Comments on: A truth bomb for Walmart supporters http://blogs.reuters.com/muniland/2012/11/28/a-truth-bomb-for-walmart-supporters/ Bridges, budgets, bonds Fri, 17 May 2013 18:22:28 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: OneOfTheSheep http://blogs.reuters.com/muniland/2012/11/28/a-truth-bomb-for-walmart-supporters/comment-page-1/#comment-2028 OneOfTheSheep Tue, 04 Dec 2012 17:38:32 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/muniland/?p=12153#comment-2028 "What was a claimed 25 percent pricing advantage in 2005 is now about zero. I’m sure that the price differentials swing back and forth between the stores, but competition has essentially narrowed pricing differences to nothing." Sorry. Wrong. Walmart is an innovator in discounting. They gave "us" $4 prescriptions. Now those are widely available. Why? Match or go out of business. Would we have $4 prescriptions without Walmart's lead? I don't think so. "The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein, usually a numerate guy, ate up the Sunderman claim as he wrote: Wal-Mart’s low prices do primarily benefit low-income consumers." Don't mean to wake you up, but I buy at Walmart regularly, and I get even better savings than those low-income consumers that don't clip coupons and get competitor price matches. Perhaps he meant that whatever low-income consumers saved by buying at Walmart made limited dollars go further. Professional journalists have an obligation to say what they mean. “What was a claimed 25 percent pricing advantage in 2005 is now about zero. I’m sure that the price differentials swing back and forth between the stores, but competition has essentially narrowed pricing differences to nothing.”

Sorry. Wrong. Walmart is an innovator in discounting. They gave “us” $4 prescriptions. Now those are widely available. Why? Match or go out of business. Would we have $4 prescriptions without Walmart’s lead? I don’t think so.

“The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein, usually a numerate guy, ate up the Sunderman claim as he wrote: Wal-Mart’s low prices do primarily benefit low-income consumers.”

Don’t mean to wake you up, but I buy at Walmart regularly, and I get even better savings than those low-income consumers that don’t clip coupons and get competitor price matches. Perhaps he meant that whatever low-income consumers saved by buying at Walmart made limited dollars go further.

Professional journalists have an obligation to say what they mean.

]]> By: pahiker6 http://blogs.reuters.com/muniland/2012/11/28/a-truth-bomb-for-walmart-supporters/comment-page-1/#comment-1995 pahiker6 Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:48:21 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/muniland/?p=12153#comment-1995 I think you've done a good job of trashing Furman's comments. However, you are focusing too much on how much consumers save only at Walmart, and any price advantage they gain by shopping there. You are ignoring the effect Walmart has on pricing industry wide. Because Target has had to lower their prices to compete with Walmart, consumers everywhere save. The $50 billion may be closer to the truth than you will allow. I think you’ve done a good job of trashing Furman’s comments. However, you are focusing too much on how much consumers save only at Walmart, and any price advantage they gain by shopping there. You are ignoring the effect Walmart has on pricing industry wide. Because Target has had to lower their prices to compete with Walmart, consumers everywhere save. The $50 billion may be closer to the truth than you will allow.

]]>