August 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            
Blog powered by Typepad

« Public and Private Sector Disaster Relief Summarized | Main | No Folk Songs FOR Capitalism, But There Is At Least ONE That is Anti-Communist! »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451eb0069e200e5516304148833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More Evidence for Wal-Mart's Nobel Prize:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Gee, Shane, copying and pasting someone else's work isn't even worth a professor's time to flunk it for plagiarism.

You evidently missed the entire point of the blog entry. Name one government program, just ONE, which worked as effectively as Wal-Mart's program. You can't. We're talking about a program that made Wal-Mart a profit, yet saved consumers $1 billion by giving them an alternative to higher prices. On the other hand, by 2006, Medicare Part D had *lost* $32 billion over 158 million prescriptions. That's $202.53 per prescription!

http://www.coxwashington.com/hp/content/reporters/stories/2007/11/01/BC_MEDICARE_DRUGS01_COX.html

Now, what if the feds had merely spent, oh, several million dollars to do no more than *refer* people to Wal-Mart, if their prescriptions could be filled generically?

You proceed from the fallacial belief that "making a profit" equals "not caring about the poor." Both are not only possible simultaneously, but in fact the best way to go. Proponents of a free market care about "the poor" far more than you realize. They care about poor people being lifted out of poverty by lasting economic changes, rather than the poor "assisted" by government programs (funded by coercive taxation) that merely give poor people incentives to remain in poverty.

Ah, Professor Horowitz, I guess you already deleted Shane's pithy comment?

It sickens me that people automatically link "profit" with "bad." If Americans-- from the "intellectuals" to the journalists to even the average folks-- don't pass Econ 101 and Common Sense 101, then we're all screwed.

Do they really give back a $1 billion to poor by achieving economies of scale? Is a dollar spurned a dollar earned?

Do they really give back a $1 billion to poor by achieving economies of scale? Is a dollar spurned a dollar earned?

Note I said "saved" not "gave back." And yes, a dollar you don't spend on X is a dollar you do have to spend on Y. "Falling prices" is essentially the same as "rising income."

The comments to this entry are closed.