Video: Tucker Carlson on Walmart’s destruction of rural America
- Thread starter NZ Poke
- Start date
I very often applaud Tucker Carlson for his commentary, but, frankly, this is pure gibberish. WalMart took the age-old adage that “the consumer is king,” and brought it to all of America, both rural and urban. It brought much more than “cheap Chinese plastic products” to rural Americans that had never had it readily available to them before.
There is an economic law called “creative destruction” which says progress is made when an entrepreneur invents a new product or discovers a more efficient method of production or distribution, which creates havoc for existing companies that are unable to keep up. You know: electric lights destroyed the candle making business, automobiles caused the demise of the buggy making industry.
WalMart found a way to bring products heretofore unavailable to rural America at prices people could afford. It completely changed the landscape.
I doubt Tucker Carlson would want to live in 1950’s & 60’s rural Oklahoma where the closest “big’ company is in a town like Ponca City which housed Woolworth and OTASCO. Yet his monologue suggests that’s where he wants rural to return.
Poppycock!
I agree with him on wally mart. the ruination of retail in rural America. It changed retail on almost every level.
Wal Mart did not fight fair, they went in to rural areas and purposely ran stores at a loss for long periods of time just to put the mom and pops out of business, they heavily discounted their products so the mom and pops could not compete. In my previous life I had exposure to Wal Mart and how they operated. Ruthless in how they negotiated with vendors, basically no negotiation. Once they ran the mom and pops out of business that supported the local schools and the town for decades, they increased their prices.
One of the downsides of capitalism, it is just a shame Wal Mart was so greedy and did not try to co-exist with these mom and pop stores. Maybe they could not, but they did not even try.
Perhaps in the long run Wal Mart improved the shopping experience in these rural areas, but for them it was about profits and ruthlessly running people out of business.
Some people believe at the Retail level if you are not growing, you are dying. Survival of the fittest.
One of the downsides of capitalism, it is just a shame Wal Mart was so greedy and did not try to co-exist with these mom and pop stores. Maybe they could not, but they did not even try.
Perhaps in the long run Wal Mart improved the shopping experience in these rural areas, but for them it was about profits and ruthlessly running people out of business.
Some people believe at the Retail level if you are not growing, you are dying. Survival of the fittest.
It is preposterous to say WalMart did not "fight fair." WalMart took a business model that enriched millions of American consumers beyond their wildest dreams, with products not supplied by the mom and pop stores. Their prices have always been among the lowest, even when they raised them. Having grown up in the "mom and pop era" I can assure you life is much better today.
For what it's worth Amazon is now doing to WalMart what WalMart did to the mom and pops, further creative destruction.
You missed the point. It is illegal, it is a violation of antitrust laws to predatory price in order to eliminate competition. I use to work for the largest food wholesaler in the country, Fleming Foods located In OKC. Fleming was big enough to make the same bracket buys (and in some instances larger bracket buys) as Wal Mart in the grocery industry and knew what the cost of product was and what was being sold at a loss. Fleming supplied many of those mom and pops, stores like IGA, Piggly Wiggly, etc..independent grocers. Wal Mart was predatory pricing and the Feds turned a blind eye. Why? Who knows.
Fleming got crooks at the top and was asking me to cook the books and I left. It was a shame because they were such an ethical company for so long, the crooks drove them in to the ground and went bankrupt, of course Wal Mart hurt Fleming because they were profitable enough in other business units and in their durable goods to subsidize losses for extended periods in new markets, particularly in the grocery industry.
If you are not going to enforce the laws, take them off the books and allow true survival of the fittest.
Just so you know I love what Amazon is doing to Wal Mart. Wal Mart was a bully, you can do business in this country in an ethical manner, they did not. If you want everyone to be a bully, take the laws off the books. Bully deserves someone to kick sand back.
Last edited:
this is correct...I felt sorry for vendors trying to do business with them as they would be lucky to get a deal with walmart and make money. Not all, but walmart was ruthless in negotiation and your margins were about $0 to get a deal with them.
