HP,

First, define progress. Then, I can respond to you properly.

Progress is a higher standard of living. Things like, working conditions, working environment, house hold appliances, nutrition, life expectancy, etc.

I think that’s where we differ fundamentally. I tend to include the standard definition in my conception. For example, Webster includes: “a forward or onward movement (as to an objective or to a goal) : advance” as well as a”gradual betterment; especially : the progressive development of humankind.” The whole notion of progress–an Enlightment vestige– is about making human life better overall, more enjoyable, less nasty brutish and short through the use of human reason to perfect technologies and add comfort to life.

But merely setting up a wal-mart either here or there does not even meet your definition if there are other costs unacccounted for. In blighted areas like the outskirts of Teotihuacan, the “any job is progress” argument is at its strongest if your only value is getting more stuff and you care about absoulutely nothing else. If you think that wal-mart provides the kind of development that also raises nutrition and life expectancy, then I will be happy to review such scientific evidence and would be willing to change my mind on the matter. In any case there are other values that people regardless of the country they live in.

Non-preservation of cultural heritage is something that people care about in Mexico and Peru. Not all people care equally (this is the same in the US or any other rich country), but people care nonetheless. The problem with the way megacorporations operate is that they present a take it or leave it option to people who have no real bargaining power in the situation thanks to the corruption in government and their desperate economic situation. I know of no scientific study that backs your claim that “the people wanted it” at the cost of not preserving cultural treasures. The quoted man in the article that says it is far enough from the site does not give an opinion expert or otherwise as to what lay underneath the Walmart site itself. The point I make is that these major players can offer more than one option for locations and could at least budget for cultural preservation in case they dig up something as occurred in the Marriott hotel issue. Some corporations have done this when the local government was clear and firm at the beginning of the process. In this case, Wal-Mart supposedly was telling people to keep their mouths shut if they came upon any artifiacts.

Economic development isn’t just about getting a few jobs (really few given the Mexican population). It’s about human progress overall. Progress for me includes taking into account intangibles such as art and other cultural expressions. I guarantee you that if Target wanted to raze the Palacio de Bellas Artes and replace it with a superstore that offers 100 new jobs, there would be at least 100 people that would “want it.” Heck, in Chicago there are enough permanently unemployed people on the southside that we could get at least a hundred to advocate for replacing Soldier Field with a Home Depot. Does it make me against progess if I say that is a bad idea (notwithstanding the Bears actual performance this season)? Am I also against progress if I think people ought not sell their organs for extra income or a passport? I do think that it easy to say no to jobs when one has a job. But the argument that one should go live in poverty if they feel so strongly about a given policy is about as ridiculous as challenging anyone who argues against health care reform to give up their health care if they really want to “do some good.” At the point, no one can argue about anything that they are not personally invested in the matter. This a fallacious form of reasoning designed to shut down argument (ad hominem).

I do think that one can go overboard–e.g. I think that in some places maquiladoras have raised the standard of living of people that were previously living under cardboard boxes. It would be quite condescending to fight against maquiladoras per se because they are not good jobs. But it doesn’t follow that one should not be concerned about child labor, abuses, etc. That people in Latin America should shut up and be thankful for any job regardless of the hidden transaction costs, is also a very Western notion of progress that you too impose on others. As a native, I tend to resent this type of thinking. In fact, that attitude was precisely the inspiration for the title of this post.

We can bicker all day on exactly how much a Wal-Mart job increases the inhabitants standard of living. Just as we can bicker all day on exactly how much a Wal-Mart harms the cultural history. It’s an endless argument that will not satisfy either side. But that is missing the point. In fact, I think both sides are right: a Wal-Mart does bring marginal standard of living gains to the area and marginally harm the cultural history. It’s a trade-off that must be made.

My point here is that that trade-off should not be made by rich westerners, like you and I. We live in a country that provides such a high standard of living that small sacrifices of “progress” for “culture” seem worth it. This is not so with the inhabitants of Teotihuacan. Their trade-off aren’t, “Should we have a football stadium” or “yet another Target”. Their trade-off’s are, “should I continue to do backbreaking 16 hour a day farm labor” or “work in retail at a higher pay rate”. You, as a westerner, are in no position to judge the benefit of a marginal gain in standard of living vs a marginal gain of remaining cultural history. You simply don’t have experience with the arduous standard of living they currently live in to make an informed decision. It’s easy for you to choose culture, you after all, don’t pay the costs. Did you get a chance to read the link at the end of my comment? It makes this argument in another context.

