Which Capitalism? A Brief Defense of the Supporters of the Free Economy

By Dylan Pahman | December 12, 2012

Much has been written recently on Ethika Politika regarding the subject of capitalism, in some cases more directly than others. According to Luciano Corbo, capitalism, along with socialism, has “no basis in ‘Truth’ (in the biblical sense) such as the divinity of human work has.” According to Thomas Storck, capitalism, as defined by Pope Pius XI as “that economic system in which were provided by different people the capital and labor jointly needed for production” (Quadrigesimo Anno, no. 100), while not “intrinsically unjust” is “both unstable and dangerous” and “a chief contributor to … cultural and social disorder,” “given the defects of our fallen human nature,” because, quoting Hilaire Belloc, “in a Commercial society the amount of wealth accumulated by the dealer is the measure of success.” And according to Thaddeus Kozinski, those conservative American Christians who believe, “The Gospel and Christian Social Teaching uphold only capitalism, never distributism (which is really just disguised socialism),” may be guilty of idolatry.

Those Christians who find the free enterprise system to be the most prudential for lifting people out of poverty and ordering our economic affairs would seem to be either affirming a system contrary to biblical truth and therefore heretical (Corbo), detrimental to society in our fallen world (Storck), or idolatrous if distributism is not acknowledged as equally valid (Kozinski). These are serious charges in every case, and charges that, I believe, better betray an unfair bias of the writers in question than reveal a fair appraisal of capitalism and those Christians who support it. Instead, I argue on the basis of Pope John Paul II’s definition of the free economy that such critiques are uncharitable at best and themselves confuse what ought to be a matter of prudential judgment as if it were a moral imperative. I do not here put forth a defense of capitalism per se so much as a defense of those Christians who deem it to be the most prudential economic system.

While, notably, Pope John Paul II warned of the dangers of “unbridled capitalism” (Centesimus Annus, no. 8), none of these authors have addressed his important qualification of the term “capitalism” later in that same encyclical (no. 42):

[C]an it perhaps be said that, after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? Is this the model which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress?

The answer is obviously complex. If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy,” “market economy” or simply “free economy.” But if by “capitalism” is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.

Now, to be charitable, I presume none of these writers, all of whom are Roman Catholic, would want to be at odds with Pope John Paul II in this regard. However, this raises the important question, if according to him capitalism, rightly conceived as the free economy, is “an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector” and the “victorious social system” that “ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress,” why focus entirely on the latter definition of capitalism, rejected by the Pope? Is it in any way fair to presume that Christians who support the free economy are advocating “a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious”? Even if such Christians do exist, surely they are the minority. To affirm this latter capitalism requires denying the rule of law and the image of God in humanity, neither of which, I think we all would agree, would be very Christian; indeed, doing so may even be heretical, oblivious to the Fall, and perhaps even idolatrous. But that capitalism, according to John Paul II, is not the only one.

Furthermore, since Storck and Kozinski have both expressed their approval of distributism, if capitalism as the free economy has such high sanction, why oppose distributism to capitalism at all? It would appear that in uncharitably mischaracterizing and rejecting capitalism and, whether explicitly or implicitly, indicting those Christians who support it, these writers have forgotten the dictum abusus non tollit usum. In so doing, they run the risk of logically isolating themselves: if distributism is not capitalism, yet capitalism, rightly understood, has proved victorious over the evils of atheistic and dictatorial communism and holds the greatest promise for the plight of the developing world, what merits does distributism hold? Is it more victorious? Is it more promising for the Third World than the free economy? If so, how? Due to their uncharitable portrayals, these writers have not addressed these questions but instead, whether intentionally or not, have committed the further fallacy of poisoning the well: painting their opponents in an unfavorable light before giving them a fair chance to speak. Who, reading their articles, would walk away with a picture of capitalism in the first manner articulated by Pope John Paul II?

