The Carnival of Wal-Mart I
If you seek a five forces analysis of Wal-Mart, please try this page.
Welcome to the inaugural edition of the Carnival of Wal-Mart. Fourteen posts have been carnivalized and they represent a broad range of perspectives on Wal-Mart and its impacts. I would greatly appreciate the authors adding to the body of their post, this HTML code:
This post was included in the Carnival of Wal-Mart I hosted by The Business of America is Business.
And if your site can send trackbacks, that would be greatly appreciated as well. The trackback URL is:
http://www.thebusinessofamericaisbusiness.biz/MT/mt-tb.cgi/324
Now on with the show!
Jack gets us started with five reasons why “left-of-center political activists” hate Wal-Mart: (1) it’s a right-to-work company (2) its political donations favor the Republican party (3) it supports pro-life organizations (4) its billions in yearly profits are outside the reach of those who promote income redistribution and (5) it’s hell on its competitors, some of whose positions on items 1-4 are more to the liking of said political activists.-
James takes up a related question with his commentary on a Slate article entitled “Is Wal-Mart Good for the American Working Class?” His answer is “yes, it is” , the same conclusion reached by Slate - no bastion of pro-business sentiment. That conclusion is supported by a few world-renowned economists from both Harvard and MIT- one of whom you might not have expected to weigh in Wal-Mart’s favor. Unfortunately, more than a few of the post’s commenters seem unable to grasp the import of facts and figures presented. -
Evan finds little merit in the anecdotally-supported arguments of anti-Wal-Mart pundits like Barbara Ehrenreich. Her suggestions are typical, he asserts, of economically-illiterate aesthetes who, in the name of the ill-defined concept of “economic justice”, advocate solutions that would create more “better” jobs yet greater numbers of unemployed and underemployed, as well.
Doug links to an article about whether or not Wal-Mart is going to be able to prevail in a court case to control commercial rights of its smiley face logo.
Tom’s question, “What is Wal-Mart Worth to a Town?”, is approached from a novel angle: he links to an article describing what is happening in one city where Wal-Mart has decided to pull up stakes. The estimated tax loss for a city of 3,500 people is over $1.5 million.
Johnny T links to an article by Laurence Vance of the Mises Institute which lists 10 reasons not to like Wal-Mart. They are really good reasons and not the same 10 as Jack Yoest listed.
Jonathan, like the NY Times article he cites, seems pleased with the fact that Wal-Mart has been compelled to unionize in Britain. Interestingly, his site contains a blog ad that suggests that a campaign similar to Wal-Mart Watch is being initiated against another “bad employer” – FedEx. That’s a development to Watch.-
A few years ago, political commentator Bill Maher forwarded the idea that every time you fill your SUV, you’re “riding with Bin Laden”. Though not precisely true, the idea has some face value. As The Gun Toting Liberal sees it, there is an analogous situation between shopping at Wal-Mart and supporting China’s crackdown on the internet, blogs, and freedom of expression. For me that’s a stretch: the more deserving target of GTL’s ire would be Google. -
Joe Trippi, former Howard Dean campaign manager, links to a Wake-Up-Wal-Mart Watch press release “asking Americans to declare their independence from WalMart.” There is even a petition they can sign. After doing so, they should go back and read Tom Forbes post so that they know what they signed up for.
TCP has looked over a recent Rasmussen poll and finds that most Americans are favorably disposed towards Wal-Mart. The only ones that are not, it seems, are “the upper middle class and rich folks, the one's least likely to be shopping there.” This leads him to wonder whether anti-Wal-Mart unions are spending their funds wisely.-
Rita looked at the same polling data as TCP and wondered about the importance of particular product categories in shoppers preferences for Wal-Mart over competitors, e.g. “if someone was asked if they would prefer to buy clothes from Wal-Mart, Target or K-Mart, would they still choose Wal-Mart? Or, if they were given the chance to have a shopping spree at either Wal-Mart, Target or K-Mart, would they still pick Wal-Mart?” Great questions.
Chris is pleasantly surprised to see that the Hudson, Wisconsin school district (HSD) is buying Wal-Mart goods by the truckload. He concludes that perhaps last year’s boycott of Wal-mart called by the National Education Association, the nation’s largest teacher’s union, has not succeeded- at least not in his area.-
John’s post is not about a score from a baseball game. Rather, it provides an explanation about why the Chicago suburb of Niles, population 30,000, will soon have two Wal-Mart’s while Chicago, population 3 million, still has only 1. The answer is not pretty. -
Your host's post examines reasons for the failure of Wake Up Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart Watch to successfully promote the Fair Share insurance initiative in several states. To date, Maryland remains their one and only victory in the Fair Shair campaign. For the true die-hard, here's a link to my Wal-Mart archive.
See you next week.
Links: PunditGuy | Art of Money | BuzzJungle | Dissecting Leftism | Hispanic Pundit | Tojosan | Division of Labour | Johnny Triangles |

Comments
Your site looks to be a useful resource for those of us who take an interest in Walmart (and related issues).
Some of us have gathered to post our individual views at TheWritingOnTheWal.net
Please visit.
What I find from following all the links in this first collection is that many of the standard Walmart apologists are continuing to use the same talking points that they have been using for a number of years.
What is overlooked are the large number of well-documented issues with Walmart violating labor laws, pressuring local governments to give them favorable tax breaks (and infrastructure improvements), and using their monopsony power to force concessions from suppliers that are damaging to these firm's sustainability.
There are many published reports on the web detailing these issues. Links provided on request.
Posted by: Robert Feinman | August 2, 2006 3:28 AM
Thanks for the link, I'll be checking in regularly.
Posted by: T. | July 13, 2006 5:28 AM
Starling,
I saw this posted an another blog and thought it might be appropriate:
http://www.ownyourbrand.com/2006/07/10/walmart-does-not-own-your-brand/
Posted by: Jeff D | July 10, 2006 11:40 PM
Thank you so much for the linkie-luv, friend. I've responded to your challenge on the original post as well as with a trackback...
Thank you so much for thinking enough of my post to feature it here, and thank you for brining this Carnival to my attention so I could re-pay the proper respect.
Blog ONNNNN, and thank you again. Best of luck to you with your blog as well, by the way...
GTL -
Posted by: Gun Toting Liberal | July 10, 2006 11:01 AM