People bitch about how Netflix is the death of video stores and Wal-Mart is the death of the local store. That is a just plain bullshit. The CONSUMER is the death of these stores.

If you hate Netflix or Wal-Mart dont shop at them. Problem is they provide a service that is seen more valuable to most people, which is why other stores die off. This isnt the 50s.

 Reply

If a company intentionally takes a loss over the short-term in order to woo consumers or violates labor laws to keep costs down or over-orders from producers to induce capital investment and then reduces their purchasing costs leaving the producer in a lose-lose situation or uses its girth to manipulate municipalities in a way that disfavors other sellers...is it still solely the consumer's fault?

 Reply

There are no walmarts even remotely close to me (nyc), and as for netflix, i don't like paying a subscription when i only rent maybe 1 movie every couple of months.

 Reply

Anyway, if you believe that free capital movement is good, then you would also have to believe that the only people who are hurt when Netflix drives out small video rental stores are the owners of those rental stores. Through Netflix (and Walmart), consumers reduce the cost of their regular consumption basket, and can spend the remaining money elsewhere, stimulating other industries. The jobs lost in small video rental businesses are replaced by multiple ones in those other industries, since reinvestment gains are multiplicative.

 Reply

Not hiring union labor? Importing all of their cheap shit? Having brand names make cheap shit products specifically for them?

If people want cheap imported shit then they are still providing the service that everyone ones. Wal-Mart couldnt force Hanes to make cheaper shit specifically for them if they were not given the buying power by the consumer.

 Reply

I happen to think that both people and entities should act in an ethical manner. But I recognize that others disagree.

 Reply

They dont abuse their workers so the union argument is grey. It might appear unethical if you are in a union but seeing as how most of us arent the "reasonable person" wouldnt see it that way.

Everyone imports their shit now. Everything is made in China. Apple products are made in the same factory as Dells (and both are sold at Wal-Mart now).

The unique thing that Wal-Mart can do is have companies make shittier versions of their products. They do that because of their buying power. However, GM sells other cars than Caddilac. Are they unethical for pandering to people who cant justify a Caddy?

I dont like Wal-Mart but I cant hate them. They provide white goods at cheap prices, they provide jobs, and they promote from within. Im sure the first response is that the jobs are near slave labor and horrible jobs. Well, then why do people line up for them and why have most of the managers been there for a decade? Sounds like, for the right person, its a GOOD job.

 Reply

I do have a problem with a business creating intentional market inefficiencies via near-monopolistic tactics in order to radically undermine a market in the short-term so that they remain the only legitimate source of goods, purchasing power, and employment in the long-term.

And, I do have a problem with the long-term effect on producers of goods and employees in small communities - all of whom see their own personal wages and purchasing power decrease. It is not radically unlike the old "company store" system.

Is it illegal? Usually, no. Is it slave labor? Of course not.

If Wal-Mart were a friend of mine instead of a corporation, would I call him a douchebag or would I simply blame his customers? Sure, I'd wonder why anyone did business with him, but I'd also call him a douchebag.

 Reply