect is some sort of unobtainable socialist utopian view of sustainable communal neighborhoods of ma and pa store serving the locals, rather than the harsh reality of run down slums in desperate need of economic activity. Makes me sick.

 
At 12/01/2011 12:17 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

As Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has grown into the largest grocery seller in the U.S., ... battles have played out in hundreds of towns like Mundelein. Local activists and union groups have been the public face of much of the resistance. But in scores of cases, large supermarket chains including Supervalu Inc., Safeway Inc. and Ahold NV have retained Saint Consulting to block Wal-Mart, according to hundreds of pages of Saint documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal and interviews with former employees.

Saint has jokingly called its staff the "Wal-Mart killers." P. Michael Saint, the company's founder, declines to discuss specific clients or campaigns. When read a partial list of the company's supermarket clients, he responds that "if those names are true, I would say I was proud that some of the largest, most sophisticated companies were so pleased with our success and discretion that they hired us over the years."

Supermarkets that have funded campaigns to stop Wal-Mart are concerned about having to match the retailing giant's low prices lest they lose market share.

Rival Chains Secretly Fund Opposition to Wal-Mart, WSJ

Yeah, it's all about saving the "Mom and Pops".

 
At 12/01/2011 12:25 PM, Blogger Marko said...

Politicians in DC are afraid that their private slums will improve economically without the help of government and vote their corrupt racist hides out of office.

 
At 12/01/2011 12:30 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

The University of North Carolina-Greensboro's Charles Courtemanche and I are finishing a study of big retail stores and obesity. In our first round of statistical analysis we found that greater consumer access to a Wal-Mart store was associated with lower body-mass indexes and a lower probability of being obese.

As we gathered more data on Wal-Mart discount stores, Wal-Mart Supercenters, warehouse clubs like Sam's Club, Costco and BJ's Wholesale Club, and other outlets, we found that the correlation holds up under a variety of different circumstances, with a clear relationship between warehouse clubs and better eating habits emerging over time. Further, we found that Wal-Mart's effect on weight is largest for women, the poor, African-Americans and people who live in urban areas.

Why was this the case? Our evidence is indirect, but we think it shows that price changes can have subtle and sometimes hard-to-detect consequences.

Forbes

Charles Platt is a journalist, computer programmer and author of over 40 fiction and nonfiction books and was a senior writer at Wired magazine.

Charles moved recently from being a senior writer at Wired magazine to an entry-level position at Wal-Mart, "a company reviled by almost all living journalists," after he read the book "Nickel and Dimed," in which Atlantic contributor Barbara Ehrenreich denounces the exploitation of minimum-wage workers in America. According to Charles, "Somehow her book didn’t ring true to me, and I wondered to what extent a preconceived agenda might have biased her reporting. Hence my application for a job at the nearest Wal-Mart." -- Life at Walmart, BoingBoing

The left lies. I know, shocking.

Walmart helps third world farmers

 
At 12/01/2011 12:48 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

I think, Wal-Mart is a threat to those who control the masses.

Well, at least make the masses miserable by trying to control them. Masses are notoriously difficult to control.

 
At 12/01/2011 1:58 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

"Masses are notoriously difficult to control."

not if you keep them hungry enough.

-kim jong il

 
At 12/01/2011 2:02 PM, Blogger geoih said...

Quote from Larry G: "WalMart will undoubtedly take sales from existing small businesses .."

Since when does any business own the sales that they haven't made yet? If Walmart provides a better value to a certain customer, then that customer and Walmart make the trade. Nothing is taken from anybody, especially not from a third party samll business that isn't involved in the trade.

 
At 12/01/2011 2:05 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" larry-

that's a preposterous argument full of silly claims and economic nonsense."

whoa.... I'm with you... I forgot to note skeptical sarcasm...

I SUPPORT WalMart but I'm also pointing out the reasons why some oppose WalMart

some people really do believe that it's better to have the money go to mom & pop who will then spend and invest in their community ...as opposed to WalMart taking the money to Arkansas....and not local.

Mom & Pop will buy cars and houses locally... ...help create local clinics... parks.. etc...

help their kids start new local businesses, etc...

it's a legitimate issue

 
At 12/01/2011 2:05 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" larry-

that's a preposterous argument full of silly claims and economic nonsense."

whoa.... I'm with you... I forgot to note skeptical sarcasm...

I SUPPORT WalMart but I'm also pointing out the reasons why some oppose WalMart

some people really do believe that it's better to have the money go to mom & pop who will then spend and invest in their community ...as opposed to WalMart taking the money to Arkansas....and not local.

Mom & Pop will buy cars and houses locally... ...help create local clinics... parks.. etc...

help their kids start new local businesses, etc...

it's a legitimate issue

 
At 12/01/2011 2:09 PM, Blogger geoih said...

Quote from Hydra: "Clearly the town and the county said there are certain things that they wished to limit."

Clearly, the individuals in charge of the local government said there were certain things they wished to limit. The fact that the Walmart store that was built was apparently successful enough that the local government went on to tax it demonstrates that the actual people in that county were more than happy to have a new Walmart store.

 
At 12/01/2011 2:14 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

re: " Quote from Larry G: "WalMart will undoubtedly take sales from existing small businesses .."

Since when does any business own the sales that they haven't made yet? If Walmart provides a better value to a certain customer, then that customer and Walmart make the trade. Nothing is taken from anybody, especially not from a third party samll business that isn't involved in the trade. "

I do not think anyone "owns" the business or sales.. I'm just pointing out that only so much milk (or anything else) can be sold locally.

Walmart does not create demand for more milk... they just co-opt existing sales...

again.. I'm not saying this is wrong (I support it).. but saying that WalMart "creates" "new" jobs is not really true.

 
At 12/01/2011 2:19 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

larry-

"Mom & Pop will buy cars and houses locally... ...help create local clinics... parks.. etc...

help their kids start new local businesses, etc...

it's a legitimate issue"

no, it's not. it's part of an issue that ignores the bigger piece and thus reaches the wrong conclusions.

wal-mart workers buy all the same stuff that small-co workers do. that's a non issue.

the money that goes back to arkansas is small relative to the money that stays in the community as a result of walmart.

wal mart's profit margins are about 4%. that's what goes home to arkansas.

wal marts products are what, 25-50% cheaper?

that money all stays in the community.

thus, your argument about money being taken out is totally wrong.

more money stays unless wal mart is less than 4% cheaper than the locals, and we all know that is not true.

a whole town saving 25% on groceries is a ton of extra money.

 
At 12/01/2011 2:22 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

"Walmart does not create demand for more milk... they just co-opt existing sales... "

this is not true at all and ignores the bigger issue.

when price drops, what happens to demand larry? last i checked, it went up. people eat more hamburger at $2.99/lb than $5.99.

or, if they eat the same burger, they have more money left over to buy other things.

this notion that there are only X sales to be had and so taking them is somehow poaching is just ridiculous zero sum thinking.

 
At 12/01/2011 2:24 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"so... WalMart KILLS local community job-creating small businesses..."

