All I can say is, this is a really dumb article. The function of a consumer is to seek the best quality for the price, not to bestow charity on inefficient and unresponsive economic entities. That is why WalMart is a success: it gives you what you want.
On Canadian TV I saw a skit lampooning anti-WalMart demonstrators. A middle-aged woman was interviewed, and stated her objections to WalMart thus: "Do you know what they have in that store? Do you? Why, they have PEOPLE in there to HELP you, and to assist you in finding what you WANT!! Why, it's contrary to every principle of Canadian commerce."
It is interesting to find a supposedly conservative magazine running a vague attack-article like this one, which one might expect on a hard-left website. Where is the source substantianting the charge that the founder of WalMart wanted to overrun the whole country? The author is beginning to foam at the mouth.
The only reason WalMart is successful is that it supplies needs for people. It does not do anything unethical. When I need underware, or socks, or DVDs, I often go to WalMart. Plain, ordinary stuff, efficiently delivered. It's much better than going to some mall-city and wandering around through over-priced boutiques.
As for encouraging foreign imports: you will find foreign imports everywhere, and at the high-price end, as well as with cheaper goods. People buy what they choose: I never buy imported wine when good California wine is avialable.
Try buying an American-made TV: I don't think that there are any. That is not WalMart's fault.
I would buy an American car, if I could find one that had good technology, and would last, and had tasteful design. I buy the best for my purpose. The last car I bought was built in Belgium, and presumably the dollars which flowed to Belgium eventually made it back to the USA to buy something here. I got a good car, now ten years old and running well, and there was NO equivalent made in the USA -- none!
WalMart is my friend! So are other outlets of my choice. I will buy where I want, and will ignore false moralizing from articles like that above.
Sometimes... I personally only go to Wal-Mart for toiletries and household cleaning items. I don't buy plants, or food, or clothes, or CDs, etc. I think the quality of their products is sub-par and customer service is non-existent. Combine that with rude customers who crash into you, cut in line, take three shopping carts through the express lane... No, I hate Wal-Mart, and I hate them for a lot of reasons. But I hate them for my experiences in their stores, not at all for their economic power.
1806: The only reason the plantation system is successful is that it supplies needs for people. It does not do anything unethical. When I need cotton, or tobacco, or indigo, or sugarcane, or rice, I just go to the market square and buy it from a friendly, helpful plantation owner. He provides plain, ordinary stuff, efficiently produced by happy, singing slaves.
Moral: Economic practices in which human beings are mere means to an end are immoral no matter how well they work.
This article is just a lazy, sloppy job of writing. It's the same old rehash of garbage spewed by the haters and union hacks every week.
I know it is hard to believe but NO ONE IS FORCED TO WORK THERE OR SHOP THERE. Shocking as that is, they seem to be shopping there in big numbers and applying for jobs there in record numbers.
"The last car I bought was built in Belgium"
What car is made in Belgium?