Comments on: Defending Wal-Mart in The Alibi

By: Paul Gessing

Paul Gessing — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 02:03:03 +0000

A free market solution would improve our roads as well. But, the fact is that some kind of commercial development is slated for the site. Wal Mart is the best (and as far as I know, only) candidate to occupy the space that has come along. I see no reason why the government should suddenly decide to prevent such a development for the sole reason that it is Wal Mart.

By: Pat Gallagher

Pat Gallagher — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 15:53:55 +0000

Paul, where is the contradiction? Adding a Walmart is going to add to the traffic that already exists. Not adding a big box at a failed intersection costs in commute time but not in tax dollars to redesign and build a new intersection. We taxpayers will be picking up the tab just as we did for the Coors and I-40 Walmart. No thanks.

By: Paul Gessing

Paul Gessing — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 16:50:56 +0000

The government builds the roads and plans development and has indeed failed as government so often does. Of course, the plot of land where Wal Mart wants to put its store is already zoned commercial, so traffic is going to increase regardless.

Also, opponents of the Wal Mart often claim that “there are already several stores nearby” implying that the new store is somehow unnecessary and that they know best. In the next breath they cite the traffic problem. Which is it?

By: NOONBALLOON

NOONBALLOON — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 18:17:26 +0000

Wal-Mart is a multinational corporation dedicated to delivering value to its customers as well as its employee shareholders, not by beating their small local competition, but by providing the unmatched value that their competition are either unwilling or unable to provide. Equivalent to football or hockey, or any competitive team venture that is undertaken to establish the very best from a field of many, ordinary citizens can stand up and say “whose providing value for me…is it Government, perhaps my elected officials, or is it the place where I shop, or would like to shop, on a regular basis? It is Wal-Mart!” Fresh breezes, such as RGP, gather to side with the voiceless and to assure an accessible path for efficient enterprise to be given an equal opportunity to come into a community and provide maximum value.

Despite the failed efforts of public transportation (Andrew, feel free to chime in, here), the traffic mess at Coors and Montano is considered a failed intersection. Yet, Wal-Mart likely knows that they can partner with the community to overcome the failures of the city and its unionized employees.

Those in support of the weak minded (I’m seeing a name…Andrew), and of less value, not more, will attempt to diminish entry level accessible jobs, employee shareholders and low prices for the poor, with total ignorance of the system into which they inject themselves. However, and if ontogeny does indeed recapitulate phylogeny, then we should expect nothing less from these creature like developed MONSTERS.

By: Pat Gallagher

Pat Gallagher — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 13:00:52 +0000

Thanks for the clarification, Andrew.

Will, sorry for the traffic design jargon. A failed intersection is the condition when an intersection must handle more cars on a regular basis than it was (re)designed to carry. The failure cascades into affecting other nearby intersections.

I’ve never belonged to a labor union, have no reason to do that. Unions rise up when large scale employers mistreat their means of production. They teach, train and give the employes a voice. Perhaps it is our idea of mass employment that needs scrutiny. 20th century history is instructive on this.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 07:08:32 +0000

Well a lot of so called “libertarians” are very despotic and conformist for that matter.

So defending financial predators is some thing they’ll take great pride in.

By: Will

Will — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 01:46:31 +0000

Pat, what in the world is a “failed intersection”? I think it is you who spouts “silliness”. More progressive BS. It is all about union control.

By: Pat Gallagher

Pat Gallagher — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 23:19:30 +0000

Walmart is a multinational corporation dedicated to making a profit for its multinational shareholders, not by beating their small local competition, but destroying them. Equivalent to football or hockey played to break legs to vanquish the opponent. Ordinary citizens can stand up and say “this is no way play the game, “ but forces such as RGP gather to side with the nameless/faceless investors to assure an easy path for predator enterprise to come into a community and break small business.
Albuquerque’s big box ordinance is clear about large supply trucks making their pilgrimage through residential streets. This will not stop this very powerful Walmart from trying an end run. The Coors Corridor Development Plan is very clear about the placement of buildings. The traffic mess at Coors and Montano is considered a failed intersection, yet Walmart knows they can defeat all these objections by exercising their political influence (read campaign funds) over the city council. They will spout silliness about (minimum wage) jobs and low prices for the poor, with total ignorance of the system into which they inject themselves.
Somehow I expect a true libertarian blog to gravitate to small business and the health of the local community rather than defending a predatory multinational monster.

By: NM OBJECTIVIST

NM OBJECTIVIST — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 20:12:25 +0000

Shopping at Walmart is like getting a raise in salary. Low income people need that the most. The real reason the left hates Walmart is that it is non-union and sells groceries in competition with unionized grocery stores, thus putting them at a disadvantage.

It really is a union issue but you can’t tell that from listening to the left. And they are leftist and not progressives. They aren’t progressive about anything.