Poor Mexicans Heart Walmart

[lI1|1!]

loss leader

[JayB]

Your outpouring of paternalism and ongoing crusade for "economic freedom" once again masks the savagely elitist and cynical underpinnings of that ideological freakshow that comprises your worldview. You should be more honest with your CC.com audience instead of treating them like children, doling out crumbs of disaggregated data and economic arcana with large dollops of tired Friedmanite clarion calls to capitalist utopia.

Your inability to recognize or answer to any of the charges made against Wal-mart by the other posters speaks volumes about your use of narrow economistic criteria here and elsewhere. The myriad (and thoroughly documented) ways in which Walmart has harmed communities apparently represent either externalities or are trumped by the manna of "increased purchasing power". Even disregarding for a moment the systemic injustices perpetrated by this leviathan, are you so dazzled by the spectacle of the array of "goods and services", efficiencies of scale, the MAGIC of the marketplace as to actually believe that the production and consumption of mass produced, overly-processed, monocropped, exported, cheap plastic crap is the highest aspiration of humanity? Oh, but of course, we are talking about the poor, the objects of all your paternalistic attentions, the patients who never seem to survive (or survive in spite of) the administration of your economic medicine. Given the proliferation of WalMarts across the landscape, one would expect poverty to have been eradicated completely! But that isn't what you are saying. Purchasing power! Yeah, only if it's shoddy enough, dangerous enough. For you, it's okay for people to be poor, in fact it's natural and beneficial for your system as a whole (and for WalMart especially). They just need more change in their pockets for 2-liters of Coke and lawn furniture. Voile! Now they're "absolutely" wealthy! Wealth creation? All that's being created is a new dependency that parasitic companies like Walmart exist on by exploiting. At least be honest about what you and your philosophical forebears really think about greed, class-rule, and "human nature" instead of exploiting people's natural empathy to further your fucked worldview by appealing to the poor. Whack MC indeed. You should've been a preacher.

Leftist intellectuals? Instigators and provocateurs? As if poor and working-class people don't know when they’re getting screwed! But of course your economic technocratic elitism only requires that they understand the model. Anybody who complains is just ignorant even when they can see with their own eyes that it’s rotten. Give us some graphs Jay_B. Make us understand. All will be revealed behind the curtain! You're a shyster, a snake oil salesman and the planet is starting to awake from your spell.

By the way, your anti-intellectualism should surprise no one, it's become a hallmark of all your postings. It's also a hallmark of fascist and totalitarian regimes that have always made appeals to "common sense", the "common man" and the poor. Go figure.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

[sexual_chocolate]

You are a tenacious fellow, jayb. an important quality when wielding pippettes in one hand and the books of friedman etal in the other (they are such weighty tomes, requiring much more tenacity to wield than a little pippette!), AND building Hadrian's Wall, but i doubt you really believe that the simple metric of "cheap goods" is the only one to consider in any free market discussion, yes? Do you entertain the possibility of other factors entering the arena of public policy and social issue discussions beyond the "choices" of the consumer and the "rights" of the retailer? Surely you are able to come up with a few items?

I'll tell you what: you come up with five concerns regarding walmart market-share ownership and presence in mexico, and I'll come up with five positives. How's that for a balancing of individual viewpoints?

 

Unfortunately, well, fortunately actually! i'm leaving for new river gorge in oh about an hour, so i doubt i'll be responding soon, but i'd love to see your list, if you're willing to play.

 

btw, did you know that if you had bought a measly $100 of walmart upon its IPO, that $100 of stock would now be worth.....somewhere around.... 2.7 million? such is the figure i just read.

[olyclimber]

you know, maybe thats why so many mexicans come to the united states illegally. they just want to the opportunity to shop at wally world.

[mattp]

A swipe at the ivory tower gone bad?

 

March 7: Marine Cpl. Matt Sanchez was honored at CPAC with an award and got a photo with Ann Coulter. He has another career as an adult film actor. "Countdown" gets the scoop.

[underworld]

so what it boils down to is that the 'poor' mexicans want wall-mart. the leftist intellectuals think it is bad for the poor and that the poor aren't smart enough to know it.

 

....the leftist intellectuals are elitist pricks.

 

 

[mattp]

so what it boils down to is that the 'poor' mexicans want wall-mart. the leftist intellectuals think it is bad for the poor and that the poor aren't smart enough to know it.

 

....the leftist intellectuals are elitist pricks.

 

 

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.”

[Peter_Puget]

The Missing Piece

[Dechristo]

Thanks, PP. Good link.

[Jim]

The item that is missing is some intellectual honesty. Throwing up the straw man example - Why do you hate capitalism? - any time the pursuit of unmitigated greed and the its social consequences merely displays the lack of confidence by its adherents to reply to critics. No one is saying to throw out the baby with the bathwater. But to cling to the holy grail that the pure pursuit of financial gain is going to address social ills is folly.

 

Also note the lack of any criticism by the Friedmanites of the lack of free capitalism in this country. Huge corporate subsidies and tax breaks, favorable public policy for merely opening a business in a jurisdiction, huge non-bid contracting through political connections. Most complaints are not about capitalism but unbridled capitalism that verges into plurocracy. As long as the corporations and individuals with political power get a break that's called the free market. Try and come up with a solution that doesn't do away with capitalism, but merely trims around the edges and the fanatics begin to yell socialism, communism, blah, blah. It seems to be the usual scenario to duck the issues and sling mud. Good job.

