Wal-Mart and more

[Nick Arnett]

On Feb 17, 2008 8:50 PM, Dan M <dsummersminet at comcast.net> wrote:

>
>
> Hmmm, those folks I showed/read this to saw the implied question fairly
> straightforwardly.  I didn't want to be at all rude, so I made it
> implicit.
>
> Explicitly, if I start a conversation over the first two issues, will you
> be
> willing to make a good faith effort to explore the problem?


The implication that I haven't been making a good faith effort strikes me a
detour onto the road of rudeness.

>
> One way that I thought I made this clear would be clear is that I didn't
> accuse the writers of lying, distortion, bad faith, etc. My argument was
> based on this not being the entire story. There are other sources of
> information that are reliable and tell different aspects of the story.


Yes.  Feel free to cite them. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman>

>
> By citing these two folks, I'm setting up a question.  Would analysis from
> these economists be considered sufficiently to the left to not be the
> writings of right wing hacks?  If Krugman is too much of a conservative,
> which economists do y'all think are objective?


How about if we don't clutter this up with ideology?  Treating it as an
ideological, rather than ethical, issue is arguing from a conclusion, as I
see it.  That's because trusting the marketplace to ensure ethical behavior
is an ideological position, a faith in markets that has little or no basis
in science, since one can easily demonstrate that unethical business
practices can be far more efficient than ethical ones.

>
> > But why are Wal-Mart prices so much lower than competitors?  Doesn't the
> > large gap indicate that they could pay employees better and simply
> choose
> > not to?
>
> To put it simply, no.  I've read a range of opinions on this and the
> strong
> consensus, from left to right, is that reduced labor costs is not the
> foundation of Wal-Mart's improved efficiency and lower costs.


Er, you're agreeing with me.  If reduced labor costs are not the foundation
of their improve efficiency, then what is their rationale for paying so much
less than their competitors?


>
> Finally, after 10 years on the list I have no idea when you came up with
> the
> idea that I'm an arrogant bastard that listens to Rush for my news and
> thinks that I can outdo anyone in my spare time.


Whaaaat?  Two messages in a row with ridiculous straw men.  What is going on
here?

>
> 1) Are you interested in a discussion on the vision of myself and at least
> one other person who was an active poster that discussions are often
> thwarted by pronouncements that come as if they come from Olympus, rather
> than arguments that folks want others to discuss so the author can test
> their own ideas?


Gee, you make it sound so inviting.  I have been having a discussion and if
i sounds like I'm making Olympian pronouncements, rather than stating my
opinions, perhaps that's what you're hearing, rather than what I'm saying.

>
> 2) Are you interested in a discussion of how and whether statistics play a
> part in developing greater understanding vs. reading stories, having them
> touch your heart, and then coming to an understanding of truth?


My entire job revolves around massive statistical analysis.  I could take
offense at this, too.

>
> 3) Are you interested in discussing what I just quoted and will requote:
>
> " The third is a discussion of the case at hand: if we (as I think we do)
> agree that improving the lives of the poorer among us at least _a_
> worthwhile goal, has Wal-Mart done more to aid or more to harm those
> lives."
>

I'm already discussing this.

Nick


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