78 Comments

Comments

Jon Roland says ...
What is missing from this discussion are arguments about the constitutionality of what the FTC is attempting to do. This forum does not provide enough space to discuss constitutionality adequately, but I refer you to "Original Understanding of the Commerce Clause" at http://www.constitution.org/col/02729_fed-usurp.htm for an introduction. Briefly, there is no constitutional power for Congress to regulate things like mergers or the securities trading of organizations. The original meaning of "commerce among the states" only included the transfer of ownership and possession of tangible commodities from a vendor outside a state to a buyer within that state. It did not include extraction, manufacturing, transport, local sales, possession, use, or disposal. It did not include anything that might have a "substantial effect" on commerce. It did not include the activities of parties. It did not include services, information, securities, or anything other than tangible commodities themselves, and their attributes, packaging, scheduling, delivery routes, labeling, and other such appurtenances to the commodities. It also did not imply the power to impose criminal penalties. Now that is not to say that there is not a need to enable intervention to prevent monopolistic combinations. Milton Friedman once said, "I am in favor of the free market but not large organizations." The constitutional method is to create a jurisdiction for civil action by private parties, with decision by a jury. But it requires a constitutional amendment to delegate power to Congress to legislate intervention by government as a party. We will not solve this kind of problem unless or until the majority of voters make strict constitutional compliance their main issue when voting, and learn to understand and accept what that involves.
06/29/2007 8:51:51 AM CDT
Don says ...
Maybe with the latest Supreme court ruling allowing minimum pricing agreements this whole low cost argument will be moot. Suppliers will establish base pricing and the consumer will no longer have a low cost shoppers enviorment to explore. In the fresh and organic buying model higher retail prices equal higher farm returns and will benefit the overall market long term. being a partner with the suppliers insures higher quality standards. Walmart's model is built on beating the supplier (farmer or otherwise) down 3% annually not beneficial to american suppliers but a boon to China. WFM is leading the way supporting local reigonal suppliers and farmers. Long term the consumers investment will reap real benefits, clean water, safer food.
06/29/2007 1:03:05 PM CDT
Sally says ...
When it comes to shopping and spending our money, we all have a choice.No one forces anyone to spend their money where they don't want to. Practically every big crocery chain sells organic products.So if you are complaining about prices, shop somewhere else.Whole Foods is a company with high moral values that cares about our entire planet.I have worked at Whole Foods for 10 years. Not only do I get paid well, but am contributing to a better world. Our Whole Planet Foundation gives micro-loans to people living in poverty in underdeveloped countries.That money comes from donations from TM's and store sales. We have our Animal Compassion Foundation that promotes the compassionate raising of farm animals. We have a Whole Trade Guarantee and sell products from underdeveloped nations in our stores and a percentage goes back to the our foundation for micro loans for people living in poverty. WE ARE NOT JUST A GROCERY STORE. Take a deep look into all that we do for the planet.When you shop at Whole Foods you are not just pleasing your palate. You are doing a whole lot more for our planet. I am proud to work here. Keep up the good work John. peace and love, Sally
06/30/2007 9:56:07 AM CDT

Pages