<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Well Joe, I guess you win. You have taken my
original challenge, Extensively twisted it into something
completely different, set up your own criterion for reasonable response, and
declared yourself the victor. Congratulations. ( imagine this post liberally
sprinkled with those little dumb ass sideways smiley things so that I achieve a
"nicer, friendlier tone")</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Good night, Joe</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>gc</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=joekc@adelphia.net
href="mailto:joekc@adelphia.net">joekc@adelphia.net</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=jampot@adelphia.net
href="mailto:jampot@adelphia.net">g. crabtree</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=ophite@gmail.com
href="mailto:ophite@gmail.com">Andreas Schou</A> ; <A
title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, January 27, 2006 12:29
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Wal-Mart - boogie man for a
new century</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<P>The only thing I claimed to have proven was that the free market does not
always yield quality or choice. Since many proponents seem to claim otherwise
this -- admittedly minor -- point seems significant. I was by no means
suggesting that my explanation of why KB toys went out of business was the
right one, or that your's was wrong, or that Donovan's was wrong. I have no
problem admitting to the world that you, and Donovan, and Jeff Harkins know
far more about economic theory than I do. You are reading more into my words
than I intended you to. I was merely responding to a challenge. And by your
own admission this -- admittedly minor -- challenge was successfully met. The
free market does not always lead to an increase in quality and
choice.<BR>--<BR>Joe Campbell<BR><BR>---- "g. crabtree" <JAMPOT
adelphia.net="#DEFAULT">wrote:<BR><BR>=============<BR>Joe, Your correct that
I asked for example of an inferior business besting a superior one but that is
about all you got right. The way I read your response is I don't care how many
facts you present, everything I say is right and everything you say is wrong.
It seems clear to me that any further discussion will boil down to my facts
vs. your feelings and Lord knows I'll run out of facts long before we plumb
the depths of your feelings. If you would like to bring this discussion out of
the realm of the 'touchy- feely" hows about you explain where my "analysis" is
incorrect. I am afraid that what your example "proves" is that KB Toys
could'nt make it in this market and is gone. I think that you might be doing a
better job of making my point then I am.<BR><BR>G.
Crabtree<BR><BR><BR><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 7:36 AM<BR>Subject:
Re: Wal-Mart - was Doug Jones Says It Clearly<BR><BR><BR>Gary,<BR><BR>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" 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><BR></P></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>