I don't think there are many areas to where the consumers don't have other options. If anything I would think a Wal-mart would have a Multiplier effect to an area.
I don't see how rock bottom prices even remotely hurts the consumer. Walmart isn't running people out of business because they are doing anything remotely illegal. They have by far the most efficient distribute system of any major retailer and it shows in their prices.
Local cities don't offer tax subsidies because walmarts ruin the local economy. Quite the opposite. A walmart can easily result in 7 figures of annual tax revenue for a local city.
Did I claim they were doing anything illegal? If so, quote it. And how long do rock bottom prices last typically if you're the only show in town? Are you really arguing against competition?
Do you have any evidence that Walmart raises prices after they drive out the local competition? How is this being against competition? Competition is was resulted in the outcome in the first place.
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/how-walmarts-low-wages-impact-the-economy/ http://www.ilsr.org/key-studies-walmart-and-bigbox-retail/ http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/2405-real-cost-walmart.html
India? The only thing that made India the richest country is that they had a lot of people in the pre-industrial age. Their biggest problem, otherwise, was being raped by a colonial power.
It isn't unwelcome. If you are proposing someone come in and beat Wal-Mart at their own game, it's going to require some serious innovation. Otherwise the only way to get by is for a community to decide that lower prices and bigger selection aren't more important than what a local small business offers. So, location would be key there. What are you suggesting?
No it wasn't. India was the wealthiest nation and most advanced for ages. It's why people were seeking routes to India.
