Beth from Chevy Chase, MD, lobbed in an eloquent comment to a prior posting in this spaceconcerning the death of one of my favorite childhood establishments in Chicago. Every now and then I like to wrest some of your thoughts from the blogroll of time and give them a little air and sunshine, particularly on a rainy and recessed day here in New York.

Beth’s remarks are all the more germane as we consider the confluence of trends on which we’re now surfing. One the one hand, the price of fuel is soon going to limit our ability to travel, ship goods and hence create the kind of national branding that has always been a way of life for us. On the other hand, local businesses are dying faster than you can say Odd Lots.

Anyway, here’s Beth on the subject.

It was with deep sadness that I learned of the demise of Marshall Fields. I lost my dearly beloved Woodward & Lothrop in the middle of the 1990’s and spent years finding alternative places to make my purchases.

Competition is good for the soul and good for the economy. Our traditional places of commerce held a special and important place in the culture of our cities and suburbs. Too bad, newcomers did not feel loyal to the local establishments. Too bad that these folks did not understand the value of these local establishments.

No one needs to have all cities and suburbs alike with a common denominator that is always the lowest.

The lack of commerce for local establishments has vast repercussions.

Competition helps keep prices lower, helps keep the marketplace fresh. The traditional establishments provided many jobs and benefits to their employees. There was a loyalty contract, often unspoken, between employer and employee.

As the United States continues on its quest to be a mobile society, mobile persons should learn the culture of their new environment. It is mandatory for our economic future to maintain and sustain local businesses.

Establishing business outside the community supports an economy housed outside the community. The external business does not feel any urge to provide assistance to employees or to the local community at large. These big, out of state organizations, favor efforts that fit their national goals, rarely providing support for communities where they do business.

How sad it is that the modern economy fails to teach loyalty to local businesses. How dreadfully sad it is. I long for competition I long for consumer choices. I long to support local businesses. Alas, I long for something that is no longer an option.

Consumers need their Marshall Fields, their Woodward & Lothorp, and, their Julius Garfinckles & Co. There is no better shopping than these, now defunct, shopping havens. It is tragic that this fine institution has fallen away. Marshall Fields offered a brand name in shopping that cannot be recreated by the big box shops. Personal attention to customer needs and wants separated the department stores from the rest of the bunch.

Thanks.

Thank YOU, Beth. I note that you posted this melancholy screed at about 2:53 AM this morning. Sounds like you keep my kind of deplorable hours, online habits and prevailing mood at that hour.

Now I’m going to go downstairs to the corner store. I like the muffins and coffee there, both of which seem home made. There’s a Pret-A-Manger moving in across the street and I’d like to make a little statement when I buy my breakfast, as long as I have the opportunity to do so.

I’ve been in business for about 5,427 dog years and at no time during my career has there ever been a day when somebody wasn’t worried about what some security analyst was writing about us. This factoid stretches over six iterations of four separate companies, with enough corporate permutations to confuse a particle physicist.

“Bob Weasel of Finster-Koolaid says we’re off on our guidance and won’t make our EBITDA for the quarter!” the CFO will write while forwarding the latest analysis from Weasel, who long ago decided to take a negative turn on our stock because it differentiates him from the other analysts and gets him quotes in the Wall Street Journal.

“What are we going to do about it?” people will cry. And of course there’s nothing you can do about it. Weasel has every right to his take. Its can’t be corrected, either, even if he’s wrong, because Weasel’s opinion is based on a deep understanding of the marketplace, our business sector, and the economy.

Ha!

Weasel and his kind are, as I am sure you know, generally found to be employees of banking institutions. Real banks. Investment banks. Naturally, you know, the research side is (relatively recently) well-separated from the side that actually invests in stuff, but still. Who’s going to argue with Finster-Koolaid? It’s a division of Omnivorous Potentate, the largest investment bank in this brane of the cosmos!

A few years ago, the former CEO of a former form of a former corporate entity that morphed into one of my prior corporate entities appeared at a conference of these geniuses. Granted, Bob was a loser. He had bad affect. Still, the company had a lot going for it. But the security analysts didn’t like Bob’s style. So within 30 minutes of the close of his presentation, our stock went down like Eliot Spitzer. 

People went off to Froggies Tavern early that day, I can tell you. Because those guys ruled. And we drooled, for a long time afterwards. Then a new guy came in that people liked, for whatever reason. And our stock went up. Same company. Actually, slightly worse off, if I remember correctly. Go figure.

So now we look around us and the very same guys who were telling us why we sucked hose water, boy, are they drinking from the other side of the tap. All the great intellects who said people should divest this or that, or that such-and-such would never grow, or that management needed a kick in the kiester… they represent firms that are hawking up huge chunks of lung every day!

Where were these Einsteins when their companies were lending more money than they had to sub-prime borrowers? Were they any less shocked than the rest of us when the piper came to call?

In retrospect, who the hell were they to tell anybody what to invest in, or any corporation what they should or should not do? And why is anybody still listening to any of them?

It’s almost October and the stores have their Halloween displays up already. Tempus fugit and all that.  Soon it will be time for the drooling season leading up to the holidays to begin. Not quite yet, though, thank goodness. 

With autumn a-comin’ in, we have, however, arrived at the season when people who think about business for a living (as opposed to doing any) begin considering what might have been the biggest, the best, the funniest, the stupidest, the most pathetic and the most inspirational business stories of the year, in preparation for their year-end extravaganzas. So that’s what I’m thinking about. As always, I hate that. Thinking, I mean. I would rather ask you for help.

So. What do you think were the biggest, the best, the funniest, the stupidest, the most pathetic and the most inspirational business stories of the year?

• Was it China, which last week added the recall of a million baby cribs to its list of miscreancies?
• Was it the state of the crazy, hazy airline industry?
• Was it Mr. Jobs promising to give $100 cash American to anybody with eleven fingers?
• Was it the spread of BlackBerry ubiquity?
• Was it the arrival of Sudoku as brain Drano of the year?
• Was it YouTube’s 1,000,000th talking cat video?
• Was it the branding of Philanthropy as a fad, replacing Excellence, Synergy and many others that came before?
• Was it the decline of the celebutante and pop tart as dependable mercantile entities? I mean, haven’t these people ever heard of chauffeurs?
• Or was it something else? Something, say, that YOU did that you believe is worthy of note?

As magazines and newspaper editors meet in serious conclave, with stacks of clips and videos in which to immerse themselves, let’s see if we can go them one better and begin the construction of a meaningful, entertaining and illuminating list.

Okay?