The proper question to ask, it would seem, is not whether Christians should support capitalism, but which capitalism ought Christians—or at least Roman Catholics—support? Furthermore, with an eye to Storck and Kozinski, should not distributists be asking whether distributism is a form of capitalism, rather than setting it up as an alternative to capitalism? If so, which form is it? If the latter form or neither, why support it? If the former, why oppose it to capitalism? Unwilling to presume to know how any of these writers would respond, I leave these questions open.

As for those Christians who support capitalism, I see no reason why they are not entitled to their opinions as a matter of prudence in accord with Pope John Paul II’s affirmation of the merits of the free economy as quoted above. For my part, I believe I have demonstrated that it would be unfair to characterize such capitalism as heretical, deleterious, or idolatrous and find it uncharitable to assume the worst of capitalism as these writers have when such is the case.

http://www.restatementoftheobvious.com JonMarc Grodi

As we see in this article, definitions are tricky, particularly with a broad concept like Capitalism. This difficulty only increases when certain concepts, of imprecise definition and usage, become emblematic of whole sectors of thought and societal movement, as have “Capitalism” and the “free economy”, etc.

I can’t speak to whether Distributism should or could be considered a kind of Capitalism, though I would guess that, again, the scope of the assumed definitions would play a role. It certainly would help for diplomacy’s sake to identify or find common ground between Distributists and Christians who hold a Capitalist/Free Market stance.

I have found in Distributism a distillation of most if not all the things I ought to have been attracted to in the Free Market. In fact my first (uninformed, uninitiated, unread, and hence possibly imprecise) thought when discovering Distributism was something along the lines of “Wow, a free market ‘as if people mattered’ ” (to borrow Schumacher’s phrase).

My (perhaps elementary) question is whether there is, in the strictest definition of Capitalism/Free Markets, something inherently wrong, according to Distributists, or whether the problems with Capitalism/Free Market are all in the circumstances, or the ways in which the system either breaks down on its own or is ill-used by its members.

The Distributist Review ran an article entitled “Utopia” in October, which defended Distributism as a “realistic”, in that it “…is not a perfect socio-economic system; it is merely one that takes account of the imperfections of people. It assumes that these imperfections will always be at play, so the socio-economic system must account for that fact.” http://distributistreview.com/mag/2012/10/utopia/

If Distributism and Capitalism are related, can it be that Capitalism/Free Market describes some broader economic principles and that Distributism is a version that does a better job taking into account human nature? By doing so does Distributism ensure that the market does not become “…a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious…” (JP2). I know not the answer to these, but look forward to other comments on the article.
http://www.thomasstorck.org Thomas Storck

Mr. Pahman,

I appreciate the attempt you’ve made to address Catholic writers who have been critical of capitalism and to try to be fair with them. I want to make several points in reply, however. In the first place, you wrote, “none of these authors [i.e. Corbo, Storck or Kozinski] have addressed [John Paul II’s] important qualification of the term `capitalism’ later in that same encyclical.”

Perhaps you overlooked the article I wrote, “What Does Centesimus Annus Really Teach?” originally published in The Catholic Faith, but currently available on the Distributist Review website, which precisely does address not only that one passage from Centesimus, but the entire encyclical.

Secondly, as I think you recognize, I have never claimed that capitalism was condemned by the Church, indeed, as you correctly quote me, I said it was not “intrinsically unjust.” A Catholic could support capitalism, but only the right kind of capitalism, which is what John Paul is getting at in the passage you quote. The kind of capitalism he criticizes is “a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality,” and then, in the next paragraph, he goes on to say, “Indeed, there is a risk that a radical capitalistic ideology could spread which refuses even to consider these problems, in the a priori belief that any attempt to solve them is doomed to failure, and which blindly entrusts their solution to the free development of market forces.”

The notion that the economy should be ruled by market forces is condemned by the Catholic Church, in Quadragesimo Anno no.88, in the texts from Centesimus quoted here, and elsewhere. That is binding upon Catholics. But having accepted this, Catholics are free to advocate any kind of economic arrangement that does not violate Catholic social doctrine. My arguments against the free market are that it is wrong, unjust, and condemned by the Church. My arguments against capitalism are that it is unwise, and I’ve always tried to keep this distinction clear in my writings. Distributism is not a form of capitalism if one takes capitalism to mean what Pius XI meant by it, and his definition, by the way, is the most precise I have ever seen.

