freeman’s written an especially good response to Karen DeCoster’s objections to his criticisms of WalMart. I happened upon yet another WalMart related post via Mises’ blog. It’s an endorsement of Progressive Wal-Mart. Really. by Sebastian Mallaby [ 28 November 2005 Washington Post ]
Mallaby begins by asserting that WalMart is good for poor Americans because it provides cheaper goods. Kevin Carson revisits sweatshop apologists here.
I want to add that Cafe Hayek’s introduction, “But then, having teed up the ball, Mallaby proceeds to drive it out of sight,” to Mallaby’s statements equating the Medicaid system to national healthcare (which follow), is idiotic. It’s difficult to fathom a person of Mallaby’s calibre (he worked 13 years for The Economist of London) would make the analogy unless he intended to pander to morons, although the possibility does exist that Mallaby is one himself.
Wal-Mart’s critics also paint the company as a parasite on taxpayers, because 5 percent of its workers are on Medicaid. Actually that’s a typical level for large retail firms, and the national average for all firms is 4 percent. Moreover, it’s ironic that Wal-Mart’s enemies, who are mainly progressives, should even raise this issue. In the 1990s progressives argued loudly for the reform that allowed poor Americans to keep Medicaid benefits even if they had a job. Now that this policy is helping workers at Wal-Mart, progressives shouldn’t blame the company. Besides, many progressives favor a national health system. In other words, they attack Wal-Mart for having 5 percent of its workers receive health care courtesy of taxpayers when the policy that they support would increase that share to 100 percent.
And since when do the Democrats support national health care?