I do have issues with Amazon, Bezos.
Not because of their staggering success', but because they run legal, debilitating, soul sucking sweat shops.
Getting employees to work efficiently doesn't have to be at the expense of their dignity.
How many sailboats can Jeff water ski behind at one time?
The bully.
Not because of their staggering success', but because they run legal, debilitating, soul sucking sweat shops.
Getting employees to work efficiently doesn't have to be at the expense of their dignity.
How many sailboats can Jeff water ski behind at one time?
The bully.
The 3rd Wal-Mart ever opened was in West Plains, MO. Population at that time (around 1968) was about 5,000. Population there now is over 12,000. I just spoke with a woman @ the City Hall there and she mentioned that the Wal-Mart is not selling ammo any longer which will help the Mom & Pop stores that do (in her opinion).
If I missed your point it was because until this comment you had not charged WalMart with criminal activity until now.
But I ask you to consider a possibility. You say Fleming Foods claimed it made the same bracket buys as WalMart, that you knew what WalMart was paying. Is it possible you only thought you knew, that your suppliers were telling you you were getting the same price, but in fact you were not? I've been in business over 50 years, and I can't count how often my vendors promised I was getting the best price available, only to discover at a later date that I was not. You say WalMart was willingly taking a loss at their stores in order to drive out the mom and pops, they were practicing predatory pricing, selling to the public at a price lower than they were paying. And you are baffled that the Feds turned a blind eye. Is it possible the Feds were not turning a blind eye, that WalMart was buying at prices cheaper than you thought and was not selling below their cost?
I don't know if you lived in the age of mom and pop stores, but if you did you surely know WalMart has always sold at an inventory of magnitude over mom and pop.. Mom and pops were very small with an extremely limited inventory of products at their disposal. WalMart moved into a small town and sold thousand of products, some of which were the same thing as mom and pop. But that consisted of a very minute quantity of products they had for sale. Local consumers were in WalMart to buy a couple of dozen items, and while there they picked up some of the things they used to get from mom and pop. They almost certainly would have done it even if WalMart was not selling at prices below mom and pop, since they were already there and the products they wanted were right in front of them.That should hardly be considered predatory on the part of WalMart. It was creative destruction 101 in the econ textbook.
As for what Amazon is doing to WalMart, how can any consumer not love it? It is creative destruction at its finest.
This line of reasoning reminds me of the complaining from American companies that China is forcing them to give up their secrets.
Far be it from me to defend WalMart's purchasing practices. But I have never known a buyer of anything that didn't want the seller to lose money on the deal. It's up to the seller to walk away when the terms are insufficient. The sellers upset they didn't make a profit when dealing with WalMart, IMO, have no one to blame but themselves. That WalMart played them for fools, luring them into a deal that is a net loss to tem is testament to the greed of the seller every bit as much as the greed of WalMart.
And that's what the hubbub is really all about, isn't it? Tucker Carlson got upset because WalMart made a business decision he didn't agree with. The thing is, the decision will hurt WalMart's business, or it will have no effect. If I were betting on it I would bet it will have no effect. Frankly I didn't even know WalMart sold guns or ammo. I doubt that it's a huge percentage of its sales. I would suspect their decision to drop those items are made for reasons other than feeling pressure from the Syskatines of the world. And I doubt they are too concerned at Carlson's wrath.
Read the Robinson Patman Act, suppliers can not engage in activities that favor one customer over the other. Better negotiating ability does not apply. I know it damn sure applied to the Food wholesale / retail industry. When Wal Mart first opened its doors in to the grocery business it was not even close to Fleming in volume and could not touch the same bracket buys. My entity did 3 billion in sales a year, we did a ton of centralized buying, every invoice came thru my department. SOB’s sold below Fleming cost, when they had no prayer to make the same bracket buy.
Fleming was sued over the Robinson Patman Act, IMO because when they changed sales plans it was too complicated for the customers. Just saying it serious.
Did it ever occur to you that Wal Mart was in Arkansas and who was in the White House when Wal Mart entered the grocery industry?
