5 ms·

What you see with Walmart is singular entity, owned by an obscenely rich family, who can strong-arm any supplier into accepting their terms. They have the mass

What you see with Walmart is singular entity, owned by an obscenely rich family, who can strong-arm any supplier into accepting their terms. They have the massive capital to build a megamart anywhere they want, and have it run at a loss for however long it takes to drive everyone out of business. This absolutely kills local businesses and funnels money out of the area, leaving only the low wages paid to the local Walmart staff. And because it's Walmart job or no job, people have no bargaining power. When small businesses form cooperatives for collective bargaining, they keep ownership local, they keep jobs local, and they keep the stores in the city centres running, which is better for pedestrian and public transit access, not to mention cafe life and local bars/eateries. Compare this to a megamart outside the city where you have no choice but to drive there. You get everything there and have no real reason to go into the city. As a consequence, city life dies out. Coops and associations work with the local shop owners and communities, whereas megacorps trample and replace them with cookie cutter faceless megamarts.

Natsu 6y ago
Efficiency always drives out competition. There's still room for small merchants for anyone who doesn't mind paying the premium to shop there. But not many people are willing (or able) to pay that much extra to be greeted by a familiar local face. And no, I don't think the supply chains are actually more robust for local stores. I've had better luck at the local Wal-Mart than at other stores for TP and other hard-to-get items. If anything, early on, some people weren't checking the smaller stores, but after they got wiped out, they've yet to recover and yet Wal-Mart has. There are still supply chain issues, don't get me wrong, but mostly they're upstream a bit from the customers. Think of things like meat packing plants having trouble finding any way to operate safely or having a lot of production that had to shift from commercial packaging to retail packaging and distribution.
- KozmoNau7 6y ago
  The problem is that this efficiency comes from being a huge corporation with a tight hold on the market. Not an outright monopoly, but with the ability to bleed money in some areas to outcompete smaller stores and the ability to negotiate big contracts by virtue of sheer clout in the market. Walmart is so big that it utterly dominates the market, to the detriment of everyone else. But because they're able to sell everything at the lowest price, people go there. It's impossible to compete with Walmart. It's a clear example of why the invisible hand of the free market is a dangerous myth.
  - Natsu 6y ago
    How is Wal-Mart a monopoly? I can't name any single good there which can't be gotten elsewhere and they have plenty of competitors for any given product line. There are dozens of other places I can get clothes, groceries, sporting goods, tools, etc. You say it's impossible, but does Target no longer exist? They directly compete with pretty much everything Wal-Mart does and many other businesses compete with them on specific product lines. Economy of scale is not at all the same as monopoly power and conflating the two only makes your point more confused. Finally, the "invisible hand" is really just a survival of the fittest type effect. It's every bit as random and imperfect as that is in nature, but the effects are no less real, or we'd all be peasants living at 1800s level standards instead of typing to each other on a globe-spanning computer network. If anything, I'd say that Socialism is the dangerous myth. Always promising utopia, as if you can create a utopia with unconstrained mass murder from a Socialist revolution. If we were the right kind of people to live in that utopia, we'd be sharing our stuff willingly right now, not seeing talk of guillotines and forcibly taking stuff, as can be observed in this very story. The proper way to get closer to that would be to encourage people to share and be generous. As the song says, first it was a tragedy, now it's a farce: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwqnRYPcrl0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwqnRYPcrl0
    - KozmoNau7 6y ago
      Walmart has a history of building stores in areas where local stores already exist, letting them bleed money while they outcompete everyone with their lower prices, dominating the local area and driving other stores out of business. They can afford to this due to their enormous size and domination of their suppliers, which means they can sell their wares at lower prices than anyone else. They can afford to bleed money for as long as they have to, in order to win in an area. That is almost the textbook definition of a local monopoly, facilitated by sheer size and entrenched market position on a larger scale. They are so large that they can have everything in all of their stores, they don't have to worry too much about certain items not being profitable in certain areas, because they're big enough to carry everything everywhere, unlike smaller local stores, who cannot afford the space nor the losses. Walmart banks hard on the convenience of everything being available in the same store, which is something they can only do because of their sheer clout and economies of scale that only work for really big powerful companies. The end effect is that Walmat (and other similarly huge chains) drive smaller businesses out of the market, because a free market always rewards those who dominate others, and rewards domination by affording even better tools and methods for dominating competitors. It's a surefire way to make sure the market is owned and run by just a small handful of very large and powerful entities. A truly free market is one that is sensibly regulated, in order to foster competition and prevent monopolies from taking over, according to Adam Smith, not one that is completely unregulated, as many free market proponents seem to argue for.