Absolutely. And that's what most people want, as they vote with their dollars for Walmart rather than Mom & Pop.

 
At 12/01/2011 2:35 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" that money all stays in the community.

thus, your argument about money being taken out is totally wrong.

more money stays unless wal mart is less than 4% cheaper than the locals, and we all know that is not true.

a whole town saving 25% on groceries is a ton of extra money. "

good point.. I agree

but I still think local mom & pop will often direct their philanthropy to the locality.

IN our area - a local businessman donated enough money to start (and operate) a free clinic.

It's a collaborative effort between local businesses contributing funding and doctors/nurses donating time.

WalMart's first (and correct) allegiance is to their stockholders... not the local community.

Local business owners often do not sell stock.... may have "partners" but their philanthropy is more tuned in to the community IMHO.

 
At 12/01/2011 2:44 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"1. - small businesses - you know the ones that get LOTS and LOTS of lip service"

From Walmart shoppers.

"2. - they are "job creators""

Hm... not really. See #4

"3. - they are often fiscally conservative"

Not sure how we know this, or why it matters.

"4. - they are often active members of their community often directly lending their name to support local causes - and allow signage in their windows...etc"

Not in DC, and not in many other large city neighborhoods.

"5. - are more often Republican than Dem.... ??"

See #3

 
At 12/01/2011 2:46 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Peak: "Larry says: "WalMart KILLS local community job-creating small businesses."

Peak: So, you believe, the labor, capital, raw materials, energy, land, etc. disappear or are buried somewhere?
"

Of Course! Otherwise the narrative makes no sense.

 
At 12/01/2011 2:50 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

morganovich: "do you really not understand how lower prices from increase competition provides more good than harm?"

No, he really doesn't.

 
At 12/01/2011 2:53 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" morganovich: "do you really not understand how lower prices from increase competition provides more good than harm?"

No, he really doesn't. "

I stated from the get go Beavis...that I supported WalMart but I went on to point out the competing narrative of which many hold ..at least legitimate.

the fact that you are such a jerkface about your commenting says much more about you than your supposed intellect.. which I find more akin to Beavis and Butthead than anything particularly useful.

 
At 12/01/2011 2:58 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"If Walmart found a similar way to get around the speed limits instead of the space limits, which allowed them to go twice as fast as everyone else, would you still feel the same way, or would you feel threatened by Walmart trucks running 100 when everyone else is running 50?"

As each half of the truck was only going 50, why would I care?

 
At 12/01/2011 3:02 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Everyone wants their OWN central planning, no one wants someone else's central planning."

Yes. Everyone desires liberty. This is very good coming from an authoritarian like you. Please keep up the good work.

 
At 12/01/2011 3:06 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"You can bet that the town will change the regulation so this does not happen again, and then someone will scream about stupid, over restrictive regulations."

What kind of town is this that's determined to thwart its resident's best interests?

 
At 12/01/2011 3:14 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"The other funny part was the anti WalMart letters to the editor claiming that walmart would increase traffic AND harm other businesses. Usually more traffic is good for business, no?"

Yes. That's why you often see Home Depot and Lowe's within sight of each other, and is the concept behind auto centers, where many dealers are in close proximity.

 
At 12/01/2011 3:26 PM, Blogger Buddy R Pacifico said...

Larry states:

"some people really do believe that it's better to have the money go to mom & pop who will then spend and invest in their community ...as opposed to WalMart taking the money to Arkansas....and not local."

Good point Larry and another reason to deal with a mom & pop is that ...

Returns to Walmart (Wal-Mart), with a gift receipt, might not get full credit. The local mom & pop might grind their teeth taking returns, but would more likely give the value on the gift receipt.

 
At 12/01/2011 3:28 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

What kind of town is this that's determined to thwart its resident's best interests?

==============================

Actually it is a conservative town, and the town managers listen to what the townspeople tell them. They proceeded according to the expressed wishes of the people. (At least the most vocal ones).

That is a problem with government by public hearing or government by acclamation. A few loudmouths and some slanted newspaer coverage can distort the issues.

So the town fathers did what they thought was asked of them, however, when faced with a fait accompli, the town people apparently changed their tune and became more pragmatic.

But just because they have a WalMart and (now) use it, doesn't mean that it was their (or everybody's) first choice. If the WalMart lawyers had not intervened successfully, there woud be no WalMart. The town is still determined to see that it is not joined by a Big Lots, or some other thing.

 
At 12/01/2011 3:36 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

This is very good coming from an authoritarian like you.

==============================

You miss read me, as I have said many times. If everyone wants liberty, There is a market in it, just like anything else, and some trades will have to be made.

We just need a better system for determining the relative prices for those trades.

 
At 12/01/2011 3:39 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

As each half of the truck was only going 50, why would I care?


=============================

Cute ;-)

Not very relevant, but cute. I suspect that when someone insiss their liberties are worth more than yours, that you suddenly care quite a bit.

 
At 12/01/2011 3:44 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

"You miss read me, as I have said many times. If everyone wants liberty, There is a market in it, just like anything else, and some trades will have to be made."

that seems like a terrible misframing of the issue to me. market for liberty? no.

when people vote to take away your rights and options and you have to abide by it, that is not liberty.

tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

the whole point of rights is that others cannot take them away by making you accept a "trade".

 
At 12/01/2011 3:45 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

claiming that walmart would increase traffic AND harm other businesses.

================================

I just brought it up because I thought it was an amusing (and amazingly bad) argument at the time. Like many of the arguments around this blog, people argue from a position, and that leads them to say things that are irrational and indefensible.

 
At 12/01/2011 3:49 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" market for liberty? no."

actually... it's a valid concept if people can vote for how much liberty they want and/or what kinds of restrictions they want to apply to everyone.

unfettered liberty is anarchy... which I do understand some here in CD advocate.

 
At 12/01/2011 4:02 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Che: "Speaks said young people would get criminal records when they couldn’t resist the temptation to steal."

This may be a valid concern, as young people are currently deterred, not by conscience, or any sense that stealing is wrong, but by armed store owners and security guards, whereas Walmart may not be planning on this level of enforcement.

Instead of banning Walmart outright, Commissioner Speaks could simply demand that Walmart security deter young people in the manner they are accustomed to, that is, by shooting them, thus preventing those criminal records for shoplifting.

On the bright side, if this was the strongest objection, Walmart construction should begin soon.

 
At 12/01/2011 4:04 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Marko: "Politicians in DC are afraid that their private slums will improve economically without the help of government and vote their corrupt racist hides out of office."

Bingo.

 
At 12/01/2011 4:06 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

"actually... it's a valid concept if people can vote for how much liberty they want and/or what kinds of restrictions they want to apply to everyone."

um, no, it's not.

how is someone else voting to take away your rights liberty?

so, it's liberty for 51% of us to vote that you are not allowed to claim that liberty should be voted for?

liberty comes from rights, not democracy.

that's the whole genius of our form of government.

unfettered liberty is nothing like anarchy.

you have a right to the sanctity of your person and property. that's liberty, which is not the same as unfettered freedom.

this has been explained for you over and over, but you do not seem to be able to grasp it.

natural rights are the basis of liberty. i give up my right to kill you and you do likewise. we all get more liberty as a result, as we need not live in fear and can walk outside unarmed and unguarded. we all have the right to speak.

you cannot take it away by majority rule. 51% cannot vote that it's OK to kill the other 49%.

your problem is that you think liberty comes from majority rule, which it cannot.

under majority rule, 51% can enslave 49%.

only inalienable rights not subject to such tyranny of the majority stop such a thing.

