The Real Walmart

Juan Morillo, Ph.D.

Professor of Economics and Business
Universidad Internacional de la Rioja (UNIR)
Paseo de la Castellana, 163. 8ª Planta 28046, Madrid 
Tlf.: 91 567 43 91
juan.morillo@unir.net

Callie McNally
Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business
Loyola University New Orleans
6363 St. Charles Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70118
ccmcnall@loyno.edu

and

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.

Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics
Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business
Loyola University New Orleans
6363 St. Charles Avenue, Box 15, Miller Hall 318
New Orleans, LA 70118
tel: (504) 864-7934
fax: (504) 864-7970
wblock@loyno.edu

1
The Real Walmart

Abstract:

The Walmart company is one of the favorite punching bags of market critics. They accuse this
firm of underpaying employees, dealing unfairly with customers, exploiting suppliers, and
bankrupting small competitors. Various political jurisdictions have banned this firm from their
environs, either implicitly or explicitly. The present paper offers a more nuanced position on the
behemoth from Arkansas. Although it has some flaws, there is an overwhelming case to be made
in its behalf as an employer, competitor, purchaser, benefactor of customers.

Key words:

Walmart; free enterprise; bias; capitalism; profit

JEL category:

L81, K22, M37

2
The Real Walmart

Walmart is a prime example of what the market system is capable of accomplishing. It is

a huge store packed with quality products at cutting-edge low prices that is extending its services
throughout our entire nation, and, indeed, throughout the world. Walmart efficiently operates as
they utilize their limited time, talent, and resources to make strides in new technologies and
efficient procedural techniques. It also manages to maintain a reputation of integrity in business
circles. Walmart should be nothing but praised by society as they continually create wealth and
consequently raise our standard of living.

However, critics have grabbed hold of the media and defamed Walmart’s good name.
These negative comments are derived from misconceptions about economic policies that allow
anti market ideologues to indulge their personal biases and foist an irrational dislike of an
innovative company on an unsuspecting public. Critics rail against Walmart claiming that they
cause unemployment, lower wages, and of greedy consumerism. Their cries have been heard as
56% of citizens polled by Zogby now believe that “Walmart is bad for America.” But this
company is not at all the great evil the media portrays them to be (Kirklin, 2006, p.2). Looking
through the lenses of economic growth and progress, Walmart can be seen for the contributions it
has made to society as it makes strides at improving our standard of living. It does so by making
wealth more accessible to the poorest people in our nation, taking advantage of the global trade
market, and improving the efficiency of its trade partners.1

In our analysis, we must keep in mind the casual antecedents of prosperity and economic
growth. As a whole, the science of economics is poorly grasped by our population and without
basic knowledge of this science, the citizens are left susceptible to their personal biases. This
ignorance also renders the populace susceptible to the manipulation of those with the large
microphone. This article is an attempt to logically approach Walmart’s contributions to our
nation from an economic standpoint. To understand these contributions to economic progress, we
must first gain an understanding of what economic progress requires. It is defined as an increase
in the level of wealth for both the individual, and the nation as a whole.

Walmart is a producer of wealth.2 This company not only creates wealth, but also does so
in the most efficient and cost-effective way in order to keep prices low. When companies
succeed in this regard this is not an act of exploitation; it is the very opposite. Lowering the price
of a product is a direct means of increasing a population’s standard of living, because people are
able to obtain more of that product, at lower prices. This is what prosperity is all about. The poor
benefit the most from actions taken to cut cost and boost production.

States Mises (1958) in this regard:

1
The authors are indebted to Jacob Robinson for comments on an earlier version of this paper. We are also grateful
to two very incisive referees of this journal; we do not thank them for each specific one of their important
suggestions, but this paper is greatly improved because of their care and effort. The usual caveats apply in this case,
of course.
2
For a defense of their corporate structure, see Huebert and Block. 2008A, 2008B

3
 “Descriptive terms which people use are often quite misleading. In talking about modern
captains of industry and leaders of big business, for instance, they call a man a "chocolate king"
or a "cotton king" or an "automobile king." Their use of such terminology implies that they see
practically no difference between the modern heads of industry and those feudal kings, dukes or
lords of earlier days. But the difference is in fact very great, for a chocolate king does not rule at
all; he serves. He does not reign over conquered territory, independent of the market,
independent of his customers. The chocolate king — or the steel king or the automobile king or
any other king of modern industry — depends on the industry he operates and on the customers
he serves. This "king" must stay in the good graces of his subjects, the consumers; he loses his
"kingdom" as soon as he is no longer in a position to give his customers better service and
provide it at lower cost than others with whom he must compete.”3

Walmart4 is a company that prides itself on constantly offering the public high quality
goods at low prices. This has in the past and continues to increase the American standard of
living across the board. Walmart’s attempt to keep prices low is the very reason that the media
and misled individuals claim it has had a negative impact on our country. Some claim that
Walmart is destructive. These criticisms are problematic and derived from resentment of a
success not achieved (Schoeck, 1966). According to Fishman (2003, p. 5): “Walmart wields its
power for just one purpose: to bring the lowest possible price to the customer.” We are those
customers, and those low prices are precisely what allow us to get more for our dollar. Walmart
does not say this is their mission, and they should not have to do so. The founder of Walmart,
Sam Walton states:

“…We’ll lower the cost of living for everyone, not just in America, but we’ll give the
world an opportunity to see what it’s like to save and have a better lifestyle, a better life
for all. We’re proud of what we’ve accomplished; we’ve just begun.”5

Walmart’s purpose is clear and reflected in their consistently low price. They continue with their
efforts to cut cost while improving efficiency.

Walmart continues to be the largest retailer in the world with reported revenues of
approximately $469 billion for fiscal year ending January 2013. It has over 10,000 stores
worldwide and sells goods across almost all merchandise categories including groceries,
electronics, appliances, apparel, sporting goods, home furnishing products and drugs.

Walmart has been making more and more revenue each year: annual revenue growth rate
is 5% and gross profit margins have remained relatively stable during the last years at around
26.5%. In this sense, we can see that Walmart is clearly building wealth for society, because it
fulfils human desires. Walmart is creating both consumer and entrepreneur wealth
(http://stock.walmart.com/annual-reports).
3
Capitalism is responsible for the creation of the automobile. Who benefitted more from this invention: the
nobleman who went from a carriage and six horses to a Rolls Royce, or the poor man, who substituted a low priced
car for walking on foot. The free enterprise system created the light bulb. Who benefitted more from this invention:
the nobleman who went from all the candles he wanted to a magnificent chandelier, or the poor man, who used to
live in darkness after sunset and now has a cheap bulb in his ceiling? To ask these questions is to answer them.
4
E.g., the grocery “king.”
5
Quoted in Bergdahl, 2004, p. 5

4
Wealth, Capital goods and Wages

Critics (Basker, 2007; Freeman, 2006; Jia, 2008) urge the belief that Walmart’s large
profits are gathered selfishly at our expense, and we should all get a piece of the billion-dollar
pie that Walmart has accumulated. They also paint the picture that company CEOs and higher-
ups earn excessive profits, ruin neighborhoods and small businesses. This is not the case.

In a market based on the institution of private property, profits occur when a company (or
an entrepreneur) takes scarce resources of a certain market value and transforms them into
finished goods (or services) of a higher market value. This is the important sense in which
profitable companies are providing a definite service to others in the economy. If a company is
hemorrhaging money, it is a signal that consumers would prefer that resources stop flowing into
the losing operation, and go elsewhere so as to create more valuable goods and services.

As Hazlitt (1979, pp. 161-162) stated:

“In a free economy, in which wages, costs, and prices are left to the free play of the
competitive market, the prospect of profits decides what articles will be made, and in what
quantities—and what articles will not be made at all. If there is no profit in making an article, it
is a sign that the labor and capital devoted to its production are misdirected: the value of the
resources that must be used up in making the article is greater than the value of the article itself.

“One function of profits, in brief, is to guide and channel the factors of production so as
to apportion the relative output of thousands of different commodities in accordance with
demand. No bureaucrat, no matter how brilliant, can solve this problem arbitrarily.”

The ultimate source of profits is always the foresight of future conditions. Those who
succeed better than others in anticipating future events and in adjusting their activities to the
future state of the market reap profits because they are in a position to satisfy the most urgent
needs of the public (Mises, 1998, Part 4, Chapter XXIV).

The majority of Walmart’s wealth is held in capital (Kirklin, 2006, p. 9).

We call capital goods those goods the value of which comes from their aid in producing
goods of the first order (goods that directly relieve some dissatisfaction, such as food). These
goods were also called goods of a higher order by Menger (1871, ch. 2). Note that this
distinction does not exist in the goods themselves, but rather in human thought and planning.
Every capital good is produced from the combination of natural resources and labor. Most capital
goods are also produced with the help of other (pre-existing) capital goods.

This material wealth is then used in the production of more wealth. Capital is vital to the
production of more wealth because without it we are reduced to what we are able to produce
with our bare hands (McLean and Applegate, 2010, p. 13).

5
 As we increase capital, our levels of productivity and our standards of living
subsequently rise. Mises (1998, ch. XV) stated, “… saving and the resulting accumulation of
capital goods are at the beginning of every attempt to improve the material conditions of man;
they are the foundation of human civilization. Without saving and capital accumulation there
could not be any striving toward non-material ends.”

Clearly, the prime objective of making an investment in a business is to obtain a

satisfactory return on capital invested. One of the best metrics for assessing the success of a
business in realizing this objective is return on capital employed (ROCE).6 It indicates how well
the management has used the investment made by owners and creditors into de business. In other
words, return on capital measures how much profit a company earns on every dollar invested in
inventory and property, plant and equipment.

The higher de return on capital employed, the more efficient the firm is in using its funds.
Walmart has an average ROCE of 22%7. It is a strong indicator of a competitive advantage. This
high ROCE indicates that Walmart can reinvest a greater portion of its profits back into its
operations (payout is about 37.4%8) and those profits will be employed at a higher rate of return,
generating higher earnings growth. This is what makes a company create value and wealth for its
shareholders, customers and the whole society.

This is important when we look at the alternative, capital consumption, which leaves the
society less wealthy. When we deprive companies of a portion of their earning in order to create
artificially higher wages,9 we are depriving them of fund they can invest in capital to increase the
future production of wealth.

Anyone truly concerned with the welfare of workers should first analyze the source of
wages. They are determined by worker productivity. As capital goods enable workers to be more
productive, the accumulation of capital goods directly raises workers’ incomes through higher
wages because each hour of work (with the better tools) now produces more output.

Indeed, Walmart would like to keep its costs low by “trying” to pay low salaries. But in a
pure market economy, competition protects workers from arbitrarily low wages. Certainly, any
employer cannot prevent a competitor from coming along and offering a higher wage to his own
6
The mail elements of ROCE are operating profit and capital employed. ROCE compares earnings with the capital
employed in the company. There are a number of ways that we can reach the earnings (or operating profit) ratio, but
a common approach is to use as the denominator Earnings before interest and tax (EBIT), while capital employed is
the capital investment necessary for the company to function and grow.
7
For ROCE calculation see the Walmart annual reports: http://stock.walmart.com/annual-reports.
8
See Walmart 2013 annual report: http://az204679.vo.msecnd.net/media/documents/2013-annual-report-for-
walmart-stores-inc_130221024708579502.pdf . The Board of Directors approved an increase in the annual dividend
for fiscal 2014 to $1.88 per share, an increase of approximately 18% over the $1.59 per share dividend paid in fiscal
2013. (page 26, 2013 annual report). Earnings per share increased 10.6 percent to $5.02 (page 1, 2013 annual
report).
9
In this paper we have been praising Walmart to the skies (for further support of this firm see Anderson, 2004;
Cantor, 2006; Carden, 2006; DeCoster and Edmonds, 2003; DiLorenzo, 2006; Huebert and Block, 2008B; Kirklin,
2006; Vance, 2006). For a magnificent fictional defense of Walmart, see Cantor (2006) and also South Park’s
Walmart episode. However, we must acknowledge this company also has clay feet. It supported a raise in the
minimum wage law (Rockwell, 2005) which is a serious contravention of economic freedom.

