This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Why Wal-Mart Is the Embodiment of Economic Stimulus
By: John Tamny, Toreador Research and Trading (Guest Contributor)
In a speech given several years ago, former Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott noted that shoppers at the retailer’s stores get raises each time they enter them. Thanks to Wal-Mart’s size, and its global reach as a buyer in bulk, it can secure the best deals on consumer goods that are then passed on to its customers.
Not surprisingly, Scott’s highly truthful statement earned him scorn from activists and media members possessing a congenital dislike of profits, but a recent article in the New York Post revealed how very true Scott’s statement was. As the Post found, if Wal-Mart were allowed to open stores in New York City, the average buyer of a diverse basket of groceries – from hamburger buns to cereal to butter – would save 33%.
The problem now, of course, is that Wal-Mart has so far been unsuccessful in its efforts to secure permission to open stores in the five boroughs. This has no doubt pleased its many clueless detractors apparently able to afford higher-cost grocery items, but for the New Yorkers already suffering nosebleed rents in what is one of the world’s most expensive cities, they’ll continue to overpay for basic goods in order to prop up local grocery stores able to mark up prices thanks to a lack of realistic competition.
The collateral economic damage that results from this form of local protectionism is vast, and worth noting.
For one, money saved is money that, if left in the bank, is lent out to entrepreneurs and businesses eager to grow. In short, were Wal-Mart given the freedom to open its stores in the largest city in the U.S., not only would many of its citizens receive instant raises, but the realized savings would expand a capital base that is presently a bit subdued as evidenced by difficult economic times.
Extrapolated across the country, though Wal-Mart’s reach is impressive, it remains the case that it’s not everywhere it wants to be not because it lacks the means, or consumer demand, but thanks to local barriers meant to protect well-connected, local businesses. If removed, Wal-Mart’s continued expansion would on its own enhance the capital outlook for a country populated by businesses ever needful of more of it.
When prices of goods are kept artificially high thanks to government barriers, the first-stage losers are those with limited funds forced to do business with merchants whose prices don’t reflect market realities. Not mentioned enough, though, are the successful businesses actually offering what customers desire, but that are similarly weakened by unnatural hurdles that keep the most efficient businesses from opening.
Indeed, assuming a removal of the impediments to Wal-Mart’s expansion, its customers would quickly find themselves more flush, and if eager to consume rather than save, more able to patronize other local businesses eager to serve them. The beauty of free trade is that it expands the range of businesses that consumers can do business with. In Wal-Mart’s case, the presumed decline in receipts for inefficient grocery stores would redound to the sales of other businesses giving customers what they actually want.
Some will naturally say that it’s not fair for the behemoth that is Wal-Mart to potentially put its weaker competitors out of business, but what’s not said enough is how unfair it is that government obstacles require consumers to pay higher prices than they otherwise would. Furthermore, last this writer saw, Wal-Mart is not forcing shoppers to walk its aisles; instead, they do so voluntarily.
What’s similarly not asked enough is if it’s fair to foist on the citizenry reduced economic growth thanks to hurdles being put in Wal-Mart’s way. If the question isn’t clear, we need only remind ourselves what protectionism actually is.
Imposed on consumers by governments, protectionism at its core is the cruel process whereby weaker, less efficient businesses are kept in operation thanks to barriers that keep the goods and services of the more efficient producers out; either locally or internationally. Put simply, protectionism subsidizes the weak at the expense of the enterprising. And in a world of limited capital, this is problematic because it ensures the perpetuation of business practices that would otherwise cease if market forces were allowed to prevail.
Considering New York City’s economy, or any other for that matter, impediments to competition ensure that capital is destroyed, underutilized or both thanks to the inefficient being given a lease on life through pull with politicians. If it’s remembered that all jobs exist thanks to financial capital finding its way to worthwhile businesses, protectionism – be it local or between countries – destroys it on the way to less company/job creation.
