Is Wal-Mart Really that bad?

[Crimson King]

To unionize does not give the workers unreasonable power over their employers, it simply creates a situation in which they can, with any effect whatsoever, negotiate with them.

The most powerful weapon a union has is to strike. With stores like Wal-mart having so many workers, a strike on a store would cost it more than any of those workers can afford and thusly force it to shut down. Logical people can see that far a head. Assuming an unskilled worker is stuck in a low-level job at Wal-Mart they obviously aren't concerned about a big family, and if so that's their own fault, and they will just want more money if they are working at Wal-Mart instead of going to school. So they will use the strike a lot more liberally than say other unions. And since the unskilled worker pool is unlimited, what would stop Wal-Mart from firing the whole union for walking out? They can easily replenish their workers with MORE unskilled workers who aren't in the union. That's why it's pointless to have an unskilled workers union. Plus, take high ranking managers at Wal-Mart. They have to have SOME education and skills to get to said position, would they really want to be clumped in with the shopping cart guys?

 

[Digital Watches]

You've pretty much defeated your own point. The pool of unskilled workers is fairly limitless, and therefore makes it much more feasible to hire scabs in the case of a frivolous strike. This forces the union to be reasonable, despite their lack of education.

But to say that a union is useless is also wrong: There have been cases in the past (Coal companies in the early 20th century especially) in which unions have only sought to force employers to comply with the law: laws about labor conditions and wages that were not otherwise being enforced. Of course, the companies' solution to said unions was to hire armed union busters, a practice which is thankfully no longer commonplace.

I'm not necessarily implying that Wal-Mart is doing anything illegal, I have no idea, having never worked there nor done extensive research on the subject. I intend only to demonstrate through these examples the necessity of a union.

(Source on some of the historical information: http://libcom.org/history/1914-the-ludlow-massacre
Granted, it's a rather extreme example)

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Even with your examples I still see no necessity for a union. Employment is so heavily regulated and monitored by state and government programs, so what would a union possibly offer for an unskilled employee?

Do you not see the major difference in unskilled and skilled workers? I don't understand how we have defeated our point. You bring up points from the past but fail to realize the situations is much different in the present. I believe you are referring to the Rockefeller/Pinkerton strikebusters. You must understand other things that were legal at this time. I think you need to look into what the members of that union were doing (locked themselves inside and began destroying the factory). Instances like this don't take place b/c there is no need.

I hate being so bull headed but I can not see anything worth while in your argument.

 

[Crimson King]

Rockerfeller is ALWAYS casted as a robber baron but people fail to realize how great of an individual he was. However, most forget how great of a philanthropist he really was. Quoting Wikipedia:

In 1884, he provided major funding for a college in Atlanta for black women, that became Spelman College (named for Rockefeller's in-laws who were ardent abolitionists before the Civil War). Rockefeller also gave considerable donations to Denison University and other Baptist colleges.

That's just some of the things he has done for people in a time when no one did that even if they had the money. Most of those "union busters" were doing it to protect their investments and were probably PAYING those unions through the system.

On the argument, I will never see the benefit of a union in a capitalist society. If conditions aren't good, workers CAN leave. If enough workers leave, they have to raise costs and they will hurt them in the long run. The people who "can't" leave a job is because they are unskilled workers. I have worked some piss poor jobs that I quit because I knew I wasn't being treated fairly. After I am gone, I don't care WHAT they do as it's not to me.

 

[Digital Watches]

I had no intention to slight Rockefeller or similar successful entrepeneurs by my example, and apologize for any confusion.

Moving on: In the context of the ethics of Wal-Mart, a single employee's right to resign is entirely irrelevant if it hasn't affected the practices of the company as a whole. Those who have argued for Wal-Mart have shot down individual arguments in a manner that is for the most part wholly rational. However, holistically speaking, several factors that would not by themselves be nearly as d-mning put Wal-Mart in an ethical bankruptcy somewhat closer to what has been argued by their opposition.

It has been argued that in a capitalist economy, a large company has every right to run a small one out of business. I do not contest this. However, once other businesses are dropping like flies, the unskilled workers have fewer and fewer options for employment. This entirely voids the argument that unfavorable conditions can be averted by employees who simply choose to resign. If the choice is between unemployment (or at the least a horrible job market) and Wal-Mart, people who need the money don't have much of a choice at all. The right to resign only helps if it's easy to find another job. This sheds a whole new light on Wal-Mart's opposition to unions: With no unions and their competition for unskilled employment vanishing in their presence, it is not that much of a stretch to say that Wal-Mart is orchestrating a rather abusable system.