6
underpaid employees. This will tend to occur every time the employer is paying less than the
marginal productivity of the worker.10 So in the long run, competition ensures that employers do
not “underpay” for labor services—or any other resources—that they must hire or purchase in
their operations. Only government intervention can make wages lower than they would be in a
free market society. The existence of regulations, fees and licensure requirements eliminates
lucrative alternatives for employees.11

The capital taken away from large companies in the form of taxes is given to employees,
not as a result of their productivity and value, but as a forced “donation.” Wage earners consume
the vast majority of their income. This implies a reduction in the capital investment that will
perpetuate future economic growth. This biases the economy in the direction of instant
gratification versus future growth. The balance between consumption versus growth is best
achieved naturally through the market as marginal cost and benefits reach equilibrium (McLean
and Applegate, 2010, p. 13). Allowing companies to retain the amount of money that would
accrue to them under free enterprise enables them to reinvest their earning and increase capital
and wealth for everyone. When Walmart is unduly penalized, the prospects for the accumulation
of wealth are reduced, compared to the situation that otherwise would have ensued were this not
the case (Hulsmann, 2003).12

Some critics of Walmart argue that the creation of wealth is futile if people do not have
money with which to purchase the products available. They warn that while everyone loves low
prices, they come at a much higher cost than we realize. The detractors claim they have our
interests in mind as they warn us of Walmart’s evil and destructive nature. They base these
arguments on the fact that many suppliers of Walmart have been forced to lay off employees, or
move overseas in order to operate under Walmart’s strict demands (Fishman, 2003, p. 6). These
10
More technically, it is the discounted marginal value product (DMVP) that determines wages (Block, 1990).
There are those who reject DMVP as the source of wages (Saez, 2013 ; Greenhouse, 2013). They maintain that
economic data from the last number of years show productivity rising while wages remain flat or in some cases even
decline. There are several explanations for this disparity. One, the economic data are fallacious. Two this only
applies under full free enterprise, and three, in equilibrium. However, we do not now have pure laissez faire
capitalism, and we never reach complete equilibrium, although we are always tending in that direction. Fourth,
DRVP applies only to the private sector; economists have no theory as to wage determination in the public sector of
the economy. To be clear, the present authors vociferously deny that there is any “gap” between wages and
productivity. We go so far as to claim that wages are a proxy variable (given complications mentioned above in this
footnote) for productivity, the best approximation possible. Given that wages are not rising, we infer, then, that
neither is productivity. Mishel (2012) opines that a “wedge” has developed between productivity and wage increases
since the early 1970s, with the former outstripping the latter. Sherk (2013) maintains the very opposite: that the two
have been increasing in tandem. From the perspective of the present authors, it is barely possible that both could be
correct, depending upon the evidence surveyed. However, it is a basic premise of economics that in equilibrium
there cannot be the slightest divergence between the two (for if there is, the market forces of profit seeking will tend
to eliminate any such phenomenon.) It does not violate economic principle to say that productivity and remuneration
have been treading increasingly separate paths for almost a half century, but this would imply an almost complete
absence of profit seeking behavior. As we consider this unlikely in the extreme at least for the U.S. which still boasts
at least a modicum of competitive behavior, we strongly side with Sherk (2013) on this matter.
11
When government places onerous restrictions on companies with 50 or more employees, firms tend to reduce the
size of their payroll to 49. When government places onerous restrictions on companies who employ workers full-
time, they tend in the direction of hiring part-time only.
12
Might it be said, contrary to the text, that Walmart has thrived, and continues to thrive, in a way that makes it
appear unlikely that its capacity to produce wealth has been substantially reduced by tax burdens? No. Had its
wealth not been substantially reduced by tax burdens, it would have done even better, ceteris paribus.

7
arguments have no economic bases or merit. These false claims are derived from three personal
biases that include: anti-market bias, make-work bias and anti-foreign bias (Caplan, 2007;
Stossel, 2007, p. 1).

First consider anti-market bias. People suffering from this malady fail to understand that
the free-exchange is a win-win situation. In a free market exchange, a voluntary agreement is
formed by two parties who decide to trade goods, services, and cash, or some combination of
these assets. Both people benefit from this voluntary transaction at least in the ex ante sense;
otherwise, it would not have been undertaken. Those who have an anti-market bias are those who
believe that trade and profit are zero-sum games, where one person’s gain comes at the expense
of someone else. This is completely off base. Walmart negotiates with many different
companies, both here and abroad, and every one of them does so of their own free will, in the
hopes of turning a profit. Companies trade with Walmart because of what Walmart offers them
in return. This is the beauty of a non-coercive free market system.

Walmart is now the largest retailer in the world13. People patronize this colossus because,
as a retailer, it offers honesty, cleanliness, swift efficient service, and low, low prices.14 Does
Walmart have the power to write its own ticket as some claim? No (Fishman , 2003, p. 3). If this
were true, Walmart would not be worth doing business with. People enter into contracts with
Walmart in order to make a profit, whether by selling to it or purchasing from it. If this were not
the case, people would refuse to deal with it.

Walmart’s toughness is beneficial to all of its business partners. Companies want to work
with Walmart because they are honest and efficient. Their business is tough and constantly
demanding more from the supplier and themselves. Walmart’s business partners honor Walmart
with the rare review that they consider Walmart to be a company with honesty and integrity

A common objection that arises when speaking about the utilization of low wage foreign
labor is that companies who employ this type of labor are exploiting workers in the third world.
When companies create jobs overseas they are offering employees a wage. If that wage is lower
than what already exists, no one will enter into the contract because it has negative

13
See http://www.stores.org/2011/Top-250-List or http://www.retail-digital.com/top_ten/top-10-business/top-ten-
largest-retailers-in-the-world
14
But what of the Walmart bribery scandal in Mexico (Barstow, 2012)? Should this not count as a negative, to
offset the positives mentioned in the text? No. The fault was that of the Mexican government’s zoning laws, which
violated the private property rights of the field owner who wished to sell land to Wal-Mart. On the illicitness and
inefficiency of central planning type zoning laws, see Block, 1980; Siegan, 1970, 1972; for the justification of
defensive bribery against improper laws see Kinsella, 2011; Lemieux, 2005; Rockwell, 1997; Rothbard, 2007;
Skaskiw, 2010. What of the fact that the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) consistently ranks Walmart
dead last as both a retailer and a grocer (Moran, 2014)? Should this not count in the debit side of the ledger? It is
hard to see how this can be taken seriously. What of the charge that Wal-mart is both a monopolist and a
monopsonist? This charge, too, may be readily dismissed. There are hundreds of thousands of grocery stores, and
dozens of large scale chain competitors. So, even on the basis of neoclassical economics which endorses such
concepts this indictment is erroneous. For a more radical critique of the very idea of market monopoly see
(Anderson, et. al., 2001; Armentano, 1999; Barnett, et. al., 2005, 2007; Block, 1994; Boudreaux and DiLorenzo,
1992; Costea, 2003; DiLorenzo, 1996; DiLorenzo and High, 1988; High,1984-1985; McChesney, 1991; Rothbard,
2004; Shugart, 1987; Smith, 1983; Tucker, 1998A, 1998B); regarding market monopsony, see Block and Barnett,
2009.

