Call and Response
Mr. Ron Sherman of the Chico (California) Enterprise-Record published an article today entitled "Wal-Mart survey flawed". It reads as follows:
A few decades ago, studies financed by tobacco companies showed that cigarette smoking is not harmful to your health. Recently, studies financed by oil companies showed that global warming is not caused by burning fossil fuels. Now, Bob Linscheid's study, financed by a $5,000 payment from Wal-Mart, shows that Wal-Marts are actually good for communities. Can you see a pattern here?Linscheid's "impartial survey" consists of questions presented only to economic development officials and chamber of commerce officials, all people such as himself, whose main agendas are encouraging large-scale business expansion. The questions asked were of Linscheid's choosing, excluding areas of inquiry that could result in responses contrary to his desired results. He seems more like a Wal-Mart lobbyist than an independent researcher.
It's obviously of no concern to Linscheid that a Wal-Mart supercenter built in north Chico would forever ruin that entire beautiful area of our community. One need only look at places like Fresno or Stockton to see what results when people like Linscheid are successful in promoting big-time economic expansion.
Another study prepared by credentialed Ph.D.s and respected economists, who, unlike Linscheid, considered all relevant areas of concern, found that a Wal-Mart expansion would have a "devastating impact" on our local economy.
Wal-Mart spokesman Kevin Loscotoff said the Linscheid study was "done by a credible third-party organization." Does Loscotoff also have some oceanfront property in Arizona for sale?
I left the following comment on the webpage where this article appeared:
A few questions for Mr. Sherman:1) What is name of this other study done by "credentialed PhDs and respected economists" ?
2) What do you make of the recent study by Sobel and Dean, both of whom are "credentialed PhDs and respected economists", which is described here? The study shows that Wal-Mart's economic impact is anything but as harmful or ubiquitous, as critics like you have claimed. What is your assessment of a study like this that does not support your obvious biases?
3) Do you actually possess the qualifications to understand, let alone actually critique, the work of a credentialed PhDs and respected economists? In other words, are you a trained social scientist?
Eagerly awaiting your reply.
thoughtfully,
starling
Tags: WalMart