With that said, I am not advocating that Wal-Mart should have built a store there – I am merely arguing that we should not be the ones making the decision: it should be the inhabitants of Teotihuacan. I couldn’t find the original article, but I am fairly certain that at the time, I read that atleast 55% of the inhabitants supported the Wal-Mart (thats a greater percentage than those that voted for Obama, here in the United States). That ends the debate for me. At that point I went from disapproval to support.

Rey,

Were missing each others point.

Just to reiterate my point one last time: I grant that two fundamentally important issues are involved here. cultural preservation and increased standard of living. Neither of which is a moral issue (like, say, genocide) and both of which are fundamental trade-offs that a democratic people should be allowed to make for themselves.

Second, I just don’t buy the comparison between a jobless Chicago citizen and a poor peasant from Teotihuacan. In fact, I would argue that even a bum from Chicago is miles ahead, as far as opportunity, nutrition, education, and other measures of standard of living than a peasant from Teotihuacan. The two are fundamentally different.

Lastly, as far as the polls go, I can’t find the Yahoo news article, but as I said above, I am fairly certain it was above 50%, likely around 55%, of Teotihuacan natives supported the Wal-Mart. You can believe me or not, it’s up to you, but I do find it odd that those who strongly opposed the Wal-Mart never mention any polls…that has to say something.

Jesus,

It doesn’t take much education to properly weigh the trade-offs involved. They live in the area. They know the work they have been doing. They know what direction they want to go. They have friends and family in other parts of Mexico. They have had experience with retail stores and shops from the United States. In other words, if experience and education are your criteria, they are in a far better position to make this decision than any of us in the West ever could be.

Also, the impact these corporations have on the quality of life in Mexico is enormous. Even a casual drive down the northern parts of Mexico vs the southern parts of Mexico show substantial differences in standard of living. It is no coincidence that the North is geographically closer to the United States, whereas the South is further away, and thereby has significantly less corporate investment.

That’s another point I find disturbing: the implicit assumption that Teotihuacan natives are like children, in need of care and guidance from the rich white, err, I mean Chicano, Westerners. Call me naive, but I see them as adults, capable of making their own decisions – the power differential in bargaining notwithstanding.

HP,

Im sorry, but to be frank, your last argument on the assumption that “natives” (a word that I believe you use rather loosely) are children is garbage. I went up and down Rey’s and my arguments and didn’t see a single place where either of us believed that.

I did however notice that you are assuming that”progress” for the people of Teotihuacan is the same as for us “westerners” (to put your term into use). In, fact you use the example of Mexico’s south vs the north. I am assuming that you “believe” that the northern part has a better standard of living. By who’s standards? a “Westerner’s” such as yourself? Isn’t that what you were arguing against in the beginning?

Now in my humble opinion “based on my travels to the south and north of Mexico” Standard of living and I quote “progress” are two separate things. Many people in the South have a high standard of living even while living in what “westerners” would call poverty. Many communities are self-sufficient. While their homes are modest, they have food on their table and live a well rounded life. Whereas communities that have been tainted by globalization and commercialization have gone backwards instead of forward. Now they depend on these corporations to stay alive as supposed to living off of the land with their own hands. While that life may be unconscionable for someone like you and I, that is very a decent way of life to some. People who once had a healthy diet are now eating McGarbage and Coke-crack-cola, and buying sweatshop made garments (by people poorer than them) at Walmart instead of garments made by their own hands. So because we can afford to buy things as opposed to make them, doesn’t mean we are better off. Likewise bringing them closer to our way of life, isn’t necessarily “progress.” Corporate Investment does not mean progress. Just as the US’ western expansion meant progress for this country’s whites, it also meant rape, pillage & even deportations for US citizens of Mexican and native American descent. Ask those who lost their land if this was progress. One last thing to note. Read the agrarian acts in the Mexican constitution that was destroyed by Salinas and NAFTA to read what “progress” really is.

Also, don’t assume I don’t know their way of life. My family came from there for a reason and I still have relatives living in Mexico. I speak from experience.

HP,

We don’t disagree on the fact that some people wanted Walmart. Some people wanted the Spaniards too–especially with the shoddy treatment that the Mexica were known for. That doesn’t make it less of a conquest for the rest of the people who didn’t want them there. My point is about protecting the little bit of native culture that’s left. I know what your basic point is that we should not allow people to starve in the present just to protect some ruins from the past. Again, we don’t disagree on that either. But you would assign no ethical duties to mega-corporations when they do come in to town–I cannot agree with that. As for me mentioning what people wanted, I know more Mexicans who thought it was horrific than those who approved of it. The picture of Walmart is from a Mexican newspaper if you didn’t notice. Your 55% statistic is interesting but not even you could cite it; so, why should I know about it or need to cite it myself? Again the methodology and the source matters in any case. Remember, there are three kinds of lies: “lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

