[extropy-chat] Seven cents an hour? (was: Riots in

[Jack Parkinson]

> From: "John K Clark" <jonkc at att.net>
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Seven cents an hour? (was: Riots in
>>
> Jack Parkinson <isthatyoujack at icqmail.com>
>

>> Would these figures be overall better or worse in the hypothetical
>> scenario that Wal Mart was replaced by a host of smaller operators?
>> My guess is that smaller operators might well be better.
>
John said:
> Then why didn't they do better? You talk about a "hypothetical scenario" 
> but
> there is nothing hypothetical about it.  Wal-Mart DID compete with mom and
> pop and the consumers DID vote with their wallets and Wal-Mart DID win; 
> and
> we didn't need to worry about shadowy government agencies using dubious
> economic models and subjective judgments about what "benefits" society the
> most economically, artistically, morally and culturally. That is far far 
> too
> much power to have!

This whole response of yours is one failure after another to answer the 
question I posed. I don't MIND discussing how Wal Mart got ahead of the 
pack - but what is relevant here is:

Is their business model efficient or not? I am saying here and now it is 
not. You are giving me a lot of peripheral, diversionary, incidental 
remarks - like the 'points' below and above) and pointedly failing to 
address the question.
>
> Oh and by the way, Wal-Mart was once a mom and pop store too.
>
>> taxpayer contributions in the form of government support to support the
>> company are a drag on efficiency
> John said:
> I agree, so eliminate any form of government support of the company if 
> there
> is any, and there probably is; with government so bloated money seeps out 
> of
> the treasury to anyone who had their hand out, so stop bailing out the
> employees too.

You agree? So what you are now saying in effect is that your previous 
argument holds no water and can be set aside? A simple "Excuse me, I was 
wrong - I didn't check the facts" would suffice.


> Well, what you're suggesting is certainly 180 degrees away from the 
> original
> Extropian principles, but "heretical" gives your words a grandeur they do
> not deserve; "juvenile" would be a little more accurate.
>    John K Clark

Really? And I suppose you can explain/justify these remarks as well?
Jack Parkinson