 

[James Sparrow]

Just curious -- has anyone here read the book Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich? That was the common text at my college last fall, and it was quite the unique look at the Wal*Mart employment experience. Ehrenreich, a decently well-known and upper class author, leaves all that she has behind, and attempts to make a living as someone of the lower class would. She does this in a number of different places in different regions of the country. One of the places where she gets hired is at a Wal*Mart. I don't want to explain it to a great extent, but I would certainly recommend the book to anyone who has any sort of interest in this debated topic. It is such a unique perspective that I found it quite valuable.

 

[Jeremy Feifer]

Just Curious...how many branches (like sam's club) does walmart have?

 

[James Sparrow]

As far as I know, there is Wal*Mart, the general retail store; Wal*Mart supercenters, basically Wal*Mart + supermarket; Wal*Mart Neighborhood Market, which is like the Supercenter minus the general retail; and then Sam's Club which sells in larger bulk and is a club style retail.

 

[Digital Watches]

That sounds like an interesting book, and one that would certainly be worth picking up...

But since you mention it, I'm curious as to your position on the Wal-Mart corporation after having read said book.

 

[James Sparrow]

I don't have much of a problem with their tactics as they are involving employment, wages, and benefits--that is, in the United States. What I do have a problem with is the way they employ workers overseas. I don't think that anything even close to sweatshop style working conditions and wages should ever, in any case be justified. Yet, Wal*Mart seems to turn a blind eye to that in order to beat its competitors prices. A smart business decision, yes... but not a morally correct one, in my opinion. The book dealt pretty much only with the conditions that Ehrenriech experienced. Frankly, it seemed to me like Wal*Mart was actually the best of the jobs she had (she also worked as a waitress, a housekeeper at a hotel, and a maid for a house-cleaning service). Because of their great financial success, and low prices, I think that Wal*Mart is the epitome of successful, smart, immoral, retail business.

 

[Digital Watches]

It's a pity that current laws make outsourcing labor a ridiculously smart business decision, rather than an ethical quandary. In the meantime, China (and most of asia, for that matter) has its hands in our proverbial economic pockets so deep they could pull out our lungs and spine (metaphorically speaking).

But that, along with horrid education (getting gradually worse with incentives such as the "No child left behind act"), a war that's eating hideous amounts of money we don't really have, and a continuing decrease in the international value of the dollar, we're well on our way to third-world status.

But that's not the issue at hand here now, is it?

 

[James Sparrow]

No, but it's scary!

 

[Digital Watches]

No, but it's scary!

Yeah, but keep in mind that like all predictions of what direction this country is going, it's all hypothetical. I think it's not too late to fix the underlying problems here and save ourselves an economic depression, but it will certainly take some reform in certain areas.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

http://www.katv.com/news/stories/0507/420279.html

Here is a little something about Wal-Mart.

Odd how evil Wal-Mart is so generous to its associates.

 

[Skywalker]

http://www.katv.com/news/stories/0507/420279.html

Here is a little something about Wal-Mart.

Odd how evil Wal-Mart is so generous to its associates.

Companies do this sort of thing all the time to make the public's perception of them more postitive. Wal-Mart only generally improves when it is being criticized by its workers or other competition. I could go on-on about how Wal-Mart does not pay its workers adaquitly, but here is a quote from founder Sam Walton:

Source: Wikipedia

I pay low wages. I can take advantage of that. We're going to be successful, but the basis is a very low-wage, low-benefit model of employment.

Take that as you will.

 

[snex]

Companies do this sort of thing all the time to make the public's perception of them more postitive. Wal-Mart only generally improves when it is being criticized by its workers or other competition. I could go on-on about how Wal-Mart does not pay its workers adaquitly, but here is a quote from founder Sam Walton:

Source: Wikipedia

Take that as you will.

who cares why companies do it? all that counts is that it gets done.

by the way, walmart pays higher than minimum wage even for the lowest workers on the chain and does not force a big chunk of that money to go into pointless union dues.

edit: by the way, if competitors like target, sears, whatever, pay more, then employees can go work there instead. why dont they? walmart's low prices dont mean diddly if everybody refuses to work there.

