Sponsored Links

[Rev_DelFuego]

Winner, Best Topic: Economy & Business 2003-2004

I opened this topic in regards to and article I have read in USAToday. It pretty much states that WalMart goes into towns with super competitive prices and puts local competitors out of business.
Do you think this is healthy for a community?

This post has been edited by Jaime: Aug 10 2004, 01:32 AM

[Eeyore]

I love local flavor, but I haven't lived places with functioning family groceries for years. In my suburban world life has been corporate for a long time. What I have noticed is that some stores, including Walmart, can be run well and have a small town feel to them. Friendly and efficient service with responsive and concerned management gives that small town feel better than a lot of small businesses that I have patronized.

These stores still have to hire local workers and they still have the option to emphasize good service. Our local Ace Hardware is very good at this. Lowe's here is much better at service than Home Depot, and our Texaco down the street has people that always greet me with a smile and they keep the same people employed so it has that homey feel.

The prices can be great at Walmart, but I won't go to a store where I feel cramped or ignored while I shop.

So, in long, I think Walmart is not the problem. It is more accurately a fact of life. If they do their job poorly, we will stop shopping there and their stores will start closing. (i.e. K-Mart)

[Skyler1534]

I don't think Walmart's expansion is really a problem. Their prices and services are often better than any competitor, which is why they do so well. We have had Walmarts around here for years and we still have plenty of other businesses that are thriving by offering specialization for certain products rather than everything in one store. From my point of view, as long as anti-trust regulators stay on top of the issue (which I feel they are), I think we should be fine.

The fact that Walmart is a nationally recognized economic indicator is a sign they may have a bit too much power, but I think the businesses that are injured by Walmart's competition are the small, family owned businesses. While I know that some people are concerned with the takeover by Corporate America, if they can't compete, then economically they are a drag on society.

I guess it all depends on how you look at it: Which is better; local business or economic efficiency?

[rebelkate]

Walmart certainly gets mixed reviews. As young as I am, I remember living in a small town in Kansas where going to Walmart was a treat - it took about an hour to get there, so my parents always made lists for a couple months and bought everything all at once. My parents remember the beginning of Walmart - esp since they were both living in Arkansas at the time. Sam Walton was a very good man who was very down to Earth. He wanted to help his workers and have the best store as far as serving its customers (didn't set out to be the biggest store). It made a lot of sense in the beginning - opening stores in small towns. People were doing their shopping by catalog or just waited for the couple times a year they went to a nearby city (or just a bigger town). Considering so much of the South was not even accessible by any major roads (and some parts still aren't), it made sense to want to put stores in these markets where they were so needed. I think Sam's original thought was he was opening small town stores in small towns that were too small to even have a small town store.

But the world has changed, and Walmart the company has become an entity unto itself. McDonald's, Disney and Walmart are three companies that IMO show how companies can easily become "monsters" that are no longer controlled by the founder's original philosophy, but instead by the bottom line. Walmart now has an aggressive strategy - opening something like 1 megastore every 2 days (thats world wide I think). In 1992, one of the first super walmarts (at least that I heard of) opened about 30 miles from where we lived. Today I can count 12 Walmarts within a thirty minute drive of my parents house.

A little up the road from my parents, the people of Ashland Virginia fought against Walmart. Unlike Sam Walton's original stores, today's megastores have no small town feeling - every store is practically identical if its in Virginia or Brazil. These stores take up a massive footprint - especially by the time adequate parking is added. And also unlike the beginning, small, local stores pretty much have no chance of competing. When walmart built a new store about seven years ago just two miles from my parents, the town was a little worried and put up a small fight. Within two years of its arrival, 6 town stores went out of business... the only store remaining in the heart of the town is a pet shop that specializes in birds and exotic fish. My dad runs his own sideline business building near-museum quality model ships - but for a year or two he was forced to travel to Pennsylvania to find the supplies he needed after Walmart put the craft store out of business - even though Walmart does not carry nearly as many of the same supplies and they refuse to do any special orders. I think the only thing that saved my dad's business was the internet.

