I don't know if this has been discussed in the past.
I was watching an episode of South Park in which a Wal Mart opens up in town. Of course everyone shops there and all the local stores run out of business because they can't compete with Walmart's prices.
I was talking to some one with their own business they say the reason Walmart offers low prices is because they screw over the vendor. Basically they'll go to a vendor and make a contract for 100,000 doodads at 50 cents per 1,000 doodads. But the contract allows Walmart to change the price. So the vendor makes 100,000 doodads then Walmart says they've changed their price to 25 cents per 1,000. So now the vendor is screwed over and since Walmart paid less for the doodads than other companies, they charge less which makes customers go to Walmart instead of other stores.
As for Microsoft, Bill Gates has gone to court for violating anti-trust laws and preventing competition. I don't completely agree with it, there are other choices for computer software and operating systems. Not that I'm defending MS either.
But my question is, how can Walmart get away with essentially the same thing and while the government shits all over MS? Once Walmart invades a small town it pretty much kills all the local shops thus preventing competition until it gets to the point where you have almost no choice but to shop at Walmart.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, I mean, Wal-Mart and Microsoft are both in pursuit of market domination, but what their businesses actually do is so different I'm not sure I see where your comparison is coming from.
(This thread title gave me an odd thrill of glee and panic, since one of the characters in the novel I will probably never write used to be a programmer for Wal-Mart and developed Wal-OS, and while I would like to be a prophetic visionary I also do not want to be scooped by reality.)
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
The point I'm trying to make is that while both companies are trying to take over the world, when MS does it the government files a lawsuit on them, but when Walmart does it nothing happens to them.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Yes, but their actual businesses are so different that I don't believe the various charges brought against Microsoft have much to do with what Wal-Mart does, or even could do.
Beyond that, Wal-Mart already faces antitrust suits for its own particular business practices that various people have found unfair or illegal, such as this dust-up between the Waltons and Mastercard.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
How much of their market does Wal-Mart control? How does that compare to Microsoft? Just at a guess, I'd say the numbers aren't close.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
The daughter of the heiress of the Walton fortune was recently revealed to have paid her roommate to do her homework for her in college. And it's the only fucking thing they'll talk about in the news here, for some reason. Has anyone else been hearing about this non-stop, or is it just local?
Anyway, I'm curious about what you said, Hobbes, about Wal-Mart and their vendors. Are you saying that Wal-Mart tells them "okay, we'll pay you $50 for that product", and then, when the vendor delivers the product, Wal-Mart says "okay, thanks, and here's the $25 we owe you"? And that the vendors actually sign contracts ahead of time, allowing Wal-Mart to do that?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I'm not sure I'm saying that the difference is size. . .just that, to my admittedly untrained eyes, selling code is different than selling groceries, clothing, and shotguns, and that the laws breakable in one enterprise are different from those breakable in the other.
But now I suppose Hobbes was speaking in a more general manner, really.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Trying to attain market domination is, by itself, not illegal. It's the way you go about it. Microsoft did various "dodgy" things, like include Internet Explorer free with Windows, thereby stifling browser competition. It would be like putting Word free with Windows.
Walmart sell things. They sell things cheap. People would rather buy stuff at lower prices, so they go there. What would you have them do, artificially raise their prices? The "screwing over the vendor" thing is heresay at the moment, and not directly related to the monopoly argument anyway (if someone wants to complain about them screwing over their vendors, they should complain about them screwing over their vendors).
Walmart aren't destroying the local competition because of dodgy practises. They are destroying them because they are larger and can afford to buy stuff cheaper. The smaller shops don't offer any particular service that Walmart doesn't, or if they do, people don't want to pay for it. That's capitalism for you. Complaining that Walmart is cheaper is like complaining that online stores are cheaper because they don't have to run a physical shop.
(And, incidently, I'd say it's far easier to go through life never shopping at Walmart than it is to never use Windows.)
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, uh, Wal-Mart has been accused of all sorts of shady practices, and for all I know has been found guilty of some of them.
I mean, there's a difference between accusing them of being criminal and accusing them of being mean.
(The world of anti-trust law seems to sometimes exist in the nebulous inbetween.)
Anyway, this thread is starting to confuse me, so to recap: All I am saying is that Wal-Mart isn't accused of doing the same things Microsoft is accused of doing because Wal-Mart, as a company, does different things; Wal-Mart occupies a different legal sphere, within which it has faced its own challenges.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: (And, incidently, I'd say it's far easier to go through life never shopping at Walmart than it is to never use Windows.)