 
At 12/01/2011 4:11 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" how is someone else voting to take away your rights liberty?"

happens all the time.

people do vote to restrict others from activities considered harmful to others.

for instance, people support zoning laws which mightily restrict property rights...

and the law basically says that such restrictions are legal, fair and valid as long as they apply to everyone.

when govt says you can be arrested for littering... your "liberty" has been curtailed.. by a majority of others who don't want you littering...

can I convince you of this?

more examples?

 
At 12/01/2011 4:14 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

re: " only inalienable rights not subject to such tyranny of the majority stop such a thing. "

okay.

but govt basically agrees to rules that restrict.. right?

as long as you have something MORE than pure anarchy... you have restrictions....

sometimes they are imposed by dictators...

other times by majority rule...

I suppose there are other methods...

but the whole point is that govt by it's very nature is usually a tacit agreement to restrict unfettered liberty.

Even cavemen had "govt" ..that restricted liberty.

many of the earliest assemblages of groups of people had "agreements" and usually leaders...who decided issues...

 
At 12/01/2011 4:18 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

"happens all the time" is a totally meaningless argument.

muggings happen all the time too.

so that's OK?

your examples prove nothing other than the fact that democratic abuses of power occur all the time.

littering is a totally different issue.

it's only illegal on public land.

you can toss trash in your own yard any time you want.

your "examples" are just logical fallacy.

your whole argument is "it happens, therefore it is good/right/valid" which, as the mugging example shows, is a ridiculous and indefensible standard.

even zoning does not really hold water in this way as it's also a protection of rights.

the fact that i cannot build a hog rendering plant or a landfill right next to your house is a protection of your property. you are just defining rights in a poor way by again mistaking utter freedom for liberty.

by giving up your right to build a hog rendering plant, you are spared from my doing so in precisely the same way that you give up the right to kill to avoid being killed.

you wind up with more liberty/better protected property, not less.

 
At 12/01/2011 4:20 PM, Blogger sethstorm said...


A few years ago, when Walmart opened a store on Chicago's west side

The one that was done through bribing clergy?

$21 million in charitable donations
That's bribery in a kinder form.





And the final irony was that having lost the battle to prevent walmart, the town annexed the land in order to get the tax revenue.

Or the smarter play would have been to use that to remove them by making it extremely expensive for them to exist.



Peaktrader said...
Wal-Mart represents efficiency and consumer surplus, which actually raise living standards.

Not if the goods are shoddier for the same price. They represent hostility and contempt for the US through the shoddy goods lowering living standards.



Wal-Mart doesn't kill, it releases.

Only if you argue that death releases oneself from the burdens of life. Wal-Mart's ways kill quality, whether it be on the end experienced by the workers or end consumers.

 
At 12/01/2011 4:21 PM, Blogger Cyril Morong said...

The Minneapolis Fed did a study on Walmart a few years ago. It

"concluded that Wal-Mart is "a fairly benign force," and they (the authors) admitted to some perplexity over the debate itself. Their findings were generally favorable to Wal-Mart, but they uncovered unfavorable results as well. But they stressed that "the great majority" of estimated effects were tiny—a fraction of 1 percent in most cases. To which they concluded: "[E]stimates of this magnitude do not seem to justify the rancor of the debate. Perhaps it can be justified on other grounds, but if so it would seem wise to redirect the discussion in that direction.""

Here are the links

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=3033

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=1122

 
At 12/01/2011 4:23 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

"but the whole point is that govt by it's very nature is usually a tacit agreement to restrict unfettered liberty."

no. you have this all wrong.

the purpose of government is to maximize liberty, a term you keep misusing.

freedom is that ability to do whatever you want. you cede freedom to gain liberty. this is exactly what natural rights are for.

you give up your freedom to kill to gain the liberty to live your life without the constant fear of being killed.

you gain enormously from doing so.

note however, that you are still free to kill. you can walk outside right now and do it. but once you do, others can kill you too or take away your freedom. actions have consequences.

violate the rights of another, and they will violate yours.

thus, you never really had the freedom, did you?

you imagine some kind of freedom to act without consequence, but that exists nowhere and never has, whether or not there is government.

these trade offs you keep pretending exist are pure illusion.

 
At 12/01/2011 4:32 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Walmart does not create demand for more milk... they just co-opt existing sales... "

If you understood basic economics, you wouldn't have written that.

Do you believe that all poor people buy as much milk as the wish to, or might other needs cause them to limit their purchases?

 
At 12/01/2011 4:37 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"but I still think local mom & pop will often direct their philanthropy to the locality."

You "think"?

Did you read in the original post that Walmart plans to contribute $21 million to local charities?

 
At 12/01/2011 4:56 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" even zoning does not really hold water in this way as it's also a protection of rights."

ahhhh the plot thickens!

:-)

 
At 12/01/2011 5:01 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" Do you believe that all poor people buy as much milk as the wish to, or might other needs cause them to limit their purchases? "

I believe that no matter how poor..or rich you are nor how much cheaper a product gets as a result of competition that you'll not buy more milk than you need.

When pays an employee to receive and stack milk - there is another employee at a mom & pop who no longer receives and stacks milk - unless of course he went to work at WalMart doing the same thing which means it's not a NEW job and that was what the article was claiming.. that WalMart brings NEW jobs.. and that's not true.

What people buy with the savings has nothing to do with the basic premise because even if WalMart never showed up but another mom&pop opened across the street and a price war on milk ensued... customers would also benefit from that.... but they STILL would not be buying more milk.

I see that you are apparently not smart enough to understand that so you hide your ignorance with bluster and blather.

 
At 12/01/2011 5:34 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"They proceeded according to the expressed wishes of the people. (At least the most vocal ones)."

Would those be local merchants?

"So the town fathers did what they thought was asked of them, however, when faced with a fait accompli, the town people apparently changed their tune and became more pragmatic."

So, perhaps the few loudmouths didn't really represent the will of the people. Just like with federal government.

"The town is still determined to see that it is not joined by a Big Lots, or some other thing."

Heaven forbid that something people might want should come to town. An effective deterrent might be a letter writing campaign to Big Lots indicating that a majority of town folk didn't want a Big Lots store in town, prefer to pay higher prices, and would refuse to shop there if one was opened.

It's still not too late to kill that Walmart if customers wish to vote on it.

 
At 12/01/2011 5:41 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Cute ;-)

Not very relevant, but cute.
"

It's as relevant as your example. That means not at all.


"I suspect that when someone insiss their liberties are worth more than yours, that you suddenly care quite a bit."

Apparently you don't understand the concept of liberty, or you wouldn't have written that.

 
At 12/01/2011 5:48 PM, Blogger Marko said...

Morganovich, you keep saying what I wanted to say in response to comments, and probably better!

I will try again anyway:

"unfettered liberty is anarchy... which I do understand some here in CD advocate."

This is a common confusion, I think it is based on a misunderstanding of what "liberty" means in the mouths of "some here in CD." When we talk about liberty, we are talking about free markets, and free markets are not possible in a condition of anarchy. Free markets require a lot of infrastructure, such as a method to enforce contractual agreements (courts), some kind of rule against using violence or taking property and a way to enforce those rules. Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. There is a big difference between these types of rules and what we think of as "regulations."

Most of the criticism of free markets that I hear turn out to be criticisms of un-free markets. For example, people say that totally free markets would be dominated by monopolists and thugs - but of course we don't like those things because they take away freedom! A free market is not monopolized by thugs using force, etc. That is the point. I am not saying this well. Ugh.

 
At 12/01/2011 6:00 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"I just brought it up because I thought it was an amusing (and amazingly bad) argument at the time. Like many of the arguments around this blog, people argue from a position, and that leads them to say things that are irrational and indefensible."

Why do you think I work so hard to correct you?

 
At 12/01/2011 6:23 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"actually... it's a valid concept if people can vote for how much liberty they want and/or what kinds of restrictions they want to apply to everyone."

But they can't, unless you reject these concepts, expressed by T. Jefferson:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "

If you are vague on the meaning of the words I emphasized, ask & I will explain them to you.

"unfettered liberty is anarchy... which I do understand some here in CD advocate."

I understand you struggle with many terms and concepts because of your biases, but they aren't so difficult to understand as you might think. First thing to consider, is that "anarchy" is not a synonym for "chaos".

The concept of managing your own life without someone telling you what to do may seem frightening to you, but it's really a superior way to live.

 
At 12/01/2011 6:30 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "

If you are vague on the meaning of the words I emphasized, ask & I will explain them to you.

T.J. said a lot of things.. some of which are in the Constitution and some of which seem in contradiction to the Constitution.


"unfettered liberty is anarchy... which I do understand some here in CD advocate."

I understand you struggle with many terms and concepts because of your biases, but they aren't so difficult to understand as you might think. First thing to consider, is that "anarchy" is not a synonym for "chaos". "

the only thing I really struggle with is your continuing tripe and idiocy...

Govt exists because of our Constitution.

One man's "liberty" is another mans "tyranny" .

this is precisely why we have a representative govt.

your right to what you do - ends at your property line and that includes accessing other property from your property.

without govt - you'd be in violation of others property rights.

but with dunderheads like you.. those things are secondary to your "natural law" idiocy.

 
At 12/01/2011 7:03 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"when govt says you can be arrested for littering... your "liberty" has been curtailed.. by a majority of others who don't want you littering..."

That is indeed tyranny of the majority.

Littering is one more example of the tragedy of the commons. People don't do things collectively or in common very well.

I have no right to harm others. I do have a right to not be harmed by others. Please study carefully the definitions of the words "rights", "liberty", and "freedom". They aren't the same thing. When you understand how they interrelate, you will have an easier time.

 
At 12/01/2011 7:05 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" I do have a right to not be harmed by others. Please study carefully the definitions of the words "rights", "liberty", and "freedom". They aren't the same thing. When you understand how they interrelate, you will have an easier time. "

I would suggest you take some other than stupid pills... for a change.

where do you think your "right" to not be harmed comes from if not from govt?

 
At 12/01/2011 7:06 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"as long as you have something MORE than pure anarchy... you have restrictions...."

Which is my argument exactly. Thank you.

 
At 12/01/2011 7:12 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"The one that was done through bribing clergy?

$21 million in charitable donations
That's bribery in a kinder form.
"

that's the one. You can call it whatever you want. Do you "bribe people to let you into their movie theater? How about access to a toll road? Passage on a ferry, perhaps?

All bribes. Are you also upset with those who asked for the $21m bribe?

 
At 12/01/2011 7:15 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Only if you argue that death releases oneself from the burdens of life. Wal-Mart's ways kill quality, whether it be on the end experienced by the workers or end consumers."

Why aren't more people aware of this evil? Millions continue to go through the door. You should shout louder.

 
At 12/01/2011 7:17 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" "as long as you have something MORE than pure anarchy... you have restrictions...."

Which is my argument exactly. Thank you. "

indeed. but you did not finish.

do you want govt?

 
At 12/01/2011 7:17 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" "as long as you have something MORE than pure anarchy... you have restrictions...."

Which is my argument exactly. Thank you. "

indeed. but you did not finish.

do you want govt?

 
At 12/01/2011 7:25 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"ie, for every $1 million in revenue, chain restaurants employed 9.7 people while independent restaurants employed 14.8...the same is probably true in retail..."...

Oh dear! Economies of scale kick in (or is it actual effiencies?) and that's a bad thing...

 
At 12/01/2011 7:29 PM, Blogger Pulverized Concepts said...

"your right to what you do - ends at your property line and that includes accessing other property from your property."
_____________________

By the way, where did all the ownership of this property originate? Is it possible that the state, in some form or another, confiscated this property from someone else and it was passed along to you? Was the original owner of this property fairly indemnified for it or simply pushed off of it? And, if you don't pay your property taxes, who gets the property then?

 
At 12/01/2011 7:30 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"Maybe. But there is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law"...

ROFLMAO!

Good one larry g, let's add ten years to the sentences of those who not only broke the letter of the law but ignored the spirit of the law...

Yeah! That'll teach 'em!

 
At 12/01/2011 8:15 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"When pays an employee to receive and stack milk - there is another employee at a mom & pop who no longer receives and stacks milk - unless of course he went to work at WalMart doing the same thing which means it's not a NEW job and that was what the article was claiming.. that WalMart brings NEW jobs.. and that's not true."

A few definitions:

- A "new" business - Walmart - creates "new" Jobs.

- "Existing" jobs may be lost. They may be replaced by "new" jobs.

The question is whether "new" jobs minus "existing" jobs lost, results in "additional" jobs IN THAT COMMUNITY.

The answer, if you look at the actual data, such as that presented at the link to the Chicago Walmart video, is certainly yes.

There may be no change in the number of jobs that deal with milk, but Walmart sells many things besides milk, so additional jobs are created - in that community - to deal with the sale of things that residents previously had to go elswhere for, if they could buy them at all.

The money they save by shopping at Walmart may allow them to buy other things, which may create additional jobs at Walmart, and at other stores.

Everyone is be better off, except M&P, but overall, the benefit far outweighs the loss. This is the nature of creative distruction, and YOU can control it by continuing to shop at M&P instead of improving your own standard of living by shopping at Walmart.

Follow the links Che is dead has thoughtfully provided for you.

This wouldn't be nearly so hard if you understood economics.

"What people buy with the savings has nothing to do with the basic premise because even if WalMart never showed up but another mom&pop opened across the street and a price war on milk ensued... customers would also benefit from that.... but they STILL would not be buying more milk."

