Not necessarily a new years resolution just happens to coincide. I/my family will do all we can to not buy any product "Made in China". I really can't stand it any more. It's not going to be easy for sure. Case in point. My wife has searched for a dishware set made in USA, Portugal, Spain, France. Finally a nice set made in USA. The flippin' mugs were made in China. Sent it back!

The hardest and impossible part of my vow.....In my business, many of the goods I sell are not available from domestic manufacturing plants. Chinese forged steel products are manufactured for all the big names in the fluid connector business ie. Parker or Eaton

me too

Attun International - Tableware, Dinner Sets, Coffee Sets (http://www.alibaba.com/member/sattun.html)

i think the term china or china ware has been used for so long that it has a life of it's own even if it wasn't manufactured in china the country

so even if it was manufactured say....in Sweden it could be still called china ware

Pfaltzgraft or however it's spelled. I believe made in US

More people need to do this.

Pfaltzgraff Serveware, Table Linens, Stoneware and Cutlery (http://www.pfaltzgraff.com/about-dinnerware/ABOUT_US,default,pg.html)

It's possible, but made very difficult to accomplish. I ask my local lumber yard all the time... See my signature below...

There's this idea in today's world that if its not made in the US its made in China.You really can't lump Fein,Heckler and Koch,Toyota and Shimano with the "Made In China" crap,you just can't as all four make some of the finest products in their respective categories.When it comes to guns and power tools I have no issue buying German.When it comes to cars I have no issue buying Toyota.When it comes to fishing reels I buy Shimano.When an American company builds a better sander than my Fein,builds a better light truck than my Tacoma I'll be the first guy in line to buy American.

Guns are different.Germans and Americans make so much damn fine weaponry.An HK91 is an outstanding rifle.There's a reason Fabrigue Nationale exists(and makes our M16s)...the FAL and FNC are the some of the finest rifles on the planet.Fishing reels?Are there any made in the US anymore?Shimano reels are an outstanding product.


These are just a few of the products that simply put are superior in there performance.Other than that I try to buy as much American as I can.I'll never buy a Chinese made apple pie but I will buy their fireworks.

I just ate some way good cat

There's this idea in today's world that if its not made in the US its made in China.You really can't lump Fein,Heckler and Koch,Toyota and Shimano with the "Made In China" crap,you just can't as all four make some of the finest products in their respective categories.When it comes to guns and power tools I have no issue buying German.When it comes to cars I have no issue buying Toyota.When it comes to fishing reels I buy Shimano.When an American company builds a better sander than my Fein,builds a better light truck than my Tacoma I'll be the first guy in line to buy American.

Guns are different.Germans and Americans make so much damn fine weaponry.An HK91 is an outstanding rifle.There's a reason Fabrigue Nationale exists(and makes our M16s)...the FAL and FNC are the some of the finest rifles on the planet.Fishing reels?Are there any made in the US anymore?Shimano reels are an outstanding product.


These are just a few of the products that simply put are superior in there performance.Other than that I try to buy as much American as I can.I'll never buy a Chinese made apple pie but I will buy their fireworks.

Well, the fact of the matter is, almost every Toyota sold in the US is built right here, by American workers. So you can feel extra special good about it. ;)

Well, the fact of the matter is, almost every Toyota sold in the US is built right here, by American workers. So you can feel extra special good about it. ;)

It's true. More of their parts are American made than Ford's. But at least most of those ford parts are made just over the Canadian border, not in China. Also sad that our largest export is gasoline.... Pencil pushers have pushed all our manufacturing offshore.

It's true. More of their parts are American made than Ford's. But at least most of those ford parts are made just over the Canadian border, not in China. Also sad that our largest export is gasoline.... Pencil pushers have pushed all our manufacturing offshore.

Ross,
Sadly it is the American consumer that pushed the jobs offshore. I always hear people complain that walmart has forced smaller shops out of business. If the consumer never flocked to walmart we would still have the smaller shops and the jobs to go with it. It is truly sad , and I wish more people to a look into what would help the economy and make those choices.


On a seperate note , why do people incorrectly claim that toyota is a "top" vehicle? It has been the most recalled brand for several years. Can't be that "well built" if they have to keep recalling them.

