You just hit on one of my fundamental disagreements with how the US economy now operates. Originally, when companies opened their stock for public purchase, the idea was to get a cash infusion to accomplish some objective (expansion, r&d, and so on). Those stock holders often received a dividend on that purchase. For instance they might have purchased stock at $10 per share, receiving a quarterly dividend of say $0.25. This essentially meant the investor often saw an immediate return on the investment when the company was profitable. In this case, a 10% return annually. This encouraged long term holding of the stock and a more stable stock price that didn't require dramatic 10% growth per year. If the stock holder held the example stock for 10 years before selling, the sale would be pure profit regardless of the stock price at the time of the sale. The problem is that a 100% publicly owned corporation gets very little benefit from the stock market once all of its shares have been bought up since the sales of its shares don't infuse new revenue into the company since those stock exchanges happen solely between 3rd parties.
Now stocks are bought and sold primarily for short term gains since most stocks don't produce dividends. The only motive there is the price of the share, which dictates that the company has to show profit growth. When a company makes a 3% growth in profit instead of 5%, the share price usually takes a significant hit, which is very illogical considering the company has actually improved its value per share. Wall Street now operates on totally unrealistic expectations of infinite 5-10% annual growth which is obviously unsustainable in the long term. This seems painfully obvious to me, but I never hear financial analysts discuss it on "news" shows.
I'm with you on this, and that is one of many reasons I try to avoid Wal-Mart. If the end game is that only one store is left in the race to the bottom on price alone, the end result is a total monopoly. At that point, the winning retailer (Wal-Mart) is no longer required to keep the prices low since there is no longer a competitive need. Of course, the free market capitalism evangelists would claim that another store is free to open to compete. The problem with that is the barrier to entry would be beyond any realistic capability and the competitor could be easily squashed by a short term price adjustment from the monopoly. The good news is that there are currently enough competing stores that actually beat Wal-Mart on some prices, quality, or convenience to keep that from happening on the national level. The problem is that those retailers primarily exist in the larger metropolitan areas and not in towns of populations below 50,000 where competition is desperately needed.
Additionally, the smartphone apps are probably shedding the light on the fact that stores other than Wal-Mart often have a better price on many items. That is something I had observed in comparing prices on groceries when a Super-Center threatened the existence of the local grocery stores in the town in which I previously lived. Just because a store says it always has the low price in its advertisement, it doesn't make it true.
Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.
