Six Flags to plan and brand new park in Nigeria

BDesvignes said:
You know instead of going to amusment parks you could be using that money to help the homeless or starving children.

Yep, or we could pool all of our money together and buy you "the bigger picture".... ;)

Carrie, FTW. :)

The way they do business is American. Capitalism is American. How do you think Walmart should do business? Should they sell things at a higher price and make less money? Should they open less stores and reduce their market share? I don't understand why some people hate Walmart.

I believe the word is monopsony, not monopoly in this case.

*wonders how many people just googled monopsony* :)

Listen to what their executives have to say and tell me that "greed is good."

I have to admit, despite being a tree-hugging liberal, I don't buy the idea that corporations have moral obligations. For example, one could argue that it is morally wrong to sell something to someone for more than it would cost them elsewhere. But, I certainly don't think that a business should be held to that standard. They should get whatever price they can get, and if the customer over-pays, it is the customer's fault. Instead, there is "legal" and "not legal", though many laws simply codify the moral standards of the majority.

At the same time, it's our job as consumers to spend our dollars in line with our own moral code. For example, I rarely ever shop at Walmart, and dropped my Sam's Club membership, precisely because I disagree with many of the company's business practices.

Eveidently I am in the minority.

The interesting part about this for me is that the relationship is asymmetric. Consumers as individuals have their own moral code that they must follow. But, businesses are not people, and so don't have "a moral code" that they follow, apart from that chosen by the executives of the company.

Awesome, Brian. Exactly my thoughts.

Back in the early 1900s A. & P. Tea Co dominated the grocery store market. They actually did have a monopoly. They had more stores than Walmart does now. Eventually their business model failed and they went into decline and others took their place. Woolworths also used to dominate the retail market and they also went into decline. Walmart too will eventually go into decline, and some other retailer will take there place and the whole thing starts over again. That's just the way the free market works, and it works very well.

BDesvignes said:
How do you think Walmart should do business? Should they sell things at a higher price and make less money? Should they open less stores and reduce their market share? I don't understand why some people hate Walmart.

You aren't listening to what others are saying. The issue people have is that they abuse their market share, whether you think it's a monopoly or not, in ways that are harmful to the rest of the economy. That's a moral issue. That you can kill a Vlasic or Huffy because they don't want to play your game has a ripple effect to other industries and the people who work in them.

They aren't hurting the economy at all. In fact they have helped it. They saved consumers thousands of dollars over the years and have helped keep inflation low. Just because some companies can't compete and go out of business doesn't mean Walmart acted immorally. The economy is in a constant state of change so companies have to change along with it. That's the way free markets and capitalism work. The internet and email are putting postal workers out of work. Does that mean because I pay my bills online I am acting immorally?

Did your electric company threaten to turn off your power if you didn't pay online?

No they didn't just like Walmart didn't kill those companies.

Wrong, that's exactly what they did. My analogy stands. "Price it this way or else or you don't get to play." If you think that's defensible, enjoy your pickles.

Shady and immoral practices aside, I don't shop there because the stores are a dump, the merchandise is crap and the employees are about as useful in their jobs are as a box of turtles are at curing cancer.

I don't feel like jumping into the debate fully, but would like to offer up a wonderful book to read on this subject. The Wal-Mart Effect, by Charles Fishman. Very interesting if you're into that kind of reading. It sits right next to another favorite book of mine, Satisfied Customers Tell 3 Friends, Angry Customers Tell 3,000.

In the latest issue of Consumer Reports, a comparison was done of store brands vs. name brands. Several of Walmart's Great Value products were rated of equal if not better quality than national brand products.

I've been in many "upscale" stores where the employees act like helping a customer is an interruption in their social schedule (if you don't see it on display, we don't have it), where closing occurs a good 20 minutes before the posted time. and a followup to any problem with a purchase it a total joke.

I've also been in stores charging a pretty penny for clothing that was also made all over the globe (hardly any clothing or shoes sold in stores is American made anymore) where the pattern of the material didn't even match across the seams. Pairs of slacks marked with the same size were obviously different, and sweaters were full of pulls and holes. So it isn't just Walmart selling crap; you just pay more for it in other stores.

If customer service isn't distinguishable among different businesses, the public will make their decisions based totally on price alone. It's true for amusement parks, and it's true for pickles. Walmart found its niche serving people who care only about price. I don't see why they should be a threat to those who don't fit that niche.

For the record, there are currently no Wal-Mart stores in Nigeria.

Great post RGB.

I have experienced lousy service at many other stores as well. I had a few bad experiences at Kohl's, but I still shop there for the awesome quality and selection.

Walmart may or may not have the same quality with their cloths, but the only clothes that I ever buy there are socks and underwear. I only like Hanes, for some reason, and their prices on the same pack of socks that I could get anywhere else is much lower...

When I buy socks, I throw away all of my old pairs and buy three or four packs of the same kind at the same time. That's an expensive purchase all at once, just for socks, but I never have to match sock after I get them out of the dryer. lol

But it's not quality that keeps me from buying Walmart clothes, it is style and lack of uniqueness. I need to wear something that not everyone else is wearing. I hate it when someone tells me that they have the same shirt that I am wearing - I just hate it.

I spend quite a lot more on cloths sometimes because of this. Especially stage clothes. A musician never wants to be wearing the same thing a fan is wearing when he is on stage, unless it's a rock band T-shirt.

One exception is my Levi's cargo shorts, which I wear almost all the time, 9 or 10 months out of the year. I'm always looking for new colors. Sometimes I run into people wearing them, but I don't mind, and I don't know exactly why. By the way, you can't buy them at Walmart.

RatherGoodBear said:
In the latest issue of Consumer Reports, a comparison was done of store brands vs. name brands. Several of Walmart's Great Value products were rated of equal if not better quality than national brand products.

Only semi-related - You're the only person I know who still refers to Consumer Reports as an authority.

That may or may not be a bad thing, but I find it interesting.

I've been in many "upscale" stores where the employees act like helping a customer is an interruption in their social schedule (if you don't see it on display, we don't have it), where closing occurs a good 20 minutes before the posted time. and a followup to any problem with a purchase it a total joke.

That's a shame. I wouldn't go to those stores anymore.

I've also been in stores charging a pretty penny for clothing that was also made all over the globe (hardly any clothing or shoes sold in stores is American made anymore) where the pattern of the material didn't even match across the seams. Pairs of slacks marked with the same size were obviously different, and sweaters were full of pulls and holes.

Sounds like you have some crappy stores in your neck of the woods.

So it isn't just Walmart selling crap; you just pay more for it in other stores.

Crap is everywhere. The key is to avoid it. You'll find some crap pretty much anywhere. You'll find only crap at Wal-Mart. (brand name items excluded)

If customer service isn't distinguishable among different businesses, the public will make their decisions based totally on price alone.

I make the decision first on the atmosphere - Wal-Mart always seems crowded, dirty, messy and sometimes even smelly. The ones in the area (we have 10 stores within 15 miles - yeah 10) all seem that way. I just don't like going there...even if the price elsewhere is a few pennies (gasp!) more elsewhere.

The quality of Walmart-specific items is the big number two. And by quality I not only mean things that are made as cheaply as possible to sell as cheaply as possible, but also design and aesthetics of the products. I'll pay an extra buck or two for something that I don't hate looking at or is easy to use or whatnot.

I rarely interact with employees beyond checking out and I actually prefer if they keep small talk to a minimum, so that isn't even an issue.

Walmart found its niche serving people who care only about price. I don't see why they should be a threat to those who don't fit that niche.

When all you want is low price, that's all you get. I find it a little disheartening that we've lowered our standards like that, but you're right - there's no crime in it.

(and not once in this thread have I said, "The Wal-Marting of America" :) )

Brian Noble said:

Listen to what their executives have to say and tell me that "greed is good."

I have to admit, despite being a tree-hugging liberal, I don't buy the idea that corporations have moral obligations. For example, one could argue that it is morally wrong to sell something to someone for more than it would cost them elsewhere. But, I certainly don't think that a business should be held to that standard. They should get whatever price they can get, and if the customer over-pays, it is the customer's fault. Instead, there is "legal" and "not legal", though many laws simply codify the moral standards of the majority.

At the same time, it's our job as consumers to spend our dollars in line with our own moral code. For example, I rarely ever shop at Walmart, and dropped my Sam's Club membership, precisely because I disagree with many of the company's business practices.

Yes and no. I don't think legal and not legal (especially in terms of loop holes) is the only measure for a company. There are lots of things that are clearly wrong that are not illegal. (Granted there are also lots of things in the grey area). The whole Hard Rock Park shell company intellectual property thing comes to mind. Whether or not that was legal, it was clearly wrong. Who is to decide? Well...

The problem with consumers deciding moral code on where to shop is that Companies are opaque. I don't know the vast majority of the people involved in the supply chain that gets a pickle from a field into my mouth, let alone their business practicies, ethical standards, views on legal vs. moral etc. I wish I knew because I am honestly VERY willing to pay more to support socially responsible companies, but figuring out which companies are socially responsible (whatever that means) is an enormous task.

I have to get my underwear at Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart in Cincinnati. 400 Oak St. I get my underwear at Wal-Mart.

I'm gonna let ya in on a little secret, Ray. Wal-Mart sucks!

:)