[Vision2020] Wal-Mart: Replies to Donovan and Crabtree

[Ted Moffett]

Crabtree, Donovan et. al.

If I may interject, I have a few simple points to suggest regarding the
assertion that preventing a Super Wal-Mart from being built in Moscow is
dictating others shopping choices.

Isn't Wal-Mart trying to dictate others shopping choices?

Isn't Wal-Mart seeking to push other businesses out to gain more market
share and profit?

Why should those questioning the wisdom of the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter
in Moscow be charged with limiting shopping choices, when Wal-Mart seeks
exactly this goal, with far more resources at their disposal than Joe
Campbell or the MCA?

Do you think Wal-Mart believes building two supercenters a mere 11 miles
apart on the Palouse will encourage more and varied types of business to
offer shoppers more varied choices on the Palouse?  They may say this in
their propaganda, but the Wal-Mart bean counters know they have a good
chance to hurt Safeway's business, for example, in the Eastside Marketplace,
and force them out.

It is a no-brainer that Safeway will be threatened and may go under if the
proposed Wal-Mart supercenter is built in Moscow at the proposed location.
This means those who support this supercenter may, in effect, if not
intent, dictate my shopping choices.  I like many of the products Safeway
offers, Wal-Wart does not sell these products, thus Wal-Mart is seeking to
limit my shopping choices if they push Safeway out... as they should seek to
do in the world of capitalist businesses seeking to push other businesses
out to gain more market share and profit.  There is evidence that Safeway at
Eastside operated at a loss in competing with Tidymans.  Wal-Mart can
operate a store at a loss indefinitely.  When a huge corporation can operate
in this manner, what chance to fairly compete do smaller businesses have,
whether local or not, that cannot tolerate an unprofitable business location
(see reference to anti-trust law at bottom)?

The idea of full laissez faire capitalism is just that, an "idea."  The
reality is that business is regulated by federal, state and local law for
good reasons, and the types of businesses that can locate in a community,
and their conduct, is thus validly addressed by government regulation, in
consideration of the impact a business will have, and to promote fair
competition.  The idea of the "free marketplace" operating without
government regulation, where all businesses have some sort of
theoretical "equal chance," and the consumer with their "free" shopping
choices becomes the ultimate arbiter of what businesses will survive, thus
resulting in the best outcome for all based on the needs of the consumer, is
an illusion  The debate is merely about what set of values we are going to
reference in using government to regulate business so that the "free
marketplace" does not result in an egregious outcome.  If a XXX porno shop
specializing in sado-masochistic bondage paraphernalia, with hookers and
dealers on the local street corner, located near your house, you might
suddenly be advocating limiting of others shopping choices, even if this
business was booming.  And if a community decides that a more local, varied
and decentralized business base is better for the community in the long run,
or if the proposed location of a huge business creates problems for the
planning goals of the community (traffic, developmental blight, water use,
etc.) government can and should set limits on the size and/or location
of potentially monopolistic oriented powerful businesses seeking to gain
market dominance, especially in a small community.

Wal-Mart can influence consumers with its huge advertising budget (over 400
million dollars annually) in a manner many local smaller businesses,
and even Safeway (only operating in the USA and Canada), cannot.  They also,
as I pointed out, can tolerate an unprofitable store location maintaining
low prices till competitors go under.

I don't need to discuss Wal-Mart's wages or medical benefits, or connections
to exploitation of cheap labor under the rule of the human rights denying
gulag operating Chinese Communist Party, to make an argument questioning
Wal-Mart's goals in Moscow, but I find it laughable and sad that advocates
of free market democratic society think that huge US based multinational
corporations doing business with human rights denying communist
dictatorships does not imply a blind spot in applying our values to our
international policies..

What may block the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter in Moscow is not an effort
to single out Wal-Mart, but a measure to limit the size of a business
(square footage) that can build in Moscow, for a variety of reasons, a limit
that will apply across the board equally, to Costco, Target, Home Depot,
ShopCo, etc. or any local business, for that matter.

I think we should discuss regarding the proposed Moscow Wal-Mart
Supercenter:

What is the point of anti-trust laws?  Have these laws been watered down in
application in recent years in our economic/ political system?  Are huge
multinational corporations taking away the power of local communities and
businesses to control their own future based on their own best interests?
Is the multinational globalized business model the best in the long run,
considering that cheap fossil fuel energy makes this business model
possible, cheap energy that will in the not too distant future become very
expensive and depleted?  Should local communities start planning for the
collapse or weakening of this globalized business model in view of fossil
fuel depletion?  And what should concern every Moscow resident, over all
other considerations, is that the light pollution from the proposed Wal-Mart
Supercenter will ruin the view towards Tomer Butte on lovely moonlit
nights...Of course it already is ruined compared to how I once enjoyed this
view of Tomer Butte on lovely moonlit nights from Kenneth St. in the late
1960s, when Kenneth St. was the edge of town, and no flashing cell phone
tower was in the way.
 antitrust: an overview

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Antitrust
Trusts and monopolies are concentrations of wealth in the hands of a few.
Such conglomerations of economic resources are thought to be injurious to
the public and individuals because such trusts minimize, if not obliterate
normal marketplace competition, and yield undesirable price controls. These,
in turn, cause markets to stagnate and sap individual initiative.

-------------------

I now return you to your regular programming...

