My prediction – Walmart will be out of business by 2015. Vendors won't miss them. All their customers who got screwed won't either. Bye bye Wal-Mart…

Sure, that varies with the distance, but gas stations within a certain radius of a Wal-Mart would suffer.

I think you're overstating this impact. Most people have a filling station near their home or on their route to work or school which they like to frequent, because its convenient. I don't see many people going more than a few minutes out of their way in order to save a dollar or so on a tank of gas.

I don’t see how you can claim that Wal-Mart won’t be rivals with gas stations if they open up pumps outside Wal-Mart stores.

Did I make that claim? I think its pretty clear that Wal-Mart is not going to be opening gas stations away from their stores. If they did open locations that served only as gas stationd they wouldn't be able to use the gas-under-cost tactic. It wouldn't make sense. How would they recoup the loss? There's no store to attract people to.

I think you’re operating under the assumption that Wal-Mart’s gas sales would only influence traffic immediately proximate to the Wal-Mart store. But then ask yourself if you’d be willing to go a mile out of your way to save $0.20 a gallon on gas? That savings is about $300 a year, depending on your gas usage.

A lot of its going to depend on just how much under cost Wal-Mart can sell the gas. $0.20 a gallon seems like a lot. If it were that much of a discount I could see people flocking to there. But unless you've got information to the contrary I don't see Wal-Mart offering that large of a discount.

6 miles is rather far to go for gas, but what if you were needing to pick up some groceries and household supplies anyway? That’s exactly the kind of thinking Wal-Mart wants you to have, and that’s going to hurt other gas stations.

Six miles isn't very far Mark. Think about how spread out most communities are. Think also of how most people buy gas. Its not something they can put off to do when its time to get groceries. When you need gas, you need gas and the nearest filling station is typically the one you go to.

I'm not against regulating against monopolies. I want shoppers protected as much as the next guy and I certainly don't have any reason to carry water for Wal-Mart, but what I don't want to see is for politicians to go mucking around with free enterprise when there really isn't any need for it.

Wal-Mart doesn't even have a gas station in North Dakota yet for crying out loud. Maybe this is a bridge that should be crossed when we arrive at it. No one can be 100% sure of how a market is going to react, I'm of the opinion that we should make sure what the impact is going to be before we try to fix something.

Sure, that varies with the distance, but gas stations within a certain radius of a Wal-Mart would suffer.

While most gas stations might have the name of a big oil company on the sign, many stations are franchised (privately owned, and merely pay royalties to use the big company's name and reputation).

Their profit margin on gas is already very very low. If they tried to sell gas for below cost, they would have to boost the prices of their "convenience" items. Suddenly that $2.00 Snickers bar doesn't look like such a great deal when you can get it for $0.65 at Wal-Mart and hey… get your gas much cheaper as well.

I don't see how you can claim that Wal-Mart won't be rivals with gas stations if they open up pumps outside Wal-Mart stores.

I think you're operating under the assumption that Wal-Mart's gas sales would only influence traffic immediately proximate to the Wal-Mart store. But then ask yourself if you'd be willing to go a mile out of your way to save $0.20 a gallon on gas? That savings is about $300 a year, depending on your gas usage. So while Wal-Mart's intention was merely to get you into their store, the bait is the cheap gas. Even they might not be expecting to be profitable in the short run in the gas business, the artificially low price will still take customers away from other gas stations. Their radius of influence is bigger than you think. Make it 3 miles away. 6 miles is rather far to go for gas, but what if you were needing to pick up some groceries and household supplies anyway? That's exactly the kind of thinking Wal-Mart wants you to have, and that's going to hurt other gas stations.

I'm still not seeing where Wal-Mart's plans result in total dominance of the gas station market. They're putting stations at their stores. There is still going to be plenty of business left over in other, more convenient places.

The government isn’t shaping the market, it is preventing big companies from unfairly using their wealth to destroy their competition, instead of actually competing with them.

You're working on the assumption that these gas stations are small companies. They're not. These petroleum companies are more than capable of competing. The simple fact is that they don't want to.

Being rich enough to simply skip the competition phase and set your prices lower than cost and lower than your rivals isn’t fair. It hurts consumers, in the long run, and it leads to monopolies.

Still not seeing where this applies. Gas stations are not "rivals" with Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is not opening a chain of gas stations, and even if they did their selling-under-cost tactic wouldn't work because the gas stations would be located away from the stores. The whole point of Wal-Mart doing this is to get people in the stores.

Independent gas stations can’t find a business plan that allows them to compete with Wal-Mart, if Wal-Mart can give their gas away. It simply isn’t possible. That means fewer options for consumers, higher prices (again, California), and a negative effect on the economy.

If Wal-Mart were opening up a chain of gas stations and selling their gas under cost for the express purpose of putting the competition out of business, I'd agree with you. But that's not what is happening. Wal-Mart is selling gas cheap in order to increase profits in their stores. They cannot, by the very definition of this tactic, use it against gas stations away from their store locations.

The government isn't shaping the market, it is preventing big companies from unfairly using their wealth to destroy their competition, instead of actually competing with them. If Wal-Mart wants to open up a gas station and sell gas for the minimum allowed by law (varies by state, but usually it is cost + X%), fine. That's competition.

Being rich enough to simply skip the competition phase and set your prices lower than cost and lower than your rivals isn't fair. It hurts consumers, in the long run, and it leads to monopolies.

Independent gas stations can't find a business plan that allows them to compete with Wal-Mart, if Wal-Mart can give their gas away. It simply isn't possible. That means fewer options for consumers, higher prices (again, California), and a negative effect on the economy.

Why should the government shape the market so that it fits a certain industry's business plan? Obviously the law needs to protect us from artificial price increases, etc. but when it comes to competition they need to butt out.

If these gas stations want to compete with Wal-Mart they need to find a business plan that allows them to do that, or else get out of the industry.

Had you read the references, you'd understand its not government price fixing. The price fixing goes on at oil company level.

The bottomline is you're keen on seeing independent businessmen driven out of business by mega-corporations using monopolistic practices. Ultimately, it's the consumer who loses.

That seems incredibly foolish to me.

All the government is doing is preventing <a href="http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=predatory+pricing&quot; rel="nofollow">predatory pricing. This is different than pure price competition, in which companies work to lower cost, lower prices, and get more customers. Predatory pricing is an antitrust violation and is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_behaviour&quot; rel="nofollow">anti-competitive. It isn't really competition at all… it is a divergence from the free market system.

Pretend two farmers, Joe and Bob, go to the market to sell their tomatoes. Joe has been selling tomatoes for years, and has a couple thousand dollars in the bank. Bob is new to the business, and doesn't have any money in the bank. What he does have, is a new method of growing tomatoes that allows him to do if for much less than Joe. When the market opens, Bob prices his tomatoes at $1.00 a pound, $0.50 less than Joe's price. Joe is worried, because it costs him $1.25 per pound to grow tomatoes, so there is no way he can compete with Bob. But then he remembers the money he has in the bank, and does something sneaky. He sells his tomatoes for $0.75 a pound. Bob is screwed, because it costs him $0.80 a pound to grow tomatoes. After a few days at the market, Bob goes out of business. Joe takes a hit, because he's been selling his tomatoes at a loss. The hit doesn't matter in the long run, because the customers he would have fairly lost to Joe would have cost him much more.