Wal-Mart

[Nick Arnett]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Dan M <dsummersminet at comcast.net> wrote:

>
>
> OK, so Wal-Mart is greedy if it tries to take market share, from say
> Federated Department Stores,  by lowering its profit margin in order to
> make
> more sales.


If you think that's what I said, allow me to clarify.  There's nothing
greedy about what you described.  That's not the point.  Greed comes into
the picture when we love money more than anything else.

Lower prices only mean lower profit margins if you don't lower your costs.
Wal-Mart treats its vendors and employees the way it does in order to
maintain profits while lowering prices.  You seem to want to frame this in
terms of market efficiency, as if I were opposed to that.  I am not.  I am
opposed to brutal methods of accomplishing efficiency, not efficiency
itself.  But I'm sure that Hell is extremely efficient.

Rather than responding to your points individually, let me just say that to
me, it all adds up to the same amoral argument, that increased market
efficiency, reflected by prices, is inherently good for everybody.  I
disagreed, strongly.  Some things are more important than money.

Hand-waving and special anecdotes about jobs and low prices justifies
nothing.  Ethics don't arise from supply and demand -- there is no end of
unethical things that one can do to make money and have the lowest prices.
But those outcomes will never justify bad behavior to me because I have
decided to love people, not money.

>
> You also have argued that market forces don't drive prices, but backroom
> deals do.


What an incredible straw man.  I have never said anything of the sort.

Nick

-- 
Nick Arnett
narnett at mccmedia.com
Messages: 408-904-7198