JayB

I think you'd be hard pressed to find an instance in which either PP or myself has argued in favor of tariffs, subsidies, special tax-breaks for corporations, etc. Who is erecting the straw man here? In those cases where no bid contracts prevail - such as in the aftermath of Katrina - I don't think there are many people who would defend such arrangements as economically optimal. The only defense that I think is valid comes about when people argue that that it's extremely probable that the delays associated with waiting for an open bidding/prolonged contracting period to elapse will generate costs on the ground - both human and economic - that will exceed the savings brought about by such measures.

Isn’t it the same in this country? A large number of economically disadvantaged voters (we don’t have poverty in America) are routinely convinced that tax breaks for the super rich are going to help them, even though trickle on economics has been shown as bunk, and elitists intellectuals are saying these economically disadvantaged Americans have been misled. I don’t know the “truth” about Wallmart, but it is certainly feasible that the “externalities” outweigh the extra purchasing power that JayB thinks is so great, and it is also possible that Tvash is correct that poor Mexicans will not be shopping at Wallmart as much as JayB suggests. But of course, only an intellectual would actually try to look at the information before driving home their political message - that is the root definition of the word “intellectual.” Matt: My main point with respect to the great mass of nebulosities hitherto referred to as "externalities" in the context of price competition is not that such things are impossible in principle, but that those most directly affected by them should have the freedom to make decisions concerning them, rather than be prohibited from doing so by statute, much less by people who are infinitely better off, live thousands of miles away, and know next to nothing about their particular circumstances. Further, if the "negative externalities" in question are so concrete and obvious, then simple persuasion via argument and example, rather than regulatory compulsion, should win them over to your side. If the facts are so clear, a simple poster stating "Here is why Walmart is bad for your town/villiage/family and why we hope that you will not shop there," rather than regulations that deny them the freedom to make such choices by prohibiting Walmart or any other competitor from opening up shop in markets that have previously been insulated from competition should be sufficient, no?

heh heh. I can't read PP's article right now (actually gotta get some work done) but could it be that intellectuals are disproportionately anti-capitalism because they read and think about the issues? (After all, that is what intellectuals do that makes them intellectuals.) Maybe capitalism is just plain stupid! I hope that you'll take the time to read this if you actually wish to encounter a serious answer to your question. You may not agree with the arguments put forth within it, but I can't imagine that your primary objection to them will be that they are not sufficiently grounded in reading and thought. http://www.mises.org/etexts/hayekintellectuals.pdf

