If corporate capitalism were an Olympic event, this is what the current podium would look like:
Under the current rules of American style capitalism ExxonMobil would win the Gold, PetroChina would win Silver, and Wal-Mart, Microsoft, and the Commercial Bank of China would be in a battle for Bronze.
(Note: scoring based on market capitalization)
That said, it is undeniable that Wal-Mart is a true champion of American style capitalism. The company presently employs about 1.4 million people in the United States alone.
Question: If having a champion like Wal-Mart in the retail sector is a good thing, wouldn’t it also be a good thing to have more Wal-Mart-like champions in other sectors of the economy?
The primary sector of the economy extracts or harvests products from the earth and includes the production of raw material and basic foods.
Would society benefit from having a Wal-Mart- like champion in agriculture, mining, forestry, farming, grazing, hunting, gathering, fishing, quarrying, packaging, and the processing?
The secondary sector of the economy manufactures finished goods.
Would it be a good thing to have a Wal-Mart-like champion in manufacturing, processing, construction, metal working, smelting, automobile production, textile production, chemical industries, engineering industries, and aerospace?
The tertiary sector of the economy is the service industry.
Would we all be better off with a Wal-Mart-like success story in, transportation and distribution, entertainment (movies, television, radio, music, theater, etc.), restaurants, clerical services, media, tourism, insurance, banking, health-care, and law?
America has a population of about 307 million people and the current labour force is about 67.5% of the population, or 207 million people. It would take only 149 Wal-Mart-like corporations to employ the entire labour force of America and essentially Walmartize the whole country.
Incidentally, the average full-time hourly wage at Wal-Mart is $11.24.
I guess that answers the question?
Barry C. Lynn knows what he’s talking about: