Tuesday, June 01, 2004
The Controversies About Wal-Mart: A Follow-Up [SOCIETY]
William Anderson writes a piece called, "Does Wal-Mart Destroy Communities?" (Mises.org). The answer to that and assorted other questions pertaining to the current criticisms of the behavior of Wal-Mart, is No. The piece itself is not especially noteworthy[1]. Still, it brings to mind a certain consideration that I would like to discuss.
Does Wal-Mart Destroy Community Life?
First, a few remarks to frame the discussion. First: The controversy here is over whether community life is or is not harmed by the growth of Wal-Mart -- or: by the addition of its outlets in various communities. The question arises, Whose good determines the value of a development affecting the community? We must set aside the contention that -- and supposing its truth -- the fact that the consumers are helped, gain from Wal-Mart's presence proves that community life is not harmed, or is enhanced.
Anderson, for example, writes, in discussing a case in point on this question -- Cumberland, Maryland -- and the poor state of its economy:
The presence of Wal-Mart and Lowe's (a large hardware store), along with some large grocery chains, however, means that people here can stretch their incomes farther than we would if those stores did not exist.
He conflates the consumer (on the one hand) with the resident of a community (on the other). It seems that community is something of a public good. Arguably, it does not need to be; and cases may be offered to demonstrate this well.
Excuse me as I skip along to state a statement. Assume for a moment that Wal-Mart has been subsidized in its success by non-economic means. Means such as: governmental intervention (tax-breaks; transfer payments; free land[2]); or, for the sake of argument, philanthropy. Assume likewise of a similar institution in this specific (communities...) question: Lowe's. (Consider: The credit boom redirects resources to other uses and industries; construction and home-improvement is one such use; Lowe's is one beneficiary of the operations of a (banking) cartel.)
(I see that long-windedness has taken hold of me....)
So: Wal-Marts become more successful[3].... And not strictly because of the choices of consumers. And the residents of the community, though they may have choices available to them to express their preferences in that role, still, not always. They might choose this community-style road over that commercial-style road by opting to live in that community; but [...].
Anyway. It's a real simple point, despite my incoherence and all. And it doesn't seem really un-libertarian to say it; or controversial.
Compare to the libertarian stance on the 'dumping' of foreign-made goods on the market by producers subsidized by their governments (European agriculture, e.g.). World-wide product prices fall. Domestic producers are harmed. The libertarian responds: Okay, I criticize the foreign government; it's foolish. One reason it's foolish is that it arbitrarily changes the structure of production (more wheat, less everything else). Still, it's a fact at present; and more foolishness won't help matters.
Why should libertarians need to insist that Wal-Mart helps -- or doesn't hurt -- community life? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. If Wal-Mart were flawless in rejection of subsidies; and if the structure of the economy in those respects pertaining to community life such as for example roads weren't also skewed by interventions; then I guess we could say that.
Anyway....... I guess my point is, William Anderson should not try to prove so much. Big deal.
----------------------------------------------
[1] Indeed, after reading it, I chastised myself for having bothered to read yet another rather hum-drum piece by William Anderson.
[2]This article [LINK] reports a figure of $1 billion in assistance to Wal-Mart (by the government).
[3] Not: more attractive. I recognize that the consumers of Wal-Mart (Lowe's) patronize of their own free choice and judgment of their best interest. And that Wal-Mart would be stupid to lower its prices simply because of a subsidy....
Does Wal-Mart Destroy Community Life?
First, a few remarks to frame the discussion. First: The controversy here is over whether community life is or is not harmed by the growth of Wal-Mart -- or: by the addition of its outlets in various communities. The question arises, Whose good determines the value of a development affecting the community? We must set aside the contention that -- and supposing its truth -- the fact that the consumers are helped, gain from Wal-Mart's presence proves that community life is not harmed, or is enhanced.
Anderson, for example, writes, in discussing a case in point on this question -- Cumberland, Maryland -- and the poor state of its economy:
The presence of Wal-Mart and Lowe's (a large hardware store), along with some large grocery chains, however, means that people here can stretch their incomes farther than we would if those stores did not exist.
He conflates the consumer (on the one hand) with the resident of a community (on the other). It seems that community is something of a public good. Arguably, it does not need to be; and cases may be offered to demonstrate this well.
Excuse me as I skip along to state a statement. Assume for a moment that Wal-Mart has been subsidized in its success by non-economic means. Means such as: governmental intervention (tax-breaks; transfer payments; free land[2]); or, for the sake of argument, philanthropy. Assume likewise of a similar institution in this specific (communities...) question: Lowe's. (Consider: The credit boom redirects resources to other uses and industries; construction and home-improvement is one such use; Lowe's is one beneficiary of the operations of a (banking) cartel.)
(I see that long-windedness has taken hold of me....)
So: Wal-Marts become more successful[3].... And not strictly because of the choices of consumers. And the residents of the community, though they may have choices available to them to express their preferences in that role, still, not always. They might choose this community-style road over that commercial-style road by opting to live in that community; but [...].
Anyway. It's a real simple point, despite my incoherence and all. And it doesn't seem really un-libertarian to say it; or controversial.
Compare to the libertarian stance on the 'dumping' of foreign-made goods on the market by producers subsidized by their governments (European agriculture, e.g.). World-wide product prices fall. Domestic producers are harmed. The libertarian responds: Okay, I criticize the foreign government; it's foolish. One reason it's foolish is that it arbitrarily changes the structure of production (more wheat, less everything else). Still, it's a fact at present; and more foolishness won't help matters.
Why should libertarians need to insist that Wal-Mart helps -- or doesn't hurt -- community life? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. If Wal-Mart were flawless in rejection of subsidies; and if the structure of the economy in those respects pertaining to community life such as for example roads weren't also skewed by interventions; then I guess we could say that.
Anyway....... I guess my point is, William Anderson should not try to prove so much. Big deal.
----------------------------------------------
[1] Indeed, after reading it, I chastised myself for having bothered to read yet another rather hum-drum piece by William Anderson.
[2]This article [LINK] reports a figure of $1 billion in assistance to Wal-Mart (by the government).
[3] Not: more attractive. I recognize that the consumers of Wal-Mart (Lowe's) patronize of their own free choice and judgment of their best interest. And that Wal-Mart would be stupid to lower its prices simply because of a subsidy....
Comments:
Post a Comment
