Is Wal-Mart Really that bad?

[lonejedi]

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

I love how you use a source that is over 10 years old. Wal-Mart will never become a monopoly, because the moment they raise prices again, someone else will come back to compete. MANY of todays modern stores do this, Wal-Mart isn't the only one. Another point that someone brought up before was how bad quality wal-mart's merchandise is. That's why it's so cheap! I have no problem if they want to sell bad quality stuff at a cheap price, but doing something at bad quality for expensive prices is bad.

How is Wal-Mart trying to run local businesses out of business totally bad? Doesn't matter how many mom and pop stores close, there will ALWAYS be competitors to Wal-Mart. In my small 70,000 pop city that I live in, There are MANY retail and grocery stores that are doing very well against Wal-Mart. I find it funny how people have been talking how Wal-Mart is going to become a Monopoly, but it hasn't even come close to it.

I don't know how you can compare Wal-Mart to Microsoft. Two totally different companies. At the time, Computers were still a very small market. It's not like with Shoes, or Bikes, or any generic retail item where there are thousands of these type of companies, compared to the very few that there were during the time of computers. It's like comparing Apples and Oranges

 

[Eor]

I love how you use a source that is over 10 years old.

I didn't realize that, but it doesn't change much.

Wal-Mart will never become a monopoly, because the moment they raise prices again, someone else will come back to compete.

That's pretty silly, if Wal-Mart can run things out of buisness then raise their prices, new stores won't be able to compete because they won't have the supplies or distributors, since Wal-Mart would offer a higher price because of the massive bulk they buy.

For the rest I'm going to link to a more modern buisness article I've just read, as an update to the "10 year old" one. I'm not going to get deep into this argument because I admit I'm rather shaky on economics, and Wal-Mart isn't really something I've bothered since, I'm a social issues guy.

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html

 

[illinialex24]

Anyone who argues pure free economy should remember Adam Smith. Remember him? Very famous man. He believed everything should be treated as a commodity, even labor. He felt that the correct price would eventually be reached. He forgot how desperate people are for work and before minimum wage laws, people had to work insane hours for too low pay. The free market isn't ok on its own, it needs some regulation. The question is how much.

 

[RDK]

Anyone who argues pure free economy should remember Adam Smith. Remember him? Very famous man. He believed everything should be treated as a commodity, even labor. He felt that the correct price would eventually be reached. He forgot how desperate people are for work and before minimum wage laws, people had to work insane hours for too low pay. The free market isn't ok on its own, it needs some regulation. The question is how much.

We've already established this. The free market needs very little regulation besides the protection of the interests of individual concerns.

Other than that, the government has no business sticking its hands in private business. It's called private business and not public business for a reason.

From Wikipedia:

Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods

If a company has a monopoly on a good or service, than it probably deserved to get where it's at. If there is indeed a "lack of viable substitute goods", then by implication that makes the monopolized good the best choice by default.

If the company that currently holds the monopoly on a certain good or service begins to wrongfully abuse its power over the market, then you can always just boycott it. You forget that in the free market, producers are the ones that produce; I.E., they have to fill the needs and wants of consumers or else they won't sell their product.

In this type of economy, the consumers are the bosses.

 

[LordoftheMorning]

^^ that's what I was trying to say earlier. If the public doesn't approve of what a company does, they'll lose customers. This creates the incentive to be the less shady.

I know what Adam Smith did, but I've never read his works. You can't just lump me in with some dead guy and think you can refute his position and, therefore, refute mine..