Quote:
They both grossly undervalue economies at the cost of future economic growth.


I would really like to know why you say this.

The net effect on second and third world manufacturing providers is positive for both sides. We get low cost products, freeing up our human resources to do research and development (granting a compromise of this by the flood of illegals). They get a source of income that isnt World Bank loans and handouts. The people develop manufacturing skills that lead to a potential middle class.

From what Ive seen, Wal Mart does have a couple of problems. One is the aforementioned risk of monopoly. The other is their abuse of American goods providers. Wal Mart will put an American supplier out of business since they have government protection through a degraded legal system and common graft, and since they have so much purchasing power they can dominate small suppliers.

But the net effect of Wal Mart, and of capitalism, is definitely positive.

Attacks on capitalism, including many on Wal Mart, follow the zero sum myth. The Zero Sum myth goes something like this: Peter sells Paul a widget for 10 dollars on Tuesday. The following Tuesday the same widget sells for 8 dollars. Paul got screwed and Peter is a thief. Or, Peter has widgets. Paul needs widgets. But, at the time Paul decides to buy a widget, often because he is forced to by circumstances, there is no supply of widgets. So Peter drives to Pauls hometown and brings widgets at an increased cost, labor output, and risk. Peter of course sells his widgets for twice what they normally sell for. Paul got screwed and Peter is a thief.

The fallacy lies in the inability to understand the weights of value and need. Value changes, need changes, they dont change at the same rate, they dont change at the same magnitude, but, in allowing for flexibility, Paul gets what he need in a timely fashion and Peter gets what he needs. Contrary to the believers in the myth, both Peter and Paul are satisfied that their needs were met.

Joel.