[itvnetop]

Originally Posted by Buster

No I won't watch those "documentaries" just like I didn't watch that piece of trash that Michael Moore tried to promote as a "documentary".

Just because they call it a documentary, doesn't make it true. Even if it's on the news or in a newspaper doesn't make it true.

I kind of had a feeling you'd associate this documentary with MM... the two aren't even close. If you'd seen it at all, you would have known that and you wouldn't have made this strawman.

Being a cutthroat" is not unfair as long as you're not breaking any laws. Businesses have ALWAYS had to learn to adapt to survive in our capitalist nation. Did they make films about how Henry Ford was being a "cutthroat" by mass-producing cars on an assembly line and making them affordable? Well, maybe those who didn't keep up with him made these wild claims, but ingenuity and innovation are what have made the United States the world's economic superpower. Yes, Sam Walton was innovative. He found a way to provide MORE products in a single building to more people at a lower price.

Um, how many car manufacturers are there now? Are we forced to only buy Ford? Henry Ford did innovate, but it spawned competition for better models, better engines, more speed, better safety, etc. The japanese car industry's business model is now being adapted by American companies because of the trend towards pricing-gas efficiency. I agree that Sam Walton was also innovative, but if you researched Wal-Mart at all, you'd know there was a whole team of people who came up with his business model (IT people included). But to compare his case to Ford's is faulty- Henry Ford's business model didn't single-handedly destroy every other car manufacturer out there.

He's not to blame for his success, the consumers who thought it was a great idea and gave him business did.

Um, the consumers aren't at all concerned about how innovative the Wal-Mart business model is. The general buying market in any country is driven by the bottom line- and that is price.

I find most people who hate WAL*MART to be either selfish or lazy. They want small businesses to suceed but big business to fail. WAL*MART was once a small business.

I find this generalization extremely judgmental, but maybe I'm getting mixed up b/c this is the Internet and intentions are always misconstrued... but regardless, alot of the people I know who hate Wal-mart are not either selfish or lazy. Our problem with Wal-Mart is not so much how they became successful (again you should read how their use of technology played a major part of this), it's what happens to other businesses. Wal-Mart invades a new neighborhood, they create a consumer monopoly by undercutting everyone else's prices by a wide margin, and when competition is eliminated Wal-Mart raises prices back up.

In capitalism, companies always undercut each other to corner a market. But when they do that, rivals find ways to innovate, make products better... but people stay in business. Those that do not bring anything new to the table (or have terrible business plans) inevitably fail. But in the retail convenience market, Wal-Mart isn't innovating any new product... they cut out the middle supplier and they're re-selling from direct sources. They can afford to keep their prices way lower than any of the mom and pop's, as long as it takes to eliminate the competition because they are Wal-Mart.

Would you want your sucess to be taken away to help those who haven't found a way to suceed? It's the welfare, entitlement mindset that has ruined America's largest cities. If you want sucess, use your mind and work hard like Sam Walton did...don't expect to be handed money or to tear down those who worked harder than you.

Nobody's saying that Wal-mart has to give any of their profits to lazy people. But when you say "those who haven't found a way to succeed"- you're talking about people who did find a way to succeed in America... and they did it the ultimate way, doing it themselves. Mom and Pop's are products of entrepreneurial spirits, creativity, hard work, and a lot of risk-taking. They are started by those with similar qualities as CEOs of Fortune 500s. They are not lazy and nobody handed them anything. They've played by the rules, but now Wal-Mart is driving them out of business.

Wal-Mart is basically telling the world that the only way to "adapt" and stay successful in their industry is to become big business. Is that your idea of acceptable adapting? What's wrong with remaining a small business owner? And don't tell me small business owners can remain successful by adapting the Wal-Mart business plan- mom and pop's do not have the luxury of slashing prices to near retail for an indefinite amount of time until competition is erased.

And don't get it twisted, Wal-Mart isn't where they are at b/c they worked harder than other people. You can use the argument that they are more successful b/c of their business plan, but do not use false claims that they somehow put in more hours than everyone else. I'm willing to ante up major bucks that Mom and Pop's work just as hard, if not harder to stay in business nowadays. For the last time, please read how Wal-Mart got to where it is now... then you'll stop trying to use these arguments painting Wal-Mart as the epitome of the American dream and everyone who hates it as lazy, welfare recipients.

Maybe someday you'll grow up. Getting a job, getting married and having a family and REAL responsibilities will help you, hopefully.

Not sure who this is directed at, but you'd better be careful with your Internet etiquette... judging someone you've never met just isn't cool. Basing this statement on my opinion of Wal-Mart isn't representative of maturity, so telling me to "grow up" seems ironic.