Ruth Rosen opens today's column with the proclamation that she doesn't like video stores
WHEN TIMES GET tough, some people go shopping, but film lovers go to the movies. We also go to the video store, rent a few films, and all too often end up paying late fees.My first reaction is oh dear, Ruth Rosen is calling for a law against video store late fees. Maybe she wants to keep "9 1/2 Weeks" for ten and a half weeks but only have to pay for three days. But no, Ruth Rosen is praising the online DVD store Netflix as a better alternative to video stores.
Last month, Ruth Rosen was campaigning against Wal-Mart, partly because it puts locally owned businesses out of business. Netflix, if it gets bigger, may also cause some locally owned stores to go out of business. In both cases, it's just the destructive creativity of a consumer-driven economy doing its job. Ruth Rosen seems to understand the concept only when it makes her own life a little better. Perhaps there's hope she will one day learn how to generalize.
UPDATE I was cautiously optimistic that Ruth Rosen's embrace of Netflix might be a sign that she is beginning to understand the concept of a free market. But alas, I'm now wondering whether this praise of Netflix might be related to the fact that Wal-Mart recently announced that it was setting up a service to compete against Netflix and Ruth Rosen just wanted to support the evil Wal-Mart's rival? Wouldn't the joke be on Ruth Rosen if she just spent an entire column praising what might turn out to be Wal-Mart's next acquisition?
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 07, 2003 03:58 PMGive her credit where credit's due. At least she's being inconsistent.
Posted by: Xrlq on July 7, 2003 04:19 PMEmerson did say that "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". On the other hand, I don't think he ever said that a foolish inconsistency is evidence of genius.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on July 7, 2003 04:26 PMIn my book, consistency, foolish or otherwise, is a moral neutral. If your base principle is a good one (I hate late fees, so I'll take my business to the company that doesn't charge them), consistency with that principle is also generally good. If your base principle is something random (I hate late fees, so I won't rent anything on Tuesdays), then there's no good reason for anyone to care if you are consistent with that principle or not. And if your base principle is something truly bad (I hate businesses generally, so we need more government regulations), then the more inconsistent you are, the better.
By analogy, consider the popular notion that the optimist says the glass is half full and the pessimist says it's half empty. That rule was clearly written by an optimist, as it assumes that the contents of the 1/2 of the glass in question are something the optimist and pessimist would both want. If a true pessimist wrote the rule, he'd agree with the optimist that the glass was half full; he'd just think it was half full of mud (or worse) instead of whatever the optimist was thirsty for.
Posted by: Xrlq on July 7, 2003 10:02 PMI suspect that much of the loathing for Wal-Mart is due to elitist disdain for their ugly stores and for the often-unstylish people who shop there, rather than to any serious concern for local small business. Target also puts pressure on local small business, but I've never heard the same kind of disdain directed at them. This is probably due to their relatively stylish image. (All of which suits me fine; I'm a Target shareholder).
Note that liberals/leftists never express concern for small business in any other context--I doubt if Rosen would express concern about a governmental fiat that would put small enterprises out of business by the thousands...
Posted by: David Foster on July 8, 2003 08:00 AMIIRC, Michael Moore showed concern for small businesses. He wants them OUT of business.
Posted by: Dean on July 8, 2003 08:26 AMi think many many communities and property owners have benefitted greatly by being "elitist" when considering what kind of stores they want in their town.
A WalMart that decimates an entire downtown area of a city does little to help property values. What the community gets is empty stores and an eyesore that eventually end up getting bulldozed for other big block stores and oversized parking lots.
Ask any realtor and they'll tell you how a city or town with an aesthetic to their downtown area will have higher property values.
whats the trade off for the people of a community where WalMart moved in?- your household items are A LITTLE cheaper and your home is worth a LOT less.
but what does WalMart care about the communities they set up stores in? they don't - because the simple fact is, they don't live there.
simple as that.
Wow, horny, I'd LOVE to hear about a WalMart that "decimated" an entire downtown. My God, the carnage must be HORRIBLE!
Odd, though, that the property values in my neighborhood have gone UP since the nearby (less than a mile away) WalMart and Sam's Club were built. And, strangely, one of the things that gets whined about downtown Cincinnati is the utter lack of "big box" stores where the local population can afford to shop.
But, hey, we can't all live in Carmel or Santa Monica, can we?
Posted by: Robert Crawford on July 9, 2003 09:42 AMno we can';t all live in Carmel or Santa Monica, but we'd like our towns to be like that wouldn't we? Sorry you've given up.
WalMart does NOTHING for your community. You live in a community right? Do you remember what a community is? Its the people that live in an area and the biggest benefit they recieve living there is that they know each other and trust each other. They stick up for each other and they stand behind their community. One who complains that they MIGHT pay a little more from a local store is too self obsessed to see the benefits of living in a community.
Explain to me how WalMart contributes to your community. They don't.
When was the last time you were at a Little League game and WalMart funded the team? I remember the local hardware store doing that kind of thing. When was the last time the CEO of WalMart helped out with a charity in your community? i remember the owner of our local diner being very involved. When was the last time someone who worked at WalMart provided benches and tables for free for a block party in your neighborhood? I remember the owner of the liquor store doing that in mine.
Thats what the little extra you pay for and some "hi"s and "goodbye"s will get you in a community of local shops and merchants. It is about your communtiy. Communities raise your children. America was built on communities but the alternative of buying stuff fore a little bit cheaper and not caring is much easier for some i guess. Wal Mart cuts every corner they can to reap as much profit as possible and rob your community of character, aesthetic, and dignity.
i have absolutely no problem being called elitist if ithink some stores don't give back enough to live in my town. People who don't care should have no problem being called lazy and i dub you so.
Posted by: hornsofthedevil on July 9, 2003 12:03 PMOh, and you left out the part where the Wal-Mart droids are stored in the back room every night, since we know that no people in a town actually work there. It's all one big siphon to Wal-Mart Nexus. Opps, gotta go down to the local liquor store and get gouged for "the community".
Posted by: Harvard@Cal on July 10, 2003 04:16 PMwhat is the biggest shark in the world. A great white or a whale shark.
Posted by: brad on February 5, 2004 06:57 PM