“Don Otto’s Market wants to say we had few customers that understood customer loyalty and its importance to our business,” a message on its Web site reads, later adding: “If you came in only for baguettes, the occasional piece of cheese, the occasional dinner . . . you can not tell yourself you were a supporter of our market.”Heh. Apparently, the business plan amounted to: "have customers that understand customer loyalty and its importance to the business". Somehow I doubt that's going to revolutionize the business schools. But, you know, given what I'm sure was their target demographic -- the bien pensant liberal elite and their wannabe's -- perhaps the surprise that it didn't work is understandable; certainly that churlish bit of moral bullying on the way out is in keeping.
Now, the point of a parable is that it has a point. In the example of the unnecessary traffic lights a while back, the point was that a willingness to challenge conventional wisdom can open new, unexpected paths to freedom. Here, the point is that a foolish acceptance of fashionable beliefs is no sign of elitist superiority and no ticket of entitlement. Sound familiar? Think of large portions of the Democratic Party in particular the last few years, and of the liberal-left in general. As Morrissey says, speaking of the writer of the bitter words above, they're really exhibiting a peculiar sort of contempt:
Her contempt for her customers is not dissimilar to the contempt shown by those in political office who pass laws barring restaurants from using saturated fats in their cooking, who ban Happy Meals, and who overhaul entire economic sectors because they believe people can’t make their own choices.And then, when their policies lose them support on historic scales, the response is never to question policies or the plan itself -- instead, it's the customers' fault! You people are too angry, they say, too bitter, too clinging, too racist, too stupid, and you just don't listen! You don't deserve us!
And you know what? We don't. So maybe the lib-left should just close their doors, like any other business too good for their customers, and try to live off their sense of their own rectitude.
the point was that a willingness to challenge conventional wisdom can open new, unexpected paths to freedom
ReplyDeleteYour usual spiel in praise of laissez-faire, when laissez-faire's the older, conventional economics--ie depend on the largesse of the wealthy. We need intelligent economic planning and meritocracy instead of casinocracy (--or welfare dole-outs). I suspect the recently victorious Teabaggers will make things worse, economically speaking (except in some areas, like defense contracts--they have already asked for more shekels).
Your usual spiel in praise of laissez-faire, when laissez-faire's the older, conventional economics--ie depend on the largesse of the wealthy.
ReplyDeleteNo, "laissez-faire" is just what it says -- "let do" -- and it depends only on the abilities and character of the people who do the doing. Plan all you like for yourself and others willing to go along with you -- just don't force people to partake in your plans, which often enough are as ridiculous as those of the failed owners of "Don Otto's Market".
it depends only on the abilities and character of the people who do the doing
ReplyDeleteNo, "only" doesn't work here. It depends mainly on how much capital they have to begin with, at least in terms of startups/new businesses, assuming the Sam Waltons-to-be have at least normal intelligence--ie, ability and character are insufficient without cash, and even that may be not enough (ie luck, consumer taste, planning and other factors would apply).
Alright, good point (at last) -- I think we can certainly add luck into the equation, and that would include having better than average access to capital. Judging consumer taste and planning, on the other hand, are included in the notion of ability. But none of that depends on the largess of the wealthy.
ReplyDelete