On 12/23/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > For example, you brought up that cost is not the only measure, the > distance > needed to travel to shop is a factor that has to be included. The counter > would be that shoppers at Wal-Mart have already made this > tradeoff. People > won't go 5 miles Wal-Mart to save $0.25 on a gallon of milk when they can > buy it 6 blocks away at a higher priced store. But, they will do their > weekly grocery shopping there, to save 10% on a $200 grocery bill.
That's the sort of half-truth that is constantly trotted out to justify unethical behavior. The fact is that *enough* people are willing to travel to shop at Wal-Mart for it to make a profit. Yet the argument becomes the usual, "See, they're giving people what they want and they're making a profit, therefore nothing could be wrong as long as they don't break the law (notwithstanding the fact that they *do* break the law)." The fact that Wal-Mart can make money and people end up driving farther doesn't make it good that they've driven smaller businesses out of business. It doesn't make it bad, either. But ignoring the impact on people who are marginalized by the changes brought about by Wal-Mart's tactics is bad, in my opinion. I don't think it is ever ethical to turn a blind eye to some people by talking as though profits and prices reveal goodness and truth. By us agreeing that lower income people make the right ecconomic decision > for themselves and their families when they shop at WalMart, we can > eliminate a whole catagory of attacks on WalMart. It's not going to happen. God forbid I should ever limit my decision-making criteria to mere economics. Aside from the fundamental fact that there's more to life than economics, it's a far from objective or complete field of knowledge. It's the *dismal* science. > I see inefficiency as money down the toilet. Efficiency is the foundation > > of the world we live in. Zambia has a much much less efficient economy, > > mostly separated from world trade, and people are near starvation there. > > When the average farmer produces 5% more food than his/her family needs, > > then there is little room for error, as well as little chance for more > > than > > a few to rise above hand to mouth poverty. I hear the first few notes of "A Modest Proposal." >It's seriously twisted logic to argue that businesses that result in lower > >incomes, fewer benefits and fewer jobs is good for society just because > it > >results in lower prices. > > No, the logic I'm using is standard ecconomics, accepted by a very wide > range of ecconomists. Dan! "Good for society" is not measured just by economics and economists!!!! Add another dimension or two, please! I refuse to have any sympathy for the fact that you're working by web mail... ;-) I'm in Evanston, Wyoming, where the Internet just arrived yesterday, apparently. But I'm using one of the best web mail applications -- Google Mail. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
