Wal-Mart part II

[pvn]

In the previous OP, nobody really addressed what I thought was the most important point:

[ QUOTE ]
Retail can't build your economy. You can't export it. Its effects are primarily negative. How could minimizing it be bad?

[/ QUOTE ]

Retail is nothing on its own. You have to have some other production to actually sell.

Distribution is the same way. They are both overhead. A means to an end.

If star-trek-like transporters became readily available, and you could have all consumer goods beamed straight to your home, so that all retailers (mom and pop and Wal-Mart alike) and distribution channels disappeared, would the economy be better off or worse off? Long term, no "well WMT employs 3 xillion people, were are they going to find new jobs?" BS.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Yes, but retail and distribution has its value if you derive pleasure from the way the product is distributed or retailed, so i.e. a cosy Mom and Pop-store adds value and such contribute to the economy.

[valtaherra]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but retail and distribution has its value if you derive pleasure from the way the product is distributed or retailed, so i.e. a cosy Mom and Pop-store adds value and such contribute to the economy.

[/ QUOTE ]

True but remember that it doesnt contribute anything to the economy if my personal preference for the awe-inspiring breadth of a WMT warehouse is forcefully and arbitrarily done away with in accordance with your personal preference for a cosy Mom and Pop store.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]

True but remember that it doesnt contribute anything to the economy if my personal preference for the awe-inspiring breadth of a WMT warehouse is forcefully and arbitrarily done away with in accordance with your personal preference for a cosy Mom and Pop store.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why can't it be both? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] If I and 100 other people find a Mom and Pop-store so cosy that we are willing to pay more than at Wal-Mart, both survive and both contribute to the economy.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but retail and distribution has its value if you derive pleasure from the way the product is distributed or retailed, so i.e. a cosy Mom and Pop-store adds value and such contribute to the economy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. I won't stop you from building a big warehouse and letting people browse around even after the retail/distribution problem is solved once and for all.

FWIW, we have things like this now, where relics of ancient times are displayed for pleasure and intellectual edification. They are called "musuems".

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

True but remember that it doesnt contribute anything to the economy if my personal preference for the awe-inspiring breadth of a WMT warehouse is forcefully and arbitrarily done away with in accordance with your personal preference for a cosy Mom and Pop store.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why can't it be both? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] If I and 100 other people find a Mom and Pop-store so cosy that we are willing to pay more than at Wal-Mart, both survive and both contribute to the economy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes and no. Both survive - as it should be! - but by any objective statistical analysis, the mom and pop store is a drag on the overall economy. Which is a great example of why objective statistical analysis is not a bulletproof policy-making tool.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure. I won't stop you from building a big warehouse and letting people browse around even after the retail/distribution problem is solved once and for all.

FWIW, we have things like this now, where relics of ancient times are displayed for pleasure and intellectual edification. They are called "musuems".

[/ QUOTE ]

I shouldn't have derailed this thread by arguing against you maybe since I agree with you 99%, but I think you underestimate the recreational potential value, maybe because you don't have so many historic nice towns in the US. If you go to Europe, you will find plenty of towns/cities which have large cheap warehouses in the outskirts, but where the shops in the historical centers are doing very well. Many people drive by those warehouses on their way to the center, or even travel from less cosy towns. If people are willing to pay more, it is a proof they add value.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I shouldn't have derailed this thread by arguing against you maybe since I agree with you 99%, but I think you underestimate the recreational potential value, maybe because you don't have so many historic nice towns in the US. If you go to Europe, you will find plenty of towns/cities which have large cheap warehouses in the outskirts, but where the shops in the historical centers are doing very well. Many people drive by those warehouses on there way to the center, or even travel from less cosy towns. If people are willing to pay more, it is a proof they add value.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. And there are plenty of mom and pop stores in the US that are doing just fine. But nobody shops at these stores for stuff you can get at walmart. The successful mom and pop is offering specialty products, or particular services. A mom-and-pop joint selling toothpaste doesn't get anyone excited. Nobody is travelling from another town to shop at "charming" store to get paper towels.

I love small business. I come from a long line of small businessmen. But I have zero sympathy for anyone who gets run out of business by WalMart. Offer me something I'm willing to pay you for, or GTFO.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Yes, and the average Mom and Pop-store has become much, much better, so it is obvious that competition has helped. Where I grew up, in the 80s there were mainly generic, dull Mom and Pop-stores, I can't find many such there today. Those who exist today are much more unique in terms of what they offer and also the service is much better.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Btw, I think anyone who disagree with you should be against building of all new highways, as well as ports, new railroads, introduction of faster ships etc. since they all have have the same effects as Wal-Mart. In fact the logical conclusion of their way of thinking is that it would be good for the local economy to ban truck transport of goods, if all goods have to be transported by horses more money stays in the local economy.