No Catholic is compelled to accept capitalism as the best economic system, but is free to do so provided that he realizes that it cannot be a capitalism in which “freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality,” i.e., it must reply heavily on regulation of the economy in the interests of the common good.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=695378522 John Médaille

The author seems to use the terms “capitalism” and “free market” interchangeably, even using the term “capitalism/free market.” But these are not things identical, but things opposed. The more capitalism, the less freedom; the more WalMart, the fewer the entrepreneurs. It is no surprise that the United States has the lowest rate of entrepreneurship in the developed world. In my college days, way back in the 70’s, I worked at Rhodes Office Supply, Dusty Rhodes, Proprietor. Dusty was a redneck, and as college boys who knew absolutely everything, we had a lot of fun at Dusty’s expense. But Dusty was a free man, economically free. He provided us jobs and contributed to the community; he answered to no one but himself and his customers. But today, the best Dusty could hope for is life in a Staples uniform, and with his education, not much of a life at that.

The author has taken to another blog to attack the people on this blog. Are the comboxes too short here?
JonMarc Grodi

Thanks for these clarifications Mr Storck. I have been learning much from your writings lately.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1060874428 Dylan James O’Brien Pahman

My concern is with comments made on this website for this readership, but I will be sure to check out your article. Nevertheless, your comment that I quoted here still seems to suggest that even though capitalism is not intrinsically unjust it is at best naive to support it, given our fallen condition, or at worst heretical (denying the fall). Neither strikes me as a fair assessment.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1060874428 Dylan James O’Brien Pahman

I actually never use the phrase “free market” in this article but rather “free economy,” which is John Paul II’s preferred term for the sort of capitalism he supports. The warrant for using “capitalism,” well understood, and “free economy” interchangably is derived from the quote from Centesimus Annus.

As for the post on Acton’s blog, I have cross-posted all of my contributions to Ethika Politika there, using Acton’s blog to draw attention to my work here as well as to further explore another aspect of the same question that would have been too much to include here. This is no exception. I am asking serious questions, not attacking anyone. I apologize if that was not your impression.
Ken

So then the more Walmart the less free economy. Is this a fair assessment Pahman?
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1060874428 Dylan James O’Brien Pahman

If someone wishes to call the free economy the free market, that does not bother me depending on how they are using the term “free market,” but since I did not do so here in this article, I found it odd that Mr. Médaille criticized me for saying something I hadn’t said, much as he and others seem be criticizing proponents of capitalism for a capitalism they would never advocate.

Given, however, that this article is about capitalism understood as the free economy as defined by Pope John Paul II, Walmart—as Mr. Médaille is using the term—would represent that other capitalism that the Pope rejects. Whether or not this is a fair assessment of Walmart is beside the point, and I decline to comment in that regard.

But his comment illustrates my point well: “The more capitalism, the less freedom,” he writes. Yet he has not taken the time to charitably assess capitalism before rejecting it, nor has he properly responded to the question, given the Pope’s definition of capitalism well understood as the free economy, whether or not distributism is a form of capitalism. And if so, why the rhetorical dichotomy between capitalism and distributism? If not, what superior merits does distributism have when compared to the free economy rather the capitalism that the Pope rejects?

Again, these are serious questions not personal attacks (indeed, I had even directed these questions not toward him, but primarily to Mr. Storck, who graciously replied, and Mr. Kozinski). There is a logical problem here, and it would greatly benefit distributists—as well as their readers here at Ethika Politika—if they took the time to address it carefully and charitably. If Mr. Médaille would like to do that, I would be happy to listen.
http://www.thomasstorck.org Thomas Storck

Mr. Pahman,

A couple more points in response. You are doubtless aware that, just as Vatican II cannot be taken as a “super council” negating all the previous oecumenical councils, similarly Centesimus Annus cannot be taken as a “super social encyclical” negating all the previous - or subsequent - social encyclicals. Indeed, Benedict XVI makes the point in Caritas in Veritate that the Church’s social teaching must be taken as a whole, and one encyclical cannot be pitted against another.

