Again, you make an assumption that the environmental issues are a direct result of greater scale an efficiency. If a corporate farm is irresponsibly dumping hog waste in the North Carolina wetlands, that is not a direct result of more scalable hog farming. That is a problem with the standards set which regulate the industry. Think carefully before jumping to any conclusion that that type of irresponsibility doesn't occur on a smaller scale! I guess it's too late... you already called family farms "more ecological". Hogwash!! I grew up on a small family farm myself, btw. It was surrounded by other family farms. Out of all of them, I can't think of a single one that wouldn't have had the EPA climbing all over them at one point or another had the EPA been all knowing. I guess small scale atrocities, albeit thousands of them, don't compare to the "evil corporation" tactics, huh?
I absolutely agree that big business is more cut throat however, and that it partially contributes to it's success. However, I would hardly be ready to generally categorize the small family farms as "more ethical". I don't think it's ethical to take a handout from the government to preserve "MY" personal way of life. Sure, I don't find it nearly as pleasant or satisfying to move into a city. My first choice would be to live out my life how I grew up, which would require everyone else to subsidize my existence. Don't you think that's a bit selfish though? How ethical is that? How widespread is that selfishness today?
The economies of scale are undeniable, and as a society we would be idiots not to try to take advantage of them. That in no way implies that it should go unregulated per environmental concerns of course.
Another "Walmart is evil" disciple. While I'm not with you, you're certainly not alone. A couple points:
First, Walmart hasn't even existed for any "long run", so there is little anyone can claim about it. Next, you're right- local businesses re-invest in other local businesses more than Walmart does. Walmart is more efficent, and they pass this on to consumers. A penny saved IS a penny earned, by the way. Furthermore, efficiency improvements anywhere are usually bad for those doing things "the old way". Yet, they're good for the masses, and good for the long run. History has proven that in clear terms.
It would be pretty naive of me to suggest that our economic progression is %100 percent positive, but that's why I don't say it. I think you're right about unchecked capitalism too. American capitalism appears to me to be well checked though... many times over checked.
Standards and rules are great, and certainly necessary. We just need to be careful and remember to consider the big picture, natural evolution, and ALL possible benefits of every situation instead of simply focusing on the popular emotional negatives.
If in 5 decades, we had nothing but Walmart and Xmart which carried all products, at lower and lower prices all the time... that's not necessarily a bad thing. If job positions get eliminated along the way to greater efficiency, it's natural and good. This is true even if it creates isolated "adjustment struggles" for some people along the way. e.g. The evolution from the 5 acre farm w/ horse drawn plow to the 5000 acre farms of today. Thousands of people, families, etc. on the wrong end of the evolutionary curve in that industry have been forced through a struggle, and eventually have no place at all in the industry. But would we be better off today had we made sure evolution due to efficiency increases didn't occur? That seems to parallel with the case most Walmart haters seem to make. It's emotional, short sighted, and egocentric about the current state of affairs.
Call me a frother I guess. Unless that means I want totally open free trade TODAY. Long term, it's best for everyone. Every single statement converse to that seems to be flawed terribly with one or more of the following: -ignoring benefits to lowered costs shared by consumers -bad assumptions -hypocrisy in caring about general human welfare -kneejerk reaction to natural evolution of business -being extremely egocentric about this little slice of time we live in.
You have a bad assumption: Your statement implies that the sum total standard of living on earth not only is not increasing, but remains constant! If one goes up, another must go down, etc.
I sense the kneejerk flaw there too... so many Americans see some factory close, a mom and pop storefront close, all out of inability to compete. Devestating to those groups, sure. But it's small, and isolated. It is also natural evolution of business ANYTIME efficiency is increased. It's been that way throughout civilization. You don't see many blacksmiths around anymore do you? There are hundreds of examples, but you get the idea. The answer is NOT to subsidize the blacksmith, unless of course the phase out is unnaturally fast or large scale, in which case subsidizing is justified.
