Re: Wal-Mart and Globization

[Greg Brown <gregb@alaskapacific.edu>]

Robert Anton-Erik wrote:

> I was struck by one of the points made in the AP article Greg included in
> his post--that in both communities it was consumers who wanted Wal-Mart
> and the established businesses who didn't. And the article seems to imply
> that the anti-Wal-Mart organizations formed in both communities were
> defeated because the consumers wanted Wal-Mart.

    I think that is a fair reading of the situation.  It does notsurprise me
that Alaskans want Wal-Mart just like other
communities across America.  Businesses
opposed to Wal-Mart are going to be perceived as
being only interested in self-preservation.  This is
true in part, but not in entirety.  Unlike the famous quote
about General Motors, it just might be true that
what is good for small business *is* good for the
community.  Size and diversity matter.

> Isn't this the way our economic system is supposed to work? Most people
> want (or perhaps think they want) what Wal-Mart, et. al. have to
> offer: cheap and disposable consumer goods.

   Our economic system is supposed to provide competitionand diversity, both
of which are antithetical to Wal-Mart.
People want Wal-Mart because people strongly discount
the future (and who can blame them?).   The real cost of
Wal-Mart coming to town--economic
and social dislocation--is a cost that the whole community
pay in the future.  This market information is never reflected
in the cost of the goods purchased.  But what the heck...
that's the American creed...buy now, pay later.

> Obviously established business don't want to see Wal-Mart come into their
> area. But, that's anti-competitive. Should these businesses be granted a
> monopoly?

    No, these businesses should not be granted a monopoly but atleast their
size does not preclude future entry of
other small businesses.  Business diveristy is what makes
communities so unique and vital.  It is the diversity of businesses,
not necessarily the businesses themselves, that warrants
protection.

    Analogy:  Brown snakes.  They are adaptable creatures.  On
certain Pacific Islands they can decimate very diverse, indigenous
wildlife.   No serious ecologist would argue that we allow
these snakes to enter these islands because the outcome is
predictable.  The diversity of animal (and eventually plant)
life will be greatly diminished.

   And yet, we refuse to acknowledge this same principle
to protect business diversity in our communities.  How is
it that diversity can be so valuable in the ecological world
and be worth nothing in the social world?

> Is it an anti-trust issue for businesses to band together to
> prevent competition? While pondering these issues, consider if it was
> Microsoft trying to prevent Wal-Martsoft from coming into
> "their" community. Does that change your perspective at all?

   I would argue that the business community itself should notbe the
gatekeeper.  From my perspective, it should be
citizen groups backed by local government who should
carry the banner of diversity.  Wal-Mart
is not a problem for small businesses to
"work out"--it is a community wide issue.

   Back to Brown snakes...one could say let the small
animals on the Pacific islands "work it out"--after all,
it is their problem...they are the ones who are going to
get eaten.  But what if these animals fail to work it out?
Aren't we all a little more impoverished by
the loss of diversity?


--
Greg Brown, Associate Professor
(gregb@alaskapacific.edu)
Alaska Pacific University
(907) 564-8267
Fax: (907) 562-4276