3 ms·
Given Walmart's aggressive and arguably anti-competitive market practices, I'm not sure this is the argument you think it is. Why does this mean "this merger is
by banannaise 4y ago
Given Walmart's aggressive and arguably anti-competitive market practices, I'm not sure this is the argument you think it is. Why does this mean "this merger is okay, actually" and not "we should forcibly break apart Walmart to restore competition"?
- gwbrooks 4y agoI'm fine with that if the public will, regulatory power and legislation is there. My point was less "This is fine," and more, "This is inconsistent." Sorry if that didn't come across.
- banannaise 4y agoSadly, the will probably isn't there, but not solving one problem doesn't mean we can't solve related problems. Some people may not believe we should, but (1) I would disagree, and more importantly (2) that isn't a legal doctrine. Walmart, notably, didn't get there by agglomerating smaller grocery brands. They grew it organically, if with a lot of shady tactics. So there's not really a point at which regulators could have prevented the whole thing; they can only take proactive action. Whereas here, they have an opportunity to stop a problem reactively.