Let me try to explain. Please try hard to follow. It's possible that a person would like to consume 2 gallons of milk/week, and 10 hotdogs/week, but at M&P they can only afford to buy 1 gal of milk, and 10 hotdogs, and must drink 1 gal of tap water. At Walmart they may be able to afford 2 gal of milk and 10 hotdogs. Therefore, more milk, or more of any other product, may be sold, as people can buy more for the same amount of money they used to spend at M&P.

Please tell me you understand that.

 
At 12/01/2011 8:24 PM, Blogger efimpp said...

>>when people vote to take away your rights and options and you have to abide by it, that is not liberty.

can I grow pigs on my backyard?
is there a good reason why my liberty is taken away?

 
At 12/01/2011 8:46 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

"When pays an employee to receive and stack milk - there is another employee at a mom & pop who no longer receives and stacks milk - unless of course he went to work at WalMart doing the same thing which means it's not a NEW job and that was what the article was claiming.. that WalMart brings NEW jobs.. and that's not true."

A few definitions:

- A "new" business - Walmart - creates "new" Jobs.

- "Existing" jobs may be lost. They may be replaced by "new" jobs.

The question is whether "new" jobs minus "existing" jobs lost, results in "additional" jobs IN THAT COMMUNITY.

The answer, if you look at the actual data, such as that presented at the link to the Chicago Walmart video, is certainly yes. "

the answer is not the one you believe

"There may be no change in the number of jobs that deal with milk, but Walmart sells many things besides milk, so additional jobs are created - in that community - to deal with the sale of things that residents previously had to go elswhere for, if they could buy them at all."

if the people have no more money to spend then buying more things from money saved on other things does not necessarily create "new" jobs no more than if milk was reduced in cost in the mom/pops and people purchased snickers with the savings.

the guy who stacks milk also stacks snickers.

"The money they save by shopping at Walmart may allow them to buy other things, which may create additional jobs at Walmart, and at other stores. "

more mindless blather from Mr Jr. economist here...

"Everyone is be better off, except M&P, but overall, the benefit far outweighs the loss. This is the nature of creative distruction, and YOU can control it by continuing to shop at M&P instead of improving your own standard of living by shopping at Walmart."

you don't get it. If the people buying are not making any more money... then there are no new jobs created ... it would mean the businesses would have to hire more people as a result of lowering their prices...

of course you're the guy who believes if we build more factories even when there is no additional demand it will create demand.

"Follow the links Che is dead has thoughtfully provided for you."

why don't you follow your own behind fella

This wouldn't be nearly so hard if you understood economics.

what's hard is the top of your little pointy head

"What people buy with the savings has nothing to do with the basic premise because even if WalMart never showed up but another mom&pop opened across the street and a price war on milk ensued... customers would also benefit from that.... but they STILL would not be buying more milk."

"Let me try to explain."

you could not explain your way out of a short paper bag...much less find your way out of a lighted closet because dimwits are dimwits o matter what.


"Please try hard to follow."

following you is like sniffing foul air...from your behind.. oh gawd.

"It's possible that a person would like to consume 2 gallons of milk/week, and 10 hotdogs/week, but at M&P they can only afford to buy 1 gal of milk, and 10 hotdogs, and must drink 1 gal of tap water. At Walmart they may be able to afford 2 gal of milk and 10 hotdogs. Therefore, more milk, or more of any other product, may be sold, as people can buy more for the same amount of money they used to spend at M&P."

why won't this work at the M&P also?

are you saying if the M&P lowered their milk prices, they'd sell more food and have to hire more people fool?


"Please tell me you understand that."

understand your rabid rantings?

ha ha ha

sorry ... I have a strict policy of not polluting my mind with folks who you can't tell which end they are blathering out of.

go powder yourself - soon.

 
At 12/01/2011 8:46 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

"When pays an employee to receive and stack milk - there is another employee at a mom & pop who no longer receives and stacks milk - unless of course he went to work at WalMart doing the same thing which means it's not a NEW job and that was what the article was claiming.. that WalMart brings NEW jobs.. and that's not true."

A few definitions:

- A "new" business - Walmart - creates "new" Jobs.

- "Existing" jobs may be lost. They may be replaced by "new" jobs.

The question is whether "new" jobs minus "existing" jobs lost, results in "additional" jobs IN THAT COMMUNITY.

The answer, if you look at the actual data, such as that presented at the link to the Chicago Walmart video, is certainly yes. "

the answer is not the one you believe

"There may be no change in the number of jobs that deal with milk, but Walmart sells many things besides milk, so additional jobs are created - in that community - to deal with the sale of things that residents previously had to go elswhere for, if they could buy them at all."

if the people have no more money to spend then buying more things from money saved on other things does not necessarily create "new" jobs no more than if milk was reduced in cost in the mom/pops and people purchased snickers with the savings.

the guy who stacks milk also stacks snickers.

"The money they save by shopping at Walmart may allow them to buy other things, which may create additional jobs at Walmart, and at other stores. "

more mindless blather from Mr Jr. economist here...

"Everyone is be better off, except M&P, but overall, the benefit far outweighs the loss. This is the nature of creative distruction, and YOU can control it by continuing to shop at M&P instead of improving your own standard of living by shopping at Walmart."

you don't get it. If the people buying are not making any more money... then there are no new jobs created ... it would mean the businesses would have to hire more people as a result of lowering their prices...

of course you're the guy who believes if we build more factories even when there is no additional demand it will create demand.

"Follow the links Che is dead has thoughtfully provided for you."

why don't you follow your own behind fella

This wouldn't be nearly so hard if you understood economics.

what's hard is the top of your little pointy head

"What people buy with the savings has nothing to do with the basic premise because even if WalMart never showed up but another mom&pop opened across the street and a price war on milk ensued... customers would also benefit from that.... but they STILL would not be buying more milk."

"Let me try to explain."

you could not explain your way out of a short paper bag...much less find your way out of a lighted closet because dimwits are dimwits o matter what.


"Please try hard to follow."

following you is like sniffing foul air...from your behind.. oh gawd.

"It's possible that a person would like to consume 2 gallons of milk/week, and 10 hotdogs/week, but at M&P they can only afford to buy 1 gal of milk, and 10 hotdogs, and must drink 1 gal of tap water. At Walmart they may be able to afford 2 gal of milk and 10 hotdogs. Therefore, more milk, or more of any other product, may be sold, as people can buy more for the same amount of money they used to spend at M&P."

why won't this work at the M&P also?

are you saying if the M&P lowered their milk prices, they'd sell more food and have to hire more people fool?


"Please tell me you understand that."

understand your rabid rantings?

ha ha ha

sorry ... I have a strict policy of not polluting my mind with folks who you can't tell which end they are blathering out of.

go powder yourself - soon.

 
At 12/01/2011 8:52 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Marko: "This is a common confusion, I think it is based on a misunderstanding of what "liberty" means in the mouths of "some here in CD." When we talk about liberty, we are talking about free markets, and free markets are not possible in a condition of anarchy. "

You may have a misconception of what "anarchy" actually means. It isn't synonymous with disorder and chaos, but merely means absence of government.

