DoggieHeadTilt

6 Responses to “Boxed In”

1. Tim Says:
   January 9th, 2012 at 9:21 am

   Very interesting. Thanks, Mike.

2. Brody Bond Says:
   January 12th, 2012 at 2:22 pm

   The food there is less expensive, but at what cost?

   Are the retail cost savings are a result of huge farm subsidies? Do the savings occur at the expense of real nutrition? Are there longer-term and more expensive health ramifications (for the poor)?

   Ultimately, your piece seems to presuppose that the poor are always helped by lower retail prices.

   I’m not suggesting that’s necessarily wrong… I’m just suggesting that’s a HUGE presupposition.

   brody

3. Mike Metzger Says:
   January 13th, 2012 at 8:25 am

   Brody:

   Your juxtapositions don’t work. Cost savings are due more to mass production, efficiencies in shipping, distribution, and storage, as well as improved food preservation and year ’round food production. There are very few “huge” farm subsidies that I am aware of, although they do of course exist. The retail cost savings do not occur at the expense of “real” nutrition (is there “false” nutrition?) but rather operate on the assumption that when people are treated as responsible, intelligent, and creative, they are more likely to act that way. The poor have been largely stripped of their dignity by paternalistic Progressive payouts over the last 100 years. Now viewed as victims, the enemy becomes crass capitalists rather than coddling Congressmen. My piece does not ultimately say that poor are always helped by lower retail prices but the evidence indicates that, in many cases, they are.

4. brody bond Says:
   January 15th, 2012 at 1:11 pm

   “The retail cost savings do not occur at the expense of “real” nutrition.”

   Twinkee + Coke is less expensive than an apple. This is largely due to corn subsidies.

   I know this is simplistic – and I agree with you about coddling – but my less-informed perspective would say that right and fair pricing is better for the poor (and everyone) than simply “lower pricing.” Seems more sustainable and shalom-seeking.

   And Hostess just filed for bankruptcy.

5. merrill Says:
   January 17th, 2012 at 7:13 am

   Brody,
   WalMart is not responsible for the subsidies. WalMart buys their own goods in the same wholesale market as every other grocer, they just have organized their business in a way that allows them to offer products to consumers at lower prices. The nutritional content of their food is not different from what it is when sold at Safeway or any other outlet. This essay simply says that WalMart can sell things cheaper. They sell apples cheaper and they also sell Twinkies cheaper. It’s up to the consumers to decide what to buy.

   Low prices benefit everyone by raising their income in what is known as the “income effect” of falling prices. It just means that for the same amount of income you can buy more stuff. It’s like you have more income. Whether or not the stuff is bad for you is not relevant.

6. Mike Metzger Says:
   January 18th, 2012 at 12:04 am

   Thank you Merrill.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website