Via alwayslowprices.net, we get a solid conservative case against Wal-Mart. The discussion is much more reasonable than the usual anti-WM screeds: Wal-Mart shouldn't be punished for being productive, but they shouldn't be subsidized, either. Retail productivity is important--see this McKinsey Institute study--but robbing Peter to improve Paul's productivity only re-shuffles resources, at best. A libertarian solution may be hard to find; from what I understand, giant retail developments are cash cows for municipal governments.
A conservative case against Wal-Mart