If you had time and inclination, I could recommend this very interesting treatment of the subject of free markets from an Austrian perspective. Note that the digital download versions are free.

 
At 12/01/2011 9:08 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" What can government do to enhance social and economic well being? Nothing, says Murray N. Rothbard. Power and Market contains the proof. It will inoculate the reader against the even the slightest temptation to invoke the state as a solution to any social or economic problem. It is ultimate manual for completely de-mystifying the myth of the state."

yep.. that didn't take long.

we don't need no stinkin govt...

more lunacy from lunatics.

economic freedom is a concept that requires SOME FORM of govt because you're not even going to leave your property without the "coercive" power of that big bad nasty govt.

 
At 12/01/2011 9:45 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"we don't need no stinkin govt...

more lunacy from lunatics.
when
economic freedom is a concept that requires SOME FORM of govt because you're not even going to leave your property without the "coercive" power of that big bad nasty govt.
"....

Speaking of 'left-tard lunatics' larry g when was the last time Walmart literally ran someone off their property?

 
At 12/01/2011 9:53 PM, Blogger juandos said...

efimmp asks "can I grow pigs on my backyard?"...

Well if you have to ask the question that way you're obviously going to be an abysmal failure when it comes to raising hogs...

"is there a good reason why my liberty is taken away?"...

Who did you and your fellow travelers vote for?

 
At 12/01/2011 9:55 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" when was the last time Walmart literally ran someone off their property? "

well...just the other day out my way..

a woman was being obnoxious to another woman who was sitting on the last box of a hot sale item and she was "escorted" off the premises...by officer friendly and helpers.

she was blathering something about her natural law "rights" as they invited her outside.

 
At 12/01/2011 9:57 PM, Blogger marmico said...

Neumark et. al. estimates that each Walmart employee displaces 1.4 retail workers, lowers retail employment by 2.7% and wages by 1.5%.

Loyola University economists actually looked at DATA of the "West Side Chicago Walmart", instead of blowing hot air, and concluded:

Our study of Chicago’s West Side Wal-Mart has provided evidence that, in an urban setting, proximity to Wal-Mart is associated with a higher probability of going out of business for local retail establishments. In addition, we have some evidence that the West Side Wal-Mart has replaced sales and employment from its own and neighboring zip codes. All of these findings, however, show modest, but significant effects.

 
At 12/01/2011 10:41 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"she was blathering something about her natural law "rights" as they invited her outside"...

So you don't know do you larry g, so make up some silly fairy tale to waste bandwidth...

Weird...

Well you might find this interesting...

Nation's Largest Employers

 
At 12/01/2011 10:45 PM, Blogger Cyril Morong said...

The Neumark study also says

"Our results apply only to the
retail sector, and we suspect that there are not aggregate
employment effects, at least in the longer run, as labor
shifts to other uses. Wage effects are more plausible, although
these may operate more on the manufacturing
side through the buying power that Wal-Mart exerts, as
opposed to the retail side which is a low-wage sector
regardless of Wal-Mart—although there are exceptions
such as relatively highly-paid grocery workers who may
be harmed from competition with Supercenters. If there
are wage (or employment) effects that arise through cost
pressures onWal-Mart’s suppliers, however, they would
not necessarily be concentrated in the counties in which
stores open, so that our methods would not identify
them.
Moreover, Wal-Mart entry may also result in lower
prices that increase purchasing power, and if prices are
lowered not just at Wal-Mart but elsewhere as well,
the gains to consumers may be widespread. Furthermore,
the gains may be larger for lower-income families
(Hausman and Leibtag, 2005), although it is also possible
that labor market consequences for these families
are also more adverse."

 
At 12/01/2011 10:50 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" So you don't know do you larry g, so make up some silly fairy tale to waste bandwidth."

well.. I know what I told you was materially the truth. why would you think otherwise? I did embellish the "natural law" part..

;-)

that's a nice link... and the point was....????

hey.. I'm a twice-weekly WalMart shopper... so I believe in what they are doing....

but I also believe in looking honestly at the impact they have on local communities....

and it's not just them... it's most national chains....

but have you noticed the national franchises like ACE Hardware?

what makes the national chains so powerful and efficient is ...logistics....

but those logistics solutions can also be applied to franchise stores ...sort of mom/pop hybrids.

Many McDonalds... 7-11s, pizza joints, etc are actually locally-owned franchises that in some ways are the best of each.

franchises can also be employee-owned....

the WalMart model is not the only good model.

 
At 12/01/2011 11:26 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"T.J. said a lot of things.. some of which are in the Constitution and some of which seem in contradiction to the Constitution."

Your knowledge of history must not include the fact that T. J. wasn't at the Constitutional Convention.

"One man's "liberty" is another mans "tyranny" ."

Such nonsense. Do you even know the origin of that silly relativistic phrase? I had a feeling you wouldn't enlighten yourself before embarrqssing yourself further.

"your right to what you do - ends at your property line and that includes accessing other property from your property.

without govt - you'd be in violation of others property rights.
"

Huh? You seem more confused that ever. Do I now have to explain property rights to you? What do you imagine is the source of propertyy rights. Hint: It's not from the mob rule as you imagine it is.

".where do you think your "right" to not be harmed comes from if not from govt?"

Here's what Jefferson had to say on the subject.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. " There's more.

Government doesn't grant rights, dumdum. They exist, are inalienable ( that means inseperable, they can't be taken away ), and come from our nature as human beings, or from a Creator, if you prefer.

If you actually think about it, you might realize that these concepts have been common throuout history. Your view of yourself may include the notion that you own yourself, and are a sovereign individual. No one owns you. You have a right to your life, your liberty, and pursuit of your own peaceful ends.(happiness). Assuming this has already made your little head explode, I won't get into the concept of "original owner" at this time, but ask when you want it explained.

As you own yourself, you own that which you create by your own labor. This is your property. You own it, and are entitled to keep it. You masy do with it what you wish.

You would rightfully resist any attempt to take your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, thus your right to self defense..

None of this has anything at all to do with government, or the state.

Jefferson continues:

"To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men."

That is the only legitimate role of government, but as human nature is what it is, and as Lord Acton said "power corrupts", even the most careful efforts to limit government, as the Founders tried to do, have been unsuccessful, and YOU, Larry boy, are the poster child, and chief apologist for out of control government.

 
At 12/01/2011 11:34 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"indeed. but you did not finish.

do you want govt?
"

No. That is a complaint that any amount of government involves infringement of liberty. It is unnecessary at best, and deadly at worst.

 
At 12/01/2011 11:41 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

"T.J. said a lot of things.. some of which are in the Constitution and some of which seem in contradiction to the Constitution."

Your knowledge of history must not include the fact that T. J. wasn't at the Constitutional Convention."

T.J. said a lot of things. You can even find him contradicting himself. His ideas and thoughts formed the basis for some of the debates that led to the writing of the document.



"One man's "liberty" is another mans "tyranny" ."

Such nonsense. Do you even know the origin of that silly relativistic phrase? I had a feeling you wouldn't enlighten yourself before embarrqssing yourself further."

it's certainly true from many perspectives dunderhead.

