(Untitled)
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
( Read more... )
It's not as if all of these towns have a solitary store that dominates and controls its prices to make huge profit. Wal-mart gets a bad rep (aside from giving you a dirty feeilng by physically being in the store) by:
a) having poor hiring practices
b) having shitty Chinese products (certainly not all of the products available are poor quality; Wal-mart carries multiple brand name products)
c) undercuts the competition's prices to an extent that they are selling their products below cost, predatory pricing
"If we allow the small business SOLE ownership to provide whatever service to their town, we destroy the quality of product. "
It's not that we are allowing the small business to dominate its market by preventing other businesses from operating. Until Wal-mart moves in, its a natural monopoly; once again no one is preventing another store from opening. The monopoly is created by the scale of the store, once Wal-mart enters the market. Wal-mart has plenty of corporate funding and can afford to sell products at lower prices (becuase they also purchase products for lower prices, not only becuase of where they get their products, but mainly becuase of the amount of products they buy. See: buying in bulk, Sam's club, Costco).
The quality of the product may or may not be destroyed, regardless of the size of the business dominating the market. Whether the store is big or small, the product can be good or bad; it depends on each store's respective business practices. Honda makes a good car AND sells more than Chevy, mainly due to poor American quality.
Furthermore, is it wrong to help one small business operate and provide its service to the town, with limited competition? See: government subsidy
"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."
What inCentive would the store owner have? This question implies that any
decision is up to the store owner's discretion;regardless of circumstance or profit ability, the store owner could do what he wants. Regardless. For any reason. What incentive would ANY company have? See: free will
"If we allow the small business soul ownership to provide whatever service to their town, we destroy the quality of product....This is also an argument against companies like walmart..."
Your argument illustrates that neither small, nor large companies can maintain a monopoly due to capitalism. I assume the goal of this post is to point out the mis-infomration and ignorance of anyone who argues against anything but a free economy? (honest question)
"...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."
See: oil companies, lobbylists.
Reply
If the global economy was operating under perfect capitalism, natural monopolies could still occur.
"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."
From Wikipedia: Model Ts in different colors were produced from 1908 (first year)to 1914, and then again from 1926 to 1927.
"Ford's loss was astronomical, and they have never managed to regain the market."
What market? The automobile industry as a whole? American scale or global? Ford's trucks reguarly outsell their competition. Even on a more focused scale, the Mustang has been not only the most popular pony-car, but the ONLY pony-car to continue to be produced without time lapses. If we were to look at the industry as a whole, would we look at its subsidiary companies? i.e. Ford: Lincoln, Mercury, Edsel, Aston Martin (which it recently sold), Jaguar, Land Rover, Volvo, and a part of Mazda. GM: Buick, Chevrolet, Cadillac, GMC, Daewoo, Suzuki, Holden, Hummer, Oldsmobile, Opel, Saturn, Saab, Saturn, Vauxhall.
"The consumer will always grow bored"
I doubt the nameless masses will grow bored of well made, low cost, products. (You previously used grocers as an example of mom and pop stores -general stores, if you will. Consumers cannot grow bored of the products these types of stores sell: neccesities) IF a superior competitor comes along, consumers MAY switch. Ultimately, if consumers grow bored, the manufacturers aren't doing their job. It is their job to continue to attract consumers, and move forward with innovation.
Is your argument pro Wal-mart, or just anti favoritism? Or does it just address monopolies as a whole? You use DVD prices as an example of corporate competition, but the first half of the argument targets the small store vs large corporation debate. Mom-and-pop stores do not do compete with Wal-mart in the big-screen tv industry. The products offered at these store are completely different. What market are we regarding? The small town market as a whole (that can afford all of the luxury goods Wal-mart offers)? Or just specific goods like food or clothes that these small stores would carry?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment