On 12/22/05, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > But, the efficiency improvement from Wal-Mart is documented. It is really > efficiency.
That's only one measurement. Surely you don't think that prices and profits are all there is to evaluating Wal-Mart? Are you unwilling to consider other measures of the efficiency and value of a company? >All that we *know* Wal-Mart is good at is getting big > >and keeping prices low. Not being a worshipper of low prices, I'm not > >willing to let that be the only "bottom line." > > And cutting unnecessary costs. Wal-Mart has driven up _productivity_. Again, by one measure. Who is measuring the productivity of the families and communities that are impacted by Wal-Mart? Shall we just ignore the way they treat employees? If so, then slavery is even more efficient, so what's stopping us? > > Cutting costs 10% is the same as getting an 11% raise. Wal-Mart's > innovations have I can't believe you're serious. To the person who has no income, it's 11 percent of zero. To the person with no health insurance, it has no value. > > Small businesses offer less in the way of health insurance than big > businesses. Wal-Mart is using all sorts of tactics to offer fewer benefits than most small businesses. >Yes, I could, were I an elitist jerk. So don't go putting those words in > my > >mouth. > > Should have been "one can argue"....I didn't mean to imply that you do > believe that....was using "you can" as the less formal version of "one > can" Why bring it up at all? It's a straw man. > > If everyone lived as though they truly loved each other, we wouldn't need > much in the way of structure. But, people haven't been, are not, and will > not be perfect in the future. Any system has to work when folks think > more > of themselves and their own families than other folks. It's not that we > shouldn't care, it's that we should build a system that works with people > as they are, not dependant on a general improvement in the morals of > everyone. I don't even know what this means, really. We should rely only on market forces to achieve social and economic justice? If the market dictates that some people lose their jobs, then that must be okay? That's idolatry, not economics or morality. > I see inefficiency as money down the toilet. Efficiency is the foundation > of the world we live in. Zambia has a much much less efficient economy, > mostly separated from world trade, and people are near starvation there. > When the average farmer produces 5% more food than his/her family needs, > then there is little room for error, as well as little chance for more > than > a few to rise above hand to mouth poverty. It's seriously twisted logic to argue that businesses that result in lower incomes, fewer benefits and fewer jobs is good for society just because it results in lower prices. Again I'll say, what stops us from the "efficiency" of slavery? Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