A factory closing here and there or non bloated engineering wages are not significant enough signs to convince me that the US is currently outsourcing beyond the danger threshold.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, you make an assumption that the environmental issues are a direct result of greater scale an efficiency. If a corporate farm is irresponsibly dumping hog waste in the North Carolina wetlands, that is not a direct result of more scalable hog farming. That is a problem with the standards set which regulate the industry. Think carefully before jumping to any conclusion that that type of irresponsibility doesn't occur on a smaller scale! I guess it's too late... you already called family farms "more ecological". Hogwash!! I grew up on a small family farm myself, btw. It was surrounded by other family farms. Out of all of them, I can't think of a single one that wouldn't have had the EPA climbing all over them at one point or another had the EPA been all knowing. I guess small scale atrocities, albeit thousands of them, don't compare to the "evil corporation" tactics, huh?
I absolutely agree that big business is more cut throat however, and that it partially contributes to it's success. However, I would hardly be ready to generally categorize the small family farms as "more ethical". I don't think it's ethical to take a handout from the government to preserve "MY" personal way of life. Sure, I don't find it nearly as pleasant or satisfying to move into a city. My first choice would be to live out my life how I grew up, which would require everyone else to subsidize my existence. Don't you think that's a bit selfish though? How ethical is that? How widespread is that selfishness today?
The economies of scale are undeniable, and as a society we would be idiots not to try to take advantage of them. That in no way implies that it should go unregulated per environmental concerns of course.
Another "Walmart is evil" disciple. While I'm not with you, you're certainly not alone. A couple points: First, Walmart hasn't even existed for any "long run", so there is little anyone can claim about it. Next, you're right- local businesses re-invest in other local businesses more than Walmart does. Walmart is more efficent, and they pass this on to consumers. A penny saved IS a penny earned, by the way. Furthermore, efficiency improvements anywhere are usually bad for those doing things "the old way". Yet, they're good for the masses, and good for the long run. History has proven that in clear terms. It would be pretty naive of me to suggest that our economic progression is %100 percent positive, but that's why I don't say it. I think you're right about unchecked capitalism too. American capitalism appears to me to be well checked though... many times over checked. Standards and rules are great, and certainly necessary. We just need to be careful and remember to consider the big picture, natural evolution, and ALL possible benefits of every situation instead of simply focusing on the popular emotional negatives. If in 5 decades, we had nothing but Walmart and Xmart which carried all products, at lower and lower prices all the time... that's not necessarily a bad thing. If job positions get eliminated along the way to greater efficiency, it's natural and good. This is true even if it creates isolated "adjustment struggles" for some people along the way. e.g. The evolution from the 5 acre farm w/ horse drawn plow to the 5000 acre farms of today. Thousands of people, families, etc. on the wrong end of the evolutionary curve in that industry have been forced through a struggle, and eventually have no place at all in the industry. But would we be better off today had we made sure evolution due to efficiency increases didn't occur? That seems to parallel with the case most Walmart haters seem to make. It's emotional, short sighted, and egocentric about the current state of affairs.
Call me a frother I guess. Unless that means I want totally open free trade TODAY. Long term, it's best for everyone. Every single statement converse to that seems to be flawed terribly with one or more of the following:
-ignoring benefits to lowered costs shared by consumers
-bad assumptions
-hypocrisy in caring about general human welfare
-kneejerk reaction to natural evolution of business
-being extremely egocentric about this little slice of time we live in.
You have a bad assumption: Your statement implies that the sum total standard of living on earth not only is not increasing, but remains constant! If one goes up, another must go down, etc.
I sense the kneejerk flaw there too... so many Americans see some factory close, a mom and pop storefront close, all out of inability to compete. Devestating to those groups, sure. But it's small, and isolated. It is also natural evolution of business ANYTIME efficiency is increased. It's been that way throughout civilization. You don't see many blacksmiths around anymore do you? There are hundreds of examples, but you get the idea. The answer is NOT to subsidize the blacksmith, unless of course the phase out is unnaturally fast or large scale, in which case subsidizing is justified.
A factory closing here and there or non bloated engineering wages are not significant enough signs to convince me that the US is currently outsourcing beyond the danger threshold.