Wal-Mart’s Green Campaign Hides the Company’s Unclean Hands

It is quite clear that many firms have expanded past the point where economies of scale are a justification.

The stock markets signal this frequently when the announcement of a firm that it is taking over a competitor is met with a decline in the price of the stock of the acquiring firm.

Of course, the goal is always to achieve as close to a monopoly as the firm can get away with. Once a firm has an effective monopoly (or shared monopoly) it is free to raise prices to “what the market will bear”, and ignore inefficiency.

Aside from overcharging, monopolies are bad for society. Their biggest failing is that they have no incentive to innovate. The classic example was AT&T;which prevented any technological advances in the communications industry for decades. Once it was broken up the industry exploded, with everything from cordless phones to answering machines, to, eventually, cell phones being developed.

The situation with Walmart is somewhat different, they have effective local monopolies in some communities, but don’t have any control over the entire retail industry. Their local monopoly has lulled them into complacency, however, and as a result all they have done over the past decade is to squeeze out costs rather than trying to innovate. Mistreating suppliers, workers and customers can only go so far.

The Walton family has focused on steps which lead to higher dividend payouts (their principal source of income) to the exclusion of everything else. This is why they are running into trouble. They don’t understand online commerce, they don’t understand international markets, and they don’t understand the rise in the purchasing of intangible products like video downloads.

Others have fallen behind and suffered as a result. The mail order model used by Sears, Penney’s, etc. has ceased to be popular and that’s why those firms which stuck with it are now out of business (Montgomery Ward anyone?).

Walmart needs a new management team, it needs to split the company up by function and it needs to franchise their stores. You can’t teach an old dog new tricks, however…

It’s nice of you to drop in robertdfeinman...

and state the obvious.  Such as…

“Aside from overcharging, monopolies are bad for society.”

“Walmart needs a new management team...”

Well no lie!

Someone complained about this website not long ago because the same people were here over and over.  And yet, every time I’ve popped in on The Writing on the Wal, I seem to see the same people there . We’ve had people coming to this blog to urging us to pay a visit to “the Wal.” That’s nice.

I would disagree with you on one point, robert d.

“The mail order model used by Sears, Penney’s, etc. has ceased to be popular and that’s why those firms which stuck with it are now out of business...”

While it’s true the so called “mail order busininess” as we once knew it no longer exists, in another sense it’s very much alive and has been transformed.  Today it’s called E-Business. (Amazon and E-Bay anyone?) The old bricks and mortar way of doing business has been replaced by a few clicks of the mouse.  If today’s consumer doesn’t need instant gratification, there’s almost nothing that can’t be found online.  This is where Wal-Mart is going to be the big loser in the long run. 

The internet is The Great Equalizer.  It will ultimately “level the playing field.” There’s no contentious site fights.  No city or local officials to pay off.  No traffic problems to worry about.

I don’t think the typical customer that Wal-Mart caters to is savvy enough to take advantage of E-Business purchasing, even if Wal-Mart gave them the option.

You do realize that the reason the same people post on the Writing on the Wal is because it is a blog run by this small group (4) of people.

What’s more interesting is why people such as yourself continue to offer nothing original, but only manage to riff on other people’s ideas.

So you have any thoughts of your own?

WMW has a problem.  If they open the discussion up to reasonably intelligent MW supporters, the flaws in their argument come out.  If they don’t open up the discssion, they get the same old tired bloggers who repeat the same old mantra over and over.

Just the opinion of one who has kicked off of this board under seveal different names.

You Got Me There Robert d!

“So you have any thoughts of your own?”

Not unless you consider your 2 statements that “monopolies are bad for society” and “Walmart needs a new management team...” to be “original” ideas.

I’ve seen lots of comings and goings on this blog in the last two years.  Long before we heard of RobertdFeinman and The Writing on the Wal.

Perhaps you and your friends at “The Wal” should keep playing together instead of coming here to recruit people and to lecture us on the differences between a monopsony and a monopoly.

So Screwed do you own this blog? Has some one made you the arbiter of what, when or who someone should post?

Sometimes my comments are aimed at people who may be encountering various ideas for the first time. That’s the nature of blogs, people come and they go and if you want to catch them while they are around you need to restate things now and then.

Ask any advertising man about the value of repetition.

No one is forcing you to read the comments. If you find the topics of interest you can just read the original article.

Grow up.

NO!  As A Matter of Fact, I Don’t Own This Blog

However, as you and “John in OKC” are two prime examples, anyone with a computer and an opinion can start a blog.

That’s right “John” in OKC… I hope you haven’t been feeling ignored.  You’ll have to forgive me for not recognizing you sooner.  I was accustomed to seeing you post as “Someone in USA.”

“Just the opinion of one who has kicked off of this board under seveal different names.”

Several different names huh?  Like Someone in USA and S in USA?  What other fake names did you post under “John?”

Old habits die hard, “John” so I hope you won’t mind me calling your Someone in USA, just for old times sake.

Now getting back to the topic of blogs, I see you haven’t made a post recently to the pathetic blog you unsuccessfully tried to launch.  What was the name of it again?  WATCHING WAL-MART-- “Someone in USA’s assessment of the claims of Wal-Mart’s critics, his take on the company itself, and some free advice for his friends in Bentonville.”

Catchy.  And quite pompous sounding too!

Are you still watching In Front TV and “In Front With Wal-Mart,” the propaganda tool Wal-Mart uses to “inform” its 1.9 million associates?  I’m sure the readers over at The Writing on the Wal miss your opinionated “reviews” of IFWWM.

