Some Random Blogger Gets Markets Better Than Darwin
Over at Buckhorn Road, Chanman writes about how the local JC Penney’s store is only accepting bilingual applicants. Indignant, he avers he will never shop at Penney’s in protest of this policy. He then writes:
I realize that JC Penney is a private company, and if they want Spanish-speaking employees, then as a private company, I believe they have the right to follow this wrong-headed employment requirement if they wish. However, as a consumer who is free to shop anywhere I please, I am under no compulsion to do business with JC Penney, and I am likewise perfectly free to criticize JC Penney for a company requirement that is fundamentally wrong. From now on, I’ll buy my t-shirts and dress shoes elsewhere.
Well lookie here. Chanman understands that companies can’t force him to do their bidding. He also prefers that the state not be used to force companies to do his bidding. Notice that he is free to take his business elsewhere when a company does something he is dissatisfied with. I wonder if he has ever been dissatisfied with state decision and was able to take his business to another state in protest. I just forgot, he can’t do that cause unlike JC Penney’s, the state has a monopoly on coercion.
I wonder if JC Penney’s stands to make more by being more amenable to Spanish speaking immigrants even though they will shell a small segment of their current shoppers. What better way to find out then to leave it up to the free markets to decide. Capitalism is there anything it can’t do?
February 13th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Last time I was in JCPenney (a couple months ago) a significant proportion of the shoppers there appeared to be of Latin descent, so this is probably a smart move on Penney’s part
February 13th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Wait, it’s illegal to move from one state to another? When did that happen?
Also yes JC Penny doesn’t have much coercive power. Do you feel the same was true of AT&T back before the government split them up?
February 13th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
As mentioned before, and no doubt will be mentioned again, the so-called monopoly of AT&T was chiefly a result of state policies. I will gladly concede that in a government controlled markets company monopolies are bad. But this is mostly because these companies have the coercive force of government to prevent people from going to other companies.
Suppose a ban same sex marriage were to pass. Would you say that the state does not have the power to prevent same sex marriage because they can move to another nation? Using that kind of argumentation one could easily say racist state policies are toothless because the minority group could always move to another country.
February 15th, 2008 at 9:58 am
So are you saying that no monopolies or cabals or etc could EVER form without government backing? I’m skeptical. Also, if you do believe that government helping companies corrupts the free market you love so much, why don’t you want campaign finance reform to give companies less influence over the government? It seems like by your own arguments, the more influence corporations are allowed to have over the government, the less we can trust those corporations (because they can co-opt the governments coercive power).
Actually you’re more in favor of people moving than me, as we went over way back when we were arguing about small local governments vs. big federal government (you like local government partly because it’s easier to move away from; I like federal government because I think even moving to a new city is really hard if you have a good job and your kids have friends and etc, and federal governments have a much much harder time passing crazy, oppressive measures than small local governments.
But, your own argument was: “I wonder if he has ever been dissatisfied with state decision and was able to take his business to another state in protest”, so that’s where I started.
So if we’re talking about Federal government, yes, I don’t want too much interference, especially in things that don’t hurt anyone who isn’t voluntarily doing business with a company and is aware of the risks/costs. I DO feel that if I’m not buying from a corporation, and that corporation is still hurting me (with pollution in my neighborhood, say) then it isn’t an economic transaction at all, free markets aren’t involved, and they should be prosecuted normally.
If we’re talking about the state-by-state or even city-by-city level, where most of the regulatory measures you get upset about actually happen, it seems like YOU are in favor of stronger and less alisez-faire regulations being passed at that level, and people moving to wherever they like best.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Man o man. You state:
Well duh. This is why I argue heavily against regulations and laws used to constrain industries. They mostly serve as an avenue for politicians to be ‘corrupted’ by lobbyists. It’s elk of your kind that provides a steady stream of opportunity for ‘corruption’ in the political class.
As to this other part, regarding where in the political landscape laws should be enacted and enforced, I have this to say. Its always the case that laws no matter where they are enacted, will harm a group of people.
If its the case that laws will harm some groups of people, where in the landscape would you like those laws to be enacted. Would you prefer they be enacted locally or at the federal level? Ideally one would want laws enacted where they get the most concentrated popular support.
In locations where there is a high concentration of support for a law, I would certainly recommend that the dissenters seek other locations to evade the offending laws.
The problem with federal laws is that virtually impossible for such laws to not run against pockets of highly concentrated people that oppose the law. For example, the Supreme Court ruling that magically created a right to abortion forced many city and state populations with high concentrations of people that opposed abortion to allow it. Another example is the current Supreme Court review of banning firearms in DC. If the Supreme Court prudently determines that owning firearms is a constitutional right then the concentrated pro gun control group will be forced to allow a minority pro gun group to own firearms.
I would be willing to bet that the VAST majority of federal laws come about through the hands of a minority group that wishes to force its beliefs down the throats of a majority group within their region. I have a problem with this. I will always have a problem with one group of people thinking that they way is the right way and finding a way to use government to force others to follow suit.
February 17th, 2008 at 3:19 am
Man do I love that solution. You never talk out against subsidies and state-sponsored monopolies (until after I biring it up), the regulations you speak against are polution controls, emmissions standards, trans-fat bans, consumer-protection measures, etc. I don’t think THOSE are the regulations that big corporations are buying up senators to get passed. Your position is basically:
‘Yes, if we let the corporations bribe politicians, they’ll use governmental power to gain coercive power. So, let’s let them keep bribing politicians, but argue heavily against regulations and laws used to constrain industries.’
Yeah, that’ll show those darn state-sponsored coercive corporations!
I agree with your characterization of federal versus local laws and regulations; were you expressing some opinion about these facts? Yes, you should be far more wary of passing any given law at a federal level than at a local level. I’m ok with Chicago trying out a trans-fat ban for a few years if that’s what the people want, no way would I (or the electorate) allow it on a federal level. What’s your position?
“I would be willing to bet that the VAST majority of federal laws come about through the hands of a minority group that wishes to force its beliefs down the throats of a majority group within their region. ”
WOW, hyperbole much? You may want to specify ‘bills passed in the Senate in the last fifty years’ rather than ‘federal laws’. Here’s a brief list of a few things that are technically ‘Federal Law’:
-The Constitution and Bill of Rights
-All international law
-All military law, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice
-All federal tax law
-All copyright and patent law
-Interstate commerce laws
-Drug trafficking laws
-Child Pornography laws
-Bankruptcy law
and etc. etc.
Much of the permanent and well-established federal law is codified in the ‘United States Code’, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Code