I have found it rediculously easy to never shop at Wal-Mart. One look at the 300 pound woman wearing spandex walking thorugh the front doors, and my conviction is reaffirmed.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Sez you pallie: Wal Mart is a cornicopia of strangness here in Fort Lauderdale: it's located far from everything, and it's open 24 hours.
A girl I was dating and I once threw those Nerf Javelins at each other for an hour while employees laughed on their little powered merchandise sleds. Besides, where else you gonna buy floursecent green spray paint, ammo and beachtowels [i]after[/i[ midnight?
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
We have a chain of stores here called Meijer. It's 5 times the store Wal-Mart is. And the women that frequent the place are generally more attractive.
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
That's what you say, buddy: but I'm twice the man Wal-Mart is: it's a fact.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
But Tim is twice the size Wal-Mart is, so he wins.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Aban, don't come to the Port Huron Meijers.... You will be sadly disappointed.... The mall on the other hand, well, there you'd be in business....
Jason, Super K.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Better pack hollowpoints to shop Super K here. Mercury-filled ones at that.
I'm pretty certain the designers of Doom III watched security tapes from the Oakland Park Super K when making the harder levels.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Anyway, I'm curious about what you said, Hobbes, about Wal-Mart and their vendors. Are you saying that Wal-Mart tells them "okay, we'll pay you $50 for that product", and then, when the vendor delivers the product, Wal-Mart says "okay, thanks, and here's the $25 we owe you"? And that the vendors actually sign contracts ahead of time, allowing Wal-Mart to do that?
Yes. For the vendor they think they're going to make money instead of getting screwed. So what happens is that 5 companies go to a vendor for the same thing, but when Walmart changes the buying price from the vendor they can sell it for less which causes shoppers to go there over Walmart's competition.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
So, the vendor signs a contract that says "Wal-mart, after agreeing on a price, can actually pay you whatever, if anything, they feel like, bitch", and they don't expect to get screwed?
If true, this is one of those instances where I think some sort of non-zero-sum punishment is required. Wal-mart should get in trouble for it, but the vendors shouldn't really get any restitution, since they were pretty much asking for it.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
And, presumably, they keep doing it. Which makes the vendors even more stupid.
If Wal-mart are breaking a contract, then they're breaking the law, and the vendors should be taking them to court. If, as Tim says, they are signing a contract asking Wal-mark to screw them, then they've got no recourse at all.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Problem is, if they stop bending over for Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart will just stop buying from them altogether. And the vendors probably don't want to be without their business.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Which really sounds stupid.
Would you keep designing art for someone that did that to you?
With the competition there is out there, Super K, Meijers, Shopko, Target, and the multitude of malls, there isn't a vendor of any reasonable size that can not do without Wal Mart. Hell, sell to one of the others for $35 per unit and tell Walton to go frag himself.
Springfield, IL, did a study, when Wally World wanted to put in a second store on the west side, on how many smaller businesses went under in the areas that they placed stores. It was enough to counter their argument, We'll be making new jobs. Springfield and Sangamon County both said, nope, you'll be transferring jobs from the existing businesses to yours, but will not create any new ones. It's been a while since I've been back to see how things turned out, but the city, county, and a lot of people were against the new store.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
Thank god I live in Germany - the one country where Wal-Mart tried to "do their thing" and failed miserably. Yeah for German competition! Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
BAH! And as thanks you sent over your "LIEDL" gruppenguys into Sweden, pushing out our regular grocery chains with genuine swedish raw materials in favor of your "Curry Ketchup" and gigantic green "multiVitaminen Juice" cartons, for half the price. You-you Hippocrates!
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: With the competition there is out there, Super K, Meijers, Shopko, Target, ...
Not in Canada. Just about the only competition left for Wal-Mart around these parts now is Zellers. And they have the disadvantage of having shit stores (that I've seen, anyways).
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Regulating Wally World to the 51ST state is okay with me.....
Is that true for all of Canada? If so, that sucks big time.... Hope you can frequent the small stores, mom-n-pop places.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
But they charge more!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Just a note, from his profile, "these parts" means New Brunswick which hardly speaks for all of Canada.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I don't really like my place in this discussion, because I don't go around ranting about the evils of Wal-Mart or consumer culture in general. I like buying things. I have perfectly internalized the message that possessions will make me happy. Not three days ago I was in Wal-Mart buying some pastries. (And nearly some DVDs.) But. . .
quote: With the competition there is out there, Super K, Meijers, Shopko, Target, and the multitude of malls, there isn't a vendor of any reasonable size that can not do without Wal Mart.