[Dechristo]

heh heh.

 

It should be recognized that several topics are being addressed in this thread. Ostensibly, PP's link addresses the topic of "intellectuals" ("wordsmith intellectuals") and a disproportionate anti-capitalism bent among that group. It makes no defense of "unbridled capitalism" nor of "pure pursuit of financial gain", but addresses an unmistakably and widespread observed phenomena in a general fashion.

 

You choose to extrapolate its application into areas it does not, on its face, go. The essay seems to have found a mark in you.

It seems to be the usual scenario to duck the issues and sling mud. Good job.

[Peter_Puget]

The item that is missing is some intellectual honesty. Throwing up the straw man example - Why do you hate capitalism? - any time the pursuit of unmitigated greed and the its social consequences merely displays the lack of confidence by its adherents to reply to critics. No one is saying to throw out the baby with the bathwater. But to cling to the holy grail that the pure pursuit of financial gain is going to address social ills is folly.

 

Also note the lack of any criticism by the Friedmanites of the lack of free capitalism in this country. Huge corporate subsidies and tax breaks, favorable public policy for merely opening a business in a jurisdiction, huge non-bid contracting through political connections. Most complaints are not about capitalism but unbridled capitalism that verges into plurocracy. As long as the corporations and individuals with political power get a break that's called the free market. Try and come up with a solution that doesn't do away with capitalism, but merely trims around the edges and the fanatics begin to yell socialism, communism, blah, blah. It seems to be the usual scenario to duck the issues and sling mud. Good job.

 

 

WOW Jim you are truly amazing. You talk about "intellectual honesty" yet you could not admit that you were wrong about what a Seattle Times article said. Have you no freakin shame?

 

As far as straw man arguments go your post is a perfect example.......it also gets a good grade for being an ad hominem argument as well.

 

By the way I have stated several times in threads you have participated in that the best "corporate" tax rate is zero. I know Jayb has argued against government subsidies in several threads.

 

Chatter on.

 

 

 

 

[mattp]

heh heh.

 

...

 

Ostensibly, PP's link addresses the topic of "intellectuals" ("wordsmith intellectuals") and a disproportionate anti-capitalism bent among that group.

 

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!

[Jim]

Matt - don't go letting critical thinking enter the picture. Try diversion. It seems the usual tactic.

[Dechristo]

...as you are practicing.

 

If you have a problem with the essay, refute the article and it's particulars. Discredit its notions specifically that it may become "mud".

[Jim]

I'm sensing a lack of security in your position. Rather than address the issues raised you'll point to another linkly link. Here's the scoop again. Any argument on how capitalism might be modified is looked as a slippery slope for the Friedman adhereists. It's quite entertaining to see how they tie themselves in pretzels trying to explain how 0 taxes on corportions will set us free, how subsidies to agribusinness is less of an issue than raising the minimum wage once every 10 yrs, and the burden, or the burden that the corporte elite are carrying upon their shoulders. It's just crushing. Amazing how any business can get done under such unfavorable conditions in the US. It's, well it's analogous to a sweatshop environment, it is for GE for crying out loud.

 

Gotta pack for work in AK - see ya.

[tvashtarkatena]

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.

 

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

[Peter_Puget]

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.

 

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

 

I wonder if any of you intellectual heavyweights have ever read Ricardo......

 

 

 

[Peter_Puget]

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.

 

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

 

I wonder if any of you intellectual heavyweights have ever read Ricardo......

 

 

 

[archenemy]

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.

 

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

 

I wonder if any of you intellectual heavyweights have ever read Ricardo......

 

 

No, but Ricard is one of my heros. Happen to have

[JayB]

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.

 

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.

 

 

[JayB]

heh heh.

 

...

 

Ostensibly, PP's link addresses the topic of "intellectuals" ("wordsmith intellectuals") and a disproportionate anti-capitalism bent among that group.

 

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

 

 

[JayB]

so what it boils down to is that the 'poor' mexicans want wall-mart. the leftist intellectuals think it is bad for the poor and that the poor aren't smart enough to know it.

 

....the leftist intellectuals are elitist pricks.

 

 

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?

 

 

[Peter_Puget]

Jayb -

 

Don't confuse an intellectual not liking capitalism and intellectual = socialist. Nozick also wrote an essay enittled something like: "Who Would Choose Socialism." Again an interesting read.

 

RHkgMLXY7wg

[JayB]

The item that is missing is some intellectual honesty. Throwing up the straw man example - Why do you hate capitalism? - any time the pursuit of unmitigated greed and the its social consequences merely displays the lack of confidence by its adherents to reply to critics. No one is saying to throw out the baby with the bathwater. But to cling to the holy grail that the pure pursuit of financial gain is going to address social ills is folly.

 

Also note the lack of any criticism by the Friedmanites of the lack of free capitalism in this country. Huge corporate subsidies and tax breaks, favorable public policy for merely opening a business in a jurisdiction, huge non-bid contracting through political connections. Most complaints are not about capitalism but unbridled capitalism that verges into plurocracy. As long as the corporations and individuals with political power get a break that's called the free market. Try and come up with a solution that doesn't do away with capitalism, but merely trims around the edges and the fanatics begin to yell socialism, communism, blah, blah. It seems to be the usual scenario to duck the issues and sling mud. Good job.

 

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.