Quote:
|
Originally Posted by blots
I think the foundation is that Wal-Mart does fall under this umbrella. Wal-Mart has been known to literally take several suppliers into a room and force them to bid each other down. Much of my information comes from the Frontline documentary, so if there is any evidence to the contrary feel free to present it, but apparently when the price of resin went up, Rubbermaid could not meet Wal-Mart's demanded price. Wal-Mart refused to change their mind. Rubbermaid like many companies had become dependent on Wal-Mart, and was extremely damaged as a result, and I'm not talking about a little mom and pop shop. Wal-Mart gets suppliers dependent on them and then demands that they meet every whim. What exactly is your definition of bullying?
|
I certainly see your point, but I wonder where you draw the line on such issues. Does that not simply make Wal-Mart superior to Rubbermaid in a business sense, and in turn create a separate set of standards by which companies like Rubbermaid must operate in order to succeed within their own markets? While Rubbermaid may not be able to meet Wal-Mart's demands, one of its competitors will, which is simply perpetuating the cycle of capitalist competition.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be number-one advocate for big corporations. I'm just wondering myself how you differentiate between 'bullying' and simple superiority over your competition. Such distinctions are more easily made where pharmaceuticals, for example, are concerned, where actual prohibitions are placed on buying and selling based on both private and governmental interests; but in a 'free' economic society, for me personally, those lines tend to be more blurred.
Basically, I don't have an answer to that either.