(no subject)

[fmloop]

It seems that most of the companies my generation hates are in fact poster children for capitalisic success. Companies like walmart, which has constantly kept prices in multiple fields low while maintaining quality of service (by this I mean you can expect to find most any food, clothing, or entertainment item in stock or in warehouse at any location at any time). They have hired tens of thousands and supply the family on a fixed income with affordable one-stop shopping. One of the most popular arguments I've heard condeming them is the tale about the mom and pop store being driven out of business, yet that is where the explanation always ends. Why is this bad? Does the town in which the mom and pop is located not have the right to seek their shopping elsewhere? Should they be forced to do business out of necessity when another could offer them cheaper, and in many cases a broader range of products? A great many of these small grociers or drug stores hold a monopoly on the entire town, and I find it strange that their defenders claim they are PREVENTING a monopoly by attempting to boycott a new walmart. If the smaller business cannot compete in a given field, by what right do they have to claim it for their own? If we allow the small business soul ownership to provide whatever service to their town, we destroy the quality of product. What insentive would the store owner have to rise to meet times or demands, if he knew another could not enter his town and draw away business. He could charge any price he wanted, and do it safely. This is also an argument against companies like walmart, that if left unchecked they would hold a monopoly over America and begin to drive up prices and force us to buy whatever we needed from only them. This is rediculous. By the nature of capitalism, this CANNOT happen. If a company, no matter how large and influencial, begins to stagnate, another will rise up and usurp it's customers. Take the case of Ford. Ford was famous for stating "you can have any model T, so long as its black" and did so because his company held a firm grip over the automobile industry. they drove down prices and had dealerships in the hundreds. But then along came General Motors with its dozen colors and sleek, eye-catching models. Ford's loss was astronomical, and they have never managed to regain the market. The consumer will always grow bored, and another will always rise to meet their desire. going back to walmart, this has happened several times. several smaller companies have begun offering cheaper and better food, clothing, home supplies, and electronics and this has forced walmart to increase the value of many products and lower prices still. I fail to see why so many people condemn this growth process when by its very nature it works for you. DVDs cost 20 dollars because of corporate competition. The only way a true monopoly could rise is if we condemn this competition because the other guy was here first.

What do you guys think? The only arguments ive heard are strictly moral, in which case you simply should not shop there.