And here's where the fool trips over his own model. I've spent more than a year traveling various Latin American countries. You, apparently, have not, otherwise you would know that food in the local markets is much, MUCH cheaper that that found in any supermarket. Furthermore, it is homemade from fresh ingredients that are locally grown. Ie, the money stays in the community. The people in these countries that shop at big box grocery stores like Walmart do so because they can AFFORD THE CONVENIENCE of bulk packaging, processed foods, frozen meals, and preservatives, not because they can't afford to shop elsewhere. Your idiotic tortilla example, the basis for your entire argument here, really, is based on a your signature ignorance of the 'externalities' on the ground. And, like any good intellectual elitist, you will apply your model, ignoring realities even a casual tourist would realize within a couple days of an in country visit, until the very end because, in your own mind, YOU KNOW YOU MUST BE RIGHT. But you don't need any models, graphs, or tear jerking real life examples to best the intellectual elitists of the world. You'll find one staring right back at you in any mirror. Cough. "In recent months, as rising prices for U.S. corn pushed up the price of Mexico's corn tortilla, a staple for millions of poor, Wal-Mart could keep tortilla prices largely steady because of its long-term contracts with corn-flour suppliers. The crisis turned into free advertising for Wal-Mart, as new shoppers lined up for the cheaper tortillas. Here's what's behind your cheap American corn, Free Market Boy; US government subsidies. Just how many more times would you like me to step all over your dick in front of a live audience? How the US can export corn to Mexico, a corn producing nation This may indeed be the most devastating rebuttal to an argument that I never put forth that I have ever encountered. I am a bit surprised and disappointed that, in the spirit of the above contribution, you neglected to point out that the sky is not green, and that two plus two does not, in fact, equal five. There are a couple of aspects about this post that I find especially amusing, especially in light of the manner in which it was put forth. The first is that it is not the cheapness, but rather the expense of corn, that is of concern to the poorest Mexicans at the moment. If I had ever argued in favor of subsidies, much less argued that agricultural subsidies were both beneficial and had the tendency to drive up, rather than depress the prices for agricultural products on the world market, and the primary concern amongst poor people in Mexico was that corn had become too cheap on account market distortions produced by American agricultural subsidies, and they were at the moment at a loss as to what to do with the surfeit of tortillas this depression in the price of corn had brought about - then the irrelevant-factoid-unescorted-by-an-argument that you brought in from the beyond might suffice to serve as a passable rebuttal. In the absence of any such claims on my part, it's the logical equivalent of an outburst from someone suffering from Tourette's syndrome. [silence] "CORN SUBSIDIES!!" However, the primary problem with corn prices in Mexico at the moment is that they are have been rising, rather than declining. In the absence of market distorting subsidies that divert corn away from incorporation into foodstuffs like tortillas, and into ethanol production, no such spike in prices would have occurred, because tropical countries can produce ethanol from sugarcane at a real price that's significantly lower than ethanol produced from corn grow in the US, and corn that would otherwise wind up on people's tables has been diverted into ethanol on a scale that would be inconceivable in the absence of the incentives provided by the subsidies and tariffs. With respect to Walmart, I'm left asking...and? Your comments suggest that you believe that if the US eliminated its subsidies for corn production, that this would eliminate both Walmart's competitive position relative to local retailers, and the advantages that the said position provides to consumers in markets that had hitherto been characterized by an absence of price competition brought about by government barriers to the same. If the majority of Walmart's products were made from subsidized American corn, and it were competing with retailers who also offered products composed entirely of corn produced in the absence of any market distortions, your rejoinder would be devastating indeed. Since this is clearly not the case, why you thought the mere mention of corn subsidies constituted a salient point, let alone a counterargument, is something that I eagerly anticipate watching you attempt to explain - at length. Step away, amigo.