8
consequences. Therefore, these companies must offer an option better than the one already
provided so as to obtain employees. In this exchange both the foreign worker and the company
benefit. And so do Walmart customers in the U.S.15

Another objection to foreign trade, Walmart style, was made as follows: “We want clean
air, clean water, good living conditions, the best health care in the world-yet we aren’t willing to
pay for anything manufactured under those restrictions.”16 The president of Carolina Mills,
Steve Dobbins, who made this bold statement failed to understand that the jobs created overseas
are a prime example of a free-market exchange.17 These jobs have the potential to promote
growth, which we know, leads to a higher standard of living. Evidence of this cycle can be seen
in our own history of economic progress in America, as we have witnessed the direct correlation
between economic growth rates and the rise in our standard of living, even for the poorest of
Americans (McLean and Applegate, 2010, p. 2). Economic growth has both the power and
potential to reduce world poverty. When companies with wealth creating abilities, similar to and
including Walmart, expand into counties with the lowest standards of living, they change
people’s lives -- for the better.

Then, there are the negative consequences imposed by the critics’ solutions. They
advocate government intervention. But this will serve to lessen the capital companies have to
create more wealth. Second, they urge minimum wage salaries. These wages are not
representative of productivity levels, but are an artificial wage manufactured by the government
and will cause unemployment.18 Another serious consequence of this intervention would be to
stunt the economic progress in foreign countries, and this provides the potential for their
increased standard of living. Thus the very thing critics think they are protecting us from,
exploitation of the poor in the third world, will result if their proposals are carried out.

Sending business overseas can benefit both producers and consumer by keeping prices
low, and raising the ability of companies to create more wealth for a larger population of people.
Still, critics of Walmart refuse to understand this and object that these low prices destroy
American jobs. This objection is founded on our third and final bias, the make work bias. This
bias is established on the assumption that jobs make us wealthy (Caplan, 2007; Stossel, 2007, p.
1). Therefore, anything that destroys jobs is considered a hindrance to progress. But if this
preposterous idea were true, we should outlaw all inventions. Imagine the number of jobs we
could create if we stripped technological advances from our lives. We would undoubtedly
increase the number of jobs available, but wealth would be dismal in comparison. If all the farm
15
For a defense of so-called “sweatshops” see Block, 2000A, 2008, 2011; Greene, Henry, Nathanson and Block,
2007; Krugman, 1997, 2001; Myerson, 1997; Powell, 2006, 2008, undtated; Powell and Skarbek, 2006; Powell and
Zwolinski, 2012; Williams, 2004; Zwolinski, 2007. Note that Krugman, one of the most bitter critics of the free
enterprise system on the entire planet, is a supporter of “sweatshops.”
16
Cited in Coombs, 2006.
17
To obtain a better understanding of Mr. Dobbins and his experience with Walmart, see Fishman (2003).
18
For a critique of this law on the ground that it prices unskilled labor out of the market and into unemployment, see
Becker, 1995; Block, 2000B, 2001; Block and Barnett, 2002; Burkhauser, Couch, Wittenburg, 1996; Cappelli and
Block, 2012; Deere, Murphy and Welch, 1995; Landsburg, 2004; McCormick and Block, 2000; Neumark and
Wascher, 1992, 1995; Rothbard, 1988; Salihu, 2013; Sohr and Block, 1997; Sowell, 1995; Vuk, 2006; Wenzel,
2013; Williams, 2013.

9
technology, such as tractors and automated sprinkler systems were done away with, we would
require a very large portion of the population to move into the agriculture business. There would
be an overabundance of these jobs available. In like manner Hazlitt (1979) talked of eliminating
railroads, and substituting for them men carrying 50 pounds sacks on their backs. This would
“create jobs” to a gargantuan degree, but we would all starve. This is why their argument is
utterly absurd. What really occurs when we lose jobs to improvements in technology, procedural
efficiency, or trade with other nations is our current resources, such as land, labor, capital, are
freed from their previous (now less efficient) employment. This freedom is an opportunity for us
to invest these resources into other outlets and keep increasing the production of overall wealth
in order to make wealth more assessable to a larger group of people. Jobs do not create wealth.
The companies that create jobs create wealth. What we want is what jobs bring us, namely
products, goods and services, not the jobs themselves. If we could eliminate the job slots and
keep the result of them, we would be very happy. As one of our incisive referees reminds us,
“the free market is a system that depends on the willing participation and cooperation of people
who invest as well as those who buy. The mistake of those who focus exclusively on job creation
is that they forget or disregard this systemic fact. But it is equally a mistake to focus only on
investment. What creates wealth is the properly functioning interaction of all components of the
market system.” Hear, hear!

There is one last issue to discuss. Walmart is not only accused of, but actually down
bankrupt small business, mom and pop shops, etc. Should they be held against the giant retailer,
or in favor of it? The latter, clearly. For, did not the light bulb bankrupt the candle makers, the
automobile manufacturers do the same to the horse and buggy industry? And are we not all
thankful that this was the case? Of course. The ethic of the market place is that those who serve
the consumer well remain in business, and those who do not must seek other employment,
hopefully that which will satisfy customers. Walmart can better serve the populace than the horse
and buggy retailers who came before it, that is what economic progress is all about.

However, disagreement with this contention of ours is offered by some scholars

(Bonanno, and Goetz, 2013; Lichtenstein, 2006). According to the former: “… articles focusing
on a broad spectrum of local conditions that could be affected by the company, including poverty
rates, social capital, food insecurity, policy effectiveness, and obesity are reviewed. For each
dimension, evidence is found of both positive and negative effects, suggesting that we are still
far from truly understanding the net effect of Wal-Mart on local economies, let alone the overall
consequences in the long run.”

