> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Stores are ecconomic entities. Forcing people to buy from less
efficent
> stores is an ecconomic decision. What other factors, that are not
tied to
> jobs, prices, income, etc. are you thinking of? I know when I
have/had
> less money, I was less interested in spending money on aestetics,
taste,
> etc. than when I have/had more money. How can we be sure that keeping
> discount stores out of an area isn't simply a matter of forcing one's
own
> value system on others?
>
Sure, insuring equal access to opportunity is a crucial part of
capitalism/free market etc, it's a valid issue you raise, but that's
part of the problem. By allowing discount stores into an area are we
forcing on them the markets version of a value system?
> Finally, are you arguing that improved productivity is not inherently
> valuable?
>
I think the issue is more about the definition of productivity. One can
draw lots of graphs and diagrams about the apparent short term economic
benefits, but is that really productivity, in the broader sense. Ok,
things get delivered cheaper, quicker etc, but is that the be all and
end all?
There is an argument that our current business systems are essentially
unsustainable in the longer term, in a whole lot of ways. I am pretty
much a pro-market thinker, free trade etc, but the way is set up now
does often not make much sense. It's a simple example, but I still can't
quite grasp how it makes sense to pay farmers in one country not to grow
a crop, and then import it from half way around the world.
One aspect that does trouble me is that of competition. One of the basic
precepts of free market economics is competition between suppliers. If
you don't like one places good or services or prices, you go elsewhere.
Without that competition aspect the whole system will turn into economic
tyranny.
Many of these companies (eg Walmart) are growing so huge and powerful
that they are endangering that. Here in Australia we have basically two
large food etc supermarket chains. They are now in the business of
growing by organic means (having taken the rest over), and there is no
law to stop them doing that. They have massive power over their
suppliers, driving many out of business, are vertically integrating, so
they own the suppliers, wholesalers, shippers etc, and use legal but
unethical means to undercut their competition till they go bust then
raise their prices. Then, a few quiet words over lunch between the
bosses of the two companies and the price of cranberries has gone up 5%.
Was it Marx who warned that Capitalism would end in one big corporation?
That's what scares me about these mega-corporates. Not that they are
being Capitalist's, but that they are in the process of destroying it
from within.
Ice Pick Maru
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