As you may be aware, I’ve written extensively on social doctrine for thirty years. I say this not as a boast, but to note that I cannot cover every point in every article. Thus I’ve elaborated my reasons for opposing capitalism, and especially for opposing the free market, from many different angles over the years, and I’ve tried to develop the teachings contained in all the social encyclicals, not only the one the has captured the attention of defenders of the free market.

In the very encyclical which you’ve pointed to, Centesimus, John Paul says in no. 35, “We have seen that it is unacceptable to say that the defeat of so-called “Real Socialism” leaves capitalism as the only model of economic organization.” This being the case, a Catholic is free to choose any “model of economic organization” that does not conflict with social doctrine. Thus I see nothing strange in Catholic distributists rejecting capitalism, since we are perfectly free to do so.

The fact of the matter is, however, that very few of the defenders of capitalism that I’ve encountered have defended a capitalism congruent with Catholic social doctrine. Usually there is an explicit or implicit trust in market forces themselves as a solution for nearly everything, and the necessity for labor unions, for regulation, in fact, for an entirely different approach to economic activity is rejected. You’ll recall another quote from Centesimus I put in my earlier comment: “Indeed, there is a risk that a radical capitalistic ideology could spread which refuses even to consider these problems, in the a priori belief that any attempt to solve them is doomed to failure, and which blindly entrusts their solution to the free development of market forces.”

This is the heart of the economic question, namely, what role are market forces to play in an economy? The consistent stance of the Church has been that market forces, although they can be useful at times, cannot be the ruling principle of an economy. This teaching seems to me entirely contrary to the stance of nearly all current free market defenders, who constantly downplay, when it comes to specifics, the need for any checks on market forces. Although they might sometimes maintain that they are not in favor of unfettered competition, whenever it comes to specifics - regulation, unions, etc. - they always find some reason to oppose any check on the operation of market forces - which actually means any check on the power of the rich and powerful. Thus I see no reason to think they are serious when they say they oppose unfettered competition as the ruling principle in economics.

The notion that market forces, chiefly supply and demand, create a marvelous symbiosis that promotes the common good is one of the most deeply-rooted myths of modernity. But the Church does not accept that myth, and has made that clear in her social documents.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1060874428 Dylan James O’Brien Pahman

Dear Mr. Storck,

I do not quote Pope John Paul II assuming that all he ever said was ex cathedra. That was not the point. The point is that (1) he is a voice Roman Catholics duly respect and (2) he, at least, outlines a version of capitalism that does not accord with your criticisms. Certainly you are entitled to favor distributism over/against capitalism, but my commendation to you is to be sure that you are not jumping at shadows.

While some anarcho-capitalists do exist (adherents to the “radical capitalistic ideology” the Pope speaks of), it is uncharitable, indeed inaccurate, to paint any Christian who supports the free economy or capitalism (or whatever term they favor) in general as such. The key difference seems to be that you prefer a form of the market economy that favors more state regulation of the market than they do and that you drastically misunderstand their position, not that you are diametrically opposed to one another.

