Is Wal-Mart good for America? (Response to PBS hit piece)

Townhall.com ^ | November 19, 2004 | Bruce Bartlett

[Haro_546]

Im not drunk, Sorry.

[shattered]

Wal-Mart destroys small businesses and local markets

I totally agree. Walmart ruins the downtown areas of many small towns by putting everyone out of business.

[NittanyLion]

If WalMart is the ethical business it claims to be, then simply making them aware of the Alabaster situation should be enough to make them pull out of the deal and thus collapse it. Makes you wonder why they haven't.

When you're running a corporation, ethics means operating within the existing legal structure to provide the maximum benefit to your shareholders. That's what Wal-Mart's doing (and rightly so).

[CriticalJ]

I am not of big fan of the way Wal-mart operates but it's difficult to argue that Wal-mart is bad for America. Like many of you have posted, their discount pricing has made it a lot easier for the economically disadvantaged to buy things. Wal-mart still has lay-a-way too.

Now, if they would just stop building huge stores that are abandoned 5 years later for an even bigger one. I have driven through many small towns where i have seen an empty Wal-mart (along with the deserted shopping center) on one end of town and a new one on the other side.

[Haro_546]

YEs, Is there a conservative argument against wal-mart?

[G.Mason]

"One of the fundamental necessities in a representative government such as ours is to make certain that the men to whom the people delegate their power shall serve the people by whom they are elected, and not the special interests. I believe that every national officer, elected or appointed, should be forbidden to perform any service or receive any compensation, directly or indirectly, from interstate corporations; and a similar provision could not fail to be useful within the States."

– Theodore Roosevelt, speech at Osawatomie, Kansas, "The New Nationalism" (August 31, 1910)

Wal-Marts seems to be playing by the "rules", don't you think?

[myrabach]

I agree with you. And Wal-Mart does this in more than one community. Because of that, I do not shop Wal-Mart. I know I'm a very small drop in the bucket, but you know that thing about absolute power corrupts absolutely. I think that is the case with Wal-Mart.

[unspun]

Centralized control of distribution is more controlling of the economy overall, in any given locale, than mere mass production.

So your solution is to have government determine competitive prices and force Wal-Mart to charge them? To avoid a "central planning approach?"

Who said that, besides TGY?

Rather, it is the role of government to prevent or dismantle market control, whether it be AT&T, Microsoft, or whatever else, in order to allow free enterprise and freer markets. It is very fitting for local governments to decide whether or not to let Wal-Mart in.

I have to spend time on my oblligations, now. Thanks for the discussion.

[Michael121]

I just bought 100 rounds of 180 grain remington SW40's for 9.99 anywhere else they are 15 - 25 per 100 so I say I saved.

Wally World DOES carry name brands and at better prices. But there are still small stores around here that have prices close still making a living but they also provide service to what they sell. TV's Stereos and the like so
Wally World only does not in its existance close stores.

Stores close because they mark up things Wally's does not even sell they suck at service.

But like you say Socks T-shirts etc... At least at Wally World you can get OUT of the store. K-Mart has 20 people waiting for 1 checkout. K-Mart SUCKS at Customer service.

Went into one yesterday, took 15 minutes to leave, in K-Mart there was 10 cars in the lot. WAl-Mart is always full even at odd hours.

[elli1]

Did you all know that Mrs. Kerry owns $1 million of Wal-mart stock? That's enough reason for me not to shop there...

Yeh...and I heard that she owns stock in every major drug corporation, beer company & hard spirits distillery, too.

[beef]

"I agree, wallmart being a success of capitalism now has more enemys than the czar of russia."


And many of the same enemies, too.

[Drango]

I have a choice of going to Wall-Mart. However, I have no choice when it comes to taking my tax dollars to fund PBS.

[Haro_546]

that was my point.

[beef]

"In the 60's, GM was the nations largest employer. Today, besides the government, WalMart is the nations biggest employer."

And whose fault is that? Does anyone else remember the wonderful cars GM made back in the '70s?

[beef]

"Damn Henry Ford, he ruined my carriage business!!"


I was a buggy whip magnate before he came along. It's NOT FAIR!!!

[The Great Yazoo]

Interestingly, in my town, Wal-Mart abandoned one store to build a new one across the street. The old Wal-Mart was in a shopping center owned by the dominant landowning family in this county (our county is named for their ancestor).

The shopping center owner had failed permit increasing the size of the store, increase parking, improve traffic flow, and make other changes to meet Wal-Mart's needs. So Wal-Mart bought its own property across the street and opened a new store.

While the old store lay vacant for a while, the shopping center owner ultimately enticed a grocery store chain to open there. The shopping center's layout was more conducive to the grocer's operations than Wal-Mart's.

This is all to the consumer's benefit. They have choices of going to Wal-Mart on one side of the street or the grocer on the other.

Government intervention restricting Wal-Mart's moving to the other side of the street would have 1) forced Wal-Mart into a less than optimum retail space, 2) prevented the grocer's expansion, 3) eliminated consumer choice between Wal-Mart and the grocer, and 4) enriched the landlord by forcing Wal-Mart to stay put. None of those results benefits the consumer.

[Haro_546]

The unions destroyed the car industry along with government.

[The Great Yazoo]

Who said that, besides TGY?

Rather, it is the role of government to prevent or dismantle market control, whether it be AT&T, Microsoft, or whatever else, in order to allow free enterprise and freer markets. It is very fitting for local governments to decide whether or not to let Wal-Mart in.

YOU just did!

[NittanyLion]

Rather, it is the role of government to prevent or dismantle market control, whether it be AT&T, Microsoft, or whatever else, in order to allow free enterprise and freer markets. It is very fitting for local governments to decide whether or not to let Wal-Mart in.

I'd submit it is the role of government to dismantle complanies who are using their monopoly powers to harm consumers. "Freer markets" is not an acceptable rationale for government intervention - particularly given the fact that every market in the world could be "more free".

[The Great Yazoo]

There is a local hardware store chain that competes with Wal-Mart, Sears, Home Depot, Lowe's, and other local hardware store by offering drop your socks off great service. They charge higher prices than the other chains, including the local ones, but it continues to thrive notwithstanding intense competition.

That is one way small businesses can compete with the big boys. I'm not convinced mom and pops are generally being "victimized" by big, bad Wal-Wart.