Forums | MacLife

Farmerkev wrote:

niggs0026 wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Huh?
Prices are slashed across the board to compete with Walmart.
Are you trying to imply that the govt should have forced higher prices on everyone for "our own good"?

Hmm, yeah, you're right. Obviously, that's not what I wanted to say, but that's what it implies.

Isn't the argument against Walmart though that they cut prices so much that nobody could compete in that respect? Nobody that didn't have the assets Walmart had?

That's the argument and one look around tells anyone with eyes that it is an invalid argument for most of America.

I see.

I still don't understand how that disputes the idea that if consumers want to prevent Walmart from becoming a monopoly in a free market, they don't support Walmart by not buying from them. My idea was simply that consumers don't have enough resolve to not support Walmart because of their tempting lower prices. I'm confused

Farmerkev wrote:

niggs0026 wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

That's the argument and one look around tells anyone with eyes that it is an invalid argument for most of America.

I see.

I still don't understand how that disputes the idea that if consumers want to prevent Walmart from becoming a monopoly in a free market, they don't support Walmart by not buying from them. My idea was simply that consumers don't have enough resolve to not support Walmart because of their tempting lower prices. I'm confused

My tiny tiny tiny town has a Super Walmart. When it came in prices went down town wide.
After 7 or 8 years we've still got 4 grocery stores, 3 hardware stores, 5 other places to buy clothes and some general merchandise stores.
Go to the nearest and bigger 60,000/80,000 towns and they've still got everything too plus at least 2 super wally's.
It simply hasn't become the monopoly it's been called.
Huge for sure, but hardly the only game in town.
They have made all the others be more competitive in price and service.
Consumers gave up nothing and didn't shoot themselves in the foot for low prices today at all.

Oh ok, I understand your point, farmerkev. Thanks for taking the time to clarify.

I'm still confused though because I have Pariah telling me Walmart eliminated competition and you telling me Walmart fostered competition. The variables that I can see would be the consumers and the other business owners. In Pariah's town, maybe the consumers only supported Walmart for whatever reason and/or the other business owners didn't adapt to Walmart's presence. In your town, apparently not only do consumers support all businesses, but the other business owners adapted to Walmart's presence to be successful. What conclusions can we draw from this if any? There may be other factors too. Maybe cost of living in Pariah's town is higher. Local business owners couldn't compete with Walmart's low prices and keep up with the cost of living at the same time. Maybe Walmart in your town wasn't acting entirely in a free market.

I think we're straying from the original course, though. It sounds like we're getting into the nature of Walmart. I'm more curious about if a free market in the Libertarian sense can work or not.

Last edited by niggs0026 (2008-07-23 12:10 am)