Wal Mart very easily could have run those mom and pops out of business without breaking the law, but their predatory pricing guaranteed it, there was zero reason for it, in that vein I am supporting some of your argument.
Do some research, there is really no dispute Wal Mart engaged in predatory practices. None. I had a front row seat to it.
I am not going to argue with you on this one because you seem to prefer your economic theories, and not actual laws, contracts, and fair play.
You seem to be ok with Americans not being on a level playing field when it comes to China on trade and you seem ok with large Corporations engaging in predatory practices and possibly colluding with suppliers for a cheaper price than what they provide their other customers while sending individuals without the big pockets in to bankruptcy in an industry they thought they had some laws that protected them from predatory practices and possible supplier collusion that decides who wins and loses.
I received Robinson Patman training as an auditor at Fleming and then later as I rose up the ranks. We took treating all of our customers when it came to pricing seriously. Was highly ethical company that then got in a bunch of crooks headed by CEO Mark Hansen.
I believe all of this as a fact, do not care who really else does and I have no loyalty to my time at Fleming.
Last edited:
Well you got me on that one! I’ve never heard of the Robinson Patman Act. I bow to your superior knowledge of the law!
I do take exception to your remarks about wanting a level trading field with China. I can’t think of a single sales pitch or negotiation I’ve been involved in when the playing field was level. One side or the other has always had a degree of leverage. It’s up to the weaker side to walk away if the sale will result in a loss. That some American companies were so greedy to enter the Chinese market they were willing to divulge trade secrets - especially when they knew in advance what the result would be - leaves me with no sympathy for their stupidity. I don’t think the Chinese government was holding a gun to their head and making them an offer they couldn’t refuse.
And I’m not real sure what you mean by companies employing “predatory practices,” but if you mean they are selling products at rock bottom prices to consumers you are correct, I’m good with that.
The usual argument is the predation will drive out the competition and create a monopoly that will then gouge the public. This has been thoroughly debunked by economists who understand there is always competition. A monopoly is virtually impossible in a free market because of something called “potential competition.” As soon as the predator begins to raise his prices new companies are formed to compete now that a profit can be made. A monopoly knows it can’t raise prices beyond market value if it wants to be the only game in town.
The idea of predatory practices has been ingrained in the public’s consciousness by a steady drumbeat of statist politicians who gain power by promising to protect the little guy. It is common with all politics: declare a crisis and promise to solve it if the public will only give up a little of its liberty to the politician.
@Ponca Dan LOVES TO HEAR HIMSELF TALK. I can't stop laughing. I'll give him credit, he is really persistent
P.S. - Loves China, Hates Trump
P.S. - Loves China, Hates Trump
None of that changes my mind on Wal Mart nor changes the facts on Wal Mart for me, there is no right or wrong opinion here for me, just facts and laws. I responded to this thread not for political reasons or to sway opinions but to add some knowledge, and you start by mocking me and my knowledge of the law and really ignore the facts (and you may not see them as facts which is fine) with a long discussion on economic theory that right now I am not interested in. I have not even watched Tucker’s video on this, nor am I. No need for me to, lived it. Football season has started thankfully and I am spending more time discussing sports on this site.
Oh yeah, I was glad you admitted you were ok with Wal Mart breaking the law when it comes to predatory practices, I was going to suggest you do that and for the record I think no less of you for doing so, I am understanding better how you think, and we do not think similarly.
Last edited:
Just to give all of you an idea on how competitive the wholesale food industry business is, Fleming only made 1.5 cents on everything that moved thru its warehouse. That is razor thin margins, our CEO one time (Dean Werries) reminded us that each copy cost us about 5 cents each and he said it took $4 in sales to cover one copy. When I left I believe Fleming was a $14 billion a year company.
I regret you thought I was mocking you. I meant it as a sincere compliment. It seems to me we can have a difference of opinion without needing to mock or insult. I thought we were having a civil discussion. It never occurred to me you would think I was mocking you.