Is this the intellectual equivalent of "Where's Waldo?," where the Waldo in question is a coherent argument? Try taking a hit on the inhaler between sentences next time. After reading your missive, I'll attempt to paraphrase a bit for the sake of clarity. "All people of conscience should support regulations that force poor people, especially in third world countries, to pay artificially high prices for food, clothing, and other consumer staples in order to satisfy the ideological strivings of vastly more fortunate North American parlor activists like me, and I don't care for people who suggest otherwise." How's that? But what about the folks who wear Birkenstocks and sip Lattes? Don't they get a vote? He's got a point about your anti-intellectual schtick, in my opinion. What exactly is wrong with being either educated or intelligent - the core of Webster's definition of the term? In attacking the "ivory tower" or whatever it is (that is Fairweather's whipping post, I think, and maybe not yours) you often seem to reduce the whole thing to a cartoon just like railing about the ininformed opinions of those who wear Birkenstocks and sip Lattes. There's a number of distinctions between intelligence and/or educational attainment and the identity and character of those who fill or aspire to fill the role of the "intellectual" in public life that I think you are either unaware of or have deliberately ignored here. Translation: As all the world's important questions have been answered, and the remedy to the world's remaining problems can be solved by the application of the correct economic model administered by enlightened technicians, we can do away with the "intellectual in public life". Except of course those whose job it is to explain the model and its effects to the ignorant complainers. With respect to "the model," in question, the Mexicans consumers clearly didn't require any coaching or political agitation to change their shopping habits in a manner that they determined was in their best interests, but it did require the agitations of various left-wing activists and shopkeepers who controlled local commerce in order to prevent them from doing so, so these charges of elitism, "explaining the model," etc are rather ironic. Who's the one insisting on reverential deference to one's betters here? Your increasingly Fairweather-esque red-baiting and and broad-brush generalizations about "intellectuals" hardly amounts to legitimate criticism in my mind, at least. I think anyone who values critical thought and open inquiry should find it quite disturbing, given the historical record of such attacks. Your response above to the issue of externalities confirms the critique of economists as myopic, graphpaper-brained technicians unable to relate to culture, history, human social interation to their dry quantitative analyses. The anecdote you cited above is not suprising. The poor by definition must be primarily concerned with price as their self-interest may lie only with getting their next meal. But only by the narrowest defintion of self interest (the price of tortillas) can one be said to be acting in self-interest. This is why economists and the business press push so hard for human beings to place themselves in the role of consumer. Only when we identify and understand ourselves as "consumers" while supressing our identities as workers, children, parents, Mexicans, elderly, environmentalists, intellectuals, etc. do the arguments placing the "lowest price" in a priviledged position make any fucking sense at all. This is why the POOR place so prominently in economistic criticisms of antiglobalizationists, leftists, etc. because by definition the poor MUST privilege price without regard where and how something was actually produced. Anyone arguing against the lowest possible price for anything or for the internalization of environmental costs or the raising of wages or the collective bargaining rights of workers then become anti-poor by definition. Quizzically, this is the rare time when the poor actually make an appearence in the arguments by proponents of market fundamentalism. Poor people priced out of markets by regulation=BAD; poor people priced out of markets by the "natural" operation of the market=GOOD. Furthermore this argument says nothing at all about poverty, its source or prescriptions for eradicating it. Has Walmart actually done anything to improve the lives of its shoppers? No. Is there evidence that Walmart does more to degrade the communities in which it does business? Yes. Has the Walmart economy proved sustainable, viable, and beneficial in the places where they are already established? No. By appealing to those who have no other choice than Walmart because they are absoutely destitute while accepting their situation as natural and disregarding any alternatives to their predicament is cynical, unimaginative, disingenuous and exploitative. Perhaps, instead of using poor people to prove that Walmart is actually good in contradiction to the vast evidence that Walmart is a parasite, you may start working towards a global society in which people can look beyond the lowest possible price for their most basic necessities. By the way, your suggestion that the left is entirely or primarily composed of intellectuals or of the middle-class is historically inaccurate as a whole and for Mexico in particular. Interesting. You realize that you have just put forth statement A: "Your increasingly Fairweather-esque red-baiting and and broad-brush generalizations about "intellectuals" hardly amounts to legitimate criticism in my mind, at least. I think anyone who values critical thought and open inquiry should find it quite disturbing, given the historical record of such attacks." And statement B: "Your response above to the issue of externalities confirms the critique of economists as myopic, graphpaper-brained technicians unable to relate to culture, history, human social interation to their dry quantitative analyses." Right after one another. What sort of critical thought and open inquiry is it that you are defending here, exactly? Any of the above so long as they don't involve numbers? As for the rest of the statement, it still reads like a somewhat less overwrought version of "All people of conscience should support regulations that force poor people, especially in third world countries, to pay artificially high prices for food, clothing, and other consumer staples in order to satisfy the ideological strivings of vastly more fortunate North American parlor activists like me, and I don't care for people who suggest otherwise." But I give you credit for pausing to inhale every couple hundred keystrokes or so. As for the rest of it, you'll still have to explain how one helps the poor by insuring that they get less food, clothing, etc for their money, much less denying them the right to make decisions about which externalities, aspects of their personal identity, etc that they wish to value above others while making decisions about what they wish to buy and from whom. "Now Pedro - you can't be a good Mexican, husband, carpenter, citizen or father unless you pay three times as much money for the bowl from the Socialist Pottery Collective as the plastic one from Walmart." Please.

