Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (574052)	6/27/2010 8:24:57 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1573048

I came from a small town that now has a walmart and most people were delighted when it came to town. There were merchants that were driven out of business - some were mom and pop's but some weren't, like a Western Auto (hardware). But less than one would think because for a couple generations before people had been in the habit of driving to larger cities 20-30 miles away to do much of their shopping. With walmart in town, people didn't have to drive away to get more selection and better prices. And around the walmart today in my hometown is a new builtup cluster of small businesses located there to take advantage of the traffic. I see gains offsetting the losses. JMO

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (574052)	6/27/2010 9:26:28 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573048

Walmart's rise to prominence sure wasn't pretty. Not everyone prospered at a result. Just ask the mom-n-pop shops that were forced out of business. This is true; but Sam Walton was a mom-n-pop shop with a dream. Because the first stores were in my backyard, until recently it was common in small-town Arkansas to go into Walmart stores that were not so different from the mom-n-pop operations they have now been pushed out. But excellent retailers find ways to compete. It is important to remember that Walmart has been able to do this by giving better values to consumers, most of whom are middle to bottom of the financial class structure. Sam Walton succeeded because he had the drive and motivation to roll over the competition. The same thing happens in every business. When I developed my first commercial software product (a client-accounting system that sold for $5,000 -- a hell of a lot of money in the early 80s), there were only a few of us doing it. Eventually, one big player took over the entire market. IN the late 80s and 90s, there were a lot of us developing medical systems, today, the market is in the process of collapsing to a few very large companies. The software I'm developing now has to be a niche product because I choose to do my own thing. Our little business is as mom-n-pop as they come, but we're not talking about retailing, it is software development. And we continue to survive in this business solely because we've been able to find markets that are too small for the big guys and yet are underserved. My brother now owns my dad's old fast food joint, which opened in 1962. Last year, it grossed nearly $2,000,000 -- a lot for a fast food joint in a town of 10,000. When it opened, there were no other fast food joints, period. Even in 1980, there was no other fast food joint in the city he's in. Today, there are probably 20, and he still out grosses any of them and makes far more money than ever. Innovation. Those who don't survive a Walmart coming to town? Some are unlucky I guess, but most just aren't good enough at what they were doing. (BTW, one of my friends is a member of top management at Walmart, and his dad owned an independent shoe store that croaked shortly after WMT came to town, after years of successful operations; tragic, but part of the retailing business). The cold reality of a free market capitalism, though, is that not everyone should prosper equally. And I don't care how many bleeding heart liberals wring their hands over that reality. Life is competition. That competition is a struggle, but make no mistake -- Intel and Walmart struggle, too. Because when they start screwing off, someone is going to be all over them. The finite pie theory, however, is pretty silly. If anything is reducing the pie (or at least keeping it from growing), it is stupid social policies that reward incompetence and punish excellence. And for what? Spreading the wealth? Please ... Agree.