Populist Colleagues And Wal-Mart

My populist colleague who worked for my populist representative Virgil Goode sent me this link. It was his response to this article.

He thinks Wal-Mart is evil. I think Wal-Mart should have the opportunity to use its property as it deems fit.

Conservative Professor Bainbridge says Wal-Mart is bad because the data is inconclusive on its effects on jobs and wages.

I am not fond of econometric (statistical)studies. They often confuse the issue. This is one of those situations. Number of jobs and average or median wages does not say anything. We want to know how well-off, how happy, the community is before and after Wal-Mart. We use real income (what can be bought) as a proxy for these measures. (Admittedly, it is a poor measure.) I do not know the aggregate income data. If Wal-Mart caused a community to become poorer, then how could it stay in business? How can Wal-Mart decrease a community's wealth? Decreasing the community's wealth would decrease its profits.

But Bainbridge changes his argument midstride. It is not about dollars, it is about aesthetics. Wal-Mart destroys beautiful small businesses. Wal-Mart has never destroyed another business. Customers not purchasing from the beautiful small business but from Wal-Mart destroyed them. Bainbridge is blaming the wrong people. He should say "stupid customers who do not know the beauty of small business are destroying small business."

He is also irked by Wal-Mart's ugly buildings. Architecture is a matter of taste. I like Wal-Mart's look. I think County Office buildings and churches are ugly. But I am not proposing to eliminate local government and religion.

His idea that Wal-Mart kills entrepreneurship is stupid. My father's video store buys DVDs, drinks, and candy from Wal-Mart and Sam's Club. I know guys who buy produce from Wal-Mart and sell it at the local fruit stand. Entrepreneurship is about recognizing customer wants and meeting these wants. Wal-Mart meets some wants, but it also creates wants. I talk to people who hate Wal-Mart's crowds. Small stores can compete because they do not have crowds.

Bainbridge's argument about the trade deficit is bogus. He should read Cafe Hayek. Trade is mutually beneficial. Dependency theory does not make sense. China runs a trade surplus with the United States by investing in the US. If the Chinese think we are a good investment, then we are probably a good investment.

If Wal-Mart gets tax breaks, it the community's fault not Wal-Mart's. No tax breaks should be given. They are unconstitutional and wrong. Taxes and tax breaks are coercion. But you cannot blame Wal-Mart. You have to blame populist local politicians.

Bainbridge and anti-Wal-Marters are blaming Wal-Mart because things are not going their way. They want a horse and buggy economy. They want the past. Fortunately, most Americans want progress.