The present authors take this amiss. For example, consider obesity. Let us stipulate,
arguendo, that Wal-Mart is guilty as charged in this regard. Should this really count on the debit
side of the account? Hardly. For is it not the fault of this grocer that people indulge in unhealthy
eating since it is easier for them to do so, at the lower prices brought forth by the company. Let
us posit, too, that the rise of Wal-Mart has been accompanied by an increase in poverty. We
maintain, and necessarily so, that this is in spite of the increased market share of the giant from
Arkansas, not because of it. That is, had Wal-Mart not come on the scene, the poverty rate would
have been worse. Why do we go so far out on the limb to make this claim? This is because every
time someone buys groceries in this emporium, they necessarily gain in economic welfare, at
least in the ex ante sense. Authors such as these fail to appreciate that Wal-Mart has passed a

10
market test (Hazlitt, 1946) with flying colors, which indicates that at least in the subjective
evaluations of its customers, suppliers, employees, it has been a rip-roaring success. They also
fail to incorporation into their analysis Schumpeter’s (1942) concept of “creative destruction.”
Every new successful product, distribution system, innovation in retailing, wholesaling, without
exception, destroys old ways of doing things. But how else can progress possibly take place?

These arguments over whether or not Walmart is positive or negative for America is of
little importance to the typical citizen. Every day we move from task to task very consumed by
everyday life. While the ordinary people may be unaware of their power, they are the ones who
decide whether or not Walmart will continue to be successful. If customers no longer patronized
Walmart, they would go out of business forthwith. We all vote with our dollars on such matters.
The choices are available. We are able to choose to spend our money at a mom and pop stores
that charges more for most items, but right now the majority of people choose Walmart.

Nevertheless these critics and the media19 encourage the government to stop the spread of
Walmart. This reduces competition in the marketplace, and thus consumer choice. If people do
not support what Walmart stands for they are free to shop elsewhere; that is an instance of what
freedom is all about. Hopefully, the electorate will not allow government to limit freedoms in the
name of unsound arguments intended to manipulate the unwary. If the naysayers do not like what
Walmart stands for their choice will be respected. They will not be forced to shop there.
Unfortunately, they will not grant others the same in return: they demand laws that will bankrupt
this company, and/or forbid it to conduct business.20

Walmart is an efficiently run, honest business. They are a mass producer of wealth and a
current power in the marketplace. Walmart takes advantage of our global market, and is a driving
force behind economic growth. They will maintain their powerful position as long as American
shoppers choose their services over other retailers. The choice should be theirs, and no one
else’s.

Let us consider one last argument, put to us by a referee of this journal. He writes:
“When I was an adolescent in a small town in Maine there was a thriving main street. Then Wal-
Mart moved in and Main Street collapsed. It could not compete with Wal-Mart’s huge variety of
inexpensive goods. People benefitted from this. The few dollars they had bought more. But there
was also a cost, not only to store owners, but to the community, which basically dried up and
blew away. It has never recovered. Are the people there better off because they can buy things
more cheaply? Yes. Are they worse off because what was once a community is now not much
more than a bunch of shoppers? Also yes. They gained in one area of their lives, and lost in
another. This is not Wal-Mart’s fault; it was an unintended consequence. Moreover, it is unlikely
that Wal-Mart is the sole cause. It is more likely a contributing factor, possibly the proverbial
straw that broke the camel’s back. But it was a consequence nevertheless. Were we to do a
cost/benefit analysis, would the economic benefits outweigh the community costs? In my
judgment the author is much too quick to dismiss Bonanno and Goetz and others who have
attempted this sort of work. The author writes ‘how else can progress take place?’, where

19
Along with clergy, academia and other molders of public opinion
20
For example, there are no branches of this store in New York City (Greenhouse and Clifford, 2013). Washington
D.C. almost experienced this pattern (Novack, 2013).

11
‘progress’ is intended as ‘an increase in economic well-being.’ This kind of progress is indeed of
great value, and capitalism has contributed mightily to its achievement. But it is not the only
thing of value we possess. In my view, many critics of Wal-Mart are as concerned about the loss
of these other things, and about Wal-Mart’s alleged role in these losses, as they are about low
wages and all the rest. I believe their concerns should be taken seriously.”

We the present authors respectfully disagree. We do not think these sorts of “social”
concerns21 should be taken seriously. Why not? For several reasons. For one thing, if they are
“taken seriously,” the implication would appear to be that the private property rights of Wal-
Mart, should be violated. That is, this company should not be allowed to destroy local
communities. How could this be accomplished? Presumably, by forbidding to this company
hitherto legal activities, such as purchasing en masse, lowering prices, improving services, in a
word, competing. This sort of Luddite-ism would by no means be confined to gigantic retailers.
It would also apply to the light bulb manufacturers that destroyed the communities of the candle
makers, to the automobile manufacturers who did the same to communities created by the horse
and buggy industry, to Silicon Valley that ruined the neighborhoods where typewriters were
manufactured and Rochester New York, home of Kodak. And even this is but the tip of the
iceberg. Every new innovation of whatever type would have to be looked at askance, lest it
destroy social relations.

Second, and far more important as a matter of technical economics, there is no way to
establish that any of these Godzillas did anything of the sort of what they are accused of. There is
in the dismal science a concept called “demonstrated preference.” According to Rothbard (1956)
this means “… that actual choice reveals, or demonstrates, a man’s preferences; that is, that his
preferences are deducible from what he has chosen in action. Thus, if a man chooses to spend an
hour at a concert rather than a movie, we deduce that the former was preferred, or ranked higher
on his value scale. Similarly, if a man spends five dollars on a shirt we deduce that he preferred
purchasing the shirt to any other uses he could have found for the money. This concept of
preference, rooted in real choices, forms the keystone of the logical structure of economic
analysis, and particularly of utility and welfare analysis.”

