RE: Wal-Mart and more
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. I see several very linked, yet very different issues raised in the short thread on Wal-Mart. I am interested in discussing all three issues, but I am very uninterested in getting into a loop that I see bypassing the questions at hand. One set of questions is somewhat personal. The second involves the nature of accepted evidence, the nature of reasonable arguments, etc. 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 is at least _a_ worthwhile goal, has Wal-Mart done more to aid or more to harm those lives. With respect to the first question..as folks may, or may not, have noticed, after posting here over a thousand times, my posts have dropped to near zero. I think it is fair to say that I am strongly opinionated. I enjoy passionate arguments about what's true, what's best, and what's possible..and enjoy an opponent that gives as good as he/she gets. This is one of the reasons Gautam and I still go at it on instant messaging..we both are very interested in determining what is right/best and will be willing to change our minds in the presence of a persuasive argument.. But, I don't feel like Brin-L offers me that opportunity now. I think the best way to explain it is a story from my Dad. He says, although he was a good liberal pro-union guy, he always enjoyed William F. Buckley. When I asked why, he said at least he was willing to get down in the mud and wrestle with the common folk The other conservatives write as if they issue their columns from the high mountains.far above the likes of him. I get that feeling here, in this thread. I've seen it before with others. It's been talked about here, and I am privy to the critical juncture in at least one instance. I can still vividly recall telling Gautam to explain his uncomfortable feelings, as a non-Christian, with the use of certain variations of Christian arguments to counter his views. I assured him that if he honestly expressed how he was feeling, it would start a worthwhile dialog. I was very embarrassed when, instead of a response that indicated any sensitivity to his religious sensibilities, he was simply told he was full of it. It was as if Truth was proclaimed from on high, and mere mortals had to just deal with it. I still hope it wasn't intended that way, but after multiple readings, it still read that way. I want to explore that problem..not to rekindle the past, but because it's now happening to me again. I see potential value in that; but I understand that it may involve discomfort. So, I'm asking if those countering me in this thread (Nick and Dave) would be willing to discuss the meta-issue. If not, then, I'll drop the subject. Second, I've seen posts based on hours of work by me trying to find the answer dismissed by a single story. I don't think that's a valid technique..but I tend to think that others do believe this; that it's the story that touches our hearts that matters..not the statistics that indicate trends that matter. I think that it would be worthwhile discussing how and why different people have different basis for decision making. The third question is the basic question about Wal-Mart. From long experience here, I think that all we'll do is go around in circles if we don't address at least the second point...and will probably have problems if we don't at least touch on ways to agree to disagree on the first point. Look, I've been here close to a decade. I tend to like community; and am pained by having to live 4 days a week as a hermit..with a wife in Austin and working at home. So, I like communities.especially long standing ones I'm a member of..and hate to see them break up. But, looking at my posting patterns for the last few months, it's clear that I'm not that interested in posting much. I think, now, I've hit on the reason. I'd like some resolution to these types of issues..and honestly think that I'm not the only one who's had them. But, I realize that I'm not posting much now because I'd rather fade away to just the occasional post of interest than spend time going in the same old circles. Finally, to make it crystal clear: I'm not threatening to quit; I'm making no demands; I haven't seen any reason to unsubscribe. But, I thought I'd bring up an issue I have..out of respect for the length of time I've spent with others on this list. If folks think it worthwhile, I'd appreciate it. If the issue is considered trivial by others, so it goes. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Wal-Mart and more
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. I see several very linked, yet very different issues raised in the short thread on Wal-Mart. I am interested in discussing all three issues, but I am very uninterested in getting into a loop that I see bypassing the questions at hand. One set of questions is somewhat personal. The second involves the nature of accepted evidence, the nature of reasonable arguments, etc. 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 is at least _a_ worthwhile goal, has Wal-Mart done more to aid or more to harm those lives. With respect to the first question..as folks may, or may not, have noticed, after posting here over a thousand times, my posts have dropped to near zero. I think it is fair to say that I am strongly opinionated. I enjoy passionate arguments about what's true, what's best, and what's possible..and enjoy an opponent that gives as good as he/she gets. This is one of the reasons Gautam and I still go at it on instant messaging..we both are very interested in determining what is right/best and will be willing to change our minds in the presence of a persuasive argument.. But, I don't feel like Brin-L offers me that opportunity now. I think the best way to explain it is a story from my Dad. He says, although he was a good liberal pro-union guy, he always enjoyed William F. Buckley. When I asked why, he said at