 

[Skywalker]

I'm focusing on the morality of Wal-Mart.

This may not apply to all states, but in Michigan jobs were very scarce. For years the unemployed would take just about any job that they can find. Still, people complained about the working conditions and low wages. If no one had minded the chain's old habits it would be different than it currently is today.

 

[lonejedi]

I'm focusing on the morality of Wal-Mart.

This may not apply to all states, but in Michigan jobs were very scarce. For years the unemployed would take just about any job that they can find. Still, people complained about the working conditions and low wages. If no one had minded the chain's old habits it would be different than it currently is today.

Beggars Can't be Choosers. Anyone who complains about the wages they are getting from Wal*Mart seriously needs to re think about what they are doing. They are working a job, that requires no college education. Why are these people working in Wal*Mart in the first place? Because either they A) They are High School/College Students working a partime job to pay for College expenses, B) Are working at Wal*Mart as a temporary job until they can find a better job, C) Too Old to even be working regular jobs, or D) Slacked off in High School, and did not apply themselves, and are at the bottom of the food chain economically wise.

These people do not deserve to have a Union.

 

[Mediocre]

Beggars Can't be Choosers.

I think people with paying jobs are, by definition, entirely different than beggars.

These people do not deserve to have a Union.

Yeah, I totally agree. People who don't go to college don't deserve to have any tool for communicating with their employer. They should just take whatever **** is given to them and be happy with it.

You know those ****ing Pullman *******s? Those *******s should have just taken that 28% pay cut and sucked on it.

 

[lonejedi]

I think people with paying jobs are, by definition, entirely different than beggars.
.

Look at the majority of people that work at Wal-Mart. As I stated before, someone who does minimal work, should not get the same amount of money of someone who actually works a real job. Unions would only give lazy people an outlet to complain and complain, and then get more money, of what they don't deserve. If they want some good paying job, it's called a College Education.

Yeah, I totally agree. People who don't go to college don't deserve to have any tool for communicating with their employer. They should just take whatever **** is given to them and be happy with it.

You know those ****ing Pullman *******s? Those *******s should have just taken that 28% pay cut and sucked on it.

If that's the case, maybe McDonald's should get a Union, and maybe every other part time fast food pace, or diner, or sit in restaurant, should get a Union. If you give a Union to Walmart, you might as well give one to every other corporation that hires part time jobs.

 

[snex]

modern unions are simply no longer necessary. the government has sufficiently woken up to the fact that workers need protection from abuse, and there are laws to prevent. unions were instrumental in *getting* those protections, but why are they still around now? they do nothing but take money directly from the pockets of the employees, forcing companies to pay them even more to have competitive wages, which makes prices higher for the consumer.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Well, I found a great video (technically Sargent_Peach found it *thanks*) that covers every aspect of Wal-Mart. It is a really good and in depth video that not only deals with everyday people who hate/support Wal-Mart, but also deals with politicians and such.

They debunk plenty of myths people (including quite a few people in here) believe are etched in stone. In other words, I couldn't have said it better than Penn and Teller.

The video is from Showtimes Penn and Teller: BullS***.

*WARNING* The video has strong language and even some nudity. This is a show coming form Showtime so don't expect anything classy.

Edit- I decided not to post the link due to the nudity. If you truly want to see it you can search Penn and Teller Bull S*** Wal-Mart Hate, on Google video.

 

[Skywalker]

Look at the majority of people that work at Wal-Mart. As I stated before, someone who does minimal work, should not get the same amount of money of someone who actually works a real job. Unions would only give lazy people an outlet to complain and complain, and then get more money, of what they don't deserve. If they want some good paying job, it's called a College Education.

Many people do not have access to a high caliber education as the tuition rates for just about any college have been increasing every year. Poor Mexican immigrants that are on welfare have little chance for a good education because of it. Granted, they can still graduate from high school, but even that doesn't guarentee a decent job.

Is it honestly fair to expel a hard working man from a Union?

 

[snex]

skywalker, there are lots of ways for people who cant afford to go to college to go. companies like mcdonalds and UPS and walmart offer scholarships to their employees, because they like to promote from within the company. there are also independent scholarships, student loans, and of course, canada.

in any case, low-wage jobs, no matter how crappy they may be, are necessary for society to function. it is simply not possible to maintain a working economy if retail clerks are paid the same amount as CEOs.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

What snex said is true. While I worked for Wal-Mart they offered a scholarship the was better than a lot of others that was offered. In fact, they offered over $3,000 per semester and I would be paid for working three days (sat, sun, mon.) while only having to work two (sat, sun.).