Just because your opponents favor solutions to social problems that consider the arm of the state to be a last resort, does not mean that they favor no regulation period, nor, for that matter, no state regulation. They just give it a lower priority than you do and favor using the empirical fact of the law of supply and demand for the common good *whenever possible.* Nevertheless, they no doubt would agree with William Röpke, himself a defender of the “free market,” who wrote, “The decision on the ultimate destiny of the market economy, with its admirable mechanism of supply and demand, lies … beyond supply and demand” (A Human Economy [trans. 1960], 35). Note that Röpke does not say this as an indictment of the logic of supply and demand but merely to say that, though an “admirable mechanism,” it is not sufficient for the common good. What is also needed are the Church, a thriving moral culture, the rule of law, free associations, etc. How you equate this to opposing “any check on the power of the rich and powerful,” is beyond me. It is not what your opponents advocate, and it is not a fair characterization of them to put it that way. Indeed, they tend to oppose state regulation because they are precisely concerned with checking “the power of the rich and powerful” in government, who so rarely relinquish power once given or restore a freedom once taken. You are certainly entitled to disagree, but if you do, disagree with flesh and blood, I implore you, and quit jumping at shadows. It is your own voice you are silencing when you speak as uncharitably as you have.
http://www.thomasstorck.org Thomas Storck

Mr. Pahman,

Thank you for replying again, but I must say, I don’t think your understanding of the situation is correct. I’ll make some more remarks, primarily for the sake of others who might read this and be confused about what distributists favor, though obviously if you want, I am happy to continue the dialog.

First, you wrote that I “prefer a form of the market economy that favors more state regulation of the market than they do.” One of the chief points of distributism, and one that I’ve tried to stress as much as possible, is that most economic regulation under distributism would not be done by the state but by occupational groups (guilds), though to be sure their regulations would be backed by the state as appropriate or necessary. The difference is not in the (ultimate) legal force of these regulations, but in who formulates them - people closer to the situation, to the industry, to the real economy, or officials of the state.

Secondly, I must disagree with you about the tenets of many of those I’ve argued with over the years. I don’t think that those who put their ultimate faith in impersonal market forces are a minority of the defenders of capitalism or of the free-market. In fact, I think they are in the vast majority. Moreover, of the very institutions you cited as checks on the market, “the Church, a thriving moral culture, the rule of law, free associations” - absolutely none of these is empowered to limit or guide or otherwise direct competitive forces toward the common good. (I’m supposing here that you mean by “the rule of law” primarily laws respecting contracts, for example, not laws limiting competition or requiring worker participation in management or ownership.) Notably lacking in your list are labor unions, institutions supported by the Church since at least Leo XIII and that I would think would figure rather importantly in any list of institutions that provide needed compliments to market forces.

Whether or not Röpke;’s understanding of market forces falls under my censures, I can’t say, but I haven’t seen many free-market defenders who question their fundamental axiom that ultimately free competition is better than active intervention on behalf of the common good. I will close by quoting from Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno #88 addressing this very question:

“Just as the unity of human society cannot be founded on an opposition of classes, so also the right ordering of economic life cannot be left to a free competition of forces. For from this source, as from a poisoned spring, have originated and spread all the errors of individualist economic teaching. Destroying through forgetfulness or ignorance the social and moral character of economic life, it held that economic life must be considered and treated as altogether free from and independent of public authority, because in the market, i.e., in the free struggle of competitors, it would have a principle of self direction which governs it much more perfectly than would the intervention of any created intellect. But free competition, while justified and certainly useful provided it is kept within certain limits, clearly cannot direct economic life - a truth which the outcome of the application in practice of the tenets of this evil individualistic spirit has more than sufficiently demonstrated.”
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1187215 Gustavo Morles

Mr. Pahman,

You make a lot of sense when you argue that it is ultimately a question of how much one wishes to “worship” the state. Opponents of capitalism (in general) argue that the markets have to be regulated by the state. But defenders of capitalism correctly argue (as Milton Friedman famously did in the Phil Donahue show http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A) “Just tell me where in the world you find these angels who are going to organize society for us. I don’t even trust you to do that.”
More relevant to this forum, on Catholic Social Teaching and the State. There has been a substantial evolution on the thinking of the Popes on this subject. In Centesimo Annus, Pope John Paul II recognizes that, in Rerum Novarum, Pope Leo XIII calls upon the State to remedy
the condition of the poor, but this should not “lead us to think that Pope Leo expected the State to solve every social problem. On the contrary, he frequently insists on necessary limits to the
State’s intervention” (para. 11). John Paul II explains that the growth of excessive and abusive state intervention in recent years result from “an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State” (para. 48). Pope John Paul II then highlights the concept of subsidiarity, defined by the Catechism as “neither the state nor any larger society should substitute itself for the initiative and responsibility of individuals and intermediary bodies”. A more complete discussion of this topic can be found in my paper “Considering the argument that greed is good http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2167163)
A charitable reading of distributism’s guild, unions, and other such organizations would put then squarely on the side of subsidiarity. Where they seem to miss the mark is that these organizations (in our fallen world) are not “angels’ (in the Friedman view) either. I do not want to sound flippant, but maybe they have not read Bastiat’s Petition of the Candlemakers (http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html).
Ken

Mr Morles,

Since man has a fallen nature this comment rings true, “Just tell me where in the world you find these Angels who are going to organize society for us. I don’t even trust you to do that.” So instead of searching for these elusive beings, we will trust all men involved in our “Free Economy” to follow dictates of the invisible hand to organize it.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1187215 Gustavo Morles

Hi Ken,
Many will react negatively at the comment: as fallen creatures we must struggle daily to follow the dictates of the invisible hand. But, if one replaces ‘invisible hand’ with ‘conscience’, it is possible to glimpse a new perspective on Capitalism.
If one understands Capitalism being a market as free from the dictates of the State as possible, then the concept of the invisible hand is consumer freedom of choice. Consumers freely choosing to favor one product over another (think Netflix and Blockbuster) or one firm over another (think Walmart and mom-and-pop) pick winners and losers. As a consumer some individuals may chose products according to the dictates of their conscience. For example, may chose to dine at Chick-a-Fil because they are a “good” Christian company.
My big intellectual struggle is if you can make an equivalence between free choice in markets and free will in salvation theology.
Ken

Mr. Morales.
Thank you for the response, but I still believe the least intervention possible and the most “market freedom” possible is not the correct position for a just economy. The governmental favors enjoyed by a Wallmart, due to its’ size lend it an unfair advantage over “Mom and Pop’s “. In the end it is not free at all as in Mr. M’edaille’s example of Rhodes office Supply. Most industries are headed well into this direction. Take a look at anytown USA and you find every thing from hardware to clothing dominated by the large corporate companies, and the small stores and shops increasingly wiped away.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1060874428 Dylan James O’Brien Pahman

I suppose that I could have been more explicit regarding unions. I meant “free associations” to include unions, since that is how I and most other supporters of the free economy would believe they work best, as opposed to being compulsory.

Beyond that, we may have reached an impasse, and I do not want to repeat myself. I do think, at least, that the readers here may have gained some added clarity regarding both sides of the issue, for which I thank you for your patience and willingness to engage with my essay and comments.
http://www.thomasstorck.org Thomas Storck

Yes, indeed, and you are more than welcome.
http://proletariangeneralist.blogspot.com Proletarian Generalist

I’m neither educated well enough nor capable of writing well enough to contribute to the discussion here, but Mr. Storck’s statement below is so fantastically bold and clear that I feel compelled to restate it.

“The notion that market forces, chiefly supply and demand, create a marvelous symbiosis that promotes the common good is one of the most deeply-rooted myths of modernity.”

Amen.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1187215 Gustavo Morles

Sorry Ken, you lost me.

This is the argument I heard from you: large corporations are evil, corporations become large because they receive favors from the government, therefore we need more government. I may be misunderstanding you, but this is a non sequitur.
For argument’s sake, if I accept your premises, then the right conclusion is the one I postulate: less government is better. Governmental cronyism is not capitalism.

I am amazed at the flexibility Walmart displays when dealing with all the biases against it. In my neighborhood a Walmart recently opened. They were required by the city to close at 10 PM on account of some neighborhood traffic and noise nonsense. They replaced a K-Mart on the same location that was opened until 11PM. In this same shopping center the supermarket is open until 11PM, and across the street there is another supermarket open until midnight. Walmart gets no favors in this city!