least he was willing to get down in the mud and wrestle with the common folk The other conservatives write as if they issue their columns from the high mountains.far above the likes of him. I get that feeling here, in this thread. I've seen it before with others. It's been talked about here, and I am privy to the critical juncture in at least one instance. I can still vividly recall telling Gautam to explain his uncomfortable feelings, as a non-Christian, with the use of certain variations of Christian arguments to counter his views. I assured him that if he honestly expressed how he was feeling, it would start a worthwhile dialog. I was very embarrassed when, instead of a response that indicated any sensitivity to his religious sensibilities, he was simply told he was full of it. It was as if Truth was proclaimed from on high, and mere mortals had to just deal with it. I still hope it wasn't intended that way, but after multiple readings, it still read that way. I want to explore that problem..not to rekindle the past, but because it's now happening to me again. I see potential value in that; but I understand that it may involve discomfort. So, I'm asking if those countering me in this thread (Nick and Dave) would be willing to discuss the meta-issue. If not, then, I'll drop the subject. Second, I've seen posts based on hours of work by me trying to find the answer dismissed by a single story. I don't think that's a valid technique..but I tend to think that others do believe this; that it's the story that touches our hearts that matters..not the statistics that indicate trends that matter. I think that it would be worthwhile discussing how and why different people have different basis for decision making. The third question is the basic question about Wal-Mart. From long experience here, I think that all we'll do is go around in circles if we don't address at least the second point...and will probably have problems if we don't at least touch on ways to agree to disagree on the first point. Look, I've been here close to a decade. I tend to like community; and am pained by having to live 4 days a week as a hermit..with a wife in Austin and working at home. So, I like communities.especially long standing ones I'm a member of..and hate to see them break up. But, looking at my posting patterns for the last few months, it's clear that I'm not that interested in posting much. I think, now, I've hit on the reason. I'd like some resolution to these types of issues..and honestly think that I'm not the only one who's had them. But, I realize that I'm not posting much now because I'd rather fade away to just the occasional post of interest than spend time going in the same old circles. Finally, to make it crystal clear: I'm not threatening to quit; I'm making no demands; I haven't seen any reason to unsubscribe. But, I thought I'd bring up an issue I have..out of respect for the length of time I've spent with others on this list. If folks think it worthwhile, I'd appreciate it. If the issue is considered trivial by others, so it goes. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wal-Mart and more
Dan M wrote: ... With respect to the first question..as folks may, or may not, have noticed, after posting here over a thousand times, my posts have dropped to near zero. I think it is fair to say that I am strongly opinionated. I enjoy passionate arguments about what's true, what's best, and what's possible..and enjoy an opponent that gives as good as he/she gets. This is one of the reasons Gautam and I still go at it on instant messaging..we both are very interested in determining what is right/best and will be willing to change our minds in the presence of a persuasive argument.. Dan-- I certainly enjoy your posts, and appreciate that you put in time to research them. (And you tend to argue fairly, which I can't say of everyone.) I get that feeling here, in this thread. I've seen it before with others. It's been talked about here, and I am privy to the critical juncture in at least one instance. I can still vividly recall telling Gautam to explain his uncomfortable feelings, as a non-Christian, with the use of certain variations of Christian arguments to counter his views. I assured him that if he honestly expressed how he was feeling, it would start a worthwhile dialog. I was very embarrassed when, instead of a response that indicated any sensitivity to his religious sensibilities, he was simply told he was full of it. I must have missed that. I'm personally not impressed by a religion-based argument, but I don't think it's fair to criticize someone's feelings. Second, I've seen posts based on hours of work by me trying to find the answer dismissed by a single story. I don't think that's a valid technique. It's not. And just because people stop posting in a thread, that does not mean they agree. Again, not everyone argues fairly. But maybe we should put more work into calling people on it when they do post bad arguments. The third question is the basic question about Wal-Mart. From long experience here, I think that all we'll do is go around in circles if we don't address at least the second point...and will probably have problems if we don't at least touch on ways to agree to disagree on the first point. The main problem I see is that Wal-Mart has a big share of the market, and is prepared to use that fact to its advantage. Sometimes, that does benefit the consumer. I'm certainly glad to buy some things at Sam's Club for not too much more than their cost of production! ... think that I'm not the only one who's had them. But, I realize that I'm not posting much now because I'd rather fade away to just the occasional post of interest than spend time going in the same old circles. I'd guess that the problem is the same old circles. There are a few (not to be named) topics where we certainly went around in circles years ago. I'm happy they haven't returned. So new topics might help... ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