Nope. Here it is: There certainly is an anti-intellectual reaction against "pointy head" intellectuals or those who reside in the Ivory Tower or whatever, and I'm guessing this is the cartoon character you like to bash, but the word intellectual does not substantially imply out of touch or impractical or -- oh my god -- liberal or whatever connotation those who wage the anti-intellectual campaign may be applying to try to get Americans uncomfortable with smarts or information. At the root of it I think the anti-intellectual campaign is not populist as it purports to be, but really almost the opposite: the idea is that smart and informed people cannot be trusted so therefore you should not listen to anybody who may be intelligent or educated but instead just vote with your gut. I suppose Liberals could play this card, but I'm not sure they do nearly as much as conservatives who, when George Bush said Iraq attacked us on 911 and we should invade Iraq, they were saying "listen to the man" even though anybody who was smart or who actually knew about the situation was saying the premises for the ware were questionable at best and the war plan was poorly conceived. These folks were often branded "antipatariotic," but just as often they were dismissed as the intellectual elite who read the New York Times. Another example: if Teddy Bear Bush says there is no such thing as global warming, even though virtually every scientist who has studied the matter for the last 20 years says it is real, we should all rally around Mr. Bush because what do those intellectuals know? That one worked for how many years? Whether you can find where liberals have used this canard or not, the result is kind of the same: the message is "don't think!" I'm honsetly not even sure what you are responding to here Matt. If I had issued a blanket indictment against analysis, reason, and intelligence your response would make sense. Since I did nothing of the kind, but offered a specific critique of the ideas and the motives of a particular class of activists. You could have argued the contrary case and come up with an argument for why it is that people with more income and education arguing on behalf of regulations that force people with much lower incomes in isolated or underserved markets to pay inflated prices for consumer goods is both ethically and economically sound - but for some reason you declined the task. Inasmuch as I've offered a critique of "intellectuals," it's been confined to stating that not everyone who is or aspires to be known as such has qualifications that warrant automatic deference to their opinions, and this is particularly true when they venture outside of those areas in which they have developed their expertise and earned their reputation. How insisting on subjecting their opinions to analysis and scrutiny constitutes an invocation to "not think" is beyond me.

And here's where the fool trips over his own model. I've spent more than a year traveling various Latin American countries. You, apparently, have not, otherwise you would know that food in the local markets is much, MUCH cheaper that that found in any supermarket. Furthermore, it is homemade from fresh ingredients that are locally grown. Ie, the money stays in the community. The people in these countries that shop at big box grocery stores like Walmart do so because they can AFFORD THE CONVENIENCE of bulk packaging, processed foods, frozen meals, and preservatives, not because they can't afford to shop elsewhere. Your idiotic tortilla example, the basis for your entire argument here, really, is based on a your signature ignorance of the 'externalities' on the ground. And, like any good intellectual elitist, you will apply your model, ignoring realities even a casual tourist would realize within a couple days of an in country visit, until the very end because, in your own mind, YOU KNOW YOU MUST BE RIGHT. But you don't need any models, graphs, or tear jerking real life examples to best the intellectual elitists of the world. You'll find one staring right back at you in any mirror. Cough. "In recent months, as rising prices for U.S. corn pushed up the price of Mexico's corn tortilla, a staple for millions of poor, Wal-Mart could keep tortilla prices largely steady because of its long-term contracts with corn-flour suppliers. The crisis turned into free advertising for Wal-Mart, as new shoppers lined up for the cheaper tortillas. Wal-Mart also overcame a Juchitán cacique, or local boss: Héctor Matus, a trained doctor who goes by La Garnacha, the name for a fried tortilla snack popular in town. Dr. Matus, 55, owns six pharmacies, stationery stores and general stores. He has also held an array of political posts, including Juchitán mayor and state health minister. As town mayor from 2002 to 2004, he says he blocked a national medical-testing chain from opening in town because it meant low-price competition to local businessmen doing blood work. But Dr. Matus couldn't persuade local and state officials to block Wal-Mart, and he is feeling the pinch. Sales are off 15% at his stores since Wal-Mart arrived, and he is now lowering prices in response."

Is this the intellectual equivalent of "Where's Waldo?," where the Waldo in question is a coherent argument? Try taking a hit on the inhaler between sentences next time. After reading your missive, I'll attempt to paraphrase a bit for the sake of clarity. "All people of conscience should support regulations that force poor people, especially in third world countries, to pay artificially high prices for food, clothing, and other consumer staples in order to satisfy the ideological strivings of vastly more fortunate North American parlor activists like me, and I don't care for people who suggest otherwise." How's that? But what about the folks who wear Birkenstocks and sip Lattes? Don't they get a vote? He's got a point about your anti-intellectual schtick, in my opinion. What exactly is wrong with being either educated or intelligent - the core of Webster's definition of the term? In attacking the "ivory tower" or whatever it is (that is Fairweather's whipping post, I think, and maybe not yours) you often seem to reduce the whole thing to a cartoon just like railing about the ininformed opinions of those who wear Birkenstocks and sip Lattes. There's a number of distinctions between intelligence and/or educational attainment and the identity and character of those who fill or aspire to fill the role of the "intellectual" in public life that I think you are either unaware of or have deliberately ignored here. Translation: As all the world's important questions have been answered, and the remedy to the world's remaining problems can be solved by the application of the correct economic model administered by enlightened technicians, we can do away with the "intellectual in public life". Except of course those whose job it is to explain the model and its effects to the ignorant complainers. Again, a hit from the inhaler might be helpful here. I hardly think that subjecting those who publicly espouse a particular set of ideas in public to criticism if you think that either their motives or their analysis are suspect amounts to anything quite as dramatic as you are suggesting. Most public intellectuals are not experts in particular field who are producing original work in that field, and who confine the scope of their analysis to those subjects that they have received their training in. We are talking about second-hand dealers in ideas here who know a touch more about a particular topic than the audience that they are addressing and can therefore hold forth with a bit more authority than the average man on the street, but enjoy no such stature amongst experts in the field. I certainly don't think that everyone who aspires to fill this role should be greeted with reverential silence when they share their ideas in public. With respect to "the model," in question, the Mexicans consumers clearly didn't require any coaching or political agitation to change their shopping habits in a manner that they determined was in their best interests, but it did require the agitations of various left-wing activists and shopkeepers who controlled local commerce in order to prevent them from doing so, so these charges of elitism, "explaining the model," etc are rather ironic. Who's the one insisting on reverential deference to one's betters here?

How about here: That's helpful. Wasn't sure what was the main course, and what was the garnish in the dish that you served up there. I didn't acknowledge these objections or criticisms of Walmart for a couple of reasons, one is that I do think that they fall into the category of externalities that are trivial, entirely subjective, or both. The other is that my opinion here is less germane than the conduct of the Mexican people who, as one can see through their shopping habits, have arrived at conclusions that are identical to my own in this respect. Do me a favor and fly to Mexico, stand in line next to the folks buying their bulk Tortilla's at Walmart, use your best harangue in an attempt to subsidize one of your pet externalities by paying above market rates for their Tortilla's - and film the result. [Jumping up and down] "But what about the externalities, Conseula!!!!! The externaaaaaaaaalities!!!!!!!..." The new content on Youtube's been lacking a bit lately, so this would make a welcome addition to the fare on offer there.

Is this the intellectual equivalent of "Where's Waldo?," where the Waldo in question is a coherent argument? Try taking a hit on the inhaler between sentences next time. After reading your missive, I'll attempt to paraphrase a bit for the sake of clarity. "All people of conscience should support regulations that force poor people, especially in third world countries, to pay artificially high prices for food, clothing, and other consumer staples in order to satisfy the ideological strivings of vastly more fortunate North American parlor activists like me, and I don't care for people who suggest otherwise." How's that? But what about the folks who wear Birkenstocks and sip Lattes? Don't they get a vote? He's got a point about your anti-intellectual schtick, in my opinion. What exactly is wrong with being either educated or intelligent - the core of Webster's definition of the term? In attacking the "ivory tower" or whatever it is (that is Fairweather's whipping post, I think, and maybe not yours) you often seem to reduce the whole thing to a cartoon just like railing about the ininformed opinions of those who wear Birkenstocks and sip Lattes. There's a number of distinctions between intelligence and/or educational attainment and the identity and character of those who fill or aspire to fill the role of the "intellectual" in public life that I think you are either unaware of or have deliberately ignored here.

Is this the intellectual equivalent of "Where's Waldo?," where the Waldo in question is a coherent argument? Try taking a hit on the inhaler between sentences next time. After reading your missive, I'll attempt to paraphrase a bit for the sake of clarity. "All people of conscience should support regulations that force poor people, especially in third world countries, to pay artificially high prices for food, clothing, and other consumer staples in order to satisfy the ideological strivings of vastly more fortunate North American parlor activists like me, and I don't care for people who suggest otherwise." How's that?