It can be demonstrated that every step in the process of “ruining neighborhoods,” of

turning communities into a “bunch of shoppers” is mutually beneficial. The free market, of
which this process is but one instance, consists of nothing but the concatenation of all such
voluntary arrangements. Each and every one of them necessarily confers benefits on all parties to
the commercial interaction, at least in the ex ante sense. They are all “capitalist acts between
consenting adults” in the felicitous phraseology of Nozick (1973, p. 163). Can the other side of
this debate mount any “costs” whatsoever that can also be demonstrated? They cannot do any
such thing. Let us suppose that Mrs. Grundy, now, complains that what used to be a nice, cosy,
friendly, mutually supportive community, is now, thanks to Wal-Mart and or its ilk, is just a
“bunch of shoppers.” And that she does not much like this at all. But, can she “demonstrate” this
as a matter of technical economics? No, she can do no such thing. Why should we believe her.
She might be lying.

21
For want of a better phrase.

12
 We call once again on the elucidation of Rothbard (1956) who says of an analogous
situation: “But what about … the envious man who hates the benefits of others? To the extent
that he himself has participated in the market, to that extent he reveals that he likes and benefits
from the market. And we are not interested in his opinions about the exchanges made by others,
since his preferences are not demonstrated through action and are therefore irrelevant. How do
we know that this hypothetical envious one loses in utility because of the exchanges of others?
Consulting his verbal opinions does not suffice, for his proclaimed envy might be a joke or a
literary game or a deliberate lie.” To be sure, Mrs. Grundy need not be “envious” about the
trades of others that have turned neighbors into mere “shoppers”22 but she is in the same position
vis a vis them as is the envious man. She cannot demonstrate that she loses out as a result of their
action, and neither can he.

Works Cited:

Anderson, William L. 2004. “Does Wal-Mart Destroy Communities?” May 1;

http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1521

Anderson, William, Walter E. Block , Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Ilana Mercer, Leon Snyman and
Christopher Westley. 2001. “The Microsoft Corporation in Collision with Antitrust Law,” The
Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies, Vol. 26, No. 1, Winter, pp. 287-302

Armentano, Dominick T. 1999. Antitrust: The Case for Repeal. Revised 2nd ed., Auburn AL:
Mises Institute

Barnett, William, Walter E. Block and Michael Saliba. 2005. "Perfect Competition: A Case of
‘Market-Failure,’” Corporate Ownership & Control. Vol. 2, No. 4, summer, p. 70-75

Barnett, William II, Walter E. Block and Michael Saliba. 2007. “Predatory pricing.” Corporate
Ownership & Control, Vol. 4, No. 4, Continued – 3, Summer; pp. 401-406

Barstow, David. 2012. “The bribery aisle: how Wal-Mart got its way in Mexico.” December 17;
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/business/walmart-bribes-teotihuacan.html?
pagewanted=all&_r=0

Basker, Emek. 2007. “The Causes and Consequences of Wal-Mart's Growth.” The Journal of
Economic Perspectives. Vol. 21, No. 3 (Summer), pp. 177-198;
http://www.jstor.org/stable/30033740?seq=2#page_scan_tab_contents

Becker, Gary. 1995. “It's simple: Hike the minimum wage, and you put people out of work.”
Business Week. March 6. p. 22

22
Do not people who shop together become friends, upon occasion? And, while we are entering the perilous waters
of sociology and psychology, can we not make the case, not as a matter of technical economics of course, that Wal-
Mart brings people together? Before the advent of this “monster” people, both shoppers and workers, were separated
into dozens of little shops. Now, thanks to this large firm, they are all brought together onto its premises. Therefore
Wal-Mart promotes community, does not sever the ties that connect people with one another.

13
Bergdahl, Michael. 2004. What I learned from Sam Walton: How to compete and survive in a
Wal-Mart world. John Wiley and Sons.

Block, Walter E., ed. 1980. Zoning: Its Costs and Relevance for the 1980s, Vancouver: The
Fraser Institute

Block, Walter E. 1990. "The Discounted Marginal Value Product - Marginal Value Product
Controversy: A Note," Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. IV, pp. 199-207;
http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae4_1_7.pdf

Block, Walter. 1994. "Total Repeal of Anti-trust Legislation: A Critique of Bork, Brozen and
Posner, Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 35-70.

Block, Walter E. 2000A. “Protest! (For No Good Reason),” The Free Market, May, Volume 18,
Number 5; http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=313;
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=313;
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=313&sortorder=authorlast

Block, Walter E. 2000B. “Heritage Stumbles on Minimum Wage,” The Free Market, October,
Volume 18, Number 10; http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=324

Block, Walter E. 2001. “The Minimum Wage: A Reply to Card and Krueger,” Journal of The
Tennessee Economics Association, Spring; http://www.mtsu.edu/~ceconed/100minwg.pdf
http://www.mtsu.edu/~ceconed/journal00.htm

Block, Walter E. 2008. Labor Economics from a Free Market Perspective: Employing the
Unemployable. London, UK: World Scientific Publishing

Block, Walter E. 2011. “Reply to Hellmer on sweatshops.” Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol.
22, pp. 719–739; http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_36.pdf

Block, Walter and William Barnett II. 2002. “The Living Wage: What’s Wrong,” The Freeman
Ideas on Liberty, December, Vol. 52, No. 12, pp. 23-24

Block, Walter and William Barnett. 2009. “Monopsony Theory.” American Review of Political
Economy June/December, Vol. 7(1/2), pp. 67-109;
http://www.arpejournal.com/ARPEvolume7number1-2/Block-Barnett.pdf;
http://www.arpejournal.com/

Bonanno, Alessandro and Stephan J. Goetz. 2013. “Walmart and Local Economic Development:
a survey,” Economic Development Quarterly,
http://edq.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/08/27/0891242412456738.full.pdf+html

Boudreaux, Donald J., and DiLorenzo, Thomas J. 1992. "The Protectionist Roots of Antitrust,"
Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 81-96

14
Burkhauser, Richard V., Couch, Kenneth A., Wittenburg, David. 1996. "Who Gets What From
Minimum Wage Hikes: A Replication and Re-estimation of Card and Krueger." Industrial and
Labor Relations Review, 49, no. 3, April, pp. 547-552.

