The size of Wal-Mart is astounding. It is not only the largest company in the world, but in the history of the world. It is also the largest retailer in the United States, Mexico, and Canada. Because of its sheer size and impressive market power, Wal-Mart has been the envy of competitors, the bane of suppliers, and a godsend to consumers. Their efficiency gains and economies of scale enable them to charge lower prices than many of their competitors. Because of this market power, Wal-Mart is able to induce concessions from suppliers that want in on a piece of the action. On the tail end, customers may have mixed feelings about Wal-Mart, but they do know that Wal-Mart is able to give them the goods they want at the cheapest price. Wal-Mart's ability to persuade its suppliers to furnish them with the lowest possible prices is a concern to some. Antitrust law is the legal tool that the public and government have to combat anticompetitive business practices'. It is my intent to support the argument that Wal-Mart should indeed raise some legal eyebrows, but whether or not they are guilty of antitrust violations remains to be seen.
There are other serious repercussions to these lowest possible price points. Wal-Mart's constant demand for firms to lower their costs and threatening to find a cheaper option if they don't has suppliers scrambling to cut costs in anyway that they can. This takes the form of lower wages for factory employees, and more often outsourcing production overseas. Lower prices also mean lower profits, which means less money to invest in research and development. Goods are made from lower quality materials and extras have been removed. Many suppliers become very dependent on Wal-Mart, and would go out of business, would file ...