> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Nick Arnett > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 5:45 PM > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion > Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and more > > On Feb 17, 2008 2:52 PM, Dan M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I am responding with the exact same message to two posts because I am > > contemplating whether there is any point in replying to either. I think > I > > know what the answer is, but since I _know_ I am often wrong, I will > ask. > > > > There are a total of zero questions in your identical post and its twin > sister, so I doubt if you will get any answers at all.
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? > It seems that you are unhappy that I attribute more significance to the > L.A. Times story than your personal arguments. Well, that seems only > reasonable to me. Not at all...the story itself seems to have a vantage point, a particular focus if you will....but it doesn't make it a bad story. I never thought journalists were required to tell the whole truth about a complex subject with one series....rather they should give a vivid series of snapshots. I think they did this well....even alluding to the tradeoffs that are involved. It's the jump _you_ made from the story that I have trouble with. 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. >Has the world has changed so much that a guy like > you can do better research in his spare time than a Pulitzer Price-winning >editorial team accomplishes over several months? >Surely there are sources >you can cite to refute the Times' piece; Wal-Mart has many fans. I'm sure >that the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, etc., have all sorts of >evidence that Wal-Mart is an unmitigated blessing. Actually, I found a couple of interesting things by folks who are definitely on the left (well unless you consider all of the Democratic party to the right of Dennis as right wing hacks) on Wal-Mart. There is a real interesting article, with detailed analysis by Jason Furman (who was Kerry's economic advisor during the 04 campaign as well as a Clinton economic advisor during his presidency). Would you consider this an reasonable, non right wing source? Or, how about Paul Krugman....he has made a statement that frames the question in a way that I think could lead to a very fruitful discussion. I'm not saying that he and I agree on everything, but a good thread could be started from what he wrote. He is well know as a leftist economist turned columnist. 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? > 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. Second, I didn't see anywhere in the LA Times article when that was stated as a fact. If I missed it, I'd appreciate someone giving me a pointer in the general direction. 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. It's as if you are now picturing me as a bright 16 year old Ron Paul supporter. I have done my homework on this, my opinion is based on reading articles from very respectable sources (e.g. the NY Times article) to listening to my friends who are dirt poor and shop at WalMart (by dirt poor I mean folks who we had to give keys to our car to in case they needed to go to the hospital for a delivery in the middle or the night or folks who finally after months of savings were able to own the land their trailer was on...etc). But, all I seem to get from you is that Walmart is evil, the LA times story proves it, end of story. Finally, the explicit question concerning Wal-Mart that I wanted to discuss was stated _explicitly_ as #3 in my original list: " 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." (Maybe I made a mistake by placing it where it could be overlooked.....but that is what I think the question is. If you think another question is better, I'd be willing to at least listen.) But, simply stating that Wal-Mart is evil and greedy, when its profit margin is 3.4% and an operating margin of 5.8% of sales and Microsoft is not, when its profit margin is 22.9% and an operating margin of 40.7% is not, as self evident doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. So, let me ask three simple yes or no questions at the end of this for you and David. 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? 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? 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." Yes or no answers will suffice. Elaboration would be appreciated. Dan M. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