People love to bash what the do not know or understand.

 

[Kalypso]

If you are a socialist, Wal-Mart is bad. If you are a capitalist, Wal-Mart is good. It's just a matter of point of view.

In a socialist point of view, Wal-Mart kills opportunities for smaller businesses, imbalanced income distribution, reduces opportunity for competition by being everything in one, and stifles small business.

In capitalism, Wal-Mart does everything at once, and thus makes profit, and when someone can do it better (It can be done better) Wal-Mart will go extinct. It's not the first, nor the last 'Superstore.' However, it's all capitalist.

I'm quite for Wal-Mart, I don't buy into the propaganda of it ruining communities or poisoning waters and ****, almost all of that is just flat wrong.

 

[Skywalker]

I believe that there really isn't a debate here, and I concede that Wal-Mart is fine. They are obeying laws for business, giving their workers scholarships, among other things. I feel like rambling about the morality of Wal-Mart, but not without bias toward smaller companies, so I'll hold my tongue. (Probably not the right place to say this, but debating about Wal-Mart has taught me something about capitalism and business. )

 

[The Hypnotist]

When it comes to Wal-Mart I personally beilve that, it's all just competition. And if your going to be mad at megastores like Wal-Mart, then boycott Target, K-Mart, Sears and many more as well. Not to mention if Wal-Mart was "shut down" or whatever, 1.7 million jobs would be lost, now you tell me that's a good thing. It's not fair that just because Wal-Mart is successful that they get chewed out, it's not very logical. and the most important argument is this...

Wal-Mart is not shutting down mom and pop stores. Period. No one is forcing anyone to shop at Wal-Mart. So everyone can just shop at the Mom and Pop shops they just love so much. The fact is Wal-Mart is a great successful store, with great prices, and that's something you just can't deny.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Falcon... BUMP!!!

OK, I have been watching numerous documentaries all about Wal Mart on TV recently. There was one 2-hour special that was predominantly supportive of Wal Mart; I just finished watching a 2-hour special that mostly opposed to Wal Mart. I had the urge to discuss issue, so, I resurrected this thread from the depths of the debate hall. (It's better than creating a new thread.)

Wal Mart provides bad wages. -- Really? This is why people hate Wal Mart? Last I checked, everyone had the freedom to quit and go find another job. It blows me away to hear people complain: "I worked at Wal Mart for almost 9 years, and my wage was only up to $8.50 an hour." I wanted to ask that person: "Thennnnn why are you still working there? It took you almost a decade to come to this sad realization???" Personally, I am of the opinion that Wal Mart employment is there for high school students and sometimes college students for a little extra money. It's painful to see adults trying to make some sort of career out of this grunt work. I suppose low wages is the punishment for not going to college or at least developing some other marketable skill.

Wal Mart kills off local businesses. -- There are so many sob stories like this, but this is a natural side effect of something we call COMPETITION. Just because a business has been around 40+ years does not somehow entitle it to a continued thriving existence. If Wal Mart can come in and offer superior prices, tough luck. Generally, I question the usefulness of any store that can so quickly be annihilated by Wal Mart. The market would be in a lot of trouble if there were any legislation put in place supportive of the "we were here first" mentality.

Wal Mart obtains government subsidies wherever it lands. -- OK, this is something I really do have a problem with. Numerous city councils have given Wal Mart millions of dollars to come setup shop. Meanwhile, in these same towns, local schools and other organizations are left scratching their heads as to why the city refused to sponsor them for so many years. Wal Mart really ought to pay its own bills. Business comes with a cost; deal with it.

Wal Mart factories in China have poor working conditions. -- This is a serious issue. I'll have to find a source I can cite online somewhere, but one of the documentaries detailed the story of a Wal Mart factory inspection worker. This man uncovered the terrible conditions (including the inhumanely low pay of about $3 per day) in China factories and proceeded to report this to corporate Wal Mart. He was then fired because Wal Mart did not want to deal with the cost of cleaning things up. That is just wrong, Wally World.