Looking at New York City, no doubt some businesses will fail if Wal-Mart enters the market, but not discussed enough are the businesses that will replace the ones exposed as unworthy by Wal-Mart’s arrival. The word “capital” ultimately describes access to the human, mechanical and property inputs that comprise businesses, so while Wal-Mart’s hoped-for ascendance in New York City will reveal some businesses as wanting, its success will be stimulative for redirecting underutilized capital to higher, more economically productive activities.
Lastly, it must be remembered that government barriers to business formation are explicit taxes on our labor and liberty. As workers all, we produce in order to consume, and when unnatural obstacles retard our ability to trade our labor for what we want, we face a tax, along with a certain loss of liberty.
To transact with Wal-Mart or any other business entity is ultimately a voluntary act, and as such, Wal-Mart should be allowed the opportunity to set up shop wherever it desires. That its continued growth will expand the range of goods within our reach in concert with a more efficient deployment of capital makes plain that its continued good fortune will be economically stimulative too.
-Mr. Tamny is a senior economic advisor to Toreador Research & Trading, columnist for Forbes and editor of RealClearMarkets.com. Mr. Tamny frequently writes about the securities markets, along with tax, trade and monetary policy issues that impact those markets for a variety of publications including the Wall Street Journal, National Review and the Washington Times. He’s also a frequent guest on CNBC’s Kudlow & Co. along with the Fox Business Channel.
- advertisements -
So I guess its okay for us to limit choices of those fortunate people living in places Harlem, so we can protect some mom and pop store. But who cares right and let a family starve because they need to pay more to protect the small businesses. Because they employ 'people' at high wages. Most these Mom and Pops are employing illegals or paying min. wage. What makes them better than Walmart?
And all these union retoric on this topic is a joke. They are the reason why this country has plummeted against the world. Remember the 89 Ford Taurus. Unions at their best. Teachers Unions, Steelworkers etc...
I've been shopping at WM since at least the mid 80s. I remember when they mostly had US merchandise and advertised such. It occurs to me that WM didn't start out with so much Chinese stuff even if that is largely where they are today. It wasn't WM that created the situation wherein all the manufacturing jobs went offshore. They evolved to survive in the current retail merchandising environment. Who elected the assholes that decided we could live long and wax fat on a service economy. I notice that somebody is stroking NY NY for keeping WM out of the 5 boroughs. I suggest that they are trolling for lots of other decisions by government if they think that is a good thing. I notice that NY NY kept WM out so far, but I see they have three Harbor Freight stores near at hand, including Hempstead NY. So I suppose they are different? So how many other retailers are peddling Chinese goods and in what percentages of their sales and inventory? I hear a lot of whiners but I don't see too many of my countrymen learning mandarin, being willing to engage them in competition or even make a free market for that matter. I guess they have been enjoying mercantilism for so long they have forgotten how to compete. Yeah, they make a lot of cheap shit. They get cheap money in return and buy our poopy bonds. They also make inexpensive serviceable merchandise, kinda like the Japanese did in the 50s and 60s. They're getting better all the time and learning some capitalism. They are getting an American infection. They are also way over extended in many ways and it will come back to bite them in the ass eventually. In the meantime we need to get off our fat, socialist American asses. Quitcherbitchin'.
My major gripe with WM is that they knuckled under to PC and stopped selling handguns and many stores don't even sell long guns anymore. They still suck up to the shooting community though with ammo and hunting/shooting paraphernalia out amongst the rustics, I merely refuse to buy gun related stuff from them cuz they drank the PC NY NY style anti-gun koolade. That's another thing you metrosexuals haven't been able to get right and a reason why I left the area I grew up in 4 decades ago. There are a few things I miss but they aren't worth the loss of liberty.
Wally world or Disney mart
Take a ride, eat then fart
Buy some gas, help a jihad
Be a sheep, buy an Ipad
Buy some stock, shoot a gun
Right or wrong have some fun
Up is down and left is wrong
No worries, the name of the song
Great piece, John! You stirred up a hornet's nest here.
For the 30 years as a writer, I have become convinced that many, if not most, people do not really understand the First Amendment. They espouse the free press as long as they agree with what they see and read.
Likewise, I now believe that many, if not most, do not understand free markets. They're for 'free markets' as long as it's markets they prefer. Introduce a marketer they don't like, lacking the proper ambiance, it's off with their heads! Let government intervene and trade barriers begin.
Where I live, there are lots of choices and Wal-Mart has several locations. I shop there only very rarely, opting for the higher end Target when I'm mass shopping. I also shop at high end stores like Whole Foods, Talbots and J Crew.
WM will never take over my overall shopping experience. It only runs out the weak and dying retail stores. Frankly the higher end stores are even more attractive in relation to big, tacky WM. I like having them all.
Yes, but would you want to live beside one? Even where I live, where Wal-Mart is beloved, nobody wants them to build a second super center next door to them. My hunch is you'd fight them tooth & nail too.
I can't say---it would depend on the plans and buffer zones---any more than I could say about living next to a Home Depot, Toys-R-Us, Office Depot. Again, this question is irrelevant to the post, in my opinion.
Mr. Tamny:
All the 'savings' that have been 'accumulated' by all the shoppers at Wal-mart since the first store opened in Arkansas many decades ago roughly amount to a dollar for dollar loss of income for American employees.
If the $260,000,000,000 in sales per year at Wal-Mart were distributed over all the businesses that the Big Box stores have crushed thru 'lowest prices' business model, the country would likely be unfazed by the last three years of disastrous economic consequences.
The contrast between the Union mentality of overpaying nepotistic employees that created a fatal inbreeding environment for shoddy products as in the Detroit Automobile model during the 80s and 90s and the Wal-mart model of non-union, lowest price, not bad products for the money has got to be a HBS project for some student that would like an MBA in precisely how not to run economies, countries, or governments.
Moderation would have prevented much of the horrific damage that bankrupted the largest corporation in the world. Moderation would prevent Wal-mart putting out of business the self-employed who would rather run a small business than work for a corporation.
The extra 33% that people spend by keeping Wal-mart at bay, is the premium that they seem to part with without resorting to one or more of them sending an occasional letter of complaint to the editor. The 33% extra does circulate in local economy so I doubt that there is a macro consequence to paying an extra .50 for a package of Little Debbies.
Conglomeration, amalgamation, consolidation, Single-sourcing for anything is recipe for disaster as Central Government has proven over and over again.
A radical dismemberment of ALL oligarchic or monopolistic entities is a goal devoutly to be wished for. And that includes Wal-Mart, Costco, and other harmful monopolies. Someone once broke up Standard Oil for the sins that these retailers get away with every minute of every day.
That its continued growth will expand the range of goods within our reach in concert with a more efficient deployment of capital makes plain that its continued good fortune will be economically stimulative too.
Fuck Walmart. Aside from the ongoing rape of First World citizens by it's banking industries and governments, it's traditional real value - the production of useful things has also been gutted by it's captains of industry as they've abandoned their own people and enslaved 3rd world peasants in their on going struggle to stay on top no matter how many of their own countrymen they destroy in the process - the real effects of this have been delayed/masked by the fiat money system. The value of "lowest cost per unit" for the purchaser is destroyed if the purchaser is unable to afford the units because they can no longer competitively produce any other units of worth...
To me a lot of the Free-Market worshipers can be separated into 2 classes: Those who will rule (and already do), and those who will be ruled in the pursuit of lowest prices as they unknowingly destroy the value of their own work.
You want to compete against someone who is working for $0.30/hour and working 16 hours a day? Do you support slavery? You vote it continues every time you buy products produced by it, and by continually doing so you're voting your descendants to live in it too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kCxvbBsv00&feature=related
I have a question for the author and all other free market 'thinkers.' How is it that people who are given as a consumers to be all wise in their judgement while shopping always seem to lose their heads while casting a ballot? If NYC voters can get screwed over by the lazy unionist and local shop keepers then surely one can argue that Middle America might be getting shafted by a conniving corporation, whether it's a mass retailer who sells a flip-flop that disintegrates the first time it touches the water or a mega brewer hocking Lite Beer.
I just don't see how anybody can look at how the physical landscape has changed in America over the last several decades and not see evidence of a centralizing power at work. If it was for the sake of efficiency, then it was a questionable choice no matter how made.
