alternet.org — Wal-Mart's massive growth has begun to disrupt America's entire retail economy, forcing companies large and small to adapt to its ruthless practices if they want to do business. Is it time to bring in the government to break up the mega chain?
Jul 24, 2006 View in Crawl 4
right75Jul 24, 2006
@konrad9:Is it the oil companies that set prices for their products, or is it the market that determines prices for those products?Additionally, oil companies make less profit than other industries, mainly banking. For more information, see the reports on this page:<a class="user" href="http://api-ec.api.org/about/index.cfm?bitmask=742FB6E2-B191-4F77-B91FEC841521C671#">http://api-ec.api.org/about/index.cfm?bitmask=742FB6E2-B191-4F77-B91FEC841521C671#</a>Finally, I have a difficult time listening to all the bellyaching about oil profits. The outfit making REAL profits off of the high gas prices is the government. With a little investigation you will find that the oil companies make about 10 cents for every gallon of gasoline sold. The government makes about 5 times that amount due to their excessive taxation! Where's the outrage there?!Finally, all these idiot Senators (in both parties) calling for "windfall profits taxes" on these profits are hurting nobody but us, the consumer. Every company passes taxes on their wares to the consumer. If windfall profits taxes are assessed on the oil companies, WE will be the ones paying those taxes. That means higher costs for gasoline, because then we would have yet another tax to pay.I agree with you, the cost of a gallon of gas is too high. The cost needs to come down. But I don't think the way to get the cost to come down is to villify the oil companies. They have a product people want and need; in essense, being at the right place at the right time. The way to get lower gasoline costs is to lower the taxes on those products, and to begin oil drilling in our own country, which would increase supply, thereby lowering the price (i.e. supply vs. demand).
vejaduJul 24, 2006
Some Rubbermaid products are still made in the US, but many have been outsourced already and more are to come. Since 2001, Rubbermaid has shut down 69 out of its 400 facilities, and fired 11,000 workers. Analysts expect them to close over 100 more, at the cost of around more 20,000 jobs.Other large manufacturers like Huffy, Master Lock, Vlassic pickles, etc. have fallen victim to Walmart's pricing demands. They're forced to cut costs by lowering the quality of the goods they sell and by outsourcing jobs to other countries.All so we can save a dime on a trash can or a padlock. I'd gladly spend a little more to ensure we keep jobs here.
3adkiedJul 24, 2006
How would this really be penalizing Wal-Mart? The government wouldn't shut down stores or take half the company for themselves. Employees wouldn't lose their jobs. Stores would be divided into several smaller groups and stockholders would own an equal dollar amount of stocks in several smaller companies. Surely their distribution model wouldn't be disrupted that much by operating over, say 10 states instead of nationally. Also, if their prices are fair for everyone, why should having a bit less leverage change much?I would also argue that the point of business is not to win, but to succeed. However, to the point of penalizing them being a violation of competition, re-leveling the playing field happens all the time in competition. As long as it is done fairly, it is not anti-competitive. One example off the top of my head would be in professional sports how the draft is set up so the worst team gets first pick for the following year. If one team were able to use their advantage to gain an even bigger advantage, the public would lose interest quickly. Keeping thing fair isn't neccessarily a penalty, it's how they maintain the overall interest so everyone wins. Likewise, if Wal-Mart is only using their position, and not a competitive advantage over their competitors, the playing field needs to be leveled.
jakoblundbergJul 24, 2006
It is true that China is 'evil'. But it is the Chinese people that suffers from that not the American. If the Chinese government sold goods to the US for nothing at all it would be to the great benefit of the American worker. Yes, they could not continue making the products that are now free and would possibly have to take a job that would pay less. But as lots of products are free the real wage would be a lot higher.
dmcloneJul 24, 2006
I don't think anything needs to be done with Wal-Mart. They offer a terrible product/service at a cheap price. It's like comparing a Lexus to a Ford. Ford sells a lot more cars then Lexus but that doesn't mean that everyone wants to ride around in a Festiva.
blugu64Jul 24, 2006
To be fair, they do "produce" their store brands. By produce I mean contract out production of generic goods. I think their store brands are Equate, Sam's Choice, and Great Value among others.
quietbobJul 24, 2006
...but Greeters make my day every day!
bioniccommandoJul 24, 2006
I can't bring myself to finish that article, it's too much of a waste of time. There's definitely enough junk in the first 13 paragraphs to convince me of that. This is nothing but elaborate, overwrought pseudo-economics trying to legitimize what is really an aesthetic objection to, and paranoia of, Wal-Mart's business model. He wants us to pity Kraft and Coca-Cola? Really? Give me a break.
cocabooJan 29, 2008
You can't break up a business just because it is hurting the competition with efficiency. I'm no fan of Walmart, but the government wouldn't have any place to do anything unless Walmart was to destroy all of the competition - which just won't happen.