Drew:
You are arguing against Walmart being a monopoly which is something I said at the outset I don't think is true.

I suggest you read the most recent series of essays by Jonathan Rees at The Writing on the Wal
about Walmart's treatment of suppliers.

Also there is a new book out by Charles Fishman "The Walmart Effect" which details Walmart's strong arm tactics with suppliers.

Neither of these writers calls Walmart either a monopoly or monopsony, that's my doing.
I think monopsony power is going unrecognized even though it has become very prevalent worldwide. Just think of the large number of contract factories that have opened in Asia to supply a single (or very few) large companies. All the popular brands, Nike, Levy's, etc. use this model. It's not just the off-shoring, but the relationship between the buyer and the seller that has changed.

A&P was an earlier model and it got into trouble because of it. It's behavior resulting in corrective legislation. See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Atlantic_and_Pacific_Tea_Company

My point, as usual, is that unbalanced concentration of powers can only be corrected by appropriate government intervention. Yours seems to be that things will sort themselves out, eventually. I'm afraid history is not on your side.

The reason I cross-posted this essay on ET is because I think the issue of monopsony abuse goes beyond Walmart and affects all countries. The stronger need to look into possible abuses and the weaker need to see if they are being taken advantage of.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape