Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 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.
|
Rubber Maid is a $8 billion company. In 2005 they had $6 billion in sales. I think they can manage with or without Walmart.
Quote:
|
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?
|
Total US retail sales runs about $2 trillion per year, Walmart's sales run about $300 billion. 15% is a big percentage of the total but far from domination.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Do you think it would be better for a few companies to work together to control the market and prices. I prefer competition, even if it means some businesses will fail or be driven out of business. Remember, Teddy Rosevelt, the Trust Buster. The anti-competition conglomerates were 100 times worse than what you think Walmart is.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Walmart has made countless people very weathy, shareholders - yes. But also think of the folks who stated with a single product that they got Walmart to carry. Think of the suppliers (all who desprately want to do business with Walmart), think of the contractors who build the stores, think of the employees who choose to work at Walmart. Think of the families who need those inexpensive products, like diapers, or toys for their children. Do you think that's a narrow view?
Quote:
|
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---
|
I think Walmart has many of the name brand goods that you can find in other places. I am not sure about clothing.
Quote:
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.
|
My wife likes Target, for what reason I don't know. Target seems the same as Walmart to me. I like Costco and Sears. I never shop at expensive department stores unless they are having a sale. In my area, anyone can shop at any of those places, rich or poor. I think your comment is unfair.