BTW, I have been to Guerrero often and have in-laws in Iguala. Don’t be so certain that none of us really know what’s going on in Mexico. You should also know who you are talking about or whom you are flaming. You could find stuff out be asking. Jesus is quite an accomplished person in Chicago. You should also know that there are no Universities in Illinois that provide Chicano Studies degrees so don’t project your Southern California issues too much here. I personally regret not having had access to such courses. As for what counts as a good degree, many I know tend to look down on vocational degrees as something folks take at state schools. In fact, many of the best private schools do not offer undergrad engineering at all or only as a secondary option in math or a pure science. My point is why all the hate about Chicano studies majors? I met a few when I was a kid, most were inspirational (a few were strange) but that’s not unusual for a lot of crit-type disciplines these days. At least the idea behind CS aspires to critical thinking (at least in theory). The problem with other narrow disciplines like applied sciences is that they tend to not teach people the basics necessary for comprehending and contributing to Western civilization (yes, I really mean “Western”) yet such people feel qualified to opine about all matters under the sun.

Have you read the Revolt of the Masses?

“Let’s get down to our basic disagreement, lets assume, arguendo, that there was a poll taken that met your standards of an accurate scientific poll and lets say that ~55% of Teotihuacan citizens wanted the Wal-Mart…would that have changed your mind? If not, what would? What if it was 75%?”

HP,

No. I would still want Walmart to look for a better location OR absorb the costs of preservation even if it were 100%. However I would respect that fact in the context of all the other considerations. It is important. If a 100% were against Walmart that would also be important yet would still have nothing to do with my issue with Walmart’s m.o. worldwide. We are misunderstanding each other because you are conflating a couple of arguments that need seperate treatment, including some that really have nothing to do with my original argument. I think all the other considerations you mention are interesting and I can agree on some of them, but they are tangential to my position.

I have friends from los sauces, BTW. They are quite religous. Every argument I might make about culture, humanity, etc., is completely intelligible to them even without formal education. They were searching for a better economic life when they moved here, but they are not only about consumption and they never have been. Some people from their “pueblo” if it is even that (technically) surely think differently than they do. But that’s the point–not everyone thinks like you or your family. Just because people are poor does not make them monolithic or in possesion of some alien thinking. The same thing goes for the rich. That doesn’t mean some universal can’t exist such as a general preference for economic development to making everything around them a museum (though that could also be a development strategy)–duh. But my original argument about options, transaction costs, and bargaining power–the one you never responded to–still stands.

I’ll let Jesus defend his own comments.

Fair enough HP; perhaps our definition of preferences is different. Blame that on my inner economist.

I have heard of Hoffer but never have read his stuff. From his wikipedia blurb he does seem to be interesting and non-ideological–a plus. I’m particularuly interested in what he would have to say about the political party fanaticism of the right and left in this day and age. This statement is also intriguing: “In Hoffer’s view, rapid change is not a positive thing for a society, and too rapid change can cause a regression in maturity for those who were brought up in a very different society than what that society has become.”
You should read Revolt of the Masses, it’s more about the decline of a liberal education and its consequences for Western Civilization (though mass movements are part of it). It’s classically liberal (as in Adam Smith or Edmund Burke).

Actually, my version of deducing the preferences of immigrants by their actions comes from my reading of economics – it’s just one example of what economists call “revealed preferences“.

That’s ironic given that your main argument about progress is utilitarian. May I ask how you derived your choice function given the impoverished data set (which is exactly the issue we disagreed upon initially)? RPT is much more straightfoward in budget scenarios (for individuals) which also require plenty more data points. In collective choice problems you really need a good reason to drop indifference curves, et.al. Do you have some problem with convexity here? I suspect we may disagree on axioms for this scenario. Are you invoking Nash? What about Suppes-Sen? Is your account Pareto normative?

BTW, whether you use classical models or RPT or a combination of both (as Ok and Zhou have done), you should know that the definition of preference per se is no different. We’re talking about different ways to determine them. You need more than one data point in either approach. It’s not even necessary here to address Professor Wong’s critiques of RPT.

Bryan,
Probably, but the whole thing was framed as “it’s this site or nothing.” I assume that an alternative site might have been less profitable by some amount. They raked in $290 million in their last published quarter for Mexico; so, it would be nice to see their internal numbers as to what they would lose by building on other available sites (developers usually model several locations to decide which is the most profitable site). If the whole profitability rode on being near the Teotihuacan tourist zone, then they needed to factor in the actual cost of building (including historic preservation). Unfortunately, Walmart is the master of maximizing externalities.