This isn't really true for all products. Wal-Mart bears a similar relation to some markets as Texas and California do to the textbook market. That is, they buy so many that they are able to dictate certain terms in some cases.
(I won't buy doughnuts at Wal-Mart, though, because I'm ideologically opposed to their anti-Pacific Northwestern naming scheme.)
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
So I have a slightly skewed view of Canada...
On another note, today is Buy Nothing day, or some such thing.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: (I won't buy doughnuts at Wal-Mart, though, because I'm ideologically opposed to their anti-Pacific Northwestern naming scheme.)
And what is that?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Topher: On another note, today is Buy Nothing day, or some such thing.
If so, I sure blew that one.
OTOH, I bought everything for me. This year's kicked my ass and some material posessions, new clothes (Black- it just feels right) and my fifth copy of U2's Joshoua Tree are not too much to ask.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"OTOH, I bought everything for me."
I don't think that's an "on the other hand" situation. It's an "on the same hand, and even worse" situation.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Also, no-one is the slightest bit impressed by people who wear black all the time. All it does is make you look like you can't dress yourself.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
If people who wear black look like they can't dress themselves, what do people who really don't wear clothes look like?
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
They look like people who can't dress themselves and can't convince anyone else to dress them up either.
In the Pacific Northwest, my Grandparents live far from everything. It used to be more remote than it is now. And so when you "went shopping" this actually entailed going to a variety of different smaller shops to pick up different things. Then Wal-Mart and Costco came in. A lot of those smaller specialty shops had to close up. They just couldn't compete. To my knowledge this had nothing to do with anti-Pacific Northwest naming of anything.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
But that is a pastry of another flavor....
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
What we call maple bars (rectangular bar-like morsels coated in maple icing) they perversely refer to as "long johns," following the example of the more benighted regions of the Republic.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I know of four definitions of "long john(s)". Two of them end in "Silver". One of those is a pirate, and the other is a restaurant. The other two are a type of underwear and a type of doughnut.
If someone said "maple bar" to me, I would have no idea what they were talking about, but I would probably imagine some sort of syrup-soaked granola bar.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, I do live in a blue state, and you a red. . .
(And yet Krispy Kreme is from one of the Carolinas, so I guess political beliefs have little impact on doughnut-making quality.)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: Also, no-one is the slightest bit impressed by people who wear black all the time. All it does is make you look like you can't dress yourself.
Well, I dont wear just black: usually just black pants or a black shirt. Wearing ALL black in south florida is going to lead to severe sweating.
My new black denim shirt with steel buttons is a thing of bueaty though and feels great. Plus: long sleeves! It's dropped waaaay down into the mid-60's at night here! Fuck the cold. Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Black denim is a no-no. It just does not look good.
Posted by StarLord (Member # 1430) on :
What Wall-Mart is doing is different than what Microsoft did. As stated, Wall-Mart is offering merchandise at lower prices in order to get business. Not exactly the same as offering Internet Explorer free with Windows. Anyway, I think the government just doesn't like Gates so he's become a target (not that he doesn't necessarily deserve it).
quote:Originally posted by Lee: Black denim is a no-no. It just does not look good.
This looks great: not like the denim of bluejeans at all- much softer. Kinda like cordoroy.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
quote:Originally posted by Balaam Xumucane: A lot of those smaller specialty shops had to close up. They just couldn't compete.
Which was my original point for this thread. When it comes to MS and IE you can always download another browser, like right now I'm using Firefox. It's not like MS prevents Windows from working with other browsers. But once a Wal-Mart invades a small town, the local business can't compete and are forced out of business making Wal-Mart the only place to shop in some cases. It seems like the government is all over Bill Gates and Martha Stewart, but turns a blind eye to Wal-Mart.
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
Jason:
quote:This looks great: not like the denim of bluejeans at all- much softer.
In 2004, only death metal rockers, gothies and bikers wear black jeans. Phood for thaut.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: It seems like the government is all over Bill Gates and Martha Stewart, but turns a blind eye to Wal-Mart.
But Microsoft's problem was that is destroying the competition through illegal business practises. Whereas Wal-mart is destroying the competition by being, well, extremely successful.
You're doing the wrong comparison with Wal-Mart and Internew Explorer. You should be comparing Wal-Mart and Windows. Complaining that Wal-mart is stopping competition is like saying that the success of Windows is stopping a lot of people from using Linux. True, they can still download it (like you could drive to another store), but let's face it...using Windows is just so much more convenient, isn't it.