I believe you said after viewing one of the episodes, “Town Hall with Lee Scott. As I said before, in theory this is the best part of the show.”

I wonder how many of the readers on this blog are familiar with the Town Hall episode where Lee Scott was asked 3 questions?

Question 1: We’ve been very public in our efforts in diversity. Can you expand on our accomplishments in this area? In your opinion is there an opportunity in our senior executive leadership?

According to you, Lee Scott’s response went something like this:  You would think of diversity meaning gender and race; yes, we have a long way to go. We’re not at a level that is acceptable.

And your billiant analysis?  Your exact words were: “Lee Scott has to be applauded for not dodging the question and answering honestly. At least it sends the message that he is aware that there is a problem.”

Make no mistake.  With the largest class action sex discrimination lawsuit in history still pending against Wal-Mart, Lee Scott is VERY “aware that there is a problem.”

Question 2: Is it our [Wal-Mart’s] goal to offer the best benefits to our associates in the future?

Once again, your analysis of Scott’s answer speaks volumes Someone in USA.  In your opinion, “This is where you can tell Lee was wishing Costco didn’t exist. Smartly, he frames the problem as a question for society to resolve.  If I understand him correctly, he closes by saying that better benefits would depend on finding a way to cut costs elsewhere.”

Yeah, sad to say, you did understand him correctly.  And too bad for you and Lee Scott, COSTCO does exist!

Question 3: Do you see our company becoming more pro-associate like it was when Sam was around or have we gotten too big to do this?

According to you, this was Scott’s response.  “The size of the company does make it harder to run like Sam did it. Scott said something else I wish he hadn’t.  “Your unfortunate luck is that there’s probably not another Sam Walton coming along in your lifetime at Wal-Mart.” He goes on to say that part of creating a pro-associate environment falls to the associates themselves. They need to hold the leadership accountable.

Don’t worry Someone.  If the associates at Wal-Mart don’t hold Lee Scott accountable, the rest of us will!

The deeply troubling and disturbing thing about a Wal-Mart upper management wannabe like yourself Someone, is your statement: “I disagree with being so honest in the answers in a program like this.”

Michael Edelman no doubt agrees with you fully.

“Don’t worry Someone.  If the associates at Wal-Mart don’t hold Lee Scott accountable, the rest of us will! “

You go for it Screwed!  I’m sure the merry band of anti-Walmart people on this blog will push Lee Scott to change his ways sometime soon… since you will hold him accountable of course.  Now what was that word you used.... pompous.... yea, that’s it.

RIGHT ON TARGET!

The Air Force has a saying “mary.” “You’re not over the target unless you’re catching some flak.”

I know when I’m right over the target, because you’re one of the first to “give me some flak.”

Do you seriously think Lee Scott is beyond reproach?  Is he unimpeachable?

“mary,” why do you assume it will be the “merry band of anti-Walmart people on this blog” who will get Lee Scott “to change his ways?”

Did I Say “Michael” Edelman?

Sorry Richard.  Don’t know where that came from.  But everyone knows who I meant anyway.

mary,

“You go for it Screwed!  I’m sure the merry band of anti-Walmart people on this blog will push Lee Scott to change his ways sometime soon… since you will hold him accountable of course.”

Don’t you know, that everyday, Lee Scott comes to work and the first thing he does, is ask “What can I change today, to make Tom Boese and his cohorts happy?”!!  Didn’t he or someone once say about these pests, that “They are like a group of guppies, trying to eat a whale”?  Seems to me, that these people are merely people who couldn’t do something successful themselves, so they choose to knock down something successful, so they themselves won’t look like such LOSERS!!  Instead of trying to take Wal-Mart on, head to head, through honest competition, they choose the tactics of ‘Whine and Spin’, just like their union buddies!!

It’s sad to see, that good oldfashioned competition, has been replaced by social terrorism!!  Kind of like the Tonya Harding story, if you can’t win honesty, try to break your competitions leg!!

“....... that good oldfashioned competition, has been replaced by social terrorism!!~Bob (RDS)

Please Bob, it is your Walmart that is named on the Human Rights Website. Talk about real social terrorism.

R E M E M B E R
J O N Q U I E R E
Q U E B E C
Home of Walmart Worker Abuse

R E M E M B E R
J A C K S O N V I L L E
T E X A S
Home of Walmart Worker Abuse

“I know when I’m right over the target, because you’re one of the first to “give me some flak.”

So is that how you judge when you’re “on target” Screwed?  Do you stick your finger up in the air to search for the “winds” of my mocking your comments so you can have a sense of accomplishment?........ pretty sad if I say so myself.

Yes...That Would Be Pretty Sad!

As usual “mary” you give yourself way too much credit.  I could give a rat’s ass about your “comments.” I’m interested in issues.  I’m not particularly interested in what you have to say at all. I’m more interested in the causes you and your pro capitalist “free trade” Wal-Mart buddies try to defend or justify.

You should know this by now, “mary.” Comments come and go rather quickly here, but the issues take a little longer to resolve.

So which is it.... you know you are right “on target” because I criticize you.... or… you could give a “rat’s ass” about my comments....  but then again you must think my comments have some meaning because they affirm you are “on target” with your statements.... but then again you’re “not particularly interested in what” I have to say.... but..

OK Screwed… as wishy/washy as ever.  I guess robertdfeinman was “on target” when he said about you… “What’s more interesting is why people such as yourself continue to offer nothing original, but only manage to riff on other people’s ideas.  So you have any thoughts of your own?”