The salient point in every one of your posts is that your leftist intellectual nemesis is a fiction. What do you know about Mexico or Mexican culture, for example? Do you speak Spanish? Have you been there? Do you have Mexican relatives? The leftist intellectuals you commonly speak do exist...in your own mind, as a mirror image of your own academically cloistered persona...with the volume turned up or down as you see fit. Your policy recommendations, what few you actually put forth, as you are mostly an armchair critic, historically have produced disaster. Your GMO cartoon is a classic example. Please...stay in academia where you can publish little papers that no one will read so you can at least do no harm. So the argument here is that...there are not Leftist intellectuals in Mexico, so the author of the said article had to invent them to add a bit of drama to spice up his article about the retail trade in Mexico, and that even if there are leftist intellectuals in Mexico, they would certainly never dream opposing the elimination of tariffs or subsidies, much less doing so under the guise of fighting Yankee imperialism, economic colonialism, etc. Yes - clearly I am operating in a dreamworld here. The ironic thing about this post - other than the transparent weakness of the argument "Have you touched the surface of the Sun? Then how do you know it's hot?" - is that I made no claims to have any special expertise in all things Mexican. Even if I did, that wouldn't be the least bit relevant here. The whole point is that it's not about what anyone other than the poor Mexicans actually value that matters here. If they decide that they want to use their meager incomes to pay artificially high prices in order to prop up the incomes of the folks that control the local market, they should certainly be free to do so, but they shouldn't be forced to against their will by means of regulations that restrict price competition. If Walmart or any other competitor comes along and they decide that paying inflated prices constitutes an essential part of their culture that they want to preserve, then they can choose to do so no matter who operates a store in their town or village. Judging by the reception that Walmart stores have been getting whenever and wherever they open in Mexico, is seems clear that that they don't consider enduring various kinds of material deprivation, or forgoing some of the choices and conveniences that people in the developed take for granted to be essential elements of the Mexican cultural experience. If you think that they are off base here, rather than sanctioning policies which force them to pay artificially high prices at local retailers thanks to regulations that restrict competition, the more ethical thing to do would be to prop up these retailers with your own cash, instead of insisting that poor people do the same with theirs. Form a Union of Concerned Leftists and notify all of the retailers who are about to be subjected to price competition and inform them that you understand their plight, and you are prepared to help preserve the uniquely valuable contribution that their artificially high prices represent with something other than rhetoric. Tell them to send along their sales records before their competitors come to town. If Juan's Tortilla emporium loses $10,000 in sales during the first year in which he faces competition from the MexiMart down the road, no problem - the Union of Concerned Leftists will subsidize his operation and pay the difference, rather than insisting that the poor folks in the local village do the same. With regards to the recommendations that you mentioned in the previous post, indulge me with some specifics. I'd be curious to know where eliminating regulations that prevent competition and eliminate artificially high prices has brought about the disasters that you alluded to. I'd be especially interested to learn about economic disasters that are analogous to the disasters produced by the likes of...drought resistant crops.

For me it would completely depend on the nature of my relationship with the said dude. If it was a close friend or family member, I'd shrug it off and buy some new skis, since the value of the relationship is way higher than a pair of skis. Random dude, I'd see how he felt about paying for half of the cost of the skis. If he declined, given the lack of a realistic means of getting him to pay, I'd write both the dude and the skis off and move on. Having said that, any close friend of mine would probably offer to pitch in some money to cover the damage without me even having to ask. The fact that you are even having to consult with insurance folks or ponder this one in depth indicates that this guy is a loser that you had the misfortune to hook up with for a lift to the slopes, or that you need to elevate your standards for friends.

