[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.

[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".