Using your domination of the market place to actively eliminate the competition is illegal. Merely being dominant is, by itself, not.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
(There is some legislation aimed at the protection of free trade by inhibiting a business dominant in one area of the market from lowering the prices on its products/services to a point where upstart/existing competitors can no longer penetrate that same area/are driven out of it, but I don't know if it would apply to Walmart).
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nim': Jason:
quote:This looks great: not like the denim of bluejeans at all- much softer.
In 2004, only death metal rockers, gothies and bikers wear black jeans. Phood for thaut.
I love me a Gothic woman, but I was talking about a button-up shirt with steel buttons. I havbe many a pair of black pants (mostly for work), none are denim though.
I'm waiting untill tuesday to shop for others: it's a relaxing experience to be out and about while everyone else is working. Salespeople are generally nicer as well: half the customers means half the stress for them, I guess.
They just naturally like me because my grace and charm.....or they work on comission. I prefer the first explanation. Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Well, I do live in a blue state, and you a red. . ."
Ah, but I live in a blue county in a red state. You live in a red county in a blue state. Ha.
"Plus: long sleeves! It's dropped waaaay down into the mid-60's at night here!"
You put on long sleeves if it gets below the high 60s? The hell's wrong with you?
On another topic, I wonder why StarLord didn't just say "Me, too. And here's my Web site:"? It would have saved a bit of typing.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Tim is right, Jason. You are clearly a freak. 20 degrees is still plenty warm enough for t-shirts, and possibly a light jacket if you go outside.
And "it's dropped waaaaay down into the mid-60s at night here"? We're lucky if it gets that high during the day.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
A light jacket at 20 degrees? We are talking Fahrenheit here, aren't we? 20 is cold.
You people all need to move somewhere where the temperature actually varies throughout the year.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The tempature varies quite a lot here: it's 80-85 degrees outside and 76 degrees inside. Air so humid you can drink it and a there's always a nice breeze from the ocean.
That was today.
It was so nice outside that I skipped sleep, went apartment-hunting and now am suffering terribly as a result.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
80-85. In November. Unless your summers are typically around 140 or so, that's not quite what I meant.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I know what you meant. I can also read your thoughts now that you've removed your tinfoil hat. Unwise to lower your defenses like that....
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: A light jacket at 20 degrees? We are talking Fahrenheit here, aren't we? 20 is cold.
20 degrees Fahrenheit is minus 6 in Centigrade. So, no, I'm obviously not talking about Fehrenheit. I already had to convert from your stupid temperature system, I wasn't going to convert back as well.
20 degrees C is exactly 68 degrees F.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
68 is okay: a little nipply though. My work is about that cold if the machinery is not running and everyone complains. We wear long sleeves and it's still unconfortable.
Posted by DoughBoy05 (Member # 1417) on :
Its 20 Degrees here or -6 if you are feeling metric today. I got my leather jacket for outdoors and am considering getting my scarf out today.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
People who are still uncomfortable at 20 (that's centigrade to all you imperial backwarders) should be deported to Siberia. In the nude. The wheenies.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Yeah, I mean, 20 degrees C, that's not even throw-a-blanket-on-the-bed cold, let alone arm-frozen off-and-shattered-on-the-floor cold.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
It occurs to me, Lee, that if you could hold off moving for several months you would be setting yourself up to skip winter entirely.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Well, we're on that timetable, you know? We either go now or we don't for several months. And we need that lovely free NHS medical care, it'll cost a bomb in NZ.
Posted by Wes (Member # 212) on :
How many anti-corporate shower-depraved liberal hippies does it take to screw in a light bulb?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Shower-depraved, huh?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: Well, we're on that timetable, you know? We either go now or we don't for several months. And we need that lovely free NHS medical care, it'll cost a bomb in NZ.
Healthcare in the Neutral Zone is always pricy.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
Not bad as living in the DMZ. Starship insurance is insane.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I wish my showers were depraved.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
May all your showers be golden.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Aww, that's so sweet. . .
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
If it's sweet, you should check your albumin levels.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
That really depends on diet.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
GODDAMNIT BEATEN TO THE PUNCH AGAIN I'LL GET YOU ONE DAY PECOS BILL!!!
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Huh.
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
That man is a victim of kidney stones.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
He is a victim of success!
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: Huh.
So, just to be clear...you posted, started at the screen for 12 minutes, and then posted "huh"? What the hell is wrong with you?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Also: not since Pompeii has an eruption like Simon's been witnessed by the world.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam:
Looks like he's going for the Dragonball Z power-up. He gets my vote for the role of Vegeta in any movie made.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Klackrent, Zlatan.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
K'Plaa.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
K'Pleh.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: He gets my vote for the role of Vegeta in any movie made.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