The salient feature of both opposition groups is that they have motives quite apart from the well-being of the poor, despite their claim that it is concern for the poor that animates their opposition to Walmart. Mexico has traditionally been one of the most closed and corrupt (no coincidence between the closure and the corruption) retail marketplaces in the world, where retailers have colluded with local politicians in order to lock out competition and leave the local people with no choice but to pay excessive prices or go without. It's easy to see how this benefits those who control local commerce, but how anyone can claim that this state of affairs benefits the poorest Mexicans is beyond me. The claim that opening up the local retail sector to price competition will ultimately hurt the poor by putting local shops out of business is also false. If the only way a local retailer can survive is by charging higher prices, then they deserve to go out of business. The claim that this will hurt the local economy is also false - and in this case quite ironic, given the state of the local economy in most small Mexican towns. If you compare total wages before and after the arrival of such a store (how do low-end retail jobs pay in Mexico?) you won't see much of a change initially, and if anything I'd wager that they go up. But the initial change in total wages is not the primary impact that the store will have - it's increasing the purchasing power and the total disposable income of the local people. If your grocery bill, for example, is cut by one third - you have that money to either save or spend. That money is then available to spend on the full spectrum of goods and services that's available in the vicinity. This is a hard concept for people to grasp, but imagine a situation where the price of gas was elevated to $10 a gallon, and price competition was forbidden. What impact would this have on anyone engaged in a business other than selling gas? Would it help those businesses or harm them? That addresses the local businesses and their opposition to Walmart. As far as the "leftist intellectuals are concerned," their opposition is offensive on a number of fronts. First and foremost, they are not poor, and by restricting price competition they are imposing hardships on the least fortunate members of their society that they will not share. The second reason why their opposition is illegitimate is it presupposes not only that they - rather than the poor people - know what truly counts as authentically Mexican and must be preserved, but that they should be granted the power to make that determination and force others to accept their judgement. The third is that Leftist intellectuals in Mexico - to an even greater extent than Leftist intellecutals in the US, if that's possible - are economically illiterate, and are still arguing on behalf of policies that have been completely discredited, and are responsible for the endemic poverty that has continues to plague that country. Leftist intellectuals arguing against economic freedom is like witch doctors arguing against vaccination or anti-retrovirals. The reassuring thing is that the folks who all of this impacts the most have had the sense to ignore the exhortations of the activist-class on behalf of the micro-protectionist retailers. I can only hope that the same will happen with the disease and drought resistant crops that the well-fed activist-class is out to deny to all of the hungry people in the developing world.

Salient Quotes "When Wal-Mart was building a store in Juchitán in 2005, local shopkeepers and leftist groups tried to rouse popular sentiment against the American invader." "Over the past few years, local shopkeepers have teamed up with leftist intellectuals to try to block the construction of new Wal-Marts in several places." For now, however, such efforts have been largely unsuccessful. Global Exchange, a San Francisco-based antiglobalization group, is advising Mr. Alvarez and others in Los Cabos who want to prevent Wal-Mart from entering Baja California Sur, the only Mexican state without a Wal-Mart store. The group figured it might sway the town's new left-wing mayor, Luis Diaz, a member of a political party that opposes free trade. But Mr. Diaz is welcoming the American retailer. "I can understand that some businesses might be hurt by Wal-Mart, but the fact is that the people here want it. It increases the purchasing power of people with very little money," Mr. Diaz says in an interview. "...town officials say Wal-Mart is staying. "The ones who have benefited the most [from Wal-Mart] are the poorest," says Feliciano Santiago, the deputy mayor. "I hope another one comes." "Yes - we want to help poor people by restricting competition and forcing them to use their meager incomes to pay above-market prices." Glad to hear that the poor people in Mexico are using their collective buying power to tell the coalition of Leftist intellectuals and price-fixing retailers to STFU. http://palousitics.blogspot.com/2007/03/in-mexico-wal-mart-is-defying-its.html]WSJ Article

Looks like a decent forecast for kayaking. Dry hot/cold forecast = climbing. Precipitation + cold temps = skiing. Precipitation + warm temps = kayaking. Must suck to be a one-sport Johnny in the PNW.

My take is that some people feel like the contrast between Gore's rhetoric and his lifestyle make him the greenhouse-gas equivalent to Ted Haggard. If you preach against something in public, your own conduct should be beyond reproach, and if it isn't, the odds are high that you'll have to answer for this contradiction in public in some fashion or another. I don't have the expertise to properly evaluate most of the scientific work associated with climate change, so I - like most of you - simply have to take the expert's word for it. I expect the same of those who participate in the debate on evolution, so I can hardly do otherwise here. However, the scientific data is one thing, the policy prescriptions that follow from it are another, and there is plenty of room for debate with respect to what represents the most rational, feasible, and ethical response to the problems associated with mankind's C02 emissions. I personally think that even if the risks associated with climate change can't be defined with absolute certainty, it makes sense to invest in technologies and make some changes that may mitigate the worst of the effects - in the same way that it makes sense to invest in homeowners insurance even if you can't ever know the probability that your home will be destroyed with absolute certainty. I am also biased towards taking actions that will benefit mankind even if the worst case scenario fails to materialize. This includes things like investing in improved energy/resource efficiency. I also think that we should engage in a clear-headed analysis of the costs and benefits associated with these actions. There's lots of low hanging fruit out there in the realm of technologies and behaviors that can be changed to reduce power consumption without sacrificing much in the way of economic growth, comfort, or convenience - but at some point we will arrive at a juncture where we have to take a hard look at the cost/sacrifice-to-temperature change ratio and make some hard choices. If one of the primary reasons for fighting climate change is to reduce human death and misery, there may come a point at which we have to choose between dedicating resources to reducing global C02 emissions and, say, combating infectious disease, providing clean drinking water, or some other measures which would do far more to reduce human misery/death on a per-dollar basis.

