> Are you saying that someone's homework was incorrect?
I'm saying that I asked for evidence and got opinion. Grading an assignment is not my responsibility.
> There are few things more amusing than when people ask for evidence for the sole purpose of discounting it at any cost. Thanks for being that person.
My purpose in asking for evidence was to examine it. I didn't "discredit" it, most of it wasn't relevant, while some of it made assertions that were counter to the ones you were asked to support. I read the links you posted, and even tracked down the paper that one of them referenced and verified the authenticity of the academic publisher that printed it. I quoted it in my comment, which you failed to address.
To be honest, I'm not convinced that you read the links you posted.
> Do you think Wal-Mart will pay you for your downvotes?
I didn't downvote you - I'm not sure I've ever downvoted a comment on HN.
> I know CTR paid $0.10 per comment, but that was for an election. What is the going rate for defending megacorporations on social media?
Where is my defense? You assertions struck me as improbable on their face, so I asked for evidence of them.
If my assertions seem improbable, you have two options:
* Research and decide, based on evidence you find.
* Ridicule and discredit the evidence you asked for.
It seems you picked Door Number Two.
You mentioned you're from the heart of Walton-ville (You lived by Store #002? how interesting!). Have you spent any time in the midwest ghost towns surrounding their local Supercentre?
> If my assertions seem improbable, you have two options:
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
You didn't provide evidence, you linked to irrelevant popular articles and someone's homework assignment. Not only did I not ridicule your post, I was careful to follow HN's guideline of assuming good faith even though that seems to not be the case here.
> You mentioned you're from the heart of Walton-ville (You lived by Store #002? how interesting!). Have you spent any time in the midwest ghost towns surrounding their local Supercentre?
I grew up near Harrison, AR. Most of those "ghost towns" were dependent upon a single business that has either closed up or moved away, usually in the manufacturing or petroleum industries.
I've heard many people say WalMart has killed all of these towns, but I've never seen any evidence for it.
The case in Wisconsin was settled out of court, with no admission of wrongdoing. The case in Germany was about pricing products too low to be legal, not about doing so to eliminate competition or to raise prices afterward.
The case in Oklahoma is interesting, but I never heard how it concluded and couldn't find reference to it in a brief search just now. I remember being especially interested in that when it came out because Crest Foods had alleged that David Glass, then CEO of WalMart, went to their stores with a scanner.
At any rate, none of these cases are any different from the original one in the 90s where the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that WalMart had used "loss leaders" but that there was no evidence that they had done so for the purpose of bankrupting competitors not that they had raised prices afterward.
Your assertion was that WalMart lowers prices until competitors are bankrupted then raises prices to take advantage of its now-monopoly status. I have never seen evidence for that - and I've looked quite a bit throughout the years.
You claim it's a personal attack, and then you do exactly what I said you would; take the evidence, and do your best to dismiss it.
My favorite part of your post is how you acknowledge that you knew about court cases related to predatory pricing (Arkansas Supreme Court), while simultaneously pretending you didn't know about Wal-Mart being accused of it, and demanding evidence to prove it anyway.
Combined with your clearly detailed knowledge of the history of Wal-Mart, you can't even properly accuse me of throwing out an ad-hominem without contradicting yourself.
The comment chain is too deep, so I'll reply here.
> You claim it's a personal attack, and then you do exactly what I said you would; take the evidence, and do your best to dismiss it.
I claimed your specific statements were personal attacks, because they were.
> My favorite part of your post is how you acknowledge that you knew about court cases related to predatory pricing (Arkansas Supreme Court), while simultaneously pretending you didn't know about Wal-Mart being accused of it, and demanding evidence to prove it anyway.
There's a big difference between an accusation and a proven fact.
> Combined with your clearly detailed knowledge of the history of Wal-Mart, you can't even properly accuse me of throwing out an ad-hominem without contradicting yourself.
My father-in-law retired from WalMart after working there for thirty years - as a sales clerk, basically. My knowledge of the history stems from my being close to it and having been interested in the topic for a long time. In fact, my interest in the topic is why I asked if you had evidence of their driving competitors out of business and raising prices, because that's something I'd love to have.
I also seriously considered suing WalMart a few years ago. I worked there as a freight unloader in 2002. They had a policy of not allowing employees to wear steel-toe boots and I was injured on the job as a result of it when a furniture box was dropped on my foot. The nail on my right big toe is permanently disfigured as a result. I went as far as paying an attorney for a few hours' time to prepare a case, but in the end it became clear that pursuing it would have been a bad financial decision.
So, now you divulge that your spouse's family has ties of dependency to Wal-Mart (what kind of retirement plan does Wal-Mart give after 30 years?).
And you admit that Wal-mart as a topic is something that held your interest for years, so you're not exactly unbiased when you're asking for evidence, which explains why you were so quick to discount all evidence provided with such hand-wavey statements as "it was settled out of court without admission of fault", as if that meant something.
And despite your own personal injuries caused by their policies, you like the company enough to not bother with financial recompensation you are entitled to.
Keep pretending that your "debunking" posts didn't lead to the burning of my karma, and people downvoting my posting history. I'm now curious about how far it can go!
> So, now you divulge that your spouse's family has ties of dependency to Wal-Mart (what kind of retirement plan does Wal-Mart give after 30 years?).
I'm not privy to my father-in-law's financial details, and if I was, I wouldn't share them with strangers online.
This is exactly what I mean by "personal attack". You're attempting to discredit me instead of addressing my argument.
> And you admit that Wal-mart as a topic is something that held your interest for years, so you're not exactly unbiased when you're asking for evidence, which explains why you were so quick to discount all evidence provided with such hand-wavey statements as "it was settled out of court without admission of fault", as if that meant something.
I never claimed to be unbiased, I asked you to provide sources for claims.
The fact that "it was settled out of court without admission of fault" doesn't mean anything is exactly my point. It does not support your position.
> And despite your own personal injuries caused by their policies, you like the company enough to not bother with financial recompensation you are entitled to.
Who said I liked WalMart? I have several issues with them, mostly around how they treat their suppliers. I didn't sue them because it would have cost me a lot of money with very little chance of success.
> Keep pretending that your "debunking" posts didn't lead to the burning of my karma, and people downvoting my posting history. I'm now curious about how far it can go!
My posts have nothing to do with people downvoting you. Your attitude and refusal to support your claims are responsible for that.
