Monday, November 07, 2005


I often hear the accusation that Wal-Mart destroys communities. While they certainly drive out competitors ( often small businesses that have been around for generations) it doesn't seem logical that they destroy communities or their local economies. If people were actually devastated, then how would they be able to shop at Wal-Mart. Does it make since for Wal-Mart to invest millions to destroy their competition and customer base and then leave town? I would agree that the aesthetics of main street are often destroyed and that is a great and horrible cost, but that is different from devastating a community.

These charges often come from those on the left that also favor inheritance taxes, minimum wage laws, elaborate workplace regulations, over zealous environmental laws, and taxing the wealthy. These things actually give large corporations like Wal-Mart advantages over small businesses. In addition it makes it difficult for small enterprises to reinvest in their businesses, or pass them on to a new generation of entrepreneurs.

It is funny how the definition of "wealthy Americans" changes when it suits political purposes. When it is Wal-Mart vs. main street rural America, the "wealthy" small business holder becomes the little guy. When it comes to income and inheritance taxes the little guy is placed among the entrenched wealthiest 6% and should not 'need' a tax cut.

No comments: