<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
<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>
</body>
</html>