"your right to what you do - ends at your property line and that includes accessing other property from your property.

without govt - you'd be in violation of others property rights.
"

Huh? You seem more confused that ever. Do I now have to explain property rights to you? What do you imagine is the source of propertyy rights. Hint: It's not from the mob rule as you imagine it is."

with no govt - what are your property rights? ZIPPO



".where do you think your "right" to not be harmed comes from if not from govt?"

Here's what Jefferson had to say on the subject.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. " There's more.

Government doesn't grant rights, dumdum. They exist, are inalienable ( that means inseperable, they can't be taken away ), and come from our nature as human beings, or from a Creator, if you prefer. "

ha ha ha... you're living in a dream world dumbass..

the real world - the one that exists that you have to deal with every day says your rights are not "natural".

go find a country that suits you because this is not the one for you but then again most of the 200 or so in the world would not suit either.

Perhaps you'd be better off with the Somalia Pirates, eh?


"If you actually think about it, ..."

[ insufferable and irrelevant hotair deleted ]

you don't have natural rights idiot.

you might believe that.. but in the real world - you don't.

and the reason why is that you actually need to be under control.

the majority WANT you restricted.

folks like you REQUIRE laws and rules to protect others.

folks like you invariably find themselves getting acquainted with law enforcement ... on number of issues...

 
At 12/01/2011 11:42 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" No. That is a complaint that any amount of government involves infringement of liberty. It is unnecessary at best, and deadly at worst. "

yup.

so why do you persist with your delusions?

 
At 12/01/2011 11:57 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"the answer is not the one you believe"

What is the answer, then? References please.

"if the people have no more money to spend then buying more things from money saved on other things does not necessarily create "new" jobs no more than if milk was reduced in cost in the mom/pops and people purchased snickers with the savings."

Sigh... There's that lack of economic knowledge thing again.

*at this point Larry ceases even trying to respond to the comment, and begins sputtering nonsense.*

 
At 12/02/2011 12:00 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

"if the people have no more money to spend then buying more things from money saved on other things does not necessarily create "new" jobs no more than if milk was reduced in cost in the mom/pops and people purchased snickers with the savings."

Sigh... There's that lack of economic knowledge thing again.

*at this point Larry ceases even trying to respond to the comment, and begins sputtering nonsense.*

if what you say was true... then cutting the price of milk in the mom/pop would result in the need to HIRE more people to stock the additional products that people would buy with their milk savings.

tell me why this is the case or tell me what it is not

you seem to think that lowering the price of something will generate more jobs....and actually require MORE employees.... i.e. "new" jobs.

but if it works for WalMart why would it not ALSO work for mom/pop? (lets say they change supplier and get much cheaper milk)

 
At 12/02/2011 12:10 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Effimpp: "can I grow pigs on my backyard?
is there a good reason why my liberty is taken away?
"

You are asking about property rights, not liberty.

If you are the original owner (homesteader) of the property, you can do anything you want. If you bought the property from someone else, you have the rights and restrictions the previous owner transferred to you at the time of sale. If that includes the right to raise pigs, than you're golden. Otherwise, you can't.

 
At 12/02/2011 12:14 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

" If you are the original owner (homesteader) of the property, you can do anything you want"

can you provide a credible cite for this statement?

 
At 12/02/2011 12:44 AM, Blogger Vagabundus said...

Why give a penny to those entitled ungrateful government leaches. Build the stores just across the border from their taxing district.

 
At 12/02/2011 1:18 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"you seem to think that lowering the price of something will generate more jobs....and actually require MORE employees.... i.e. "new" jobs.

but if it works for WalMart why would it not ALSO work for mom/pop? (lets say they change supplier and get much cheaper milk)
"

Do you mean they start buying their milk at Walmart?

It WOULD work the same way for M&P. If additional buying power resulted in a higher volume of milk sales, then additional milk handling would be required.

If the current M&P milk handler is working at full capacity, additional milk sales will require additional milk stocking labor to be employed. However, with no higher income, they can't afford to hire another employee.

If M&P could compete with Walmart, they would still be in business.

The additional buying power of customers may also result in additional employment in businesses other than retail, something many studies ignore when they address retail employment only. They often conclude that it's dangerous to operate a business close to Walmart that competes with walmart. Imagine that.

 
At 12/02/2011 1:39 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"can you provide a credible cite for this statement?"

Sure. Your perennial favorite source is a good place to start.

Notice, especially, the quote from Locke's Second Treatise.

If you are the first person to make use of previously unused land. or any other thing from "nature", it becomes your property.

It's hard to find any unused land these days, but that's the principle, and you can do anything you want with it, including raising pigs.

By the way, Jefferson's most important influence was John Locke.

 
At 12/02/2011 1:50 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Why give a penny to those entitled ungrateful government leaches. Build the stores just across the border from their taxing district."

Across the border is another gang of entitled, ungrateful, government leaches. There's no escaping it. when local officials hear those magic words "Walmart want's to build here", their beady little eyes light up, and their grabby little hands start twitching. It's necessary for any cash cow - I mean large business to grease those palms in order to get the approvals necessary.

Notice the $21 million offer to charity in the DC case.

 
At 12/02/2011 6:51 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

"If you are the first person to make use of previously unused land. or any other thing from "nature", it becomes your property"

really?

and that means you can do ANYTHING with it regardless of the current laws?

have you got a cite for that?

 
At 12/02/2011 9:40 AM, Blogger juandos said...

"well.. I know what I told you was materially the truth."...

Hmmm, call me a skeptic larry g...

"that's a nice link... and the point was....????"...

No particular point larry g other than to show Walmart's contribution to the economy... Merely an education link...

"but I also believe in looking honestly at the impact they have on local communities...."...

Then of course you believe in the philosophy of the local shopper making his/her own choice when shopping regardless of the impact on the local community, right?

"the WalMart model is not the only good model"...

No doubt larry g, otherwise there would be no Target chain...

 
At 12/02/2011 9:53 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

"you don't have natural rights idiot.

you might believe that.. but in the real world - you don't."

and there is it ladies and gentlemen, the conclusive proof that larry is in fact a fascist/totalitarian.

larry, until you recant that, you have just given up all right to even object to being called tyrannical in the future.

you just keep falling back on the same weak argument of "this is how it is", which can justify anything and has been the refrain of tyrants since time immemorial.

"this is how it is" was used to defend the right of kings.

 
At 12/02/2011 10:14 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

"[E]stimates of this magnitude do not seem to justify the rancor of the debate.

==================================

That pretty much corresponds to my (casual) observation of the facts on the ground here before and after the Walmart battle.

It really wasn't worth the effort expended.

 
At 12/02/2011 10:19 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

liberty comes from rights, not democracy.

=================================

Yes, but those rights frequently bump into each other, thereby reducing liberty.

Some rights are more valuable than others, therefore you need some kind of market to trade one against the other, in order to maximize the amount of liberty available.