And what I think those in Ashland and other places across America fear is Walmart is the harbinger of more stores to come. Its like a symbol of the beginning of suburbanization and sprawl. Obviously there are more forces at work, and walmart is not the cause of these things - but people who do not want this to happen will fight hard to keep Walmart away, as if to say, without Walmart, how can anyone else want to come here. Soon after Walmart arrived near my parents, Lowe's, home depot, food lion, Winn Dixie, Kmart, dollar world, office max and staples showed up - along with a slew of fast food joints (we used to just have one). Of course, now thanks to further expansion and some company bankruptcies, there are numerous ugly and large empty buildings sitting in the middle of what used to be a "typical" small virginia town. While it was the poor planning of the local government (this whole Richmond metro area is notoriously bad at planning - allowing commercial growth rates three times that of the population growth), Walmart is seen by many now as the root cause. I've heard quite a few people say "If only we'd fought harder against Walmart".

So my final answer to the debate question? Well, I think it is bad for a community. Much of this comes from my own personal experience as I have illustrated, and some comes from my personal distaste for the modern "suburbia" where everything is standardized and mega sized and its like the individuality of the small towns are stripped away. I think for some, the battle against Walmart is the last community battle - because after that the community gets dissolved into the cookie cutter corporate world. I used to joke with friends that Walmart and McDonalds would take over the world one day - now there is a McDonald's inside the Walmart and all the hometown shops and restaraunts are sad empty buildings. I'm glad I live in a city where there are several corner grocers to choose from along with many family owned restaraunts/cafes and other shops. But already "suburbia" is encroaching on this urban oddity - they're building a super walmart just ten blocks from me...

[deerjerkydave]

Do you think this is healthy for a community?

Yes, why not? When Walmart comes to town, why does it hurt the local competition? Because people would rather shop at Walmart! Heck, even Michael Jackson is shopping at Walmart. Walmart has a long way to go before becoming some kind of monopoly. Especially since there is still plenty of competition including but not limited to: Target, Kmart, ShopKo, Fred Meyer, Costco, Sears, etc.

This post has been edited by deerjerkydave: Mar 3 2004, 12:34 AM

[BecomingHuman]

Do you think this is healthy for a community?

I personally am against going to Wal Mart. I don't care if anyone else go there, but if asked I would encourage them not to.

My philosophy is based on another chain store coming to town: Blockbuster. I use to pay really cheap prices to rent videos from the Ma and Pa stores, around three dollars. When blockbuster came in, they had competitive prices and long renting periods. This was all backed by a generous return policy. So, everyone flocks to Block Buster.

Soon, the Ma and Pa stores died, and what does BlockBuster do? Now, I pay $4 to rent videos. This coupled with the fact that you have to pay the entire rental fee again if your a day late makes me unhappy that I have to go to BlockBuster.

Well, Wal Marts pulling the same thing except that they're getting into everything. For instance, when the new Dungeons and Dragons books came out (3.5), Wal Mart lowered the price by 40%! Of course, the little gaming stores I go to sold no books.

But, I'm not for banning Wal Mart. I just won't go there myself. Ultimately, I think that the results of these huge chain companies (like higher prices) entering into local communities is bad only if they manage to choke out the competition. If not, competitive prices for all!

This post has been edited by BecomingHuman: Mar 3 2004, 01:44 AM

[popeye47]

Do you think this is healthy for a community?

I personally am against going to Wal Mart. I don't care if anyone else go there, but if asked I would encourage them not to.

My philosophy is based on another chain store coming to town: Blockbuster. I use to pay really cheap prices to rent videos from the Ma and Pa stores, around three dollars. When blockbuster came in, they had competitive prices and long renting periods. This was all backed by a generous return policy. So, everyone flocks to Block Buster.

Soon, the Ma and Pa stores died, and what does BlockBuster do? Now, I pay $4 to rent videos. This coupled with the fact that you have to pay the entire rental fee again if your a day late makes me unhappy that I have to go to BlockBuster.

Well, Wal Marts pulling the same thing except that they're getting into everything. For instance, when the new Dungeons and Dragons books came out (3.5), Wal Mart lowered the price by 40%! Of course, the little gaming stores I go to sold no books.

But, I'm not for banning Wal Mart. I just won't go there myself. Ultimately, I think that the results of these huge chain companies (like higher prices) entering into local communities is bad only if they manage to choke out the competition. If not, competitive prices for all!

I agree.

Walmart is not healthy for a community. My reason is the amount of money the community has to spend to help the Walmart employees who are paid a low wage and do not have any benefits.

An example

http://www.ajc.com/business/content/busine.../27walmart.html

Wal-Mart stands out on rolls of PeachCare
Retailer's sign-up ratio far exceeds other firms'



A state survey found 10,261 of the 166,000 children covered by Georgia's PeachCare for Kids health insurance in September 2002 had a parent working for Wal-Mart Stores

Wal-Mart, with 42,000 workers in the state in 2002, had about one child in the health care program for every four employees. The ratio for Publix was one child in PeachCare for every 22 employees. For Shaw, it was one for every 30 employees, and for Mohawk, one for every 26 workers.

PeachCare now insures 185,000 kids. Eligibility is based on family income. State employees' children, though, are not eligible because of federal rules

So people in the community may get a lower price at Walmart but they are subsidizing the Walmart employees who are using state funds for medical help.

[Christopher]

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript247_full.html
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_walmart.html
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_walmart.html
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12962

Wal Mart is both good and bad. What Wally World can do for affordable prices is invaluable to people on a tight budget like myself. However they do destroy many other smaller competitors and get to the point where they almost dictate the availible choices on products in areas. Although here in Phoenix we have several of these monster sized stores and their seems to be plenty of competition. Another downside is that their pay is so low that many of their employees end up on civil programs to support their families and in the end cost so much more in terms of tax money spent.

[Argonaut]

As long as I have freedom of "choice", I will always choose not to pay $1.49 for a single BIC lighter at the "local Mom and Pop" shop, and will instead continue to purchase BIC lighters (and many other products) from WAL-MART at the much lower price of 5 for $3.88 (which is almost 50% less costly to me and my family). The savings on many if not most of WAL-MART'S products really add up and can then be used for important things like my (and/or my families) health care, education, and "general welfare", which is my first responsibility after all.

[Mrs. Pigpen]

As long as I have freedom of "choice", I will always choose not to pay $1.49 for a single BIC lighter at the "local Mom and Pop" shop, and will instead continue to purchase BIC lighters (and many other products) from WAL-MART at the much lower price of 5 for $3.88 (which is almost 50% less costly to me and my family). The savings on many if not most of WAL-MART'S products really add up and can then be used for  important things like my (and/or my families) health care, education, and "general welfare", which is my first responsibility after all.

True. The potential problem is, Walmart can afford to take tremendous losses on certain products, unlike smaller stores. For example (a real one), if baby formula is five dollars and diapers are 11 at Walmart, but much more expensive anywhere else (around 7 and 13 for the next cheapest), everyone goes to Walmart to buy those items. Consequently, while they are shopping, they will buy most everything else at the competative but reasonable rates. This drives the others out of business, and then Walmart can ask a much larger price after the competition has been eliminated. I can't rent a video anywhere but Blockbuster's now, because all other businesses have been driven away. Same principle.

Target, Cosco, and other wholesale discount stores have been brought up here. Isn't it interesting that those chains do not inspire the vitriol that Walmart does? Perhaps it is because their tactics are not as cut-throat and monopolistic? I have mixed feelings about Walmart. Our community won't even allow that chain because Walmart tends to trash up a neighborhood.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Mar 3 2004, 11:06 AM

[Julian]

Do you think this is healthy for a community?

