Wal-Mart undercutting practises

[donnay]

If a company lowers prices they are accused of predatory pricing. If a company raises prices they are accused of price gouging. If a company maintains prices, they are accused of cartelizing.

I can't remember who said this, but it is true here.



Somehow, making money through voluntary exchange is an assault on American values now. The inefficient firms that lobby to get Wal-Mart banned from communities are supposed to be standing for "American values", by using government force in order to make a buck?



Struggling to fight a company that provides low prices? The horror!



Why does any of this matter?

When a company gets subsidies by the State and takes away from average Mom & Pop businesses, that is fair?

When a company strong arms purveyors to make their things at the price Walmart dictates, that is fair?

When Walmart props up factories in China where the people get paid $3.00 a day to make products to sell to the U.S. at a rate hike of 200%, that is fair?

I live in a small town who continuously fights to not let Walmart in or around our town. I am thankful a lot of people have insight and enough wisdom to be stubborn enough to not fall for their deception-- that it will bring jobs to our area and all the other lies they say. We have a lot to protect around here, we keep local businesses in business by keeping Walmart out of our town!

Not to mention Walmart was the main reason we have RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) in products--do some research on that. They worked hand-and-hand with the DoD to have all products with tracking devices on them!

We are not dealing with a truly free market--we have crony capitalism and Walmart capitalizes on it.

You need to watch the documentary I posted...then come back in to the discussion.

 

[Becker]

If a company lowers prices they are accused of predatory pricing. If a company raises prices they are accused of price gouging. If a company maintains prices, they are accused of cartelizing.

I can't remember who said this, but it is true here.

exactly, corporations are never good guys, lol.

Somehow, making money through voluntary exchange is an assault on American values now.

its what happens when you believe in rights, it's a slippery slope to "entitlement".

The inefficient firms that lobby to get Wal-Mart banned from communities are supposed to be standing for "American values", by using government force in order to make a buck?

because they're fighting bad guys, so they're not the initial aggressors

Struggling to fight a company that provides low prices? The horror!



Why does any of this matter?

good question

 

[Cutlerzzz]

When a company gets subsidies by the State and takes away from average Mom & Pop businesses, that is fair?

Walmart gets relatively little in subsidies, and many of their competitors are subsidized or protected by the state.

When a company strong arms purveyors to make their things at the price Walmart dictates is fair?

Walmart cannot make anyone price anything at a price they do not want to sell something at. Companies sell at low costs to Walmart because it is in their best interest to do so.

When Walmart props up factories in China where the people get paid $3.00 a day to sell to the U.S. at a rate hike of 200% is fair?

Yes, because it is done through voluntary exchange. Walmart deserves credit for utilizing the international division of labor in order to increase prosperity. This frees up American labor for productive purposes.

I live in a small town who continuously fights to not let Walmart in or around our town. I am thankful a lot of people have insight and enough wisdom to be stubborn enough to not fall for their deception-- that it will bring jobs to our area and all the other lies they say. We have a lot to protect around here, we keep local businesses in business by keeping Walmart out of our town!

Protectionism is awful economics. There is no fixed number of jobs. If local business cannot compete with Walmart, then they should all go out of business and stop wasting resources. They are an inefficient waste of time, and their land, labor, and capital should be set free for productive purposes. If they are getting government protection, then they are leeching off of the state. This is no different from any other form of crony capitalism. It is just special interest groups being protected from competition.

 

[Becker]

This frees up American labor for productive purposes.

LMAO

I'm sure the unemployed Americans right now are loving their "freed up labor for productive purposes". We're too busy sleeping on OWS and playing Angry Birds on our iPhones

 

[MRK]

Walmart's food prices in the Indianapolis area are typically overall higher than the local competitors like Kroger, Meijer, and definitely Aldis.

Walmart will however have selectively lower prices on certain products, but they change these around from time to time in what appears to be an effort to trick people into thinking their overall prices are lower than they really are.

Walmart does often have lower prices on household durable goods that overwhelmingly seem to come from China. But I have found that these prices are almost always beat by online competitors which often make their products in North America.

 

[FlatIron]

Honestly, Wal-Marts low prices wont be able to handle it much longer from the new expanded competition i.e. Amazon, Ebay etc, and from the unions

 

[specsaregood]

Target has a better lot, more register attendants, and overall less of a low-rent atmosphere. They protect my time and for that I'll happily give them the extra dollar (gasp) in return for not stealing 20 minutes of my life.

go to their site and print out the coupons that are relevent to your shopping trip and you might not even have to spend that extra dollar.

 

[roho76]

Hillary Clinton worked for WalMarx. I'm sure they have their hands in the governments pockets in one way or another.

It's my opinion that companies wouldn't get that large in a free market without the governments invisible hand. Companies like GM, Bank of America, and who ever owned Solyndra (I'm sure that wasn't their first handout) wouldn't get as big as they do. Other companies would flood the market and offer competing products at the same price because the cost of producing the product would come down. You can see this in the computer market, cell phone market, TV market and you don't see this in Agriculture, cell phone market, and Big Oil. The moment they create the Department of 1's and 0's expect tech prices to take a 180.

 

[FlatIron]

When a company gets subsidies by the State and takes away from average Mom & Pop businesses, that is fair?

When a company strong arms purveyors to make their things at the price Walmart dictates, that is fair?

When Walmart props up factories in China where the people get paid $3.00 a day to make products to sell to the U.S. at a rate hike of 200%, that is fair?

I live in a small town who continuously fights to not let Walmart in or around our town. I am thankful a lot of people have insight and enough wisdom to be stubborn enough to not fall for their deception-- that it will bring jobs to our area and all the other lies they say. We have a lot to protect around here, we keep local businesses in business by keeping Walmart out of our town!

Not to mention Walmart was the main reason we have RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) in products--do some research on that. They worked hand-and-hand with the DoD to have all products with tracking devices on them!

We are not dealing with a truly free market--we have crony capitalism and Walmart capitalizes on it.

You need to watch the documentary I posted...then come back in to the discussion.

Not really fond of the protectionist idea, but I am glad your local government is handling the issue, and not Washington, itself

Edit: Machines will take over the labor burden, so its only a temporary issue.

 

[specsaregood]

Hillary Clinton worked for WalMarx. I'm sure they have their hands in the governments pockets in one way or another.

It's my opinion that companies wouldn't get that large in a free market without the governments invisible hand

you are correct, walmart got to their size with ample government help.

 

[Seraphim]

How so? Genuinely interested - any amunition to argue against Wal Marx.

you are correct, walmart got to their size with ample government help.

 

[specsaregood]

How so? Genuinely interested - any amunition to argue against Wal Marx.

Well the easiest example would be tax exemptions they got from towns for building, exemptions that all the smaller competitors didn't get.

Or there is the issue of them telling their employees to get on govt welfare/healthcare/subsidy programs. Since they pay them low enough wages to qualify.

 

[trey4sports]

Low prices are good, not bad.

Exactly. Low prices are great for the consumer, and if we as consumers can get products for less than cost that's great. Predatory price cutting may work for a short while but once they have monopolized the market and raise prices then competition will once again arise.

 

[roho76]

Well the easiest example would be tax exemptions they got from towns for building, exemptions that all the smaller competitors didn't get.

Or there is the issue of them telling their employees to get on govt welfare/healthcare/subsidy programs. Since they pay them low enough wages to qualify.

Rod Roddy, tell him what he's won.

 

[angelatc]

Fred Meyer may be mostly a west coast operation. I haven't spent much time on the east cost.

It is, but Wal-Mart certainly isn't a monopoly in any sense of the word. Wal-Mart made their initial billions servicing rural areas of America, places that the big retailers said weren't big enough to justify serving. They didn't start to move into the suburbs and cities until the 90's. They completely rewrote the inventory management book, too. Their distribution system is second to none.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Hillary Clinton worked for WalMarx. I'm sure they have their hands in the governments pockets in one way or another.

It's my opinion that companies wouldn't get that large in a free market without the governments invisible hand. Companies like GM, Bank of America, and who ever owned Solyndra (I'm sure that wasn't their first handout) wouldn't get as big as they do. Other companies would flood the market and offer competing products at the same price because the cost of producing the product would come down. You can see this in the computer market, cell phone market, TV market and you don't see this in Agriculture, cell phone market, and Big Oil. The moment they create the Department of 1's and 0's expect tech prices to take a 180.

IIRC, Standard Oil became huge without government's hand. I could be wrong though.

 

[angelatc]

Well the easiest example would be tax exemptions they got from towns for building, exemptions that all the smaller competitors didn't get.

Or there is the issue of them telling their employees to get on govt welfare/healthcare/subsidy programs. Since they pay them low enough wages to qualify.

You've really been on the liberal side of things lately.

The other side of the coin is that the WalMart adds an astronomical value to the properties and businesses of their neighbors, something their smaller competitors didn't do. The additional revenue they bring in creates a bidding war among townships for their presence, and they'd be retarded not to take advantage of that.

Since when is it the employers responsibility to pay anything above what the market will bear for wages?

 

[angelatc]

IIRC, Standard Oil became huge without government's hand. I could be wrong though.

A&P, the grocer, was incredibly huge back in the day. Wal-Mart has nothing on them as far as market share goes, but as always, the market caught up with them.

 

[Knighted]

Your friend is right, at least in theory. And undercutting isn't the only reason why a monopoly can exist for a long time. A monopoly may not last forever, but it's entirely plausible that if an industry has enough barriers to entry like startup capital costs and regulations to comply with, and the company has significant name brand recognition, undercuts competition as you mentioned, and makes deals with suppliers to keep competitors out, a company could dominate the market for decades if not longer. Collusion is also a possibility. A company may not technically be a monopoly either, but they own such a large percent of industry sales that they are one for all intents and purposes.

Can't believe I forgot to mention one of the biggest reasons here. Economies of scale. In certain industries, the very nature of a company growing larger allows them to produce products at a cheaper cost than smaller companies. This creates an incredible competitive barrier for new companies seeking to enter into such an industry. Literally as a company grows larger, their pricing advantage over smaller competitors grows larger as well.

 

[donnay]

Walmart gets relatively little in subsidies, and many of their competitors are subsidized or protected by the state.

Wal-Marx gets $1 Billion in government subsidies. Again, in a free market the people would be the regulators not the government! Those subsidies come off the backs of hard working people in the form of taxes. So at the barrel of a gun, my money goes to subsidizing Mega Corporations like Wal-Marx! That's not freedom!

Sources:
http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/24/news/fortune500/walmart_subsidies/
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporate_Welfare/WalMart_Welfare.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-norman/wal-mart-billionaire-want_b_443649.html
http://www.walmartmovie.com/facts.php
http://walmartsubsidywatch.com/methodology.html
http://www.thepanelist.net/neuberts...es-i-blame-the-government-not-the-corporation

Walmart cannot make anyone price anything at a price they do not want to sell something at. Companies sell at low costs to Walmart because it is in their best interest to do so.

LOL! That's rich. What happens is people compete to get Wal-Marx to buy their products, since it is a huge retailer. The supplier makes a deal with them and signs a contract, that Wal-Marx provides the supplier with, agreeing to to sell such product(s) for a trial of six months. Then at Wal-Marx's discretion they tell the supplier if they want to sell any more of their product line in Wal-Marx, the price needs to come down considerably. Because Wal-Marx is a huge retailer people try to keep up, but usually wind up going out of business because they can not sustain their business at the current rate they were undercut by Wal-Marx.

Sources:
http://www.fastcompany.com/1681262/walmarts-sustainability-challenge-yields-green
http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/03/creative-disruption-forbes-opinons-walmart.html
http://www.leadershipnow.com/leadershop/1594200769.html
http://www.brookesnews.com/070110walmart.html

Yes, because it is done through voluntary exchange. Walmart deserves credit for utilizing the international division of labor in order to increase prosperity. This frees up American labor for productive purposes.

You think the people in China voluntarily agree to the terms and conditions? $3.00 a day, in conditions, kennels in this country would be closed down for? And what particular production has America gained since all the big companies went overseas? Are you not paying attention to the current unemployment in our country?

Protectionism is awful economics. There is no fixed number of jobs. If local business cannot compete with Walmart, then they should all go out of business and stop wasting resources. They are an inefficient waste of time, and their land, labor, and capital should be set free for productive purposes. If they are getting government protection, then they are leeching off of the state. This is no different from any other form of crony capitalism. It is just special interest groups being protected from competition.

If we had a truly free market without government interferences, then competition would be wonderful. But this is not a level playing field when government allows Big Corporations to dictate.

Again, it was Wal-Marx who pushed to have RFID's placed in all products. You make no comment about the spy chips in our products, which they worked together with the DoD to have suppliers put spy chips in every product they sell. This adventure cost Wal-Marx $3 billion. Guess you must be comfortable with that as well--nah, it doesn't interfere with our civil liberties to have the products we buy being tracked and traced, eh?

Welcome to the wonderful world of Wal-Marx!

Sources:
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2003/11/61059
http://www.informationweek.com/news/205900237
http://www.spychips.com/what-is-rfid.html
http://news.cnet.com/2010-1069-980325.html
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/networking/2003/11/10/wal-mart-commits-billions-to-rfid-39117737/
http://www.spychips.com/press-releases/wal-mart-texas.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704421304575383213061198090.html
http://www.rfid1984.com/
http://www.dailytech.com/The+Champion+of+RFID+is++WalMart/article10375.htm