5 ms·

Most people will read the conclusions from this research and believe we’d all be better off without Walmart. The question really is whether you think we’d be b

by prng2021 2y ago

Most people will read the conclusions from this research and believe we’d all be better off without Walmart. The question really is whether you think we’d be better off getting rid of all big corporations and reverting to a much much smaller economy with only mom and pop shops. It’d be a world where businesses have no economies of scale. As a result, would you be ok with a country of significantly less consumption of everything and significantly fewer conveniences (ie free overnight shipping)? I mean electronics, food, clothing, and everything else you buy today sold by Amazon, Target, Walmart, etc. I don’t have a very strong stance either way on this, but that’s the reality you have to be ok with if you believe big corporations are bad.

WalterBright 2y ago
One could look at how colonial America lived. I once toured Washington's home Mount Vernon. He was probably the richest man in America at the time. I wouldn't prefer his lifestyle, at all.
- krapp 2y ago
  One could, but given that such small-scale economies existed within in the modern post-industrial era, it would be disingenuous to do so.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    Big business drives the prosperity of the economy. Trying to run an economy with mom and pop businesses means poverty.
    - krapp 2y ago
      No it doesn't, because "poverty" is relative to the scale of an economy. See me, living in a small Texas town and paying $500/mo for an apartment someone in Manhattan would kill to rent for ten times as much. Plenty of people have lived in towns and villages which weren't entirely dominated by big businesses and they got along just fine.
      - WalterBright 2y ago
        > because "poverty" is relative to the scale of an economy If you define poverty as being in the lowest 20% of income, then you can never eliminate poverty. > Plenty of people have lived in towns and villages which weren't entirely dominated by big businesses and they got along just fine. You wouldn't have an internet phone without big business. Nor a car. Nor a washing machine. Nor indoor plumbing. Nor oranges in winter. Nor a hospital. Nor air conditioning. Nor electricity. Nor sanitation. Nor fertilizer. In fact, getting rid of business would result in the death of more than 90% of the population. And likely much more.
        krapp 2y ago
        Again, there is an entire spectrum of human existence between medieval subsistence and modern global industrial capitalism, and you seem to be defining literally every trade since the Industrial Revolution as "big business." Either the economy hasn't grown in any significant way over the last century, or clearly it was possible to purchase cars and washing machines, and transport goods, and have hospitals and air conditioning without "big business" of the scale that the context of this thread is clearly referring to. And the ancient Romans had indoor plumbing.
        WalterBright 2y ago
        > And the ancient Romans had indoor plumbing. Only a handful of rich Romans. > or clearly it was possible to purchase cars and washing machines, and transport goods, and have hospitals and air conditioning without "big business" of the scale that the context of this thread is clearly referring to. Nope. It took Ford's big business to be able to make cars cheap enough for the masses. Before Ford, it was a luxury item for a handful of wealthy people. Railroads were big business, too. You cannot have much of an economy with just horses.
        krapp 2y ago
        >Only a handful of rich Romans. Yes. And therefore, they didn't need modern industrial capitalism with global corporations to do it. And, just noting the moving goalposts here, your claim wasn't that such amenities weren't affordable without modern capitalism, because even with it, many people struggle to afford them, it was that they were impossible at any scale other than "big business." >It took Ford's big business to be able to make cars cheap enough for the masses. Before Ford, it was a luxury item for a handful of wealthy people. Ford at the time of the Model T wouldn't be considered a "big business" in the modern context. Again, you seem to think any business counts as "big business." Using the same term to refer to Ford in 1910 and, say, Amazon or Wal-Mart today is ridiculous. Obviously Ford would become "big business" but just as obviously Ford is one example of it being possible to manufacture goods at what would be far closer to "mom and pop" scale today.
danaris 2y ago
There's a middle ground, you know. The problem with Walmart isn't just that it's a big chain store. It's that it's a staggeringly, unchallengeably huge chain store, that can afford to operate a given location at a loss effectively indefinitely in order to drive out competition—including competition from other big chain stores, if they want to.
snapplebobapple 2y ago
It's not that simple. The real question is what is the minimum efficient scale for a retail operation (i.e. at what size do they get most of the discounts and opportunities of sourcing world wide/economies of scale). It's way smaller than walmart but way bigger than a mom and pop shop. Then an ideal world would be a retail market big enough to support a whole bunch of those so they all compete and profit margins are minimized so most of the benefit flows through to the consumer. So yes, I would be very happy without walmart but I would also be very happy without mom and pops being the dominant retail vector.
miohtama 2y ago
Italy is too many mom and pop shops and not doing that great https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/italian-smes-small-pretty-structural-problem-arkap-nyece?utm_source=share&utm_medium=guest_mobile_web&utm_campaign=copy https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/italian-smes-small-pretty-str...
aworks 2y ago
I don't know if we'd all be better off without Walmart. I on the other hand am going through the exercise of unwinding myself from Amazon etc., with varying degrees of difficulty: [easy] Echo devices: where the UX just keeps getting worse as well. Prime Video: now has ads as well. Washington Post: firewall so never read it Prescription drugs: I use a Walmart-branded drug plan serviced by a local Safeway. Better than Amazon directly, I suppose [moderate] Kindle: I don't really need paid ebooks vs. the library etc. but do have a Kindle library. Kindle Unlimited: library used books sales now for cheap reads. Amazon books: Barnes & Noble for shipping, so far so good. Amazon Prime: do I really need more stuff, quickly? [hard] Whole Foods: the UX of Safeway stores is surprisingly worse I find this a healthy exercise as it makes me less of an impulsive consumer. I haven't decided if Target, Walmart etc. should also be avoided.

