Now – I certainly may have said that those costs are worth it because of other goals that a specific piece of regulation may achieve, but I don’t think I’ve ever been on the other side of the question of whether it imposes costs.

Now – I certainly may have said that those costs are worth it because of other goals that a specific piece of regulation may achieve, but I don’t think I’ve ever been on the other side of the question of whether it imposes costs.

Anyway, I agree that characterization is off base. There are a multitude of different kinds of people that shop there, all because of low prices. Prices have an uncanny effect of canceling out partisanship, except in some extreme cases. But most of the people I know that fear Wal Mart are young and have no money anyway, so it’s not like Wal Mart fears their wrath.

However, the owners of the blog are university professors and the “buzz” might reach students and others who have zero background in economics.

BTW, the high barriers to entry that prevent competition from returning must be new to work. Otherwise, pricing below marginal cost is not necessary because high barriers to entry would keep out competition in the first place.

I’ve always bought 99% of the family groceries at WF, so I haven’t changed my behaviour. I’m just delighted that yet another one of my behaviours can irritate a self-described pinko-commie. However, the tea party people aren’t conservatives. If you’ve ever spoken to a group of them, they pretty well cut across political lines and a great many of them who are Republicans identify more closely with libertarians.

Dan, I’m kidding around with you, but the “strategic pricing behaviour” you describe seems at least as obvious. Plus, you should really come off your high horse about the “regulation” response. For a great many people, the fact that regulation is a barrier to entry is not at all obvious because regulation is sold as consumer protection. For people with some education in economics and a smidge of critical thinking ability, it’s obvious. However, your response begged for a response which included regulation. People often will take the completely manufactured regulatory barrier to entry at face value and not realize that such strategic pricing behaviour can most often pay off only courtesy of your friendly government.

I don’t think your fit over Sam’s post was justified.

I don’t get why people get so worked up over it – either the boycott or the buycott. Mackey had a great article, and three quarters of it was perfectly compatible with your generic liberal position on health reform. People just like getting worked up about something – liberals like their boycott and conservatives like their buycott.

Fortunately, Whole Foods now pisses them off and I can delight even more in my continued patronage.

Re: “Look, Dan, I see what you’re saying – tinged with elitism though it is – but, I’m not worried about it.”

I’m glad you don’t – as I said in my post, I don’t either.

Re: “Look, Dan, I see what you’re saying – tinged with elitism though it is – but, I’m not worried about it.”

I’m glad you don’t – as I said in my post, I don’t either.