Ooops - I thought that I was using the "reply" button, but it must have been the "edit" button. Argh. Unfortunately, it looks as though there's just no way for me to recover the original post. I am very sorry for inadvertently deleting your post Faust, that was definitely not what I was intending to do!

It makes me think about the whole idea girls have that they have to change for a man. This happens sometimes a girl acts differently around a man until she entraps him, then she "reverts" back to how she "is" and gets all huffy when the man is wondering wtf just happened. Read - "I just met this guy...he's so dreamy...and he's a climber! I'll try climbing now, it will be a fun thing we can do together!" N years later she's not climbing, chunked out because she's secure that he can no longer run off so lay on the wine and chocolats baby, and hell the sweaters just cover up everything anyway, and, well hell just not doing much of ANYTHING anymore. Word. I'm constantly amazed by the number of married women who not only seem to have no interests or passions of their own, but who seem actively avoid cultivating any of their own interests so they can stay at home and pout whenever the hubby actually does something outside of the relationship and use the whole abandonment-guilt angle for emotional blackmail later on. These were all women with no children. If there were kids involved and the guy was constantly cruising off to play while she was left to look after the kids I'd understand, but - nope. These are also the type that seem to double-up on the Ben and Jerry's shortly after the honeymoon is over. Scary stuff.

Bronco had a great story about adding a random guy to his team at Camp Muir and the ensuing psycho-epic. Someone should dig this one out of the archives for sure.

Even if you are in a LTR with or married to someone who shares your particular hobbies, the odds are pretty good that one of you is going to have more talent, passion, drive, experience - etc - so it's going to take some trial and error before you figure out what kind of outing will be enjoyable for both of you. Even after you do that, there will be times when you want to climb with someone besides your s/o or spouse, and that may not go over so well, etc. On the whole, it's nice to share some hobbies and a general outdoor orientation, but it's also nice to have interests that you pursue separately IMO. On a related topic, anyone ever read Gerry Roach's "Top 10 Things I Learned While Climbing" list that he put at the front of his guide to the 14er's in Colorado? If I remember correctly "Surfer girl isn't in the mountains" was somewhere in the Top-5. If he added an asterisk he could have made a globally-valid axiom out of this one. "Surfer girl isn't in the mountains*" *Or in the Bass Boat, the woodshop, the duck-blind, the bow-hunting club, on the river next to you in a kayak, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

I was talking about Jim's book, but your recommendation is also a worthy one. If you liked "The Road to Serfdom," you should check out "The Constitution of Liberty," also by Von Hayek. His essay "Socialism and the Intellectuals is also worth a read, and is available in PDF form on the web.

OK one more reply. This is a bunch of crap. You have to be kidding. Capitalism has been a positive feedback loop for the corporations and the elite. The social welfare net in the US is in tatters while the corporate tax rate is at a historical low. Forces hostile to capitalism? You're kidding right? You and your perspective are the ultimate vindication of this argument. The operation of the market economy in the United States is the reason that you - unlike the folks that your friends work with and you take justified pity on - are prosperous enough to be a donor, rather than a recipient, of international charity, yet you seem to have this inveterate hostility towards the very system that created the wealth that you wish to distribute. There are scores of millions of people like you in the US, and if you don't constitute a majority opinion, it's mighty close. Head overseas and I'd say you are clearly in the majority. Not sure how this renders Schumpeter's predictions "crap."