Cantor, Paul. 2006. “The Invisible Gnomes and the Invisible Hand: South Park and
Libertarian Philosophy.” December 4; http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/cantor3.html

Caplan, Bryan. 2007. The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies.
Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press

Cappelli, Peter and Walter E. Block. 2012. “Debate over the minimum wage law.” Economics,
Management, and Financial Markets, 7(4), December, pp. 11-33;
http://addletonacademicpublishers.com/abstracts/economics-management-and-financial-
markets/volume-7-4-2012/debate-over-the-minimum-wage-law.html

Carden, Art. 2006. “Why Wal-Mart Matters” November 16;

http://mises.org/story/2377

Coombs, Marian Kester. 2006. “The High Cost of Low Prices.” June 5;
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-high-cost-of-low-prices-2/

Costea, Diana. 2003. “A Critique of Mises’s Theory of Monopoly Prices.” The Quarterly
Journal of Austrian Economics. Vol. 6, No. 3, Fall, pp. 47-62;
http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae6_3_3.pdf

DeCoster, Karen and Brad Edmonds. 2003. “The case for Wal-Mart.” January 27;
http://mises.org/story/1151

Deere, Donald, Murphy, Kevin M., Welch, Finis. 1995. "Employment and the 1990-91
Minimum-Wage Hike." American Economic Review. 85, no. 2, May, pp. 232-237.

DiLorenzo, Thomas J. 1996. "The Myth of Natural Monopoly," Review of Austrian Economics,
Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 43-58; http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae9_2_3.pdf

DiLorenzo, Thomas J. 2006. “Should Wal-Mart be broken up?” July 19;

http://mises.org/story/2248

DiLorenzo, Tom and Jack High. 1988. "Antitrust and Competition, Historically Considered,"
Economic Inquiry, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 423-435, July.

High, Jack. 1984-1985. "Bork's Paradox: Static vs Dynamic Efficiency in Antitrust Analysis,"
Contemporary Policy Issues, Vol. 3, pp. 21-34.

Fishman, Charles. 2003. "The Wal-Mart You Don't Know | Fast Company | Business
Innovation." Fast Company. Web. 06 May. http://www.fastcompany.com/47593/wal-mart-you-
dont-know

15
Freeman, R. Edward. 2006. “The Wal-Mart Effect and Business, Ethics, and Society.” Academy
of Management Perspectives. Vol. 20, No. 3 (August), pp. 38-40;
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4166250?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Greene, Zoe, Sally Henry, Coby Nathanson and Walter E. Block. 2007. "Negative Impacts of
Minimum Wage and anti Sweatshop Legislation" Humanomics. Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 83-92;
http://tinyurl.com/27fj7f

Greenhouse, Steven. 2013. “Our Economic Pickle.” January 12;

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/sunday-review/americas-productivity-climbs-but-wages-
stagnate.html

Greenhouse, Steven and Stephanie Clifford. 2013. “A Respite in Efforts by Wal-Mart in New
York.” March 6; http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/business/a-respite-in-efforts-by-wal-mart-
in-new-york.html?_r=0

Greenhouse, Steven and David Leonhardt. 2006. “Real Wages Fail to Match a Rise in
Productivity.” http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html?pagewanted=all

Hazlitt, Henry. 1979. Economics In One Lesson. New York: Crown Trade Paperbacks

Hazlitt, Henry. 2008 [1946]. Economics in One Lesson. Auburn, AL: Mises Institute;
http://mises.org/books/economics_in_one_lesson_hazlitt.pdf

Hotfelder, Aaron. 2009. “Why Nicholas Kristof is right to defend ‘sweatshops’ in his recent New
York Times op-ed.”January 19; http://www.gadling.com/2009/01/19/nicholas-kristof-sticks-up-
for-sweatshops-in-em-new-york-time/

Huebert, J. H. and Walter E. Block. 2008A. “In Defense of Corporations, Tax Breaks, and Wal-
Mart” November 24; http://www.jhhuebert.com/articles/corporations.html

Huebert, J. H. and Walter E. Block. 2008B. “Response to Long on Corporations, Unions, and
Wal-Mart.” December 12; http://www.jhhuebert.com/articles/corporations2.html;
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/024387.html

Hulsmann, Jorg Guido. 2003. “Facts and Counterfactuals in Economic Law.” The Journal of
Libertarian Studies. Vol. 17, Num. 1, pp. 57-102;
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/17_1/17_1_3.pdf
January 1; http://mises.org/story/3275

Jia, Panle. 2008. “What Happens When Wal-Mart Comes to Town: An Empirical Analysis of the
Discount Retailing Industry.” Econometrica.Volume 76, Issue 6, pages 1263–1316, November;
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3982/ECTA6649/abstract

16
Kinsella, Stephan. 2011. “State Hypocrisy on Anti-Bribery Laws.” July 10.
http://archive.mises.org/17658/state-hypocrisy-on-anti-bribery-laws/

Kirklin, Paul. 2006. “The Ultimate Pro-WalMart Article.” N.p., n.d. Web. June 28;
http://mises.org/daily/2219

Krugman, Paul. 1997. "In Praise of Cheap Labor, Bad Jobs at Bad Wages are Better Than No
Jobs at All." Slate, March 21;
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1997/03/in_praise_of_cheap_labor.ht
ml

Krugman, Paul. 2001. “Reckonings: Hearts and Heads.” New York Times. April 22;
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/22/opinion/reckonings-hearts-and-heads.html

Landsburg, Steven E.  2004. “The sin of wages; the real reason to oppose the minimum wage.
Slate. July 9. http://slate.msn.com/id/2103486

Lemieux, Pierre. 2005. “In Defense of Bribery.” August 8;

http://mises.org/daily/1884/In-Defense-of-Bribery

Lichtenstein, Nelson, ed. 2006. Wal-mart: The Face of Twenty-First Century Capitalism. New
Press.

McChesney, Fred. 1991. "Antitrust and Regulation: Chicago's Contradictory Views," Cato
Journal, Vol. 10.

McCormick, Paul and Walter E. Block . 2000. "The Minimum Wage: Does it Really Help
Workers," Southern Connecticut State University Business Journal, Vol. 15, No. 2, Fall-Spring,
pp. 77-80.

McLean, William J. and Michael Applegate. Economics and Contemporary Issues. Mason, OH:
South-Western Cengage Learning, 2010. Print.

Menger, Carl. ([1871] 1976) Principles of Economics. New York: New York University Press.

