The Spider

Interesting new information on Mercury. Very cool.

Wal-Mart Saves the World (Really)

I was recently directed to an Atlanta Journal-Constitution article from 10 days ago reporting that 7500 Atalant...ans? (Atlantians? Atlantites?) showed up at a new Wal-Mart to apply for a maximum 400 jobs.

"The big turnout speaks volumes about the state of the local economy," said Bruce Kaufman, a Georgia State University economics professor. While the unemployment rate in the area remains relatively low, Kaufman said the large number of job-seekers suggests that many people are either under-employed or had stopped looking for work.

I would be interested to see statistics on what percentage of Wal-Mart employees were jobless prior to their foray into blue-vestedness compared to the number that simply switched jobs, but, much more importantly, this gives me an excuse to restate my conviction that Wal-Mart is poised to be the biggest contributor to social progress in the United States in the near future.

Unpopular though it may be, Wal-Mart has a unique opportunity to serve as the impetus towards more "green" and "socially conscientious" business.

Because Wal-Mart, like all firms, is forever seeking to maximize profit, it will inevitably attempt to construct more stores in densely populated areas near the coasts. And because consumers tend to lean farther left than those in the Bible Belt and South, Wal-Mart may find it necessary to foster a progressive (or more progressive) image in order to court that consumer base.

It's already happening. Just skim through Wal-Mart's "Sustainability" directory (available here) and you'll find information on Wal-Mart programs aimed at rewnable resources, "waste reduction," and more "earth-friendly products." Compare the direction of Wal-Mart's social leanings with the graphic to the right: 15 years ago there were almost no store locations on the West Coast and in the Northeast, and, as far as I know, not a whole lot of talk about "sustainabilty" efforts.

Wal-Mart sustains low prices by using volume to leverage purchasing costs. Wal-Mart is able to tell suppliers to drop their prices or find another vendor through which to move 15 million units - not too difficult of a choice. So why wouldn't Wal-Mart also be able to encourage its suppliers to be more eco-friendly (think Ben & Jerry's using cows that aren't given hormones or Eggland's Best using free-range chickens)?

Not only will Wal-Mart shift, but they'll require every one of their suppliers to do so as well.

So if you're looking for the organization with greatest motive and ability to push American industry towards a greener heyday, delete your MoveOn.org emails, tell the local Greenpeace street-walker that, no, you do not have two minutes for the environment, and go hit up your local Wal-Mart for some $4 uppers.

Hat-tip to Jessa Haugebak for the original article.

Half the Battle

Based on Stone's method for selecting a 2008 Presidential candidate - eliminating candidates as they cross some kind of “categorical threshold,” - I submit that the primary political tactic ought to be noncommittal. Make the speeches, talk about change (but still make references to the Great America), and then hold your tongue before independents and moderates find something about your campaign they dislike.

People are more turned off by their turn-offs than turned on by their turn-ons.

I'm announcing my campaign for 2008 Presidency. I have absolutely no opinions and zero commitments. Don't agree with them? Well, I bet you don't disagree.

New York Times Endorsements

Worth taking a look at the Times' endorsement of McCain for the Republican nomination, if only to read the editorial board call Guiliani names.

Here.

Response to Bill Gates

Here is an interesting critique of Bill Gate's recent call for increased "market based social change" at the World Economic Forum.

The authors make at least two mistakes; the first in underestimating the positive feelings consumers associate with being attached to firms that are perceived as being "socially conscientious," the second (and more important) in creating a false dichotomy between successful firms that pursue profit maximization and those that are engaged in "money-losing projects."

The authors focus a great deal on firms that donate a substantial portion of their revenues to charity.

Of course, some businesses have found that embracing "social" goals can boost profits: the list includes Ben & Jerry's, Celestial Seasonings, Patagonia, Stonyfield Farm, and Whole Foods. Cypress Semiconductor, run by the free-market capitalist T.J. Rodgers, has won trophies for the most food donated per employee in Silicon Valley for over a decade. Rodgers calls it "a big employee moral builder, a way to attract new employees, good PR for the company, and a significant benefit to the community--all of which makes Cypress a better place to work and invest."

True. But in using these firms as examples the authors have mischaracterized "market based social change" as market based philanthropy, which are not the same thing. The above are illustrative of the latter, which the authors are correct to be suspicious of (they remind us that both Milton Friedman and Adam Smith wrote specifically on dubious "trading for the public good").

But socially aware business is not philanthropy. It is being selective about the industry (or market) in which to maximize profits. If the authors are really interested in taking on the efficacy of "market based social change," they would do well to focus less on Ben & Jerry's and more on Grameen Bank or one of the myriad businesses that have been so successful at aligning profit maximization and enfranchisement.