[Vision2020] Wal-Mart: Replies to Donovan and Crabtree
Donovan Arnold
donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
Mon Mar 6 00:04:12 PST 2006
Ted Moffett wrote: "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?"
Nope. It is attempting to add more choices.
Isn't Wal-Mart seeking to push other businesses out to gain more market share and profit?
Yeap, just like Safeway tried to wipe out Tidyman's.
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?
Wal_Mart is not seeking to limit choices. It wants to add thousands of more items to sell that we have to currently drive to Lewiston and Spokane to buy.
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?
Yes, Wal_mart moves so much volume that the cost of building a store is worth the effort. Walmart cannot currently keep its shelves stocked and is losing business to other businesses in Spokane and Lewiston.
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.
So what. If two grocery stores cannot exist, should not the one with the more items and the one that meets the needs of the most people be the one that stays? Why should a minority of rich people have their way over the masses with lesser means?
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)?
So it is OK for Safeway to operate at a loss to weed out Tidyman's but it is horrible that Walmart operate at a loss to wipe out Safeway? What is the definition of double standard? I could really care less if Walmart, Safeway, Kmart, or any other giant corporations or business operates at a loss, it means Moscow shoppers get cheaper prices. If it does it to wipe out local businesses, another one will come back when the giant corporation eventually raises its prices again.
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 bonda!
ge
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.
Disagree. For two reasons. The laws of economics are just that, laws, not just a made up concept. The laws of supply and demand are REAL. Ignoring them will ruin your economy and/or business. Raising your salaries 25% would shut down most businesses. Second, Walmart is operating under the SAME laws as everyone else. Walmart is not allowed to pay lower wages, less benefits, or lower worker standards than the law allows. So it is an equal playing field. Walmart started off as a small mom and pop store having to overcome the problems of big businesses like Safeway, Kmart, Sears and Woolworth's.
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.
First, Walmart has a bigger advertising budget because people buy their products and they also need that bigger advertising budget because they have more stores and need to maintain more sales. Second, Safeway is a giant corporation and can also operate indefinitely in Moscow until its competitor's go under, like Tidyman's. The question is, why is it that Safeway charges 33% more but does not pay 33% more? What is up with that?
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..
Hey, if you can get something going to legally oppose all imported goods from sweatshops overseas I am behind you. But it makes no sense to go to ShopKo instead of Walmart when the same abusive labor practices are used by ShopKo and every other businesses. The first company to stop importing goods from overseas sweatshops will no longer be in businesses because they cannot sell a VCR for $145 when everyone else is selling it for $45. On the note of wages, where do you get your information? Walmart pays more than the average wage in Latah County. According to the US Census Bureau the average Household income in Latah is $30,000 a year. With 2 workers per household a person working at Walmart for $10 an hour for 36 hours a week and if there spouse makes $7 an hour at Walmart for 36 hours a week and they have two weeks off a year, they would make the average household income of $30,000 a year. The average salary at Walmart is $18,000 a year. In Latah, the per !
capital
income is $15,000 a year. What is it about a Walmart job that makes you think they should get paid more than the average worker in Latah?
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.
What is the point of this? Is it not better on the environment to have one giant store in one place than 50 smaller ones spread out over miles? Two 100,000 sq. ft. stores is better than one 200,000 sq ft? How so? Not to mention all the driving around and fuel consumption. A size limit would not be as equally restrictive to all businesses. A retail store needs more space than a diamond store, or a book store. Likewise, a storage business or car dealership needs lots of space. Imposing a maximum size, why not a minimum size too? No logical reason, just because that is what 1000 of us want?
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 Bu!
tte 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 think this is the exact problem you are having Ted. This is no longer the 60's or the 1900s. Technology has changed and revolutionized the retail industry. Small mom and pop shops cannot afford the investment and capital to start a business large enough to compete with Target, Walmart, Sears, BonMacy's, etc. Manufacturers are even starting to sell their products directly to consumers via Internet rather than including retail distributors. Technology is just around the corner that will allow companies to only produce a product to fit almost the exact number that will be purchased, producing no waste and reducing cost. Small businesses will not be able to purchase that technology and thus compete.
I also do not believe that manufacturing jobs will stay in the US. It cost to much to produce goods in this country. The amount of money we save on products produced overseas is greater than that of what is make in jobs here.
Future jobs are in medical, technological, advertising, design, architectural, education, computers, electronics, chemical engineering, resource management, human relations, management, customer service and entertainment. The US will lose jobs in retail, manufacturing, and general labor.
Take Care,
_DJA
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
�����������������������������������������������������
_____________________________________________________
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
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060306/8d5265fe/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list