Mises, Ludwig von [1958] 1979. Economic Policy: Thoughts for Today and Tomorrow.
http://mises.org/daily/6262/

Mises, Ludwig von. [1949] 1998. Human Action, Scholars’ Edition. Auburn: Mises Institute.
http://www.mises.org/humanaction.asp

Mishel, Lawrence. 2012. “The wedges between productivity and median compensation growth.”
April 26; Economic Policy Institute. http://www.epi.org/publication/ib330-productivity-vs-
compensation/

17
Moran, Chris. 2014. “Survey Says: Walmart Is Worst Discount Retailer & Worst Supermarket.”
The Consumerist. February 28;
http://consumerist.com/2014/02/28/survey-says-walmart-is-worst-discount-retailer-worst-
supermarket/

Myerson, Allen. 1997. “In Principle, a Case For More 'Sweatshops'” June 22;
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/06/22/weekinreview/in-principle-a-case-for-more-
sweatshops.html

Neumark, David and Wascher, William. 1992. "Employment Effects of Minimum and
Subminimum Wages: Panel Data on State Minimum Wage Laws." Industrial and Labor
Relations Review 46 (October), pp. 55-81.

Neumark, David and William Wascher. 1995. "Minimum wage effects on employment and
school enrollment." Journal of Business Economics and Statistics. Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 199-207.

Novack, Janet. 2013. “Walmart Wins Again As Washington D.C. Mayor Vetoes $12.50
Minimum Wage.” http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2013/09/12/walmart-wins-again-as-
washington-d-c-mayor-vetoes-12-50-minimum-wage/

Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.

Powell, Benjamin. 2006. "In Reply to Sweatshop Sophistries" Human Rights Quarterly. Vol. 28,
No. 4, November, pp. 1032-1042
http://mail.beaconhill.org/~bpowell/reply%20to%20sweatshop%20sophistries.pdf

Powell, Benjamin. 2008. “In Defense of ‘Sweatshops.’" Library of economics and liberty.
June 2; http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2008/Powellsweatshops.html

Powell, Benjamin. Undated. Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjsshqyAFh8

Powell, Benjamin, and David Skarbek. 2006. "Sweatshop Wages and Third World Workers:  Are
the Jobs Worth the Sweat?" Journal of Labor Research. Vol. XXVII, No. 2, Spring, pp. 263-274;
http://mail.beaconhill.org/~bpowell/sweatshops%20and%20third%20world%20%20living
%20standards.pdf

Powell, Benjamin & Matt Zwolinski. 2012. “The Ethical and Economic
Case Against Sweatshop Labor: A Critical Assessment.” Journal of
Business Ethics. Volume 107 Number 4; pp. ;
https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/2175538418r43400/resource-
secured/?
target=fulltext.pdf&sid=4llc311ukv5vaa0oi1d4gim4&sh=www.springerlink
.com

Rockwell, Llewellyn H. 1997. “The right to bribe.” The Free Market, Volume 15, Number 8,
August. http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=126

18
Rockwell Llewellyn H. 2005. “Wal-Mart Warms to the State.” October 28;
http://mises.org/story/1950

Rothbard. Murray N. 1997 [1956]. "Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare

Economics." reprinted in "The Logic of Action" Vol. I. Lyme, NH: Edward Elgar. pp. 211-254;
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/toward.pdf

Rothbard, Murray N. 1988. “Outlawing Jobs: The Minimum Wage, Once More.” The Free
Market. Auburn, AL: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, December, 1, 7-8;
http://lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard315.html;
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard124.html

Rothbard, Murray N. (2004 [1962]). Man, Economy and State, Auburn AL: Ludwig von Mises
Institute, Scholar’s Edition; http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp

Rothbard, Murray N. 2007. “The ethics of bribery.” June 1; http://mises.org/daily/2578

Saez, Emmanuel. 2013. “Striking it Richer: The Evolution of Top Incomes in the United States.”
http://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2012.pdf

Salihu, Bardhyl N. 2013. “Bending the Laws of Economics.” February 19;

http://mises.ca/posts/articles/bending-the-laws-of-economics

Schoeck, Helmut. 1966. Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior, New York: Harcourt Brace and
World

Sherk, James. 2013. “Productivity and Compensation: Growing Together.” July 17; Heritage
Foundation. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/07/productivity-and-compensation-
growing-together

Shugart II, William F. 1987. "Don't Revise the Clayton Act, Scrap It!," 6 Cato Journal, 925

Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, New York: Harper

Siegan, Bernard H. 1970. "Non-Zoning in Houston," Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. XIII,
No. 1, April.

Siegan, Bernard. 1972. Land Use Without Zoning, Lexington MA: Heath.

Skaskiw, Roman. 2010. “A theory of bribes.” October 6;

http://mises.org/daily/4744/A-Theory-of-Bribes

Smith, Jr., Fred L. 1983. "Why not Abolish Antitrust?," Regulation, Jan-Feb, 23;
http://cei.org/op-eds-and-articles/why-not-abolish-antitrust

19
Sohr, Kevin and Walter E. Block . 1997. “The Minimum Wage,” The Freeman Ideas on Liberty,
November, pp. 681-682.

South Park, Walmart episode: http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s08e09-

something-wall-mart-this-way-comes

Sowell, Thomas. 1995. "Repealing the Law of Gravity," Forbes, May 22.

Stossel, John. 2007. “Economic Illiteracy.”

http://www.creators.com/opinion/john-stossel/economic-illiteracy.html

Vance, Laurence M. 2006. “How Not to Like Wal-Mart.” February 27;

http://mises.org/story/2059

Vuk, Vedran. 2006. Professor Stiglitz and the Minimum Wage.” September 4; http://mises.org/daily/2266

Wenzel, Robert. 2013A. “The Wrong Way to Argue Against Minimum Wage Laws.” February
17; http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/02/the-wrong-way-to-argue-against-
minimum.html

Williams, Walter. 2004. "Sweatshop Exploitation." WND Commentary. January 28;

http://www.wnd.com/2004/01/22978/

Williams, Walter, E. 2013. “Higher Minimum Wages.” February 27;

http://lewrockwell.com/williams-w/w-williams158.html

Zwolinski, Matt. 2007, “Sweatshops, Choice, and Exploitation,” Business Ethics Quarterly 17,
pp. 689-727.

20