After reading McQ’s post on Medicare Part ‘D’ and reviewing Lance’s offering of a Penn & Teller take on Wal-Mart hatred, it occurred to me that, instead of having Congress attempt to negotiate lower prescription drug prices why not go with a proven contender? Wal-Mart!
Retailing giant Wal-Mart Stores Inc., known for forcing prices down to dominate nearly every market it enters, said yesterday that it would sell nearly 300 generic drugs for $4 per prescription, whether or not a customer has insurance.
Using its might as the nation’s largest retailer and its legendary ability to force suppliers to cut prices to the bone, the company will begin the $4 price program in its 65 stores in the Tampa area today, in all of Florida in January, and in as many other states as possible by the end of 2007. The $4 is for a typical monthly supply of medicine, and included on the Wal-Mart list are generic versions of many popular prescription drugs, including the antibiotic amoxicillin and the heart and blood-pressure treatment lisinopril, sold under the brand names Prinivil and Zestril.
Then I really got to thinking. If Wal-Mart can do what members of Congress only dream of doing by droning on and on about it in a neverending blather, maybe Wal-Mart can be more effective in other areas of governance as well. In fact, why not “Wal-Mart for Congress”?
By that I don’t mean granting just a couple of seats to Wal-Mart in some unconstitutional backroom deal cooked up between Reps. Tom Davis and Elanor Holmes Norton. I’m talking the whole Congress. No more Senate and House chambers. Just one giant warehouse filled with all the goodies people apparently want, at prices they can afford, and where reaching across the aisle means having one hand on a toaster oven and the other on a 10-pack of Irish Spring. No more Democrats and Republicans, but Electronics and Housewares. Down with the oligarchy dressed as democracy, and up with Wal-Mart-ocracy!
Think about it. Congress has approval ratings in the twenties (or as high of 40% if you buy this poll of mostly Democrats), which translates into roughly about 120 Million people if you pretend that all 300 Million voters can and do vote and that the 40% approval rating is the most accurate. Wal-Mart gets the approval of approximately 127 Million voters … er, customers, every week.
You want jobs to be created and or protected by the government? Congress labors every year to find the magical method of boosting job creation in America while keeping the jobs already right here on our shores. A not insignificant number of politicians think the best way to do that is to band Wal-Marts and other “Big Box” stores. Another popular way to create/protect jobs is to alternatively let all of Central and South America’s workers come here without hindrance or kep them all out with walls. In the face of the powerful anti-Wal-Mart lobby, however, and without having much if anything to say about immigration, legal or otherwise, the miracle of Arkansas is solving both these problems all on its own. Wal-Mart is the largest employer in this country as well as in Mexico. If more Mexicans have jobs at home, they won’t risk their loves to come here and take ours. Moreover, with new Wal-Marts going up across the country, there are new jobs being created all the time. And the best part is, when Wal-Mart creates a job, it not only provides income to its workers, it also provides lower priced goods to its community. While Congress is quite adept at creating jobs on K Street that really only benefit a select few, Wal-Mart can revitalize entire communities.
Of course, if Wal-Mart were to entirely replace our venerated legislative bodies, there is the danger that it would only pass laws that benefit itself. Kind of like the Congress we have now. So to avoid this inevitable curse of the Leviathan, I propose that the Constitutional Amendment which creates our new Wal-Mart-ocracy have an indelible and irreducible caveat: “Wal-Mart shall neither introduce nor make any law whatsoever that benefits itself solely, or itself and any affiliates solely.” In order to enforce this provision, we then grant standing to sue Wal-Mart for any perceived infraction of this law to anyone who can draw a connection between a law passed and a benefit to the retail behemoth in fewer steps than it takes to set of the caging contraption in a game of Mousetrap. End result: everyone sues Wal-Mart all of the time. Real end result? Gridlock, baby! Gridlock.
Of course, there would be serious matters to attend to as well. Even I would not feel comfortable leaving the power to create war in the hands of the biggest retailer in the world. For that function, perhaps we could create a smaller deliberative body — congressette? — whose sole function is to decide such matters. We could even staff it entirely with Democrats and forbid warmongering Republicans form even setting foot inside its diminutive halls, so that we could avoid going to war at all except when it was really, really necessary. Like WWI and WWII. And of course, the Korean and Vietnam Wars Conflicts, as well as the terribly necessary intervention in Kosovo. . . . Well, we wouldn’t go to war in the Middle East anyway.
So there you have it. A most ridiculous, silly and completely unworkable idea that simply has no business ever seeing the light of day. Indeed we are surely all much dumber for having even considered it, and I most of all for having proposed it. Accordingly, with apologies to Sartre, “let’s get on with it.”
No it’s not silly!