I like John Tamney. He always answers his emails and he's right far more often than he's wrong.
That said...
John needs to spend a winter plowing or a summer landscaping.
What John doesn't seem to get is that sooner or later "real" value producing labor is a necessity for a prosperous and powerful nation.
The whole point of ZeroHedge is to "out" the games being played and the smoke and mirrors nature of modern finance and corporate cronyism.
Yes, yes... profitable investments are "good" and Walmart's business model has brought them profit galore.
And, yes, John... Walmart has saved Americans money.
But at what cost...?!?! At what LONG TERM cost...?!?!
Listen... whether this makes sense to John Tamny (or anyone else reading this for that matter) or not, here's what Walmart could do to smile on my lips and a spring to my step:
Wherever possible, provide American-made choices to customers.
Have racks and shelf space dedicated to "American Made" products.
Remain profitable, but support American manufacturing by working with American manufacturers not to beat them into submission, but to partner with them in a mutually beneficial business relationship that also benefits the nation and our citizens in terms of "workforce," not just consumers.
Yes, John, I know... Walmart's not in the business of waving the flag, they're in the business of making money. I get it.
I'm just telling you what would appeal to me and what would gain my patronage - and thus my money.
If this is an "unsophisticated" and "naive" way of thinking... and "outmoded" way of thinking... so be it.
I care about my country, John. You'll never be able to convince me that a "consumer economy" buttressed by cheap foreign made goods is in the best interest of my country, me, my kids, or one day my grandkids.
this idiocy can be summed up by pointing out the faulty assumption of the entire piece.
"To transact with Wal-Mart or any other business entity is ultimately a voluntary act, and as such, Wal-Mart should be allowed the opportunity to set up shop wherever it desires."
this is the same argument for legalizing heroin. i would say, cheaper food is even more addictive than heroin, because you gotta buy food. you have no choice when youre starving. that is not voluntary at all. the cheaper is better argument is the same old stupid arugment.
Absolutely.
Wow! I didn't really think this was possible, but my opinion of lawyers just hit a new low
Funny...I thought Wal-Mart was the embodiment of being forced to see women or she-things wear things in public I never ever intended to see.
As for Walmarts business genius...Go ask some mid-sized vendors how Walmart treats them.
ACME Co: We would like to sell 1,000 units per month for $7.50 each.
Walmart: "1200/mo for 3 months, $6.25 each, then we will re-evaluate"
ACME: "Uhhh...OK...selling at-cost is better than not selling."
3 months later, all 1200 units/mo sold:
Walmart Exec: "ACME Your Awesome, but in order to carry your product We will require you to supply 10,000 per month...for $5 ea, so we can slap a Smiley on it and "roll back" the price, you have 4 months to ramp up"
ACME :Oh Sh!t...Uh...Ok...Guess were gunna have to build 4 more factories...how we sell for $5/ea is anyone's guess, but hey were making it!!!
4 Months later:
Walmart Exec: "You only shipped 9,000, and were gunn only be able to pay $4.50 for those, if you miss the 10,000 quota again were gunna buy from ZICMO."
ACME: "Oh Sh!t...we didnt even make a profit on those 9,000 units/mo...how can i afford to make 10,000 at another 50 cents less? F!@k..."
2 months later Walmart yanks the contract and ACME having nobody to sell to, and 3 additional factories, and $5M more in debt on equipment files bankruptcy, and the prior ACME owner now works at Walmart selling ZIRCO's units.
Fabulous!
And yet the Walmarts in China there is nary a product to be found that ISN'T made in China. Actually, there are LESS foreign goods in your average Walmart in China as compared to the other hypermarts in China.
The principles that the man is expounding are right, but the Walmart example is blown so ridiculously out of proportion that he ends up sounding like an idiot anyway. The 33% statistic is of the kind that's worse than lies and damn lies. There would actually be very little difference in a like-to-like comparison of goods, and most of that difference would be accounted for by the NYC prices for land, construction, labor and other stuff that Walmart would have to pay same as anybody else. As has been pointed out NYC already has Target.
I don't mind Walmart. If the po white trash prefer cheap Chinese junk let em have it, leaves more good stuff for people who appreciate it. I bought a bunch of clothes there once somewhere down south when I was on a long road trip - it was easier and cheaper than getting my dirty clothes washed on the road. And I don't want to pay a damn aisle stocker union wages anyway, do you?
But Walmart would not change NYC. Get a grip.
I consider it treason to shop at a Walmart store. You have betrayed your own local people for a slightly better deal.
That's called trade, not treason. You may have engaged in it before. Ever buy a computer or television? Chances are you committed "treason".
Good thread; might I suggest a read by the pamphleteer thom hartmann entitled "screwed" read the damn thing!
Many commentors act like paying higher prices helps the local economy. No, it just means people have less money to spend on other things and that the middle-man suppliers outside the city made more money. If getting over-charged for groceries was good for the economy, we'd just outlaw competition completely and set high grocery prices by fiat. Would the union sheep like that? If you don't like stuff being made in China then don't buy it - pretty simple. But don't use force to tell me who I can and cannot engage in voluntary trade with.
If you don't like stuff being made in China then don't buy it - pretty simple.
What's the name of this national retailer that sells predominately North American made goods? I'll start shopping there tomorrow.
No, the question is, what goods does North America still make for me to buy? Very few. However the other day I found made in Cincinnati light bulbs. And Wooster Ohio still makes paint brushes. You can still get custom suits, jeans, and boots made in the US.
Most of the time the only way to buy American these days is to buy antiques that were made in the past before China joined the world market.
Farmer's markets, flea markets, goodwill, antique stores, used book store, coin shop, and gun shows are basically the places I shop. The only foreign goods I have to buy are computers and cell phones maybe once every couple years (and oil of course).
If you want a good weapon, buy American. We still have the know-how to make precision machinery. I'd bet money on an American jet fighter vs. one from anyplace, even China. Unfortunately, nearly all the quality stuff made here is done on government money. The government isn't willing to buy the cheap Chinese shit that the consumers prefer.
It's all about economics and marketing. Wal-Markets to people who don't give a damn about quality, they just buy the second cheapest model on the shelf. The cheapest model is for "the welfare bums" while the high priced one is for suckers. But it's all crap, and we keep buying it.
Wal-Mart replaced the mom and pop business that used to support local sports, scouting, churches and other local businesses. We traded the subsidized community perks from mom and pop for lower prices and lower quality Chinese imports. It's a trade-off.
Now, mom and pop don't own a business, so they don't donate much to community projects. They're too busy trying to make a living on minimum wage as Wal-Mart employees.
It's a choice we made because we're just too stupid for enlightened self-interest.
Go Wal-Mart. Once you've hollowed out the remaining U.S. industrial base, maybe you can start running "Introduction to Mandarin" lessons on the big screens on all your stores. Then at least America's new owner/operators will be able to tell us what to do in their U.S. shops/factories using the subtle nuances of their native tongue.
This may have been said once, or possibly twice in the comments here already (hahaha)....
But I feel it necessary to reiterate the sentiment.....
FUCK CHINA-MART
Great article because it prods Americans to think about their future rather than drink beer and watch foolball. Somehow ,sometime the pertinent issues must be addressed;
How much globalization is acceptable if detrimental to US economy?
How much income disparity is acceptable , especially in time of two wars and high unemployment?
How much deficits are acceptable if counterproductive in stimulating economy?
How much of an advantage is Walmarts in reducing marginal prices?
What is more important to Americans---a global economy or our national economy?
What is more important ---our childrens future or todays profits?
Go Figure!
We shop a couple of times a month at a Super Walmart. Groceries are 15-20% less expensive than the local Hannaford, Shaws, etc. And, the employees are pleasant and helpful -- something sorely lacking with the competition. Thank God we live in a relatively free country where we can shop wherever in f**K we please!
Not everything revolves around price. In NYC, store location, as in being able to walk to get groceries, is very important to consumers.