I'll add more as I remember them. All in all, Wal Mart has certain issues it needs to deal with, but it is hard to justify "never shopping at Wal Mart" because my purchases somehow support all the unethical behavior that goes on there. I mean, where do you draw the line? Saying my Wal Mart purchases support the poor working conditions in China is like saying I support terrorism by supporting the second amendment.

 

[RDK]

Isn't Wal-Mart owned by Frenchies?

Oh wait, that's Target. Yeah. Boo Target.

 

[AltF4]

Wal Mart kills off local businesses. -- There are so many sob stories like this, but this is a natural side effect of something we call COMPETITION. Just because a business has been around 40+ years does not somehow entitle it to a continued thriving existence. If Wal Mart can come in and offer superior prices, tough luck. Generally, I question the usefulness of any store that can so quickly be annihilated by Wal Mart. The market would be in a lot of trouble if there were any legislation put in place supportive of the "we were here first" mentality.

I think the argument isn't so much as local businesses just making competition Johns, but rather Walmart using an anti-competitive business model. Anti-competitive businesses undermine the Free Market and ruin capitalism.

The most obvious of this was Microsoft, back-in-the-day. Microsoft's official way of dealing with competition was to buy them out, and then closing their doors. The Simpsons even had an episode about this. Homer had a business he ran from home, and then Bill Gates came in and "bought him out", which in the show entailed just breaking all of his stuff.

This is anti-competitive, because it is entirely possible that these smaller businesses are "better" than their larger brothers. By that, I mean that it's entirely possible (and common) for them to have a superior product at a lower price. But they wind up being defeated for no other purpose than because Microsoft is bigger, which of course then just makes them bigger!


Walmart is accused of doing a similar deed. They will commonly move into a rural area and set up shop. They will then undercut every local business in price, even though it will mean Walmart will lose money in the short term. The purpose of this is only to force everyone else out of business, until they're the only store in town. At which point they can raise their prices again and create profit.

This is clearly anti-competitive, and ruins the Free Market. It is exactly the opposite of the Free Market. Walmart does not seek to provide quality goods at low prices. They seek to shut everyone else down, and then profit off of the fact that they're the only store left.

This is not good for society, nor anyone who is not a Walmart executive.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

But is it not an indication that these local businesses offer neither a unique product (something you cannot obtain at Wal Mart) nor an incentive to shop at the smaller business (offer special classes or extra service)? I realize it is unpleasant to be bullied by a larger opponent, but most people just want a low price. With that in mind, why make your small business' primary incentive low price when you know something like Wal Mart exists?

All I can say is that I am eternally grateful I am an expert in a field that is essentially Wal Mart-proof.

*waits for Wal Mart to setup cheap Build-Your-Own-Web-Site kiosks*

 

[Pr0phetic]

I think Wal-mart went from being ok to a little capital hungry once its competitors started bring in the money. So yes, they move in to rural areas and large areas alike, and combined with low wages and labor from workers in other countries for almost scratch, the execs and the company make a lot of money.

 

[AltF4]

A business doesn't have to offer something "unique" to stay open. It can simply offer the highest quality it can, at the lowest price it can.

The Free Market hinges on one principal: fair competition. If people were allowed to go around murdering the executives of other companies, or stealing their goods, then the whole thing would break down. And even without doings things so obviously illegal, the Free Market is flawed.

The rich get richer. It's just economies of scale. As a company gets larger, it is able to compete more effectively. Even without doing anything anti-competitive, the Free Market naturally tends to create monopolies, or at best oligopolies. This is why there are strict anti-trust laws in place in the US. Are these laws anti-capitalist? YES. And purposefully so.

Put that together with Walmart intentionally trying to put others out of business, and you've got a recipe for disaster. These little stores that get shut down cannot compete. Walmart will offer the same or extremely similar products at significantly lower prices. A large proportion of what Walmart sells are commodities, anyway! There is no such thing as a 'superior' product.

Monopolies are not good for anyone except the company in charge. And it's hard to say that Walmart isn't either a monopoly, or quickly becoming one.

 

[LordoftheMorning]

The way I see it, Wal-mart is one of the greatest success stories the free market has to offer. Okay so WalMarts low prices are making it difficult for small stores to compete? You know what that means?
NO JOHNS! Wal-Mart's existence will force competitors to find new ways to compete with Walmart. They can do this a number of ways. They can achieve specialization and outstrip Wal-Mart in a certain aspect (video-game stores work well this way(good ones at least)). They can try for different locations, they can find new ways to get products in a cheaper way, and they can innovate.

