Comments on The Store That Ate Britain!

Go to Making Free Marketeers Angry - Add a comment - Go to The Store That Ate Britain!

Good Theory...

...and I am pushing it myself!

However, I think you're right - it's an unlikely goal!

Cheers!

D

posted by DamonLeigh on July 26, 2005 at 5:36 AM | link to this | reply

Addendum: "Dubious"

because I am not convinced that a sufficient number of people will act on their preference for smaller stores (or even have that preference to begin with) to influence the market that way. But if they did, the theory would work well.

posted by Dylan24 on July 26, 2005 at 5:01 AM | link to this | reply

You're welcome, dude...

...and let me advance a (dubious) marketist argument that if enough people evince the same preference for smaller stores, supermarkets would have to compete with the more-highly-demanded smaller businesses.

posted by Dylan24 on July 26, 2005 at 5:00 AM | link to this | reply

Me Too! And...

...I have to say that, personally, I haven't been in a supermarket for about four years. The massive choice and low prices simply don't out-weigh the reality that lies behind those numbers.

I make a point of shopping only in individual outlets. Yes, I pay more, but so what? I truly dread the day when there are ONLY supermarkets to shop in, because all the smaller traders have whithered away on the vine, taken out by the greater buying power and marketing power of the giant players.

Thanks for reading, dude!

D

posted by DamonLeigh on July 25, 2005 at 3:19 AM | link to this | reply

You emphasize the crucial point: lower prices can mean (as they especially do in the case of Wal-Mart) mean lower wages and fewer health benefits (in the U.S. most people get their health insurance through their jobs), both for workers at home and abroad.

This is an area where ordinary people like you and me have to take responsibility. It's easy to blast the executives at Wal-Mart. (They certainly have earned every harsh word uttered against their treatment of workers.)

More personally implicating is acknowledging that a lot of us regular folks patronize these companies because of their lower prices, not considering the effect this has on the people who manufacture the goods (to say nothing of the environment).

If we want a better deal for our workers, and those abroad, we are going to have to accept higher prices. Of course, this is no substitute for having a social policy that protects against poverty (such policy in the U.S. is far more limited than in Western Europe, of course).

The advantage of doing it through taxation and anti-poverty spending is that the cost is distributed fairly evenly among citizens, with those most able to pay paying the most, those least able to pay paying the least (instead of paying higher prices, which would disproportionately affect the poor, who spend a greater share of their income on consumer goods). Still, I'd take a mix of higher taxes and higher prices over the status quo any day.

posted by Dylan24 on July 24, 2005 at 3:07 PM | link to this | reply