WALMART (COMMENT). Kids, Dick Weisfelder’s comments here about Walmart have general applicability to a lot of economic changes. Similar issues with the Industrial Revolution have not been settled. (Briefly, consumers benefited from cheaper cloth, but weavers and spinners suffered. How do you weigh the pluses and minuses?). Walmart presents the issues clearly because Walmart is so big and because the Walmart customers who benefit from lower prices are presumed to be relatively less well off so that the benefits of lower prices can be seen as redistributing income.
Categories
Archives
Recent Comments
- Gary Nuetzel on THE OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE STARTS ITS 32ND SEASON. (COMMENT).
- Francesca on EATING PEAS WITH A KNIFE.
- avon wilsmore on CHEATING IN CHAMPIONSHIP BRIDGE.
- Anonymous on THE LANGUAGE WEIRDNESS INDEX.
- James Friscia on THE SECOND OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE.
- Ken Babcock on THE SECOND OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE.
- Lickity Splitfingers on THE SECOND OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE.
- Ken Babcock on THE OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE STARTS ITS 32ND SEASON. (COMMENT).
- David Quemere on THE OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE STARTS ITS 32ND SEASON. (COMMENT).
- Nicholas Schaefer on THE SECOND OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE.
Meta
As Barack points out, a genuinely progressive income tax with minimal loopholes can promote redistribution of income and opportunity. But slightly lower prices on blue jeans and toilet paper? Get real!