WalterBright 2y ago

One could look at how colonial America lived. I once toured Washington's home Mount Vernon. He was probably the richest man in America at the time. I wouldn't prefer his lifestyle, at all.

krapp 2y ago
One could, but given that such small-scale economies existed within in the modern post-industrial era, it would be disingenuous to do so.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  Big business drives the prosperity of the economy. Trying to run an economy with mom and pop businesses means poverty.
  - krapp 2y ago
    No it doesn't, because "poverty" is relative to the scale of an economy. See me, living in a small Texas town and paying $500/mo for an apartment someone in Manhattan would kill to rent for ten times as much. Plenty of people have lived in towns and villages which weren't entirely dominated by big businesses and they got along just fine.
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      > because "poverty" is relative to the scale of an economy If you define poverty as being in the lowest 20% of income, then you can never eliminate poverty. > Plenty of people have lived in towns and villages which weren't entirely dominated by big businesses and they got along just fine. You wouldn't have an internet phone without big business. Nor a car. Nor a washing machine. Nor indoor plumbing. Nor oranges in winter. Nor a hospital. Nor air conditioning. Nor electricity. Nor sanitation. Nor fertilizer. In fact, getting rid of business would result in the death of more than 90% of the population. And likely much more.
      - krapp 2y ago
        Again, there is an entire spectrum of human existence between medieval subsistence and modern global industrial capitalism, and you seem to be defining literally every trade since the Industrial Revolution as "big business." Either the economy hasn't grown in any significant way over the last century, or clearly it was possible to purchase cars and washing machines, and transport goods, and have hospitals and air conditioning without "big business" of the scale that the context of this thread is clearly referring to. And the ancient Romans had indoor plumbing.
        WalterBright 2y ago
        > And the ancient Romans had indoor plumbing. Only a handful of rich Romans. > or clearly it was possible to purchase cars and washing machines, and transport goods, and have hospitals and air conditioning without "big business" of the scale that the context of this thread is clearly referring to. Nope. It took Ford's big business to be able to make cars cheap enough for the masses. Before Ford, it was a luxury item for a handful of wealthy people. Railroads were big business, too. You cannot have much of an economy with just horses.
        krapp 2y ago
        >Only a handful of rich Romans. Yes. And therefore, they didn't need modern industrial capitalism with global corporations to do it. And, just noting the moving goalposts here, your claim wasn't that such amenities weren't affordable without modern capitalism, because even with it, many people struggle to afford them, it was that they were impossible at any scale other than "big business." >It took Ford's big business to be able to make cars cheap enough for the masses. Before Ford, it was a luxury item for a handful of wealthy people. Ford at the time of the Model T wouldn't be considered a "big business" in the modern context. Again, you seem to think any business counts as "big business." Using the same term to refer to Ford in 1910 and, say, Amazon or Wal-Mart today is ridiculous. Obviously Ford would become "big business" but just as obviously Ford is one example of it being possible to manufacture goods at what would be far closer to "mom and pop" scale today.

danaris 2y ago

There's a middle ground, you know. The problem with Walmart isn't just that it's a big chain store. It's that it's a staggeringly, unchallengeably huge chain store, that can afford to operate a given location at a loss effectively indefinitely in order to drive out competition—including competition from other big chain stores, if they want to.

snapplebobapple 2y ago

It's not that simple. The real question is what is the minimum efficient scale for a retail operation (i.e. at what size do they get most of the discounts and opportunities of sourcing world wide/economies of scale). It's way smaller than walmart but way bigger than a mom and pop shop. Then an ideal world would be a retail market big enough to support a whole bunch of those so they all compete and profit margins are minimized so most of the benefit flows through to the consumer. So yes, I would be very happy without walmart but I would also be very happy without mom and pops being the dominant retail vector.

miohtama 2y ago

Italy is too many mom and pop shops and not doing that great https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/italian-smes-small-pretty-structural-problem-arkap-nyece?utm_source=share&utm_medium=guest_mobile_web&utm_campaign=copy https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/italian-smes-small-pretty-str...

aworks 2y ago

I don't know if we'd all be better off without Walmart. I on the other hand am going through the exercise of unwinding myself from Amazon etc., with varying degrees of difficulty: [easy] Echo devices: where the UX just keeps getting worse as well. Prime Video: now has ads as well. Washington Post: firewall so never read it Prescription drugs: I use a Walmart-branded drug plan serviced by a local Safeway. Better than Amazon directly, I suppose [moderate] Kindle: I don't really need paid ebooks vs. the library etc. but do have a Kindle library. Kindle Unlimited: library used books sales now for cheap reads. Amazon books: Barnes & Noble for shipping, so far so good. Amazon Prime: do I really need more stuff, quickly? [hard] Whole Foods: the UX of Safeway stores is surprisingly worse I find this a healthy exercise as it makes me less of an impulsive consumer. I haven't decided if Target, Walmart etc. should also be avoided.