Yes, why not? When Walmart comes to town, why does it hurt the local competition? Because people would rather shop at Walmart! Heck, even Michael Jackson is shopping at Walmart. Walmart has a long way to go before becoming some kind of monopoly. Especially since there is still plenty of competition including but not limited to: Target, Kmart, ShopKo, Fred Meyer, Costco, Sears, etc.

I find it interesting that, when it comes to markets, some people take this view that of course hte big boys should decide, because they provide people with what they want and that, as an expression of the will of the market, must be allowed to continue unchecked.

Yet when the same thing is said of governments - welfare is bad because it allows people to do what they want, which may well be sit around all day eating corn chips and watching TV - they must be stopped.

What underlies both views, and the very structure of the American constitution which prevents the democratic tyranny of the majority, is that the people are not always right, and what the people want is not always what is best for them

Concentration of retail power is not a good thing - the UK's biggest retailers built their dominance trhough aggressive discounting, but now the big four grocers have over 90% of the food market and increasing shares of non-food markets, the first thing they do is subtly increase their margins. Consumers then have little or no power to shop elsewhere, as there is nowhere else to shop. It is no surprise that Wal-Mart bought the British supermarket chain Asda - they make more than double the net margins on food alone than the whole chain makes in the USA (around 3% compared to 1.5% net).

[Rev_DelFuego]

As for me, I think that the low prices do help people who need to watch their expenses, but as far as the community goes it forces out other competitors. WalMart opened up a grocery store not even a block away from my house. Anyone who's been to Houston knows the grocery store battle is a fierce one. (Hey we like to eat. #1 fattest city in the US) We had Kroger, Albertsons, Sac 'n Save, Apple tree, Auchans, Fiesta, H&B Pantry, and Randalls when Walmart started selling groceries. The field has already been narrowed down to Krogers, Randalls and Walmart, while Fiesta and H&B Pantry only survived by being cheaper by reduced quality. The only way Krogers and Randalls stayed in the game is by abandoning their old stores and either buying the newer abandoned Albertsons or building completely new "signature stores." All of the older stores now sit vacant, even some of the old WalMarts and Kmarts. Now, I'm usually all for competition, but I took this one personally because of one of the grocers, Auchans. Auchans wasn't a super market, but a hypermarktet. It had everything you would ever need, pretty much like Super Duper WalMart but more ethnic foods and higher prices. After Super Wally World came in the only thing anyone bought from there where the specialty items, so after it closed we lost most of those items unless you find a niche importer.

I used to joke with friends that Walmart and McDonalds would take over the world one day - now there is a McDonald's inside the Walmart

Auchan's was the first with this idea, along with TCBY, Subway, Taco bell, and a few chinese take out places, as well as a dentist office, a lawer office, a pager place, hair salon, and a separate jewelry store. Just to give you an idea of how big this store was, it had 100 (thats right a one and two zeros ) checkout lanes, and one in electronics too, and one in home and gardening. All of this since at least 1990 years before WalMart got their stuff together.
Editted to add:
Here's a link to the Auchans webpage, we unfortunately had the only store in the US.
And too add they had the best rotesiore (sp) chicken on the market. I'd eat them two at a time.

This post has been edited by Rev_DelFuego: Mar 3 2004, 03:22 PM

[smorpheus]

Yes, why not?  When Walmart comes to town, why does it hurt the local competition?  Because people would rather shop at Walmart!

The only thing most American consumers care about is the lowest price. Walmart can provide the lowest prices so they get the most customers, and can easily wipe out the local competition. This is a great example of how unwatched capitalism can cause serious problems...

Yes, Walmart can take a hit on prices, but they can also have a determining factor in driving manufacturing jobs out of the country. I can't find any of my links at the moment, so allow me to post this hypotehtically (from a logical perspective).

So Walmart controls a huge market share on an incredible number of products... Let's say they control 70% of hammer sales in America (this is not an unrealistic figure). Now you own Joe Hammer's Hammers which operates a factory in the United States. Walmart says they will agree to buy and sell your hammers (hammers which will not be sold, without placement in Walmart stores), however, they will only do so if you halve the price of your hammers (which your competitor Jim Hammers will readily do), the only way for you to halve the price of your hammers (And give that wonderful falling prices feel to Walmart) is to move your factory to Mexico (labor costs are too high). Falling prices are great, but Walmart has absolutely no qualms about demanding lower prices from it's suppliers.

Secondly, I would also like to point out the other reason I will never again give a cent to Walmart. I work at a video game company. Walmart will not sell a game with explicit sexual content (any amount of violence however is no problem). Now this is fine and is there right... HOWEVER, they have such a huge market share of the video game industry, that not only did we have to make a special version of one of our games last Chirstmas, but due to cost considerations, that became our ONLY version of the game. Yes, you heard it here first folks, a perfect example of market dominance resulting in censorship of a game. This also has occurred many times in the past with the comic book industry... (Books often won't be published or will be cancelled, pretty much entirely on the basis of the fact that Walmart won't put anything on the stands they deem racy).

Now I'm all for Walmart having the ability to determine what they sell, the problem is that they are quickly dominating more rural areas and becoming the only outlet. What we need is for more chains to step up to compete with Walmart (hopefully it's not too far gone). Diversity and competition is not only good for consumers, but also good for capitalism, having ONE chain dominate nationwide sales is never good.

Luckily in LA there are no Walmarts, well there are, but no one shops there (seriously, imagine!). There are many choices, and actual better choices in many of the local shops.

Also, I honestly don't believe Walmart is the cheapest choice for everything, if you shop around and go to nationwide chains which specialize in specific products, you can usually get better prices... Large nationwide chains which I find consistantly beat Walmart on prices are Target(miscellania), Electronic's Boutique (Video and PC Games), Best Buy (Electronics), Home Depot (also evil I concede, but at least it's not Walmart)(Hardware), Amazon.com(Books, DVD's, and a lot more), Staples (Office Supplies), and Trader Joe's(food/alcohol).

Also, if your going to buy home appliances or furniture, I can almost guarantee you will find a better deal somewhere online than you ever will at Walmart. So honestly, it comes down to laziness. People would rather just go to Walmart and get all those things I listed above, rather than going to eight different stores to get all they need (or wait a few days for the product to arrive in the mail). I'm starting to believe the "low prices" excuse is a cop out. People just don't want to think about the consequences of convenience.

This post has been edited by smorpheus: Mar 3 2004, 05:00 PM

[amf]

Is this healthy for a community?

You'll probably have to define "healthy" to get any kind of consensus here.

The reason Wal-Mart is so reviled is because they go into a town where there isn't a Target, isn't a Costco, isn't a Kohl's and build a store with 100,000+ square feet of retail space -- which is usually more retail space than you'll find in most small town squares -- and set up shop with lower prices and more inventory. Buyers flock there because they can get everything they want in one visit and with lower prices. The stores in town can't compete, because they don't have the buying power or the ability to maximize their existing retail space, so they go out of business, killing the town square for a while.

But... then a funny thing will happen (in many places)... the town square will get revitalized with new stores that don't compete with Wal-Mart and the square becomes the destination for summer festivals and the like. People start coming back, because there's more there than just a bunch of shops. In other words, the shopkeepers adjust to their new reality and the economics of owning a shop in the town square start to work again.

Yes, it's healthy for a community. Wal-Mart provides more benefits than those small stores, more jobs than those small stores (because many Wal-Marts are open 24x7), and lower prices than the town was used to paying (so more money is left in the townspeople's wallets). All this is good. And healthy for the local economy.