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. 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. 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. For example, surely you could find a non-circular an argument that Wal-Mart's low wages reflect the real value of retail labor, rather than a result of the weakening of unions over recent decades. Surely somebody with strong credentials has refutes the studies that show increased unemployment and health insurance after Wal-Mart enters a market. 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? Surely some of their increased efficiency comes from their logistics and supply chain expertise. As long as your only argument is efficiency, you're not even talking about the same subject as I am. I have stipulated repeatedly that Wal-Mart is highly efficient. That's not the problem; it is how they achieve that efficiency. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wal-Mart and more
On 17 Feb 2008, at 23:35, David Hobby wrote: ... think that I'm not the only one who's had them. But, I realize that I'm not posting much now because I'd rather fade away to just the occasional post of interest than spend time going in the same old circles. I'd guess that the problem is the same old circles. There are a few (not to be named) topics where we certainly went around in circles years ago. I'm happy they haven't returned. So new topics might help... Apart from the occasional ill-informed or illogical person who might be persuaded by facts or reason to change their mind about something most people on this list hold their opinions in depth and are aware of all the standard arguments and counterarguments for their position. Rehearsing these arguments at second hand on a mailing list may be futile if entertaining sometimes :-) 1/5 Americans think the Sun revolves around the Earth Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Wal-Mart and more
-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 willbut 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 seriesrather they should give a vivid series of snapshots. I think they did this welleven 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 Krugmanhe 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
Re: Wal-Mart and more
Dan M wrote: ... Would you consider this an reasonable, non right wing source? Or, how about Paul Krugmanhe 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. Dan-- I read Krugman regularly, and usually agree with him. ... 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. Let's see: evil does not have much explanatory power or actual meaning, and as for greedy, corporations usually have to be greedy, or their shareholders object. Different business sectors tend to have different profit margins. That explains some of it. 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? How exactly does a pronouncement thwart a discussion? All it means is that the one making the pronouncement isn't going to have a more detailed argument with you. (For whatever reason.) As far as I'm concerned, such a pronouncement is often an admission that one can't compete on a factual basis. 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? Hmmm... Sounds like a pretty fuzzy topic for discussion. It almost sounds like the problem would be that not everybody shares the same definition 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. Sure, but it may not be a long discussion. Some people lose, and other gain, when Wal-Mart comes to town... ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wal-Mart and more
Dan wrote: 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? I'm certainly interested in a good discussion, but I find it very difficult to debate with you because you are a very prolific writer with no apparent limit on the time you have to research a topic. I would not be surprised to find that this is what you do for a living. Furthermore you are very good at manipulating statistics to bolster your arguments, but as Charlie pointed out a couple of times late last year, you have a tendency to mold the facts and figures to fit your opinion (reference a recent mass transit discussion). Furthermore, look at the size of your last two posts. There's more volume there than all the posts from everyone else on the list for several days prior. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm often overwhelmed by the shear size of your posts. I'm not nearly as prolific and I seldom have more than an hour a day to peruse and respond to all of my personal email. Responding to each and every point of your argument with a properly researched reply may take several hours (and in fact it has). What I ended up doing on more than one occasion was to take just one portion of your argument and zero in on it. But this would usually be met with a reply that was, once again, overwhelming. Understand, if it's not obvious, that in most respects I'm complimenting you and letting you know that you're just too good at these discussions for me to compete. This isn't to say that I think you're always right or even that you've always made your point well. I just can't keep up all the time, so often times I just give up. I'm sure this is frustrating to you. Its certainly frustrating to me. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wal-Mart and more
On 18/02/2008, at 5:00 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: What I ended up doing on more than one occasion was to take just one portion of your argument and zero in on it. But this would usually be met with a reply that was, once again, overwhelming. ...and diversionary. It's a debating technique known in some circles as the Gish Gallop, and it's very frustrating for people who pride themselves on being concise. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