 
At 12/02/2011 10:28 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

" and there is it ladies and gentlemen, the conclusive proof that larry is in fact a fascist/totalitarian.

larry, until you recant that, you have just given up all right to even object to being called tyrannical in the future."

maybe...

"you just keep falling back on the same weak argument of "this is how it is", which can justify anything and has been the refrain of tyrants since time immemorial.

"this is how it is" was used to defend the right of kings."

not really. I just point out that "natural rights" is a concept not found in the existing world (unless you know of examples).

I support liberties and rights but I also support the concept of govt and govt is basically an agreement to give up your "natural rights" in exchange for "protection" of rights.

By the way.. my nastiness extends ONLY to those who themselves prefer that mode of communication.

I generally key my responses to the folks that I dialog with and if your mode is polite.. even in vigorous debate.. I'm on board.

but I will not tolerate these intellectual cowards here that feel the need to diss people.

 
At 12/02/2011 11:37 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

you customers have more money to hire you too, as they saved it on cereal.

================================
If I have more money that I saced shopping at walMart, what incentive have I got to spend it at larry's lawn care, or anywhere else?

I have enough milk, I have enough lawn care, I have cable TV to watch. What could I possibley want or need enough to spend that money I just saved?

 
At 12/02/2011 11:41 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

you have a right to the sanctity of your person and property.

==================================

Even then, those rights clash with the same rights for others, so we have devised ways to trade those rights in ways we hope will maximise liberty, and the valuse such liberty is able to produce.

 
At 12/02/2011 11:47 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

on the "natural rights" issue, I note that Heritage publishes a ranking of countries on economic freedom.

the criteria look like this:

business freedom
trade freedom
fiscal freedom
government spending
monetary freedom
investment freedom
financial freedom
property rights
freedom from corruption
labor

http://www.heritage.org/index/explore

no where do I see a criteria for "natural rights".

so I'm asking... is there a ranking for countries that protect "natural rights"?

 
At 12/02/2011 11:47 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

when people vote to take away your rights and options and you have to abide by it, that is not liberty.


==================================

But you are assuming it is one sided. Even in our misguided way of doing things there is some attempt to balance what you say is taken away.

What I am suggesting is a market, where no voluntary trade can be made unless both sides feel they are better off.

 
At 12/02/2011 11:48 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

re: dropping prices mean more employment....

so if we drop prices low enough we'll have zero unemployment?

COOL!

 
At 12/02/2011 11:50 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

It's as relevant as your example. That means not at all.

============================

The example was not perfect, as your response shows. But whaqt you are suggesting is that nothing anyone else does to advance their interest is likely to ruffle your feathers.

I don't believe that is true, even if you found a way to rationallze my suggestion.

 
At 12/02/2011 12:10 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

When we talk about liberty, we are talking about free markets, and free markets are not possible in a condition of anarchy. Free markets require a lot of infrastructure, a method to enforce contractual agreements (courts), some kind of rule against using violence or taking property and a way to enforce those rules. Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. There is a big difference between these types of rules and what we think of as "regulations.

==================================

Well, you are blowing smoke then, because the vast majority of those regulations came about after the resolution of court cases where people argued the relative merits of their liberty and their rights relative to someone else's.

 
At 12/02/2011 12:14 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

so if we drop prices low enough we'll have zero unemployment?

=================================

When prices get low enough, there will be no need for employment, as everything will be free.

We seem to be approaching that condition in fits and starts. Prices for most things are dropping and they are becoming more plentiful. more people are unemployed and unemployable, but we have not yet made the logical leap that says maybe work is not necessary, or what to do about those who we do not need already.

 
At 12/02/2011 12:21 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Therefore, more milk, or more of any other product, may be sold,

=================================

The operative words being May Be.


but maybe not, too, so yur argument is not proven.


Right now, there is a lot of money sitting on the sidelines. That is why you can get a car loan at 1% right now. But the billions that are now sitting around all came from savings of some kind, and a lot of it was from savings on labor. those billions are not being spent, which suggests your example is wrong.

Freeing up money does not mean it will be spent, nor does spending it ensure there willl be more jobs.

 
At 12/02/2011 12:35 PM, Blogger Buddy R Pacifico said...

Ron H., one of your Jefferson quotes is not accurate, in that it was edited by Ben Franklin and John Adams.

Here is original Thomas Jefferson quote:

"We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness"

More wordy, but perhaps it should have been left alone because it is stronger; "sacred & undeniable".

 
At 12/02/2011 12:37 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

People don't do things collectively or in common very well.

==============================

Gross generalization. It depends hugely on how well we design the incentives. Which is to say how we design the individual reward for collective success.

That may seem a small difference, in that the end result still depends on individual reward. But it is necessary becasue there are so many things we do in common that don;t work well as individuals.

 
At 12/02/2011 1:01 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

================================

The natural rights of life and liberty are UNALIENABLE. Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition

"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

=================================

Synonyms for unalienable - inalienable.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Seems to e thee is a probleme here. One source suggests a difference between inalalienable rights and unalienable rights, and another source says they are synonyms.


In any case, the natural rights of life and liberty are different from those rights that have to do with property, which are always subject to restriction under the law:

That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

 
At 12/02/2011 2:38 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

..."...among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness""

thanks Buddy!

not to be a nitpicker but who would be in charge of "the preservation"?

without a govt, who would you expect to "preserve" those "inalienable rights"?

I'd say without a govt. it's going to be you against the hordes...

and the only way to repel the hordes would be to get allies and agree to defend each other... and then we start to get into the messy business of governance.

 
At 12/02/2011 5:57 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"and the only way to repel the hordes would be to get allies and agree to defend each other... and then we start to get into the messy business of governance"...

Did you flunk history also larry g?

I know hydra is a two fer...

 
At 12/02/2011 5:58 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

how much you "educate" me, Juandos

this ought to be good...

 
At 12/02/2011 9:52 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

I know hydra is a two fer...


Yep.

History of Science and Chinese History.

Not to mention that the room I am sitting in is filled with history books, some of which are history themselves, being over a hundred years old.

As four yourself, Juandos, your ignorance is manifest in your uncontrollable compunction to belittle others while adding nothing of value to the conversation.

You could not have chosen a more apropos pseudo namesake.

 
At 12/02/2011 11:52 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"As four yourself, Juandos, your ignorance is manifest in your uncontrollable compunction to belittle others while adding nothing of value to the conversation"...

What hydra?!?!

Just because you're sitting in a room full of books you can't or won't read and you're calling me ignorant...

ROFLMAO!

Then you spew your inane and factless BS and it expect others to not question it?!?!...

Now you feel insulted because you've been shown repeatedly to either not have a clue or you make stuff up as you go along and then get called on it, it gives you license to whine about being treated poorly?

The hubris of you liberals is only matched by your inability to get a grip on reality...

 
At 12/09/2011 10:05 AM, Blogger Pitchman said...

With out checking the validity; I have read that most of those "new job's" are part time. Note you never read "Full Time" in these fluff pieces. And here is the kicker. When you do your new hire paper work you are presented with an application for food stamps. If this is true, the American people are subsidizing Wal-Mart's PR largess.

Can anyone verify if this is the case?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home