[Rev_DelFuego]

The reason Wal-Mart is so reviled is because they go into a town where there isn't a Target, isn't a Costco, isn't a Kohl's and build a store with 100,000+ square feet of retail space -- which is usually more retail space than you'll find in most small town squares -- and set up shop with lower prices and more inventory.

Well this true of many small towns across America, but Houston ain't one of them. Like I said before, Auchans had more space then any of the Super WalMarts, and had double the inventory if you counted out all the produce and ethnic foods, last time I was there 120+ aisles each about 100 yards long. The reason why Auchans didn't drive business away was because they only had one store, and they kept their prices higher then most of the other groceries because you were paying for convenience. Walmart on the other hand came in with an intent to drive others out, there was essentially no way to have that many grocery stores in a area, then to drive out others to post a profit in the area. Now they are specifically targeting grocery stores by opening grocery only stores around the neighborhoods. That was the straw that broke Albertsons back and I expect Randalls to pull out soon, and these are not Ma and PA operations either. Don't worry though Houston was a test market for these grocery store only outlets, and soon you too will be able to watch you selection of foods be driven away.

This post has been edited by Rev_DelFuego: Mar 3 2004, 06:28 PM

[deerjerkydave]

The only thing most American consumers care about is the lowest price.  Walmart can provide the lowest prices so they get the most customers, and can easily wipe out the local competition.  This is a great example of how unwatched capitalism can cause serious problems...

If American consumers were just a bunch of drooling mindless zombies that don't know what's best for themselves, then perhaps you would be right. I like to believe that American consumers are slightly more intelligent than you give them credit for.

I can understand people disagreeing with the practices of certain businesses. There are a number of companies out there that I disagree with in their policies. Sometimes other people are just fine with those policies. And I can understand that too. Nobody is the same. But using the government to club communities over the head by dictating who they can and cannot do business with is tyrannical in nature. If the people want it, and no rights or laws are being violated, they should be free to have it. Freedom is what makes America great.

[jenreiautter]

But using the government to club communities over the head by dictating who they can and cannot do business with is tyrannical in nature. If the people want it, and no rights or laws are being violated, they should be free to have it. Freedom is what makes America great.

There are some communities where this is just the opposite. Not too far from where I live there was a fight about allowing a "big box' into a community. In this particular instance it was Home Depot.

The community was up in arms about it, wanting to keep the area they lived in safe and nice. There was a concern that it would bring in too much traffic from other communities as well as ruin the cozy feel of that community. The council of that community, however had closed door meetings and decided to allow the development, mainly for tax revenue purposes. Now, you can say don't vote for those council members again, but by then it will be too late -- shutting the barn door after the horse has escaped kind of thing.

I personally avoid Wal-Mart. I'd rather give my business to places that encourage diversity and pay decent wages to employees.

This post has been edited by jenreiautter: Mar 4 2004, 12:22 AM

[Skyler1534]

Target, Cosco, and other wholesale discount stores have been brought up here. Isn't it interesting that those chains do not inspire the vitriol that Walmart does? Perhaps it is because their tactics are not as cut-throat and monopolistic?

I don't particularly think Wal-Mart's tactics are cut-throat or monopolistic, and incidentally, neither does the Department of Justice, since they have not filed greivances under anti-trust law. Your reference to the other wholesale stores not being attacked is akin to why the rest of the world hates the U.S.

The United States is the only superpower left, we have the largest economy, and more freedom than a large majority. Consequently, peoples of countries around the world resent us.

Wal-Mart is the 6th largest company by market capitalization at $257 billion as of today's close. Of the two competitors you mentioned, Target is the second largest in its industry with $39 billion, and Costco trails as third-largest with $18 billion. TJX Companies (parent company to TJ Maxx, Marshalls, and several other large chains) is forth with a market capitalization of $11 billion. The capitalization of the leading competitors to Wal-Mart combined only comes to around 3 and 3/4 that of Wal-Mart.

