We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government.

The original article can be found here at the blog Brown Sludge. The comments section is as follws, unedited:

Wulf Says:
January 14th, 2006 at 7:22 am
She knows that the first thing Big Box Mart does when it enters a community is set to work shuttering every small and independent business on Mainstreet.

They would be arrested if they did that. You are not allowed to just walk up to somebody else’s private property and nail shutters over the doors and windows.

Oh, wait - did you mean that they immediately set to work having such a wide selection and such low prices that mom and pop can’t compete? I agree, they do that - and that’s capitalism. THE CONSUMER then has to make the decision: What is more important? Wide selection and low prices at one stop? Or supporting mom and pop?

Why should I choose to go to 7 different mom and pop stores for my shopping needs, pay more money than I would at WalMart at each one? Oil change, groceries, clothes, electronics, I can get it all!

Incidentally, I do choose to support some mom and pop stores over WalMart, but I am curious to see if you know why I would do that. It isn’t because I hate them, or because they allegedly bully their employees into working off the clock, or any of that other stuff. And it certainly isn’t because of Michelle Malkin.

Mac Says:
January 17th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
It’s all about greed.

Your greed.

Your greed to save a few pennies and a little time drives you to shop at a place that will send virtually every cent you give them to an out of town headquarters and impoverish your own neighborhood.

You are absolutely free to shop anywhere you like for any reason you like, and you can tell yourself that your being “frugal” or are taking your finances “seriously” - but when you actively choose to give your money to an out of town corporation who is actively working to destroy locally owned and independent businesses in your community - many of which are owned by people who live in and contribute to your community - you are contributing to the destruction of your own community.

It’s good that you don’t feel guilty about that. Many people don’t.

But there is a growing contingent of people who do (yes, even Republicans), and who are working to make sure that local, independent businesses get their business - even if it costs a few pennies more here and there - because they are wise enough to understand that there is no “value” in destroying your own community.

And every penny you give to a large corporate Big Box store instead of your local or independently owned retailer leaves your community instead of enriching it - and it’s a penny you’re taking away from retailers and their employees who live and work and contribute directly to your community.
I understand that it’s hard to face that you’re contributing to the destruction of your own community and your friends and neighbors’ livelihoods - but - the truth is the truth.

“Capitalism” implies competition - and when there is only one source for goods and jobs you no longer have a “free market” you have what’s called a MONOPOLY.

Here are a couple of links to help you on your way

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/capitalism
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/monopoly

A quick aside - many of America’s Founding Fathers thought the idea of monopolistic corporations so odious that they originally tried to include wordage in the Bill of Rights banning them outright.

Wulf Says:
January 18th, 2006 at 9:56 pm

It’s all about greed. Your greed.
When I choose to shop at WalMart, it is about my greed, yes. I can buy the same products for less. In fewer stops. I save time and money - frugality, greed, I don’t find either term dirty.

I understand that it’s hard to face that you’re contributing to the destruction of your own community and your friends and neighbors’ livelihoods - but - the truth is the truth.
Wow, that’s quite some hubris you’ve got there. The need to talk down to readers/commenters comes from where, exactly? Thanks for the pointless links and the unnecessary insults - I am well aware of what capitalism is (and why it is good), and what a monopoly is (tip: WalMart is not one). Since you seem to appreciate links, try this one:
http://www.atlasblogged.com/archives/2005/12/monopolies_and.php

Also, I think you have misunderstood my question to you. I will try once more - I choose to support some mom and pop stores over WalMart. Do you know why?

Mac Says:
January 18th, 2006 at 10:22 pm

I apologize if you felt “talked down to”.

I perceive your original post to be more than a little antagonistic - so… you reap what you sow.

“frugality, greed, I don’t find either term dirty.”

You do realize that Gordon Gekko’s speech was meant as a satire, don’t you??

At least your honest about your motivations - or lack thereof.

In many rural communities WalMart is most certainly a virtual monopoly.

And as for the nice article (very well written by the way) that tries to make that case that greed begets innovation… well… you don’t have to be Fellini to see though that old canard.

The idea that corporate greed drives innovation is what I call a “Rush Limbaugh” argument. Long on rhetoric - and extraordinarily short on substance. It does no such thing - and my exact point in all this is that it’s because of ideas like this that Right is losing ideological strength with it’s core Conservative base - and allowing us to be painted as the Party of Corporate Greed instead of the Party of the Individual - and Individual Rights.

From where I sit you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth.

At once ranting on about how proud you are of your patronization of an institution that hurts your community and quite proud of your greed - and at the same time trying to explain to me why you “support some mom and pop stores” over WalMart.