Natsu 6y ago

Efficiency always drives out competition. There's still room for small merchants for anyone who doesn't mind paying the premium to shop there. But not many people are willing (or able) to pay that much extra to be greeted by a familiar local face. And no, I don't think the supply chains are actually more robust for local stores. I've had better luck at the local Wal-Mart than at other stores for TP and other hard-to-get items. If anything, early on, some people weren't checking the smaller stores, but after they got wiped out, they've yet to recover and yet Wal-Mart has. There are still supply chain issues, don't get me wrong, but mostly they're upstream a bit from the customers. Think of things like meat packing plants having trouble finding any way to operate safely or having a lot of production that had to shift from commercial packaging to retail packaging and distribution.

KozmoNau7 6y ago
The problem is that this efficiency comes from being a huge corporation with a tight hold on the market. Not an outright monopoly, but with the ability to bleed money in some areas to outcompete smaller stores and the ability to negotiate big contracts by virtue of sheer clout in the market. Walmart is so big that it utterly dominates the market, to the detriment of everyone else. But because they're able to sell everything at the lowest price, people go there. It's impossible to compete with Walmart. It's a clear example of why the invisible hand of the free market is a dangerous myth.
- Natsu 6y ago
  How is Wal-Mart a monopoly? I can't name any single good there which can't be gotten elsewhere and they have plenty of competitors for any given product line. There are dozens of other places I can get clothes, groceries, sporting goods, tools, etc. You say it's impossible, but does Target no longer exist? They directly compete with pretty much everything Wal-Mart does and many other businesses compete with them on specific product lines. Economy of scale is not at all the same as monopoly power and conflating the two only makes your point more confused. Finally, the "invisible hand" is really just a survival of the fittest type effect. It's every bit as random and imperfect as that is in nature, but the effects are no less real, or we'd all be peasants living at 1800s level standards instead of typing to each other on a globe-spanning computer network. If anything, I'd say that Socialism is the dangerous myth. Always promising utopia, as if you can create a utopia with unconstrained mass murder from a Socialist revolution. If we were the right kind of people to live in that utopia, we'd be sharing our stuff willingly right now, not seeing talk of guillotines and forcibly taking stuff, as can be observed in this very story. The proper way to get closer to that would be to encourage people to share and be generous. As the song says, first it was a tragedy, now it's a farce: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwqnRYPcrl0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwqnRYPcrl0
  - KozmoNau7 6y ago
    Walmart has a history of building stores in areas where local stores already exist, letting them bleed money while they outcompete everyone with their lower prices, dominating the local area and driving other stores out of business. They can afford to this due to their enormous size and domination of their suppliers, which means they can sell their wares at lower prices than anyone else. They can afford to bleed money for as long as they have to, in order to win in an area. That is almost the textbook definition of a local monopoly, facilitated by sheer size and entrenched market position on a larger scale. They are so large that they can have everything in all of their stores, they don't have to worry too much about certain items not being profitable in certain areas, because they're big enough to carry everything everywhere, unlike smaller local stores, who cannot afford the space nor the losses. Walmart banks hard on the convenience of everything being available in the same store, which is something they can only do because of their sheer clout and economies of scale that only work for really big powerful companies. The end effect is that Walmat (and other similarly huge chains) drive smaller businesses out of the market, because a free market always rewards those who dominate others, and rewards domination by affording even better tools and methods for dominating competitors. It's a surefire way to make sure the market is owned and run by just a small handful of very large and powerful entities. A truly free market is one that is sensibly regulated, in order to foster competition and prevent monopolies from taking over, according to Adam Smith, not one that is completely unregulated, as many free market proponents seem to argue for.