Sammy and Dean-o

Yes indeed, poor people should "suck it up" and pay more money for necessities at other retailers in order to avoid WalMart. At least I think The Dean appears to agree with my previous post on this subject, although this admission is wrapped in bombast. He says:

one should not support unjust global work conditions because the poor cannot afford to be politically correct with spending dollars

Those who are familiar with the self-styled 'Dean of Cincinnati' will recognize this as vintage critique - thundering self-righteousness about how people should behave mixed with ambiguous attribution. My original post deliberately focused on the practical, negative economic impact on the working poor if activists are successful (either with handing out flyers or tapping out blog posts) in warning people away from WalMart. The impact will be uncomfortable, but perhaps WalMart's recent increased sales of Johnson & Johnson's 'K-Y' product line will come in handy.

While dismissing my premise as "simplistic", The Dean nonetheless peddles a simplistic narrative of his own:

many Wal-Mart employees are on a budget, and as such they shop at Wal-Mart to save their dollars. These profits in turn get shipped to Arkansas. Instead of a thriving local economy working as capitalism is designed, the Wal-Mart corporation in Arkansas gets filled coffers.

Aside from the fact that capitalism isn't "designed" - and nor has it ever been focused exclusively on local needs - let's follow this along. What do they do with those profits, Jason? Eat them? Stuff them in their nose and dance in circles around a picture of Sam Walton? Perhaps the notion of a publicly-held company is beyond this Dean, but it's not beyond the majority of shareholders who get the leftover money when the Waltons finish building their castle of skulls.

Shareholders like, for example, Justin Jeffre, the recent candidate for mayor in Cincinnati and former boy-band member. Jeffre had his leg humped enthusiastically by The Dean because he railed against big money in the political process. Of course, when it was later revealed that the campaign was fueled by a portfolio of stock holdings in major corporations, including WalMart, The Dean (who usually adores hypocrisy) was conspicuously silent.

The word "profits" is enough to start people hissing in some circles. It's a conversational end point for them, since the explanation of human evil has been isolated. Some don't like the idea that markets and the profit motive are a better economic motivator than a righteous sense of outrage. We all agree that small businesses are a better alternative than WalMart - but don't fool yourself into thinking that Mom and Pop are doing it out of charity.

This conversation is circular and pointless for several reasons, not the least of which is that we agree on the essentials: WalMart has gotten big, and something needs to function as a corrective - but my guess is none of the shoppers who visit WalMart are going to change their buying decisions on the basis of what gets said on weblogs.