Ross,
Sadly it is the American consumer that pushed the jobs offshore. I always hear people complain that walmart has forced smaller shops out of business. If the consumer never flocked to walmart we would still have the smaller shops and the jobs to go with it. It is truly sad , and I wish more people to a look into what would help the economy and make those choices.
I'd say it has more to simply do with globalism and market forces. Yes, certainly people's choices have had a big impact, but the path of least resistance to profit will always be there...

On a seperate note , why do people incorrectly claim that toyota is a "top" vehicle? It has been the most recalled brand for several years. Can't be that "well built" if they have to keep recalling them.
Strong "brand identity".

-spence

Ross,
Sadly it is the American consumer that pushed the jobs offshore. I always hear people complain that walmart has forced smaller shops out of business. If the consumer never flocked to walmart we would still have the smaller shops and the jobs to go with it. It is truly sad , and I wish more people to a look into what would help the economy and make those choices.



Actually, the consumer is not responsible for net jobs lost by buying from Walmart. The money the consumer saves by buying at Walmart will be spent elsewhere in the economy, creating or saving other jobs.

Actually, the consumer is not responsible for net jobs lost by buying from Walmart. The money the consumer saves by buying at Walmart will be spent elsewhere in the economy, creating or saving other jobs.
I think it's a fair observation that the "big box" stores in general have had a tremendous impact on modeling consumer behavior.

They can both leverage their buying power as well as squeeze the manufacturer to reduce costs. While the consumer might see an increase in variety and cheaper prices, the flip side is lower quality products or people buying junk they really don't need...while still racking up a lot of debt.

-spence

I think it's a fair observation that the "big box" stores in general have had a tremendous impact on modeling consumer behavior.

This "modeling" has been going on in the U.S. for well over a century. Walmart is just another in the line of department store types in which the new model finds ways to sell at lower costs. Just about all the usual brand items have gone through this selling process--even automobiles with Henry Ford's assembly line manufacturing and the growth of dealerships. And this "modeling" is based on the age-old model of haggling where the consumer tries to buy at the cheapest price. Any type of intervention to "model" the consumer into buying at smaller, single owned outlets at a higher price will have to overcome the natural and reasonable desire to save money, and will have to be done by force against free market principle. Whenever this has been done, either by price fixing or by socialist governments, economic activity dwindles, and instead of job growth, unemployment and shrinking economy results.

They can both leverage their buying power as well as squeeze the manufacturer to reduce costs. While the consumer might see an increase in variety and cheaper prices, the flip side is lower quality products or people buying junk they really don't need...while still racking up a lot of debt.

-spence

Reducing manufacturing costs should be the aim of competitive manufacturers. If lower quality results, then there will be a market for better quality producers. There are many niche products of all types that sell on the basis of quality at a higher price and they do well.

Have you been to a Walmart? Many, if not most, of the goods are brand items. It's not all junk. Most of it is not junk. And this is just a guess--I'd guess that most Walmart customers go there in order not to rack up a lot of debt, or to rack up less of it than they would if they had to pay higher prices.

After a trip to bj's today I'd rather go to super walmart
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually, the consumer is not responsible for net jobs lost by buying from Walmart. The money the consumer saves by buying at Walmart will be spent elsewhere in the economy, creating or saving other jobs.

No, actually that is completely wrong. The economy is run by many factors , not just one purchase.

First example, consumer spending is often driven by confidence. Confidence is closely related to the unemployment rate. Walmart is the worse offenders off forcing companies to go offshore to produce products at the price that walmart demands. When there are massive job losses it causes a problem in two ways. Those that are laid off don't have money to spend and those that do have jobs don;t have the same confidence, therefore not spending as much money as before.

Second reason: Walmart does not pay a viable wage. When supermarkets have unions (and I am not arguing for or against them) they can not compete price wise and may be forced out. Those employees went from making a livable wage to being forced into a low wage by the only place in town.

Do you work for walmart?

Well said gregw
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, actually that is completely wrong. The economy is run by many factors , not just one purchase.

I was speaking to the factor you brought up--the consumer pushing jobs offshore by spending at places like walmart. In respect to that factor, the money saved by spending there is money that can be spent elsewhere. Is that completely wrong?

First example, consumer spending is often driven by confidence.

I don't know about other consumers, but the only confidence I look to in spending is the confidence that I can afford to spend. Is your spending restricted by "consumer confidence" or by your own ability and desire? I have yet to talk to anyone who has confided that they weren't going to buy something because of some poll manufactured "consumer confidence" being down.

Confidence is closely related to the unemployment rate. Walmart is the worse offenders off forcing companies to go offshore to produce products at the price that walmart demands. When there are massive job losses it causes a problem in two ways. Those that are laid off don't have money to spend and those that do have jobs don;t have the same confidence, therefore not spending as much money as before.

Walmart has been around for many years during which time the unemployment rate has varied from low to high. So during the times that the rate was low, was Walmart responsible for the low unemployment? It seems you're implying that Walmart is part of the reason for high unemployment. If that's the case, the rate should have been and stayed high for a long while rather than fluctuating. And how does Walmart "force" companies to go offshore? Are you speaking of products that are produced solely for sale at Walmart? Is there some kind of contract between Walmart and these manufacturers wherein their products can only be sold through Walmart? If so, then Walmart is "forcing" the creation of a company that otherwise would not exist. As I mentioned to Spence above, much of what is for sale in Walmart are normal brand products that can be purchased at other stores for a higher price. If they are forced by Walmart to manufacture at a lower price, why are their products more expensive elsewhere, and is it not good for the consumer that Walmart sells them cheaper? And doesn't this lower price help those that are laid off rather than hurt them? And there are other stores, there really are, that those who choose not to spend at Walmart, can spend--with confidence. I have not seen a real correlation between Walmart, unemployment, and so-called "consumer confidence."

Second reason: Walmart does not pay a viable wage. When supermarkets have unions (and I am not arguing for or against them) they can not compete price wise and may be forced out. Those employees went from making a livable wage to being forced into a low wage by the only place in town.

So how do Walmart employees avoid starvation and homelessness? I have been going to Bowling Green, Ohio for several years to visit my son. When I first started going there, there were two large grocery stores (Kroger and a Value-something-or-other) and a K-mart. A Meier store moved in about ten years ago, then a Walmart followed. At first the Meier was the price competitor, which drove the Value-something-or-other out of business. Then Walmart created even more price competition. The Kroger is doing well and has lowered prices and maintained or improved quality and service, as well as has Meier, and a new really low-priced grocery store named Aldi has moved in. The town now has four grocery stores with varying competitive prices and quality including the super Walmart and Meier. The Kmart was in trouble and went out of business before Walmart moved in. The consumers have benefitted. There are more jobs.

Do you work for walmart?

No

Is my spending influenced by confidence? Yes 100%. For example if I feared losing my job my spending would instantly be cut back. That is just common sense.
And ultimately even a rumor of layoffs can instantly cripple an economy.
Here is an example for you. You are a manufacturing company that employs production workers. Wal-Mart, one of the larger purchasers, says that they will now only pay $7 for a product you were recently charging $10 for. A foreign company will make it for that price. To answer your question: why were they charging "so much more?" , is because the company pays American citizens , American wages and also pays research and development , while foreign companies will copy the product changing one minor thing and then selling it to American markets.
So, you as an executive have two choices. To lay off workers and stop selling to Wal-Mart or to ship all or part of the production off shore to be able to meet Wal-Mart’s price demand. Following so far?
Now that there are rumors of layoffs, common sense would tell you that those factory workers will instantly cut back spending. This seems minor at first until you consider all the others affected by it. The local restaurants see a decrease in business, so those employees spend less. The tr#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g company that moves the products hears of this and instantly their employees are worried and spending less. This follows suit with all other industries from real estateto the guy filling the vending machine.
Now, do you understand how this can quickly affect a lot of industries?
Now imagine it in a lot more towns.

Now, the other issues. Is the money saved by purchasing cheaper goods at Wal-Mart, and then pushed back into the economy? Not necessarily. And even if it is the value of the dollar is greatly effected due to the problem with the economy.

Is Wal-Mart the only offender? No, of course not. I used it as an example.
If you think Wal-Mart has nothing to do with unemployment, then tell me how many manufacturing jobs it supports, and how many jobs it has sent overseas?

Ultimately isn't the consumer, by buying for cost not value causing a shift in where goods a produced? Govt could slow it by using tariffs, which could impact cost and quality also.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is my spending influenced by confidence? Yes 100%. For example if I feared losing my job my spending would instantly be cut back. That is just common sense.

I agree. Confidence would be a personal issue, not something manufactured by a poll. If you didn't fear losing your job, would you cut back spending because of a drop in the so-called consumer confidence index?

And ultimately even a rumor of layoffs can instantly cripple an economy.

Actual layoffs will immediately dampen the flow of money toward those that sell. But that happens all the time and economies adjust. Rumors can scare those who fear being laid off, but not so much others. Downshift in the economy is not, in the short run, good, but can lead to stronger economies (creative destruction). But Walmart (and similar Companies) have been there in good and bad times. Do they get credit for the good times , or only blame for the bad.

Here is an example for you. You are a manufacturing company that employs production workers. Wal-Mart, one of the larger purchasers, says that they will now only pay $7 for a product you were recently charging $10 for. A foreign company will make it for that price. To answer your question: why were they charging "so much more?" , is because the company pays American citizens , American wages and also pays research and development , while foreign companies will copy the product changing one minor thing and then selling it to American markets.

If the company is "forced" by foreign competition to manufacture at a lower price in order to accept Walmart's offer, then they can sell at Walmart price to Walmart's competitors. Then Walmart's competitors can sell for competitive prices to maintain sales and not lose customers to Walmart. Then you will have prices drop on a large scale which would boost "consumer confidence," increase spending, create a booming economy, lower unemployment, and, coincedentally, strengthen the dollar since a smaller number of dollars would be required to buy goods. With a stronger dollar, wages would actually be boosted, not suppressed, even though the actual dollar amount would have been lowered, thus raise the standard of living.

Now, the other issues. Is the money saved by purchasing cheaper goods at Wal-Mart, and then pushed back into the economy? Not necessarily. And even if it is the value of the dollar is greatly effected due to the problem with the economy.

Yes, necessarily, the money will be spent back into the economy, unless it was stuffed under a mattress, which very few people do. And money that is so stuffed would be removed from the economy, thus making the dollars still circulating more valuable since the number of dollars would be reduced by the amount stuffed. The problelm with the economy is not Walmart or companies like it, but government manipulation of the money, either in taxes, borrowing, or excess printing.

If you think Wal-Mart has nothing to do with unemployment, then tell me how many manufacturing jobs it supports, and how many jobs it has sent overseas?

Walmart has to do with its own employment. And it employs a great number. That is the only thing it controls or should be expected to control. If its competitive methods are successful, others can do likewise. What is "apparent" here is the proverbial short-term vision. We tend to see short term, immediate effects and not the long term consequences. In the long term, Walmart type competition will bring all prices in this country down--including, by "force" of this, manufacturing, if manufacturing wishes to exist here. The short term lowering of wages will, in the long term, be a maintainance or a raise in wages because the value of the dollar will increase due to the lower prices, and, therefore, lower wages will buy as much or more than now. And the American worker, because of lower wages and production costs, will, in the long term, be able to compete with foreign workers. That is the only way that competition can happen. Protectionism will not work. Government intervention will only exascerbate our economic problem.

Governemt could slow it (or could have at one time) by banning the export of American Manufacturing Technology. Yes China has people who will push the buttons on a machine for less pay than the American operators but they wouldn't have the machines with buttons to push if we didn't send those machines over seas.

[QUOTE=basswipe;911310].An HK91 is an outstanding rifle.QUOTE]

:tm:

Governemt could slow it (or could have at one time) by banning the export of American Manufacturing Technology. Yes China has people who will push the buttons on a machine for less pay than the American operators but they wouldn't have the machines with buttons to push if we didn't send those machines over seas.

Slowing it (not sure of the it to which you're referring here) would not stop it. There is no way that a government of free people can stop the flow of information from its boundaries except to relinquish freedom, and, again that would slow it but not stop it. Protectionism does not, ultimately, lead to higher standards of living. What it perniciously tends to do is create an illusion of higher wages by the constant inflation of those wages through various protectionist schemes such as three year wage contracts, government subsidies to protect commodity prices, larger government to distribute to those who "fall behind" due to artificial raises in wages and prices, higher taxes, etc., etc. There is also the mistaken idea that money is wealth. So the larger quantity of money you have is supposed to make you that much more wealthy. If it costs you ten times more to buy a thing than it costs someone else to buy it, does that make you more wealthy than him because you have ten times more money? It gives you the potential to buy more things compared to your neighbor, but not necessarily to someone across another border. If we look at property, rather than money, as being wealth, than it's the things you own that make you wealthy, and your money is only useful if it is spent on things. So if you can buy more things from China with the same amount of money that you would have to spend to buy less things in the U.S., you will become wealthier buying things produced in China than those produced here. China will have the money, you will have the things. In order for China to be wealthy, it will have to spend the money it got from you, just as you spent it. So, the free market rather than protectionism, allows you to gain more wealth. Where will China spend that money? If it spends it here, it will be at our prices, so China will lose since things are more expensive here. If it spends it in China, through creating jobs to pay workers to buy things, then the consumers in China will gain wealth. So you will have gained things and the Chinese consumer will have gained things. Now having gained things at a lower cost, you have money left to buy things here that you can't buy from China. That spreads money to entrepeneurs that can provide those things. So you can also gain more things/wealth from here as well. And, eventually, if our protections are removed internally, we can produce things more cheaply here, and as foreign markets grow, especially as they maintain protectionism and large government intrusion and protectionist welfares and contracts, their costs will rise, and we can begin to produce competitively here, and there will be that more stabilizing worldwide market that we dream of.

Ross Perot would have made a great President

Ross,
Sadly it is the American consumer that pushed the jobs offshore. I always hear people complain that walmart has forced smaller shops out of business. If the consumer never flocked to walmart we would still have the smaller shops and the jobs to go with it. It is truly sad , and I wish more people to a look into what would help the economy and make those choices.



I find that hard to believe

The consumer can't resist the carrot of lower prices dangled in front of them.
people make 10 to 30 grand a year and want their dollar to stretch as far as possible so they get more quantity because of a lower price.

it's turned us into a throw away society since all the crap breaks or does not last, not to mention is obsolete as technology advances.

I'd like to be able to buy products made right here in the USA when I can. the more companies choose to ship their manufacturing over seas, the harder that is to continue. Now just about the only way to buy an American woodworking machine, is to get an old used one if you can find it. the chinese crap is junk for the most part

Actually, the consumer is not responsible for net jobs lost by buying from Walmart. The money the consumer saves by buying at Walmart will be spent elsewhere in the economy, creating or saving other jobs.

no, they just buy a larger quantity of crap:smash:

All kinds of technology is restricted from export. Ever hear the term ITAR (International Traffic in Arms) Restrictions ? Defense Technology is restricted from export. If you say the export of technology cannot be restricted then you live in a cave. The restriction of technology export has been going on for centuries.

So why can't we restrict the export of "Econimically Sensitive Technology" like Automation Technology, Measurements and Controls , Precision Machining Technology, etc, just like we do defense related technology? The justification is to dfend our economy.

Todays battles between superpowers are economic (much better than military but still a battle) and at the root of economic strength in the USA is (was) Manufacturing Technology.

Its a viscous circle....

Americans want to make more money.... so prices on American made products go up because of labor... Then they bitch about paying so much for something,,,,

So they spend less on foreign made goods...... Gents Americans want their cake and eat it too,,,, and round and round we go,,,,,

#%€&$@ the Chinese government, say it loud and say it proud because the Chinese can't, what disturbs me the most is their human rights violation. Their government will stop at nothing. They steal any technology they can. They manipulate their currency. They will stop at nothing. And they 'put on a fake smile for the world' as Ai Weiwei Chinese dissident deftly points out. The scary thing is when they outpace our intellectual ideas which they are on pace to do with r&d spending. Currently its still them manufacturing American ideas. For me I realize i need to start to focus more on everything local and sustainable. Hopeful its not too late for future generations.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

SPOT ON but it ill not stop it now. All the stuff is gone already...



Governemt could slow it (or could have at one time) by banning the export of American Manufacturing Technology. Yes China has people who will push the buttons on a machine for less pay than the American operators but they wouldn't have the machines with buttons to push if we didn't send those machines over seas.

All kinds of technology is restricted from export. Ever hear the term ITAR (International Traffic in Arms) Restrictions ? Defense Technology is restricted from export. If you say the export of technology cannot be restricted then you live in a cave. The restriction of technology export has been going on for centuries.

Although I wasn't referring to defense secrets, my bad that I didn't specify, but, even so, I didn't say it can't be restricted. I said it couldn't be stopped. The restriction has been going on for centuries, but the transfer has been going on as well.

So why can't we restrict the export of "Econimically Sensitive Technology" like Automation Technology, Measurements and Controls , Precision Machining Technology, etc, just like we do defense related technology? The justification is to dfend our economy.

Again, restricting doesn't stop it. Plus, with the type of restriction you mention, that is the beginning of a police state. When private ownership of ideas and products is put in the hands of the state as to how it can be disposed in the name of defending our economy, that is not only tyranny, but the destruction of our basic rights of property. Contrary to defending the economy, it attacks the rights that are the basis for our foundation, and the economy, rather than being defended, will suffer from the restriction of the free trade of ideas and the free flow of goods.

Todays battles between superpowers are economic (much better than military but still a battle) and at the root of economic strength in the USA is (was) Manufacturing Technology.

All the more reason to create a more stable world market which would make wars less attractive. Winning the economic battle is not accomplished by one "super power" having all the good stuff and restricting it from the rest of the world. Not only does that restrict the growth and diversity of that power's economy, but it makes it more likely that it will have to resort to military power, blood and treasure to protect that stagnating economy. The root of our economic stength has been freedom and the trade that resulted from that freedom as well as development of ideas that Americans have created using the free flow of information as well as the freedom to express those ideas. We have been more economically successful because we have been freer to create, invest, and trade ideas and products.

The root of our economic stength has been freedom and the trade that resulted from that freedom as well as development of ideas that Americans have created using the free flow of information as well as the freedom to express those ideas. We have been more economically successful because we have been freer to create, invest, and trade ideas and products.

You got that right, and for the life of me I can't understand why
anyone would want to lean toward socialism, except freeloaders.

I think we need to think of buying Chinese goods as most of us
feel about buying Chavez Citgo.

Call 1- 800- Joe for Oil. :hs:

This "modeling" has been going on in the U.S. for well over a century. Walmart is just another in the line of department store types in which the new model finds ways to sell at lower costs. Just about all the usual brand items have gone through this selling process--even automobiles with Henry Ford's assembly line manufacturing and the growth of dealerships. And this "modeling" is based on the age-old model of haggling where the consumer tries to buy at the cheapest price. Any type of intervention to "model" the consumer into buying at smaller, single owned outlets at a higher price will have to overcome the natural and reasonable desire to save money, and will have to be done by force against free market principle. Whenever this has been done, either by price fixing or by socialist governments, economic activity dwindles, and instead of job growth, unemployment and shrinking economy results.
That's the academic analysis. I think what I've read in this thread is that people see the rise of Wal-Mart (and other similar stores) precisely as a product of the free market and they are concerned with the long-term impact.

Reducing manufacturing costs should be the aim of competitive manufacturers. If lower quality results, then there will be a market for better quality producers. There are many niche products of all types that sell on the basis of quality at a higher price and they do well.
I said to reduce the costs, as in total costs so they can buy at a lower wholesale cost. While some niche products do sell well, my observation is that they're increasingly being crowded out.

Have you been to a Walmart? Many, if not most, of the goods are brand items. It's not all junk. Most of it is not junk. And this is just a guess--I'd guess that most Walmart customers go there in order not to rack up a lot of debt, or to rack up less of it than they would if they had to pay higher prices.
I try not to shop at Wal-Mart often although I certainly have been inside them several times. There's quite likely a relationship between my experience and shopping behavior.

As for brand names, that's something a lot of people are concerned with.

It's very common for brand names to compromise their quality because of pressure to meet a retailer's cost targets. Much of this is hidden to the average consumer. There's a reason that same bottle of fruit juice costs 1/2 as much as the local grocery store, or that gas grill that used to be 500 dollars is now magically 250...and it's not just because of buying power. I work with these manufactures every day and see what goes on first hand...

Now obviously, a company is making a business decision to potentially tarnish their reputation in exchange for access to more consumers. But as retail is consolidated into bigger stores, there really is less freedom to do so. Yes, it's all the mechanics of the market, but back to what I'm hearing...do they see lower quality, lower wages and a proliferation of offshore manufacturing? or do people believe they're better off with convenient access to lower price products?

If the growth engine of the US economy is in small business, I'd think the market share of large corporations in retail would be an issue for discussion. To do so isn't a de facto endorsement for extreme government control, but reality is that the government does regulate commerce and quite often manages imports/exports for strategic gain.

-spence

That's the academic analysis. I think what I've read in this thread is that people see the rise of Wal-Mart (and other similar stores) precisely as a product of the free market and they are concerned with the long-term impact.

I think there are various academic analyses that differ with each other. Don't know which one mine is like, but it is my observation ganered from sources other than academe and a little of that too--kind of irrelevant whether it's academic or this threadian. No doubt, the people in this thread think they are more perceptive than academics, and they probably are. They do often disagree with each other though. And, oh, by the way, I'm one of the people on this thread. And yes, the rise of Wal-Mart is a product of the not totally free market, and there is a long-term impact. I believe the long-term impact of companies like Wal-Mart is a corrective to artificially inflated costs, and will aid in a market driven spread of wealth worldwide. Those that fear the lower wages don't factor in the equalizing lower prices and the favorable impact that will have on American competitiveness--buying power won't diminish, may actually increase, jobs will grow, economic reason for war will diminish. What do you think the long-term impact will be?

I said to reduce the costs, as in total costs so they can buy at a lower wholesale cost. While some niche products do sell well, my observation is that they're increasingly being crowded out.

My observation is that there is the beginning of a growing specialty market, certainly in nutrition, health, personal care and fitness, entertainment, and a growth in single owner businesses, especially on the internet. I don't feel negative about prospects--just about various governments trying to squeeze more money to redistribute and the usual regulations against some in favor of others--the old winners and losers game.

I try not to shop at Wal-Mart often although I certainly have been inside them several times. There's quite likely a relationship between my experience and shopping behavior.As for brand names, that's something a lot of people are concerned with.

Yeah, well, everyone has their own individual relationship between their experience and shopping behavior. Probably, most Wal-Mart shoppers have a different relationship than you.

It's very common for brand names to compromise their quality because of pressure to meet a retailer's cost targets. Much of this is hidden to the average consumer. There's a reason that same bottle of fruit juice costs 1/2 as much as the local grocery store, or that gas grill that used to be 500 dollars is now magically 250...and it's not just because of buying power. I work with these manufactures every day and see what goes on first hand...

Now obviously, a company is making a business decision to potentially tarnish their reputation in exchange for access to more consumers. But as retail is consolidated into bigger stores, there really is less freedom to do so. Yes, it's all the mechanics of the market, but back to what I'm hearing...do they see lower quality, lower wages and a proliferation of offshore manufacturing? or do people believe they're better off with convenient access to lower price products?

If decision to lower quality "tarnishes" a reputation, that implies a negative response from consumers, which means their is room for a producer and retailer to cater to consumer positive response with quality. It is entrepenurial cop-out to fail in free market opportunity to satisfy consumer demand for quality. And it is contradictory to think business can be tarnished in consumer eyes by low quality and then think that consumers won't respond to quality. Those that see and dislike lower quality do search for better, and willingly pay more. If such quality does not exist, the opportunity is very ripe for entrepeneurs to provide it. And contrary to what you "hear," I see smaller quality outlets springing up.

If the growth engine of the US economy is in small business, I'd think the market share of large corporations in retail would be an issue for discussion. To do so isn't a de facto endorsement for extreme government control, but reality is that the government does regulate commerce and quite often manages imports/exports for strategic gain.

-spence

Government regulation, for best results, in my opinion, should be to make commerce regular, not to strive for gain. In trying to gain, free market principles are lost, creating a controlled market in favor or against so that consumer advantages derived from competition are lost. This kind of protectionism favors business interest against consumer interest. Sure, the other countries play dirty and don't freely allow us, but the reason our guys can't compete is our costs have been driven way up in artificial ways as well as natural growth. I remember a time when our manufacturers were able to avoid moving to Mexico when the cost of producing here was 4 times greater than it would have been there. When it became 7 times greater, even building the necessary infrastructure to go there made it too attractive to resist.

In the long run, as stated above, our lower priced competition can help to bring our costs more in line with our adversaries and make us competitive. Long ago, WE could deliver the goods more cheaply. Have we forgotten?