Please… feel free to enlighten me as to your reasons…

Wulf Says:
January 19th, 2006 at 7:40 pm

In many rural communities WalMart is most certainly a virtual monopoly.
I don’t agree.
Incidentally, I grew up in a rural town where mom and pop were more of a virtual monopoly than WalMart is today. The mom and pop grocery store is struggling, because they charged a lot of money. WalMart is in the next town over and people have increased their standard of living because of it. Family and friends from these rural towns buy things at WalMart that simply were not available within an hour’s drive previously. This makes WalMart good, as far as those rural towns are concerned. And my aunt makes more as the bakery manager at that WalMart than she did as the only baker at mom and pop grocery. Good, or bad, for her?

I guess I cannot counter you on whether monopolies innovate, because you haven’t made an argument of any kind. You simply called it a canard, but you seem to have missed the point of the Economist article - that the canard is the idea that it is bad for a single firm to dominate a market.

Also, you keep saying that my patronization of WalMart hurts my community, but you don’t really show it to be true. As I noted, mom and pop are hurt but many of their former employees are better off, as are their customers. In reality, there are no fewer pennies staying in town than there used to be. In fact, the community can gain overall - it is not a zero-sum game, and just because WalMart shareholders made billions of dollars does not mean the rest of us in the world are worse off. It sounds to me like you do believe in zero-sum economics, and do not like capitalism at its core - you want a managed economy, and maybe you would like to call it capitalism for some reason. If that’s the case, we disagree at too deep a level to be solved here, I am sure.

So, why do I choose to support some mom and pop stores over WalMart? Greed. Greed - the Virtue of Selfishness - is not just about money. For some products/services, I want higher quality goods than WalMart carries. For some products/services, I want an atmosphere of greater comfort and leisure. For a few products/services, I just value the friendship of mom and pop enough to shell out a little extra in order to see them and ask about the kids and be happy about the visit. Consumers don’t want low prices - they want more bang for their buck. I don’t pay mom and pop more for a gallon of milk than WalMart charges, but I will pay them more for a haircut, or a pair of pants that don’t just fit, they fit perfectly. The fact is, mom and pop stores are surviving all around the globe, next to WalMart, because they reinvent themselves as higher quality establishments where you can purchase luxury with all of the money you saved.

…at WalMart.

Mac Says:
January 19th, 2006 at 11:04 pm

“And my aunt makes more as the bakery manager at that WalMart than she did as the only baker at mom and pop grocery. Good, or bad, for her?”

Apocryphal stories are of little value. Anyone who believes that Big Box stores “increases the standard of living” of anyone with their cheap Chinese made goods and their destruction of communities is well… beyond the reach of reason frankly.

I think your comment pretty much removes all doubt about that.

“I guess I cannot counter you on whether monopolies innovate, because you haven’t made an argument of any kind”

Uhm… dude… it was your argument - and the entire point of the Economist’s article you asked me to read.

He argues (and you support him) in the article that “it is bad for a single firm to dominate a market”. Then you turn around and argue with me for saying basically the same thing here. Seems a little schizophrenic to me.

“Also, you keep saying that my patronization of WalMart hurts my community, but you don’t really show it to be true. As I noted, mom and pop are hurt but…” [QFE]

Both sides of your mouth - Left Side says “you don’t really show it to be true” / Right side admits you know full well that “mom and pop are hurt” then you start with the rationalizations. Sorry… but your guilt is your problem.

“sounds to me like you do believe in zero-sum economics” Oh dear. Regurgitated Rush Limbaugh. /gag. Let me help you here. I’m not for zero sum economics. I think there is plenty of wealth to go around. I’d just prefer to support the individuals (read: mine, my neighbors, my family, and my communities) right to that wealth.

That’s the TRUE Conservative’s bottom line. Individual rights. Not corporate greed.

You even go on to admit in your final paragraph that when you need Quality - you seek out Mom and Pop. Again - that schizophrenic both sides of your mouth thing.

As I said… your post kind of stands as testimony to itself. LOL.

I’d like to finish this entire ‘debate’ with you - since you’ve borrowed your name from an author and philosopher whom I’ve studied at length and who I have a great respect for - by cautioning you that you’ve done her (and yourself) a great disservice.

Ayn Rand’s philosophy of “The Virtue Of Selfishness” and “The Utopia of Greed” was directed at the INDIVIDUAL. Her entire body of work and the entire crux of the Randian hero was his INDIVIDUALITY and his fight against a COLLECTIVE mind set.

There are few more collectivist and anti-capitalist (in the real sense) ideals than that of unbridled corporatism - and their dependence on government handouts and friendly legislation purchased from a greedy and over sized government.

Chew on that for a little bit.

Let me know what you spit out.

end of thread

What I "spit out" after that does not appear on Mac's site - he appears to have deleted it, which is the whole point of my dragging the conversation out into the sunlight over here. Mac has missed several points, and I'd like to point them out.

First, you cannot just make a claim like "WalMart is a monopoly" and expect me to take it as an axiom. WalMart is not a monopoly, and anyone who would like me to believe otherwise should bring some proof. Mac tried to dodge that issue by saying WalMart is a virtual monopoly in a few select secret rural towns, but that's not true either. Besides the fact that Mac still hadn't offered any proof to support his claim, it happens that I am familiar with several rural WalMarts between the Carolinas and upstate NY, so I am not just basing my statements on conjecture. He rejects my "apocryphal stories", but that is awfully hypocritical for somebody who is trying to get by with no proof that WalMart is a virtual monopoly in certain unnamed secret rural towns.

Second, I don't think Mac read the Economist article. The Economist certainly does not make an argument in the article that “it is bad for a single firm to dominate a market”. They simply state that it is a long-held belief of economists that this is so - another axiom, really. They then take one aspect of that belief and pick it apart. And really, it's a great article.

Third, Mac seems to take a collectivist view of what is good or bad for a community. If mom and pop (who charge a lot and offer little selection) are shut down by consumers choosing freely to patronize a competitor, and as a result the overall community raises its standard of living, while mom and pop do not... that is good for the community. To believe that the advancement of a thousand is negated by the fact that mom and pop are hurt is a self-contradicting and collectivist way to view the prosperity of a community.

Fourth, I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh. Honestly. Sorry, Mac - two of your "refutations" have been ad hominem anti-Rush comments, but they are sorely misplaced.

Fifth, if somebody says I’m not for zero sum economics. I think there is plenty of wealth to go around., it really shows that they have no idea what "zero-sum economics" means. Economics is not dependant on whether you are "for" or "against" zero sum economics. It simply does not exist, no matter who is "for" it. It has nothing to do with whether there is enough wealth to go around - wealth grows, Mac. If this isn't making sense (i.e. you think it's two sides of the mouth or something), I recommend any of the following: Von Mises, Hayek, Milton Friedman, or any of these from our blogroll to your left:Cafe Hayek Blog, Captain Capitalism, or BizzyBlog, who yesterday shared the fact that More wealth has been created in the U.S. in the last quarter-century than in the previous 200 years.
Put down the Karl Marx!

Sixth, Mac misunderstands something I spelled out very carefully in an earlier comment. For some products/services, I want higher quality goods than WalMart carries... . I don’t pay mom and pop more for a gallon of milk than WalMart charges...
There is nothing evil or inconsistent about market forces. If someone is able to offer me convenience or a better good at a lower price, they get my business. Shopping at WalMart is not an all-or-nothing proposition, unless collectivists like Mac take away the rights of individuals to choose where they will shop. Monopolies exist through government enforcement of choices, not through pure competition, and it is the failure of people to understand this principle that leads us to an irrational hatred of corporations who are "too successful".

What Mac and so many others fail to realize about WalMart and other stores is that every one of the billions of dollars WalMart has raked in over the years represents an individual who exercised his or her individual rights in the marketplace. What people like Mac want to do is limit the individuals around the world because they make different decisions and dare to have different values.

On a final note, Mac was right about a couple of things. He was right that government handouts and corporate lobbyists are a real problem. But he throws this argument at me like a toy in the Happy Meal - these have nothing to do with his initial argument that WalMart shutters "every small and independent business on Mainstreet. From the pharmacist that’s been there for 60 years – to the hardware store that’s been there for often as much as a century." In his intial article, he was right that WalMart has problems with pressuring employees to work off the clock, and the Republican Party (which he curiously refuses to call by name) is in fact "painted as being “owned and operated” by corporations and lobbyists – and it’s only going to get worse."

Maybe he should vote libertarian. Nah, the LP is a bunch of hacks - there simply is no viable political party in this nation that actually stands for smaller government and the rights of the individual. And if there was, WalMart would probably shutter them up.

UPDATE: Mac's site now includes a review of Exporting America: A xenophobic failure to comprehend macroeconomics. He takes a pot shot at AtlasBlogged, too - though not by name. You'd have to read this extended entry first to catch it. But Mac makes the mistake of assuming that if Lou Dobbs agrees with you and has an impressive resume, you and he must be right. Lou Dobbs is exactly the type of person Ayn Rand was referring to when she wrote,

There is a fundamental difference between our approach and that of capitalism's classical defenders and modern apologists. With very few exceptions, they are responsible - by defeault - for capitalism's destruction. The default consisted of their inability or unwillingness to fight the battle where it had to be fought: on moral-philosophical grounds.
No politico-economic system in history has ever proved its value so eloquently or has benefited mankind so greatly as capitalism - and none has ever been attacked so savagely, viciously, and blindly. The flood of misinformation, misrepresentation, distortion, and outright falsehood about capitalism is such that the young people of today (1970 -ed) have no idea (and virtually no way of discovering any idea) of its actual nature...
By their silence... by their evasion of the clash between capitalism and altruism - it is capitalism's alleged champions who are responsible for the fact that capitalism is being destroyed without a hearing, without a trial, without any public knowledge of its principles, its nature, its history, or its moral meaning.

This is from the introduction to Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. If you have never read this book, slap yourself.

Oh, and Mac... chapter 3 is titled, America's Persecuted Minority: Big Business. Or is that satire?