Tim Worstall takes on Wal-Mart's critics over at TCS. Worstall's right insofar as it goes, but mainly because Wal-Mart's liberal critics make it so easy for him to defend Wal-Mart. The liberal critique basically says: let's force Wal-Mart to pay higher wages and provide grater benefits. Worstall correctly shows that this will cause Wal-Mart to cut staff. Simple supply and demand Econ 101.
The trouble is that liberal Wal-Mart critics don't want to get after the real issue, because the real issue with Wal-Mart involves a critique of big government. As I've observed before:
even if the subsidies given Wal-Mart by many local communities to encourage opening a store are not as large as Wal-Mart's critics claim, does anyone seriously doubt that Wal-Mart often gets breaks on things like zoning, property or sales taxes, and other regulatory issues that small business competitors don't receive?
I freely admit that much of my dislike for Wal-Mart is rooted in aesthetics, but it's also got a free market component. I'd find Wal-Mart much less objectionable if it stood on its own two feet instead of leaning on government subsidies.
This is why the debate over Wal-Mart is so uninformative. Wal-Mart's liberal critics would have to admit that big government is part of the problem, while Wal-Mart's conservative defenders would have to admit that their hero would have a much harder time competing in a truly free market. And neither is willing to do so.