Until Walmart Arrives. Then the masses gravitate to a store oopen 24-hrs, where they can walk around for 3 hours. Happens every time. Really..it does. Then that little local store closes down due to a 20% drop in clients, and now everyone is forced to shop at smiley center WM.
haha! hows that lady on isle 10 in the gogo boots and hot pink stretchy pants? Oh wait...thats a dude! HAHA
"Why Wal-Mart Is the Embodiment of Economic Stimulus"
The short answer is when governments collude with corporations in a fascist centrally-controlled economy, the peasants find it convenient to spend their debt coupons (or food stamps) in one place.
That its continued growth will expand the range of goods within our reach in concert with a more efficient deployment of capital makes plain that its continued good fortune will be economically stimulative too.
Mr. Tamny really needs to watch Idiocracy.
I love nyc but the one truth is that they overpay for groceries and small retail items, plus the poor schmucks with the tiny store fronts overpay also. The real money is made by the middle men and zabars. The plutocrats love the way things run in nyc and those opposing wal mart either are useful idiots or benefit in other ways from fragmented markets with no power to drive down high wholesale prices.
This article is spot on... if we want the status quo, jobs kept overseas, debt culture limbo, endless warfare, massive corporations, blah, blah...
This article is false if we actually want American jobs (and I mean REAL production/manufacturing jobs, not door greeter jobs), truthful monetary policy, real economic prosperity based on small business and the People.
Seriously - why was this article put on ZeroHedge? Is this just a big stick to whack the hornet's nest? This is the kind of shit we see on Fox.
I'm chosing to believe that Tyler does this just to let us all rip it appart. The part that concerns me is the well coordinated postings by shills when articles like this pop up. Like flies that were waiting for such a piece of shit.
WAL MART SUCKS.
They, and they alone ,are almost solely responsible for the destruction of the small American Mom n Pop stores.
In small towns across America, main streets shops(along with the towns) have all but disappeared, thanks to Wal Marts tactics.
They are to blame for the loss of millions of jobs, and lost tax revenues to cities all across America.
They are what they sell, whores.
Sam Walton would turn in his grave if he saw what his progeny has done to his beloved America.
Ever tried to deal with them, and get paid?.
Good luck on both counts.They are the only winner in this game.
But didn't supermarkets drive the corner grocery stores out of business? And didn't the malls decimate main streets because they were more convenient and had free parking as opposed to the metered spaces downtown? WalMart is just the latest iteration of change. We can choose to shop there or not.
Just like we can choose not to shop at supermarkets or malls.
Shhhh, don't scare them with logic!
Let's not forget big box stores for electronics, hardware, software and gaming, sporting goods, fabrics, etc
They also don't mention that UNIONS screwed the pooch in the auto, steel, textiles, printing, etc.
"Sam Walton would turn in his grave if he saw what his progeny has done to his beloved America."
That is an extraordinarily perceptive statement, and I think in the long run that will be why Wal Mart will join JM Fields, Zayre, Ames, Woolco, Grant's, Ben Franklin and lord knows how many other big chains in the great commercial strip in the sky.
Somebody will simply come along and do it in a more inviting (not necessarily "better") way so that shoppers don't feel like they're contributing to the oppression of Chinese, unemployment of Americans, squeezing of suppliers, steamrollering of local planners, desertification of main streets, harassment of workers, etc.
Times change. People get smarter. Maybe someone comes along and fixes Sears/Kmart before it's too late.
ROFL Because fascist global imperial monetarism (not globalization...there's no such thing), is such a good thing.
Protectionism worked for 200 years. Global Imperial Monetarism has been all the rage since then. Guess exactly where and when the cracks formed.
Another idiot who is oblivious to the real world consequences of his ideology.
Next thing you know this idiot will say fixed exchange rates aren't good, and that the American Credit System isn't as good as our Queen inspired Federal Reserve Monetary system, which after wwii became solely imperial, (who won wwii? britain? it's their fucking system...shouldn't they use ours?) which then abandoned the bretton woods and implemented all the great outsourcing, floating exchanges scams, derivatives, securitization...especially MBS and CMBS, so on and so forth.
