Walmart a major problem (so my husband says)

Supply and demand.

People buy things from them because they provide a desired service. If they didn't, they would cease to exist.

My town has a lot of grocery stores, Walmart has the cheapest prices on the everyday crap everyone buys, butter, milk, etc, so I shop there. Their produce sucks and a lot of the other products are low quality, so I go elsewhere to buy those things... but if I been things that are essentially throw away after use, I definately go to Walmart, or Costco for bulk, because their prices are almost always cheaper on nearly everything unless its on sale somewhere else. If I need high quality goods, I go somewhere else.
 
Banana said:
You're missing the point. I'm not talking about whether the price are too low, but rather predatory pricing designed to drive out competition.

As I explained in the first post on this thread (quoted in my second post just above), it has been shown that Wal-Mart would open a new store, then set prices artificially low to attract new customers, thus kicking out the small business out of business, and when it has established a virtual monopoly, returns prices to its usual levels. Wal-Mart usually pumps its profit into the extra store, allowing it to absorb huge loss on its profit margin during the low pricing period, then tries to prop the store up on its own. In some cases, the store just fall flat and thus closes. In the process, the economy is destroyed.

Can this happen in a truly free market? Somehow I'd like to think no...
Click to expand...

Ah, sorry, I missed the quote above.

Where do you draw the line between predatory pricing and aggressive competition? It seems to me that if the small retailers are so small and unorganized that they can't get together to identify when prices are being held down unreasonably (so that they would have a chance to react in some way -- like buying lots of the underpriced stuff and shipping it to each other to sell), and if they can't adapt by offering some new product or service not available at Walmart, then they deserve to lose. If Walmart can raise prices after the local competitors are gone, while still retaining business, then good for them. They have to pay all those wages and benefits somehow, don't they?
 
Don't businesses want to charge the highest prices that they can ( "whatever the market will bear" ), and customers want to pay the lowest prices they can for their purchases? "Maximize gains, minimize losses." It is in the ongoing interplay of these two conflicting forces that true prices are established. ( Econ 101 ) Some businesses win, some lose. And the marketplace rolls on.
 
Sometimes the protectionism on this web site has me wondering if we're on a Ron Paul site or a John Edwards site.

Wal-Mart is playing by the existing rules in our capitalist society. If they come into a place and set their prices low to drive out competition, then they are using their powers in a free market to gain market share. How is this evil in any way?

Many people talk about low quality items or dirty stores and such, and these are given for reasons to shop elsewhere. This is exactly the reason why other stores exist. They give you an option if you do not like Wal-Mart. Unfortunately for you, tons of people love Wal-Mart's prices and find all sorts of items that fit their scale for quality.

If "made in America" is so important to you, then let the free market work and stop trying to be so protectionist. As more companies send their factories overseas, it will drive up the working conditions there and will weaken the dollar and trade balances here. As that happens (free market action by the way) the factories and work will start coming back here as it becomes more economically viable.
 
Truth Warrior said:
Don't businesses want to charge the highest prices that they can ( "whatever the market will bear" ), and customers want to pay the lowest prices they can for their purchases? "Maximize gains, minimize losses." It is in the ongoing interplay of these two conflicting forces that true prices are established. ( Econ 101 ) Some businesses win, some lose. And the marketplace rolls on.
Click to expand...

Large retailers bypass this by selling in quantity vs selling individual items for profit. They make money selling 1000 items at a lower profit margin while a small retailer can only carry and sell 100 items and has to charge more profit per item in order to make overhead and profit. Thats why they go out of business. I had a local music shop, independently owned, and Best Buy put him out because they lose money on every CD they sell, and can also buy them in bulk for cheaper than he could. He didn't adjust to selling rare, out of print, and used CDs in order to get a corner of the market that best buy didn't cover so he went out... also, the internet has crushed indie retailers because you can order everything off the net and have it in your house 3 days later at a cheaper price... that and download music hurt him too.

In order for a small business to succeed now, they have to offer specialized products that the large retailers don't carry. They can't compete with the large stores head to head.
 
So, you're saying that as long as Walmart sells the kinds of products that you approve of, then everything would be OK. The fact that people want the low and unhealthy kind of stuff that they currently sell doesn't matter. People should be forced to buy only premium stuff, because they don't know what's good for them, but you do.

Does that about cover it?
Click to expand...

Are you a complete fucking idiot?

I’m merely stating the obvious: they sell the lowest of products, perpetuating unhealthy, unthinking, pathetic “individuals” who then vote for _____ (enter bastard candidate).

It has nothing to do with “premium”. I don’t mean high-priced items. I mean things of some actual value—not bullshit dangled uselessly for profit.

If you think the products sold at Wal-Mart have value—if you think the items I listed in previous response are valuable—then you HAVE TO BE a complete idiot.

You seem to be unable to simultaneously have one standard and also another (or more than two); that is, one which allows businesses freedom to do what they want, but also the ability to place value judgments on the way in which businesses use this “freedom.” I’m not saying regulate them; I’m saying HOLD THEM TO AN IDEAL STANDARD. That is, which is why I brought in the Adams quote in previous post: not material, regulatory action, but MENTAL change in how people operate in society. To give a very easy example: don’t sell people foods that cause health problems by companies that try to get by with putting cheap, pollutant-based ingredients because 1) it causes health problems (immediate moral concern), 2) it causes the rest of the monopolized industries (here, pharmaceuticals and insurance companies) to eventually prosper, and 3) it is a generally FOX-like way of doing things (luring people into buying something rooted in strategy hoping on their being ignorant).
 
sophocles07 said:
Are you a complete fucking idiot?

I’m merely stating the obvious: they sell the lowest of products, perpetuating unhealthy, unthinking, pathetic “individuals” who then vote for _____ (enter bastard candidate).

It has nothing to do with “premium”. I don’t mean high-priced items. I mean things of some actual value—not bullshit dangled uselessly for profit.

If you think the products sold at Wal-Mart have value—if you think the items I listed in previous response are valuable—then you HAVE TO BE a complete idiot.

You seem to be unable to simultaneously have one standard and also another (or more than two); that is, one which allows businesses freedom to do what they want, but also the ability to place value judgments on the way in which businesses use this “freedom.” I’m not saying regulate them; I’m saying HOLD THEM TO AN IDEAL STANDARD. That is, which is why I brought in the Adams quote in previous post: not material, regulatory action, but MENTAL change in how people operate in society. To give a very easy example: don’t sell people foods that cause health problems by companies that try to get by with putting cheap, pollutant-based ingredients because 1) it causes health problems (immediate moral concern), 2) it causes the rest of the monopolized industries (here, pharmaceuticals and insurance companies) to eventually prosper, and 3) it is a generally FOX-like way of doing things (luring people into buying something rooted in strategy hoping on their being ignorant).
Click to expand...

value is a completely subjective term.
 
I shop at Walmart, and I vote for Ron Paul, who evidently is now a "bastard candidate" because bread is 25 cents a loaf cheaper at Walmart.:rolleyes:
 
jason43 said:
Large retailers bypass this by selling in quantity vs selling individual items for profit. They make money selling 1000 items at a lower profit margin while a small retailer can only carry and sell 100 items and has to charge more profit per item in order to make overhead and profit. Thats why they go out of business. I had a local music shop, independently owned, and Best Buy put him out because they lose money on every CD they sell, and can also buy them in bulk for cheaper than he could. He didn't adjust to selling rare, out of print, and used CDs in order to get a corner of the market that best buy didn't cover so he went out... also, the internet has crushed indie retailers because you can order everything off the net and have it in your house 3 days later at a cheaper price... that and download music hurt him too.

In order for a small business to succeed now, they have to offer specialized products that the large retailers don't carry. They can't compete with the large stores head to head.
Click to expand...

Yep, the large retail chainstores are called "category killers" for a reason. And the web is now real trouble for many of the established "bricks and mortar" outfits.

On and on we go. Welcome to the brave new world! Stay tuned.

Thanks! :)
 
I like how many here are anti-government intruding on our right but have no trouble having government wield that force against a company which initiated force against no one.
 
tsetsefly said:
I like how many here are anti-government intruding on our right but have no trouble having government wield that force against a company which initiated force against no one.
Click to expand...

I somewhat agree.

Although it is foolish to think Walmart isn't gaming the system the best they can too. They have an army of lobbyists, as any big corporation would.
 
This is a point of divergence between me and orthodozx libertarian thought.

The real problem that exists is that the free market looks great until someone breaks the rules. Wal Mart buys non-duty (or low duty) goods from China, a nation which uses slave labour, and puts down labour protests by killing people.

Such a nation can never be competed with on the open market. No matter what we do in America, we cannot compete with China without doing what China does. Therefore, we have to have a tariff to protect ourselves.

Just look at early 19th Century America. Of course the Southerners wanted low tariffs, and loved it when Europeans didn't protect their home agricultural markets. Granted, the South was using slave labour.

Think about it.
 
One of the major problems is that the "system" is there to be "gamed", by careful design. The spoils usually go to the best "players".

Take the red pill! :)
 
value is a completely subjective term.
Click to expand...

Go eat trans-fat covered food then, you utter simpleton.

I shop at Walmart, and I vote for Ron Paul, who evidently is now a "bastard candidate" because bread is 25 cents a loaf cheaper at Walmart.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that’s what I meant.

I think your asshole is exuding snarkiness at the moment.

Go by your local Wal-mart and ask customers who they're voting for; I guarantee 95-99% are not going to come back with an even half-intelligent reply.
 
sophocles07 said:
Tired, naive, simple answers to complex questions annoy me.
Click to expand...

I don't see any indication to believe you to be superior to me.

In fact, the way you anger so easily leads me to suspect the exact opposite. keeping my emotions in check and deal rationally with people and issues is one of the simplest things I learned to master.
 
tsetsefly said:
I like how many here are anti-government intruding on our right but have no trouble having government wield that force against a company which initiated force against no one.
Click to expand...

I just want large corporations such as walmart to stop milking tax payers for subsidies.

We are the consumer, if we don't like a company we shall boycott.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
The Great Retreat: How Trump and Harris Are Looking Backward
Replies
2
Views
3K
CCTelander
C
Matt Collins
Rand and Rep. Kat Cammack Introduce REINS Act to Put Power Back in the People's Hands
Replies
0
Views
1K
Matt Collins
Matt Collins
PAF
Biden Perpetuates Washington's Idiotic Steel Trade Policies
Replies
5
Views
1K
CaptUSA
CaptUSA
PAF
Nine Months of Javier Milei as President of Argentina: A Critical Assessment
Replies
0
Views
662
PAF
PAF
CaptUSA
US Debt: "Severe, Irreversible Scars"
Replies
2
Views
851
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Back
Top