I think I answered this in the last post. A couple of things -- I went back and looked at the California study and though I think it strongly implies that there's a net cost, it does not say that the 2 billion dollar cost is net, no.
Here's a recent study of WalMart's economic effect that looks fairly impartial: http://www.ag-econ.ncsu.edu/VIRTUAL_LIBRARY/ECONOMIST/novdec05.pdf Note however, that it does not take the cost of the subsidies or the prosecutions into account. Dana >But there hasn't been any actual proof that a bad deal was made to begin >with. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:192882 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
