roachboy

i do not know the particulars of the rubbermaid case, but it sounds to me like walmart engaged in the retail version of dumping. walmart is able to absorb losses generated by predatory pricing of particular commodities and so is able to sell them at prices well below the cost of their production if they decide for whatever reason to target a particular competitor. the ability to absorb such losses are a scale effect. this situation would then be understandable as a conflict involving two very different types of organization, operating on two different scales.

you might be able to argue that such practices are within the rules of the capitalist game---i am not so sure--but there is another way to evaluate them: what kind of economy would you prefer to operate in as a human being? one dominated by low cost low quality goods or a more diversified economy with different types of scale coexisting? it seems to me that walmart functions as if its model--low cost, low quality---should naturally supercede all other models because all that matters is price. from walmart's viewpoint, this might make sense, but from the viewpoint of consumers, it does not. coexistence would not be a problem if walmart did not choose to target competitors and put them out of business--so the problems walmart creates at this level are a function of its particular ways of thinking and acting strategically.

from this viewpoint, you could make an argument that walmart's practices do not benefit stakeholders, only shareholders. stakeholders would include not only walmart consumers but entire communities impacted by walmart--if that is the case, then the criteria for making judgments about walmart cannot be confined to simple questions of price--here as in almost every other area that has been talked about in this thread, the narrow view is inadequate.

if you are going to defend walmart, then defend the outcomes implied by its practices: explain to me how a retail economy dominated by low cost low quality goods is a necessary good. what i see in the above is the tacit assumption that walmart is good for poorer folk because poorer folk deserve only low cost low quality goods---this is an implication of the assumption that demand shapes supply, when the fact of the matter is that demand follows supply.

another way: if a firm like walmart eliminates diversity within a particular economic sector, folk will then "choose" what remains.
arguments about demand justifying walmart's practices then are circular.


one more: i think the folk who defend walmart's practice do so because they are not themselves caught by these practices--they can shop at macy's or bonwit teller as a simple function of their class position--so questions concerning walmart are abstractions for them, and their implications are confined to other people--who are assumed to be less than you because they do not have the same material advantages as you.
poorer folk can eat shit because that is all they deserve.
walmart is a space where shit is cheap.
the poor can go eat there.
maybe you will think about this as you drive your benzo to a better retail district.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite