JayB

It looks like we've strayed from the original "big established businesses versus innovation theme" a bit here. Is the claim that businesses will resist regulations that diminish their profits, or that they can/will always squelch any technological innovation that may occur in their field that has the potential to undermine their profits, at least in the near term? C02 emissions are one thing, the price of oil is another. It would seem to me that the existence of a monopoly that artificially inflated the price of oil would actually decrease oil consumption below the level that would prevail in a competitive marketplace where oil companies had an incentive to compete on price - and that depending on the scope and strength of the monopoly - the reduction of C02 emissions generated by burning hydrocarbosn might be faster and of a greater magnitude than government regulations that mandate higher efficiency or decreased emissions. Minor digression with regards to altruism: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." -Adam Smith, 1776

"Simple- profits have never been better for the oil and energy industries, and to implement more efficient technology, someone would have to spend some money." How does one explain the existence of technological progress in any field in light of the assertion that those who profit from existing technology are always able to thwart the development of superior alternatives? This theory, at the very least, has to overcome the minor hurdle of accounting for the discrepancy between a world in which technological progress has come to a screeching halt, and the world that we actually inhabit. This theory that the profit motive is antithetical to technological progress also seems to assume that the same corporations corporations that are programmed to exploit the profit potential derived from old technology A in a given sector are quite uninterested in the potential profits generated in new technology B. Did IBM try to squelch the word-processor/PC and force the world to use the Selectric II? A further assumption is that the said corporations are not only interested in the potential profits generated from technology B, but able to prevent the adoption of B by any competitor operating anywhere in the globe. Then you also have to assume that either they can prevent those who would benefit from technology B from having any knowledge of its existence, and lacking that, insuring that they aren't able to channel the demand for B into demand thats capable of overcoming whatever restrictions that those who profit from A are able to put into place to prevent B from getting into their hands. Is this logical analysis, or a lazy paranoia that caters to one's ideological predispositions at work here? Sounds quite a bit like those who claim that the foremost obstacle to curing a given type of cancer is the existence of a profitable treatment.

I seem to recall climate data showing that global temperatures declined from roughly ~1940-1970, so it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the snowpack in the interval from ~1970 to the present was less substantial on average than that found in the 1950's. From what I recall, most glaciers in the Cascades retreated from the end of the Little Ice Age to roughly 1950, advanced from ~1950-1980, and began retreating again in the early 80's. Scientists on Cascade Glaciers and Global Warming: http://www.nichols.edu/departments/glacier/globalwarming.html

Hey Porter: It could be worse, you could be stuck on the East Coast! Seriously though - stay strong, keep your spirits up, and don't be afraid to ask questions, seek second opinions, and generally do whatever it takes to insure that you get the care you need to get yourself out of the hospital and back on your feet.

Same Pascal. His output wasn't confined to mathematics. Pensées: "The Pensées (literally, "thoughts") represented a defense of the Christian religion by Blaise Pascal, the renowned 17th century philosopher and mathematician. Pascal's own religious conversion had led him into a life of asceticism, and the Pensées were in many ways his life's work." Pascal's Wager, found in the Pensées: The Wager is described by Pascal in the Pensées this way[2]: Let us now speak according to natural lights...Let us then examine this point, and say, "God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up… Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. In his Wager, Pascal provides an analytical process for a person to evaluate options in regarding belief in God. As Pascal sets it out, the options are two: believe or not believe. There is no third possibility. Therefore, we are faced with the following possibilities: * You believe in God. o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite. o If God does not exist, your loss (the investment in your mistaken belief) is finite and therefore negligible. * You do not believe in God. o If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite. o If God does not exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible. With these possibilities, and the principles of statistics, Pascal hoped to have demonstrated that the only prudent course of action is to believe in God. It is a simple application of game theory (to which Pascal had made important contributions)." From Wikipedia.

First the general: I have never argued against the notion that law, in the form of regulations, are unnecessary for a market economy. It's clear that just as laws governing and restraining the conduct of individuals in order to prevent them from depriving their fellow citizens of their rights and liberties, regulations are necessary for the maintenance of a functioning marketplace. This is clearly not the point of contention here, although one would never know this from the number of rebuttals that have thus far been offered up to this point of non-dispute. Now to the specifics: With respect to "big box" retailing here or anywhere else, we are not talking about someone trying to generate excess profits by selling goods which are illegal, adulterated, or engaging in any attempt to deceive or harm them. We are talking about a merchant who is able to sell items which are similar or identical to those already on the market at a lower price. The critics of these retailers have claimed that the availability of the said items at a lower price will generate harmful consequences that outweigh the benefits of generated by the lower prices. I have simply stated that those claims are either false, disingenuous, or the harm in question is so nebulous and subjective that it is best evaluated - both on economic and ethical grounds - by the local consumers themselves instead of those who presume to speak on their behalf. You make not like or agree with the choices that they make when they decide where to shop, just as you may not like what they say, or how they vote, but not liking these actions is one thing, and imagining that you have the right to restrict or deny them the right to do any of these things is quite another. This is where we may differ.

[gvideo]-7024327732354892916[/gvideo]

The Great ARM Reset of '07. Coming to an Alt-A tranche near you.... NYT - "Crisis Looms in Mortgages." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/business/11mortgage.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Next One [gvideo]-984478101091966341[/gvideo]

"I also said that, if JAYB's consumer cared only about price the way he asserted they did, they might not look at externalities even if they were about to bite them in the face." My assertion wasn't that consumers, however poor they may be, care only about price - it was that they should not be subject to regulations that force them to pay artificially high prices for the things they need (and are most likely already buying elsewhere) by imposing regulatory barriers that prevent competition, and that doing so cannot be justified either on economic or ethical grounds. With regards to "externalities," I think the same liberties that pertain to any other action in a free society should pertain here. That is, we should be free to do anything that doesn't directly injure someone else or infringe on their rights, and the same should apply to whatever we are talking about under the banner of "externalities." Should the law prevent me from stealing from a merchant, and could he claim that the injury that he sustains as a result of my theft is direct enough that it should be illegal? Yes. Should he be able to claim that my choosing to buy whatever it is that he sells from another person who is...willing to give me a better deal on the same legal product that this other guy has on his shelves, I happen to like more, is closer to my home, has nicer help, is painted my favorite color, makes donations to political causes I support etc, etc, etc amounts to an injury/externality that the law should prevent on his behalf? No. This is where I think that you and I differ.

Also worth considering the role of insurance companies in studying and promoting technologies associate with vehicle safety, in addition to that of the government. The insurance companies, acting through motives that were unquestionably and entirely motivated by their own self interest - investigated, quantified, and lobbied extensively for the adoption of just about every safety technology that we credit for reducing mortality and saving lives - all so that they would have to pay fewer claims and consequently, make more money. It would be silly to dispute the government's role in promoting vehicle safety, but it would be just as incorrect to conclude that the government was the sole inspiration and force behind these measures.

"From the add, it looks as if that would be worth sitting down with some popcorn. Freemarketman is going to save the world!" It's really just an economic history of the 20th century, and provides an overview of the principal figures/philosophies that actuated policy, and the social contexts within which they derived their popular support and appeal, brought to you by the same public television station that produces Frontline and NOVA. Consequently, your response is unwarranted, but interesting all the same.

Hey Matt: Did you ever catch "The Commanding Heights" series on PBS? The entire thing is available online here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/hi/story/index.html

[gvideo]-1653494182278055624&q=terrain+park+skiing&hl=en[/gvideo]

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?