---------- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------------- From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 12/23/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >The fact that Wal-Mart can make money and people end up driving farther doesn't >make it good that they've driven smaller businesses out of business. It doesn't >make it bad, either. But ignoring the impact on people who are marginalized >by the changes brought about by Wal-Mart's tactics is bad, in my opinion. But, isn't the fact that Wal-Mart cut prices by innovation good? Isn't making the nation, as a whole, wealthier, a good? For example, if the national GDP is 1.1X and the federal government has a tax of 0.1X to fund various social programs, everyone who is taxed would be at least as well off as they would be if the national GDP were X and there was no social welfare program. Clinton's ecconomic boom helped virtually everyone in the nation...and it was fueled by productivity. ----- No. It was driven by a bubble. The 'Dotcom' bubble. Also the massive y2k spending. And progresive tax policies implented by Clinton that eventualy lead to the budget surplus. ----- Finally, are you arguing that improved productivity is not inherently valuable? ----- Without union power and progressive policies, people (if they had a job at all) would not be able to buy the very products they make in the factories. The wealthy make out like bandits. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