Ted Moffett


On 3/2/06, g. crabtree <jampot at adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> My goodness, Campbell, I sure am glad you aren't the touchy, sensitive
> type.
> I'd be worried that I might displease you by the act of disagreement. A
> crime punishable by wounded post script. What part of my thinking that you
> are wrong is insulting exactly? Is it just the fact that I dare?  Or was
> it
> being referred to as "junior"? (as contrasted by Nick Gier's senior) Or
> was
> it that I referred to you as a "philosopher" a profession that you have
> told
> me repeatedly is a source of enormous pride to you. I really don't get it.
>
> Anyway, as long as you've got a case of the all bent out of shape, lets
> take
> a look at your responses to my point about aesthetics. Rather than telling
> me how the drawings for the proposed SWM don't live up to your highly
> refined concept of what's beautiful and what's not, you resort to the
> Popeye
> edict  "I'ze taken all'z  I can takes and I can't take's na more" Amazing
> how it occurs when you've got a crowd to sing the "me too" chorus.
> Politically expedient.
>
> Joe sez (I'd stick to the more formal Mr. Campbell but at this stage it
> seems it really doesn't matter what I say it'll be seen as deadly insult)
> in
> response to my assertion that preventing a SWM from being built is
> dictating
> others shopping choices..."YOU ARE WRONG. (my emphasis) There is a
> difference between dictating what people do and using one's words to
> influence what people do. The latter respects that people have the
> capacities to reason and make decisions for themselves. The former does
> not." How are you "influencing" people with words not to shop someplace
> when
> by your actions you prevent that venue from being built? Wouldn't seem to
> matter much what the "people" think or "reason." You've made the decision
> for them.
>
> Joe, I've really got to admit that I got a genuine belly laugh from your
> gas
> station argument. By your logic all wal marts as well as all gas stations
> in
> Latah Co. should be built on the east side of Granddad bridge, definitely
> reduces that pesky foot traffic. So just exactly what sort of "smart
> growth"
> retail can exist within the 1/2 mile exclusionary zone of Casa Campbell?
> Are
> you going to complain to the MCityA council if the kids down the street
> open
> a lemonade stand? That would be sad.
>
> " Crabtree asks that I provide evidence for exploitation in the form of
> some
> pro-Wal-Mart website." No, Joseph, I asked for hard evidence of your
> assertion of human rights violations by showing me convictions in a court
> of
> law.  Either the Dept. of Justice has wracked up the stats. or it hasn't.
> Pretending that this is asking the impossible is to admit that your
> argument
> is lacking.
>
> Lastly Joe, I don't much care if you say the pledge of allegiance or not.
> Nobody has made any judgment as to your level of perfection and I am most
> certainly not condemning you. I disagree with you. In some way or another,
> on one topic or another,  I am sure I disagree with every person on this
> list. I hope that they aren't all insulted as easily as you.
>
> hugs & kisses,
> The Guy
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <joekc at adelphia.net>
> To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 2:49 PM
> Subject: [Vision2020] Wal-Mart: Replies to Donovan and Crabtree
>
>
> > Donovan and Mr. Crabtree,
> >
> > I'm sorry for the combined post but I have only one more post to use
> > today.
> >
> > Both of you used an interesting fallacy in response to a previous post
> of
> > mine on the proposed Super Wal-Mart.
> >
> > Mr. Crabtree wrote: "Your argument with regard to aesthetics doesn't fly
> > all that well either. … You didn't pipe up about any of [previous]
> > developments, why the concern now? Sounds more like a case of not 'in my
> > backyard' syndrome than any real desire for architectural grace."
> >
> > Donovan wrote: "Can you please explain to me how it is that you can buy
> > plastics and gasoline from countries like Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi
> Arabia
> > etc., that have the worst human rights record in the world, yet at the
> > same time scorn Wal-Mart for buying products from other businesses that
> > manufacture their goods in China?"
> >
> > In response, here is a story. For 15 weeks, children threw eggs at the
> > house of Mr. Crabtree-Arnold. One day, as he was walking to his car, Mr.
> > Crabtree-Arnold noticed young Tommy, throwing an egg at his house. Mr.
> > Crabtree-Arnold scolded Tommy, at which point Tommy replied: "For 15
> weeks
> > kids have been throwing eggs at your house. You never said anything
> > against them, so why pick on me?"
> >
> > Does that fact that Mr. Crabtree-Arnold never said anything prior to
> this
> > day mean that he has no reason to scold Tommy?
> >
> > Here are some comments to other points that you've made:
> >
> > 1/ Donovan: "If you believe that countries with bad human rights records
> > should be denied  jobs, and believe the US kills innocents overseas,
> then
> > why are you not  for exporting US jobs to countries with better human
> > rights records then our own?"
> >
> > Reply: I love our country and I want to make it the best that it can be.
> >
> > 2/ Crabtree: "I would suggest that if you stand in the way of a place to
> > shop being built you are most assuredly dictating, in an albeit small
> way,
> > where folks can and can't shop."
> >
> > Reply: .You are wrong. There is a difference between dictating what
> people
> > do and using one's words to influence what people do. The latter
> respects
> > that people have the capacities to reason and make decisions for
> > themselves. The former does not
> >
> > Furthermore, by attempting to keep a Super Wal-Mart from coming into
> > Moscow, I am not "dictating where people can shop." We have a Wal-Mart
> and
> > there is a Super Wal-Mart scheduled for Pullman. People will still be
> able
> > to shop at Wal-Mart.
> >
> > 3/ Crabtree: "… having a Wal Mart on the east side of town would seem to
> > be in keeping with the 'smart growth' mantra I keep hearing you MCA
> types
> > carry on about. Isn't the idea to have shopping be within walking
> distance
> > of residential development?"
> >
> > Reply: You must be joking. Do you think that Super Wal-Mart would plan
> for
> > a gas station on location if the intent were only to increase the level
> of
> > walking customers? If this reply were correct, it would make a mockery
> of
> > the economic arguments in support of having a Super Wal-Mart in town,
> > which only work if customers beyond the east side of Moscow visit the
> > store often. Part of my concern with having a Super Wal-Mart nearby is
> > that I already have a difficult time walking or riding my bike to
> > different places in Moscow as it is. A Super Wal-Mart on Route 8 will
> only
> > make matters worse.
> >
> > 4/ Donovan: "Just because a place offers low prices does not mean that
> > they are exploiting others."
> >
> > Reply: I didn't suggest this argument. I said that Wal-Mart happened to
> > offer low prices because they exploit others. I'm not claiming that this
> > is true because of some general rule. Crabtree asks that I provide
> > evidence for exploitation in the form of some pro-Wal-Mart website and,
> > well, I guess I can't do that. Clearly there is a problem here since
> both
> > of you seem to think that any evidence in support of my claim is
> > prejudiced since it is …. well, evidence in support of something you
> don't
> > believe.
> >
> > I did give just one small example of exploitation. Part of the reason
> that
> > Wal-Mart offers low prices is that many of their products are
> manufactured
> > in countries that fail to recognize the concept of a human right. Point
> > out that other stores are guilty of the same and I'll point you to the
> > Tommy story above. I'm not perfect but at least I can try to stand up to
> > principles in which I truly believe as best as I can. I don't condemn
> > people who think otherwise. I do wonder why people worry so much about
> > whether we recite the pledge of allegiance instead of just living in
> > accordance with the thoughts and sentiments it conveys: "liberty and
> > justice for all."
> >
> > 5/ "P.S. Tony, sorry if I'm stepping on your toes a bit here but when it
> > comes to our resident junior philosopher's musings there's plenty
> > 'wrongness' for ten folks to respond."
> >
> > Reply: I'm so glad you included this PS. Otherwise it would be difficult
> > to refer to you as "the guy who is unable to say anything to me without
> > insulting me."
> >
> > Until tomorrow!
> >
> > Best, Joe
> >
> >
> > _____________________________________________________
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >               http://www.fsr.net
> >          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >
> >
>
>
> _____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> �����������������������������������������������������
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060305/7552727d/attachment-0001.htm