If selling a product destroys that product's availability, that is not what I call economic sustainability.

All the company does is consolidate local economies under unsustainable terms. Maybe it's just that I'm naturally a cynic (uh, I mean pragmatic fatalist) and a xenophobe (Grr, outlander-owned business! Snarl!), but I don't know how you can casually divorce "monopoly" and "supplier abuse" from the core of Walmart's economic model. Walmart needs to abuse suppliers to exist, and it isn't doing anyone any favors by that except in the short term.

Quote:
We get low cost products, freeing up our human resources to do research and development (granting a compromise of this by the flood of illegals).


Wait, what?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this. Granted, I live in California, where you couldn't hit a qualified American-born or educated technician or doctor of anything if you set off a high-yield atomic bomb in a major metropolitan district.

We get low-cost products and free up our human resources to sell low-cost products.

"They have a peculiar sense of ownership, which enables them to view anything that is not nailed down as theirs,
and if they can pry it loose, it's not nailed down."

-the Flerian Race, author unknown