It would be cheaper to go to Walmart, then have the Government procure it. They have better prices, product development, manufacture, and supply chains than the U.S. Government.
Are you trying to imply that (gasp!) capitalism is more efficient than our government??? Say it ain’t so! Why, the next heresy will be to state that government shouldn’t be involved in healthcare or old age pensions! HARUMPH! And if capitalism can deliver toaster ovens and Irish Spring at low costs, people might start thinking that it could deliver housing, education, energy, and even defense at low costs!
"Welcome to Wal-Mart! Can I help you?"
"Um, yes. I’m from the 322nd Tactical Fighter Wing. I need a couple of replacement F-15s, and (consults list) twenty thousand rounds of 20mm ammunition, forty AIM-120 missiles, and one hundred thousand pounds of JP-4."
"Fighter planes on aisle 4, munitions on aisle 10, and we have jet fuel on sale today. Just go around back to pick up your order."
Seriously, though, Wally-World has a proven track record of saving the American consumer quite a lot of money; in effect, they’ve done more to put money in the consumer’s pocket than all the tax cuts or rebates or handouts the government has tried in the past several decades combined. And compare the service you get. Go to (for example) the DMV or any other government agency and compare your experience with Wally-World. Try using the average government website to conduct business, then try using Wally-World’s site. My city has been "upgrading" its website for a year, in the meantime using a very slow, inefficient, and cumbersome substitute. You don’t generally find that kind of apathy and inefficiency in the free market; only in government.
Are you trying to imply that (gasp!) capitalism is more efficient than our government???
You have stumbled on a secret few people know. It’s highly classified. The Government can’t let the citizens know private industry can do most city services cheaper than the city. No kidding.
The Government can’t let the citizens know private industry can do most city services cheaper than the city.
Oh, I agree, but I do have one reservation about the retail giants: monopolies. Yes, I know that’s a bit of heresy amongst the libertarian crowd, but a great concrete example is utilities. I don’t live in a rural area; quite the contrary. Despite the fact that my community has experienced huge levels of growth in the past 5-10 years, we still have only 1 electric company and 1 gas company. When everything is just fine and dandy and you have no problems, the power company folks are the best friends that you ever want to have. On the other hand, when you have service interruption issues (power line down, transformer blown, etc.), the power company is nowhere to be seen. It would probably be faster to order the necessary parts from Wal-Mart and then learn how to install them ourselves. In contrast, the gas company is incompetent, but well-meaning (they do get to you as quickly as possible, they just don’t always know what to do). I have no alternative suppliers to choose from. The same with our water supplier (its the city, so even worse). Another issue here other than service is pricing. Should the local electric company (or gas) choose to exponentially raise their prices, I’d be forced to start using candles and opening my garage door by hand.
I’m all for capitalism and I agree that whenever delivery of services is an issue, the government (fed, state, and usually local) just doesn’t cut the mustard. What happens when you are faced with a monopoly situation and have no alternatives to inadequate service, however? I understand that we are comparing apples and oranges (retail versus utilities), but both are still businesses. Why don’t cruddy power companies fold on a regular basis? Is it because Wal-Mart has to compete to earn its business while the utilities guys have captive audiences?
Monopoly is the biggest (perhaps only) drawback to capitalism. Perhaps I’m using the terms incorrectly, but I would say that monopoly is not capitalism as there is no competition. Preventing such a harmful situation from coming to pass is the job of government, but it takes wisdom to know the difference between breaking up a harmful monopoly and interfering with a large and efficient company. Unfortunately, wisdom is a trait notably lacking in most of our elected officials.
You can not have a monopoly without owning all properties of the same color. Then you can build houses and eventually Hotels that increase income.
Before we get too far afield, keep in mind that monopoly is not a creature of capitalism, but one of government. There can be no monopoly without the helping hand of givernment. The utilities cited by TPO are the perfect example. Without the promise of monopoly from the government, these companies would never have been formed.
Of course, the upside to monopolies is that risks can be taken such that useful innovation is more prevalent. The pharmaceutical industry is the perfect example. In exchange for patent protection from the government, the companies can spend huge amounts of money on R&D chasing after elusive medicines. The Founders recognized the value of such monopolies when they provided for Congress to grant exclusive protections to the useful arts and sciences.
Even in pharmaceuticals the patent is hardly a monopoly as typically spoken of. It is a patent over a very narrow product, which can be substituted for and innovated past. Thus, while Vioxx may in its particular formulation may not be used, other similar products are available.
Jim, lol.
Would there be a McDonalds right inside the front door?
If run by government there would be clowns behind the counter. Bring in the clowns, there has to be clowns, it’s Washington clowns, right here.
While searching for Blogs about A Second Hand Conjecture » A Ridiculously Silly Idea I found your site. Thank you for the effort you have put in.