THAT, my friends, is what's so wonderful about a free market. The push for innovation, efficiency, specialization, and quality of products. This means that for you and me, things will only get better. And THAT, is what Wal-Mart forces other stores to strive for.

 

[illinialex24]

The way I see it, Wal-mart is one of the greatest success stories the free market has to offer. Okay so WalMarts low prices are making it difficult for small stores to compete? You know what that means?
NO JOHNS! Wal-Mart's existence will force competitors to find new ways to compete with Walmart. They can do this a number of ways. They can achieve specialization and outstrip Wal-Mart in a certain aspect (video-game stores work well this way(good ones at least)). They can try for different locations, they can find new ways to get products in a cheaper way, and they can innovate.

THAT, my friends, is what's so wonderful about a free market. The push for innovation, efficiency, specialization, and quality of products. This means that for you and me, things will only get better. And THAT, is what Wal-Mart forces other stores to strive for.

You're just full of it aren't you? If they are using illegal means to get those prices and this is something other stores aren't allowed to do and the rules are there for humanitarian reasons, thats just wrong. And you're arguing about free market.... If Wal-Mart is clean then fine, if not, don't say free market cures all ills. Theres a reason we have labor laws and government oversight. The free market has failed us more than once.

 

[Aesir]

The thing with Wal-mart you get what you paid for. Their quality sucks and their prices are low, I once bought a pair of shoes at Wal-mart for dirt cheap they lasted me a couple months. Then went to Bob's bought a similar pair of shoes they lasted a year and a half. I don't remember how much of a difference there was price wise but I'm willing to bet the bobs brand cost me a whole lot less. (I'm a huge bargain shopper.)

Wal-mart doesn't strive for what you're professing it's striving for lower quality, the quality of their products are so low they can afford to drop their prices, where as a smaller business which provides better service and products for a higher price will be thrown out of business. I understand this is how a free market works but it also creates stagnation, monopolies form this way.

Example: I once had a boss who told me about this female clothing store that only bought and sold American products, thus they were a tad bit more pricey but it was top quality. Then the business started out sourcing their jobs to China and other third world countries (Basically sweat shops) this allowed business to produce cheaper products at a cheaper price. The higher quality stores went out of business and now we have crappy quality.

This doesn't benefit us at all.

I have many other stories on how lower quality/lower price tends to kill off higher quality/higher priced businesses. It's very rare the latter ever become successful.

 

[LordoftheMorning]

You're just full of it aren't you?

Yes...

If they are using illegal means to get those prices and this is something other stores aren't allowed to do and the rules are there for humanitarian reasons, thats just wrong. And you're arguing about free market.... If Wal-Mart is clean then fine, if not, don't say free market cures all ills. Theres a reason we have labor laws and government oversight. The free market has failed us more than once.

You're mistaking failure for fluctuation. The heart of the problem is that once there is a slump, people panic and try to artificially (by artificially I mean things the free market doesn't do, such as government intervention) get rid of it. This exacerbates the problem and then people like you talk about free market "failure".

You ALSO have to understand that things such as humanitarian reasons are factored in to the free market. It really is the best way to ensure that everything is done to everyone's satisfaction. If Walmart were proven to have used slave labor, would people still buy Walmart goods? They'd lose customers, at least. this provides the incentive for Walmart to clean up it's act, as it were. Illegal means are also not encouraged in a free market because if they break the law, they're business is shot. So really, the law should keep it's nose out of the economy unless a business violates the law. You don't need any unions or graduated taxes for that, do you? Are you willing to provide me with multiple reliable sources without political bias that incriminate Walmart for using sweatshops or whatever it is they're accused of?

And what, then, do you propose we do regarding our economic policy? Do you support the status quo, and the governments current authority?

 

[Eor]

I don't see how you back up any of your points, you just state them. "If they use slave labor, then people will be less likely to buy from them, therefore all all regulations on a company are bad"

Really?

Monopolies stifle competition. Once there is no competition, then there is no freedom. A free market needs to be able to stop monopolies from forming. I don't think Wal-Mart is currently a monopoly, but it could get there.

And http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/1999/jun/20/columnists.observerbusiness1 for your request

 

[aeghrur]

Free markets, or pure capitalism, forms monopolies, which then kills the competition of a free market, which then makes a free market not free anymore.
Funny huh?