The number one thing that a consumer demands from a vendor is more value for his dollar. Nothing else comes remotely close. To the extent that Wal-Mart calls that shot, on the consumers behalf, better than any consumer could possibly do, the consumer happily surrenders that power. And when Wal-Mart fails to do that, the consumer will withhold that proxy by withholding their dollars. Amazon will get them instead.
Let me put it this way. Do you think monopolies are harmless?
No.
If you don't, why aren't they harmless?
Because they charge their customers too much money.
Wal-Mart reduces that value equation down to a single variable -- "cost". Wal-Mart never says, "Can you create a higher quality pair of pants for the same price?" Wal-Mart always says, "Can you give me the same pair of pants for a lower price?" even if that means that manufacturing moves to China or the pants have a lower and lower quality over time. Given that it's in Wal-Mart's best interest to sell low-quality goods that need to be replaced often (selling things is their business), I don't trust Wal-Mart to care about the quality of the goods they sell nor do I ultimate want them making decisions about the trade-off between price and quality on my behalf, any more than I want a central government planner making those choices for me. If huge centralized one-size-fits-all planning was really such a bargain, then socialist countries should have been utopias but, interestingly enough, they suffered from the same cheap in price and quality problem.
And when Wal-Mart fails to do that, the consumer will withhold that proxy by withholding their dollars. Amazon will get them instead.
That's fine if you have access to Amazon. Not so fine if you live in the middle of nowhere, don't have a computer, and Wal-Mart is the only big-box retailer in town.