This dumbass actually says Wal*Mart is good. I bet Wal*Mart is responsible for 100x the job losses as it currently employs. If you counted for wages, probably 150x what Wal*Mart pays. That doesn't even include all the outsourcing of their preferred 'made in china' goods compared to American made (or hell mexican made) goods that used to be supplied to the defunct shops closed by Wal*Mart.
Let's treat our employees like Cattle, and use them for *appearances*. You know Wal*Mart cares, that's why while we're some of the richest fucks in forbes, we don't give shit to charity or nothing....but our welfare recipient workers *because they don't make enough with us*, will give 10000x more than we do and we'll make it seem like the Waltons care. Yeah fucking right. But if you don't parse the words, like 99 percent don't, you think wrongly that the Walton's care. RFID's? Yep we are on the leading edge of this crap...and YOU have to buy them, why? Because if you don't pay for the tags themselves suppliers, we won't carry you.
How many Wal*Marts stand empty AFTER bankrupting the local businesses? hundreds? thousands?
Anybody who thinks Wal*Mart is good is by definition, anti-american, anti-capitalistic, and anti-human. Those are facts. You can't get around slave labor, lying, scumbaggery, monopoly, strong-arming, fleecing, preying on local and federal gov't to provide what you don't, among many other tactics that not only help in the destruction of America, but eventually their own company.
Repeal NAFTA, stop competing with communist countries (slave labor / illegal per Constitution), get our executive to factory pay ratio more inline with what is was in the 50's and watch this country kick ass.
So? That still wouldn't matter and Wall Mart should still be allowed to compete. (I've never been to a Wall Mart, I don't own Wall Mart shares or have any interest in this, so please spare me from righteous comments.)
I believe the Wal-Marts are being blocked by local residents, not the Federal government. If the locals don't want them there, Wal-Mart should go away.
Would you like to explain why or should we all just blindy nod without further questioning?
He boo-booed on the headline. Should read:
Why Wal-Mart Is the Embodiment of Economic Destruction
Then you simply read the article as sarcasm.
Fuld out.
yes and WallFart is good for all those small businesses which are responsible for the majority of innovation and employment-not! And if you want FAIR competition, then allow EVERY business to buy from the same manufacturers and at the SAME PRICE as Walmart!
I can't believe I am reading this on ZH!
Should all manufacturers in that case require orders from all businesses? Or should it be up to the government to decide which manufacturers can make what products?
And should the government dictate that all manufacturers of certain product standardize product specs and sell at a price that allows the least efficient manufacturer to stay in business?
They tried that in the USSR. Didn't work out.
There's a walmart near me and i dont go there. I go to a real grocery store that has selection, good produce and an amazing meat counter and bakery, and there are always hot euro women walking around there. I place a higher value on what i eat rather than just getting it as cheaplyas possible. Everything they sell ranges from cheap and poorly made up to dangerous (lead levels anyone?).
By the way, it's not cheaper, the costs are simply borne elsewhere. America's ability to externalize these costs will end eventually. Before you say i don't know what Im talking about, i say that i'm in a position to know ;)
Unlike most other anti-WM comments this one is fair, but even if it were true it should be up to consumers to decide where they want to shop.
People can shop wherever they like, but I won't go there. The thing is that I'm in Canada and WM came here in 1994. Since then, I've noticed a steady decline in the quality of goods sold at other retailers in an effort to keep up with WM. I would argue that WM has eliminated choice for me as a consumer. I can no longer opt to go to another retailer and pay a higher price for what, to me, is a better quality product because everyone has decided that the lowest price is the sole end that should be pursued. Now, I have to go to niche retailers to purchase the same level of quality for a given product and pay an even higher premium. So now, even when you don't go to WM, in many cases you are still trapped in their model, because it has taken over, low price over quality. The consumer that wants quality has lost.
Is it WM's fault that consumers have largely chosen cheap over all else? Are consumers simply trying to stretch dollars further? I don't know, but what I do know is that someone like me, who prefers to spend a bit more to get better quality has been left behind.
B B B But...you can People watch at WM!
uh...scratch that idea!
I agree with your argument...WM = Bad for me, good for ppl who want cheap stuff. But...they do sell low cost M&M's...which I do enjoy.