Today in marketing: Walmart fudges the numbers. No one is surprised.

Standard

TV AD: The family budget. In today’s economy nobody is more committed to helping family budgets go further than Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart saves the average family about $3,100 a year, no matter where they shop.

What?! OK, how can Wal-Mart save you money if you don’t shop there? Well, they say, other stores cut their prices to compete.

CHRIS HOLLINGS: The overall level of consumer prices are lower essentially anywhere you shop.

Chris Hollings is at IHS Global Insight.

HOLLINGS: So you do not actually have to shop at Wal-Mart to get these savings.

Hollings led the research Wal-Mart uses in its ad. He says by tracking Wal-Mart’s expansion, his team was able to isolate an economic Wal-Mart effect. Today he says prices for retail goods are 3.6 percent lower across the board because of the chain. But to save more than $3,000 a year a, quote, “average family” would have to spend more than $83,000 shopping.

CHARLES FISHMAN: This headline number is technically accurate but misleading.

Charles Fishman is author of the book, “The Wal-Mart Effect.” He points out that the median household income is less than $51,000.

FISHMAN: A family earning $51,000 a year saves about $640 a year compared to what they would otherwise have had to spend.

— full story at Marketplace

Well, this is depressing

Standard

Not only has the Times-Picayune run an alarming article on the rapid pace of climate change, but they’ve also posted it to NOLA.com — which means it’s been opened up to comments. And as much as I love New Orleans, I have to admit that we have some really, really stupid people living in south Louisiana. What’s worse: they’ve learned to type. After the second page of numbskullery, I had to close the tab. (There are five pages of comments in all. So far.)

Of course, I know that climate change denial takes place across the globe. On the network news, on Fox “news”, on talk radio, on websites, people refute volumes of university studies with Dan Brown-esque flimsy evidence that global warming is some kind of conspiracy. Of course, none of these knuckle-dragging, armchair meteorologists can explain why the world’s best scientific minds would collude on such a scheme — what they’d have to gain, what they’re trying to prove. These are the same people who’d like to see creationism and it’s slightly buffer cousin, intelligent design, taught in classrooms. Their agenda is solely political and solely laughable.

Look, I understand that science can be used as a weapon (cf. the American Psychiatric Association’s former categorization of homosexuality as a mental disorder), and I don’t claim that science is apolitical, but how can anyone — left, right, center, or libertarian — argue that pollution is a great thing? I mean, we all understand those “Your mother doesn’t work here” signs in breakrooms, right? Isn’t this the same thing on a slightly larger scale?

Damn, I think we need to bring that stereotypical-but effective crying American Indian back.*

* Is it just me, or does the narrarator in that spot sound a lot like Ken Nordine?