The previous statistics may account for why Walmart is often attacked or controversial while others in its industry are not as much so. Coincidentally, where I live there is at least one of those stores within the same 15 mile radius and none have gone under or look to be in trouble through the years they have been competing.

Walmart grew to be so large because Americans embraced it. The mention about damage to the workers without benefits is outweighed (or neutralized) in most cases by the money saved by the community as consumers. [This is anecdotal evidence. I do not have scientific, so please don't ask or criticize too harshly.]

Monopolization is the growing so large that you corner the market and can sell at whatever price you want. Of the four companies mentioned, a 10-year average annual income growth comparison shows Walmart to be the lowest with 15.4%, Target second with 20.1%, Costco with 22.4% and TJX with 26.4% growth. They all look to be very healthy companies with mostly positive fundamentals (all positive earnings). Walmart is not the place to channel your anger if you want to be mad over the demise of Mom and Pop Stores; the blame lies in the entire discount store industry.

I, for one, and not complaining about lower prices.

[Julian]

Just wait for 20 years, at which point there will be no "mom & pop" stores left selling anything, except those few whose quality of service or specialisation of offer allows them to survive and thrive.

The Wal-Mart's of the world will then have no further room for expansion (and therefore profit growth, and therefore stockholder dividends and share price growth - the only measures that matter in Anglo-Saxon economies), so the only way to continue their revenue growth will be through subtle upwards shifts in pricing.

This has already happened in the UK. The big four supermarkets here do not offer particularly low grocery prices on international comparisons - the logistics costs in the UK are cited as explanation, but for the most part the supermarkets control their entire supply chain so this is somewhat misdirective.

They can't obviously gouge their customers as yet, so have expanded their offer to include non-food items such as the clothing, domestic electrical equipment, and so on that have been staples of US super-sheds for some time. This does the same to smaller competing businesses in these areas as it has to gocers, butchers, greengrocers, and so on.

The supermarkets can offer keen prices to consumers, for sure, since they just take lower margins for themselves until they have the market power to pressurise their suppliers into funding the value proposition (as they have done in food already). Part of this means the "exporting of jobs" that so many in the West get exercised about - it allows the production of goods at much lower cost, protecting retail margins and giving consumers lower prices.

Sooner or later the supply chain will operate as efficiently as possible. All supplies will be produced at the lowest possible cost in the lowest cost economies. All domestic competition will have been forced into niches where they can do the mega-corporations no harm. All available penetrable foreign markets will have been fully exploited.

This may take another 20 or 50 years, but by the time there is no room for more than incremental profit growth for the four or five transnational retail organisations that survive, and they realise that the easiest and quickest way to continue their double digit profit growth is to begin price increases in earnest, the power of consumers to remove their custom, and governments to have any control over inflation, will have long gone.

[amf]

Just wait for 20 years, at which point there will be no "mom & pop" stores left selling anything, except those few whose quality of service or specialisation of offer allows them to survive and thrive.

This is true of ANY industry, though. For example, Dell is one of the most efficient computer builders in the world. But they don't have -- nor will they ever have -- 100% of the market share. But they HAVE put some less-efficient makers out of business and they HAVE forced some of the other computer makers to catch up.

They've also helped force down the price of the components that make computers, which benefits everyone.

But some customers won't buy from them because they don't offer exactly what the customer needs. It works that way in any market.

Don't blame Wal-Mart for doing well in retail. They haven't forced Target or Kohl's out of business. They haven't put BMG Music Club out of business with their low prices on CDs. They also won't put specialty shops out of business, because those shops offer stuff that Wal-Mart can't efficiently sell anyway. And Wal-Mart's insistence that its supply chain be efficient lowers costs for other retailers as well.

Personally, I think any town that gets a Wal-Mart should assume that the town has gotten big enough to support a Wal-Mart, which is an accomplishment when you're out in the middle of nowhere.