<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
<div>
<p>
Gary,
</p>
<p>
You asked for an example where an inferior business beat out a
superior one and I gave one. You might analyze why KB Toys is no
longer in Moscow differently than I would but the main point is that
they are not here any longer and the average person has fewer choices
because of that. What the example proves is that the free market does
not always lead to the best businesses and the most choices. That
claim is nothing but a rhetorical slogan.<br>--<br>Joe Campbell<br><br>
---- "g. crabtree" <jampot adelphia.net="#DEFAULT">wrote:<br><br>
=============<br>Joe, Excellent try but short of the mark I'm afraid. Stand
alone toy stores are struggling everywhere for a variety of reasons,
not the least of them being the internet. Perhaps we should argue
against E- commerce? Almost all of the complaints that you make would
apply, plus no local jobs, no local taxes, and all money made goes out
of the area. Moscow does not have a population large enough to
effectively support a toy store. KB toys was undergoing a certain
amount of financial disorganization at the time the local store
closed. The latest trends in toys tends toward computer/video games
which are heavily marketed at other retail outlets such as Circuit
City, Hastings, Costco, Shopko etc. And last but not least, the fact
that you are using a subjective, anecdotal example. If it were valid
then I would think that Hodgins would have been toast long ago. Wal
Mart sells all the products that they do, (prescriptions, OTC
remedies, toys, sundries ) and yet they still exist. Might this be
attributed to superior service, good product selection (toys) and an
over all commitment to their customers?<br><br>I am rather fond of
Moscow also. We already have a Wal Mart and I'm fairly sure that it
isn't killing us. Plucking out of thin air numbers like 98% 2% and
attaching them to a poison pill arguments is pure sophistry.<br><br>
Try agin?<br>Gary<br>----- Original Message -----<br>From:
joekc@adelphia.net<br>To: g. crabtree<br>Cc: Andreas Schou ;
vision2020@moscow.com<br>Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 5:24 AM<br>
Subject: Wal-Mart - was Doug Jones Says It Clearly<br><br><br>Gary,<br><br>
I didn't think Mr. Schou's analogy blew but here is a real world example of an
inferior business beating out a superior competitor. The mall used to
have a toy store: Kay-Be Toys, or something like that. I went there
frequently when my son was younger and my wife let me spoil him more.
Wal-Mart drove Kay-Bee Toys out of business. Kay-Be Toys had a far
superior selection of toys and was by any set of standards a better
toy store than Wal-Mart. (Neither are as good as Hodgins Drug Store
but that's another issue.) What happened was that kids go to toy
stores with their parents but parents buy other things besides toys,
things that are not sold at Kay-Be Toys. In short, Wal-Mart offers
low-cost and convenience. That is it. It is 'superior' to other stores
for these two reasons only. But that is enough to drive out some
businesses. Once those businsesses leave, the folks in Moscow will
have fewer choices, not more choices.<br><br>You note that "many
communities that are co-existing with the worlds largest retailer to
the betterment of its residents." But many are not. It was noted in
Tom Trail's post that two communities like ours were "sucked dry"
after a Super Wal-Mart moved in. For the sake of argument suppose that
98 communities like ours were not sucked dry. Would you take a pill
that had only a 2% chance of killing you if you didn't need it and you
were getting along fine without it? I don't think so. I love Moscow
and low-cost and convenience are not enough reason for me to risk
sucking it dry.<br><br><br>--<br>Joe Campbell<br><br><br><br>---- "g.
crabtree" wrote:<br><br>=============<br>Mr. Schou, Your analogy
blows. It seems clear to me that you have very<br>little understanding
of how an 'all in" bet works but rather than educate<br>you on
the finer points of poker allow me to propose an analogy of my own. A<br>
player comes to the game and bluffs outrageously each and every hand. Soon,<br>
his fellow gamblers see him for what he is and call him. His weak
hands are<br>revealed, his resources dwindle and very soon he is out
of the game.<br><br>This appears to be the tactic of the common garden
variety wal-mart<br>opponent. Exclaim loudly how WM will be the
ruination of civilization and<br>will bring about the heat death of
the universe and so on. When folks see<br>that there are many
communities that are co-existing with the worlds largest<br>retailer
to the betterment of its residents our protester is revealed as at<br>
best, wrong and at worst, a dupe.<br><br>Getting back to the original
heart of the discussion, hows about some real<br>world examples of
inferior business' beating out superior competitors. I'll<br>be
waiting, watching the pages of my calendar flit by.<br><br>gc<br><br><br>
----- Original Message -----<br>From: "Andreas Schou"<br>To: "g.
crabtree"<br>Cc: ;<br>Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 4:48 PM<br>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Doug Jones Says It Clearly<br><br><br>>You
are right about my confidence in a free market. Perhaps you could give<br>
>me a few examples where an inferior business beat out a superior one.<br><br>
Let me use a poker analogy. If I had a trillion dollars, played poker<br>for a
living, and won every poker game I played by going "all in" on<br>
every hand, would I be the best poker player that ever lived? Hint:<br>no, I
would not.<br><br>This is Wal*Mart's business model: saturate the
market, make<br>monopsonic agreements with suppliers, and run as thin
a margin as<br>possible in new stores until all the other business
goes under. Is<br>this a good business strategy? Yes. Does it
contribute to market<br>efficiency -- which is generally how a
"superior business" is<br>understood to work? No. It does
not.<br><br>-- ACS<br><br><br>
</p>
</div>
</body>
</html>