2 ms·

> Here's the evidence, because I'm sure you'll have difficulty scrolling up: > I look forward to the creative way you will dismiss this as well. Please cease

> Here's the evidence, because I'm sure you'll have difficulty scrolling up: > I look forward to the creative way you will dismiss this as well. Please cease the personal attacks. I've been nothing but professional in tis conversation. > https://ilsr.org/walmart-charged-predatory-pricing/ https://ilsr.org/walmart-charged-predatory-pricing/ The case in Wisconsin was settled out of court, with no admission of wrongdoing. The case in Germany was about pricing products too low to be legal, not about doing so to eliminate competition or to raise prices afterward. The case in Oklahoma is interesting, but I never heard how it concluded and couldn't find reference to it in a brief search just now. I remember being especially interested in that when it came out because Crest Foods had alleged that David Glass, then CEO of WalMart, went to their stores with a scanner. At any rate, none of these cases are any different from the original one in the 90s where the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that WalMart had used "loss leaders" but that there was no evidence that they had done so for the purpose of bankrupting competitors not that they had raised prices afterward. Your assertion was that WalMart lowers prices until competitors are bankrupted then raises prices to take advantage of its now-monopoly status. I have never seen evidence for that - and I've looked quite a bit throughout the years.

anonbanker 10y ago
You claim it's a personal attack, and then you do exactly what I said you would; take the evidence, and do your best to dismiss it. My favorite part of your post is how you acknowledge that you knew about court cases related to predatory pricing (Arkansas Supreme Court), while simultaneously pretending you didn't know about Wal-Mart being accused of it, and demanding evidence to prove it anyway. Combined with your clearly detailed knowledge of the history of Wal-Mart, you can't even properly accuse me of throwing out an ad-hominem without contradicting yourself. Thanks for the laughs. I had karma to burn. :)

anonbanker 10y ago

You claim it's a personal attack, and then you do exactly what I said you would; take the evidence, and do your best to dismiss it. My favorite part of your post is how you acknowledge that you knew about court cases related to predatory pricing (Arkansas Supreme Court), while simultaneously pretending you didn't know about Wal-Mart being accused of it, and demanding evidence to prove it anyway. Combined with your clearly detailed knowledge of the history of Wal-Mart, you can't even properly accuse me of throwing out an ad-hominem without contradicting yourself. Thanks for the laughs. I had karma to burn. :)