I received a thoughtfully crafted response to my previous post about the need for consumers to rally in protest against the kinds of corporate practices that perpetuate the polarization of inequality in the world.

The main thrust of the argument was that this is a political issue, not an economic one, and that policy is the answer, not consumer change.  One very good point raised was the unfortunate reality that, if we all started to protest the WalMarts and “Try and Save”s of the world, we would be protesting ourselves out of our own jobs.  The corporate structure of the mega-marts has been so successful at leveling the competition that we have silently begun to lose our power as consumers because these big box stores also employ so many millions of us. Clearly, a protest of WalMart is not the solution we need.

What if, on the other hand, we were to unite, as consumers? What if we wrote letters to the smaller chain stores that compete with WalMart by department, and tell them that if they merged together to create a department store that could rival WalMart but offer a better selection of sustainably sourced, local, repurposed, or recycled goods, that we would move our loyalty to them?

If the large players on the retail scene were to face a threat of their own size, they might have to meet higher social and environmental standards in order to stay competitive. If we, as consumers, demand a higher standard of treatment of the workers at every point in the supply chain, we could make a change in the standards of living of millions, world over.  WalMart is supplied by thousands of smaller manufacturers and retailers. The uniform box store sources products from every corner of Earth, but since customers shop there for price more than for quality, the incentive to the company is to get the lowest price points possible when buying products for retail sale.

The WalMart’s and super-stores of the world may actually be a net benefit to the world at large when you consider all of the people, farms, manufacturers and distributors that rely on contracts from the superchains. I don’t know if the financial, economic, social and environmental costs have been studied with enough rigor to really say. What I do know is that the power that corporations have over our economy is too great to continue without appropriate checks and balances.

In an unregulated (free) market, the consumer is assumed to have the power of price-setting. Under pure competition (read more: livepage.apple.com ), firms must sell at the market price, and buyers have the power to set the price. Once a firm gains market power, the company becomes the price-setter, forcing buyers and competitors to fall in line. Without a major competitor, the power of the consumer is lost.  We are dangerously close to being enslaved by the big businesses of the world.

Today, if thousands or more of us protested WalMart to the point that the company started to falter, all that would result is the loss of thousands of jobs around the world.  That’s because our alternate spending would be spread out among the firm’s hundreds of competitors. If, on the other hand, there were ONE large conglomerate of smaller food, clothing, housewares, and general purpose stores that had at its core the mission to buy as much locally sourced, sustainably manufactured, merchandise as possible, and when imports were necessary, to pay fair, living wages to all employees and partners at every point in the supply chain?  What IF there was a big corporation with...soul?

I think that if enough mergers took place, a company could be formed that could come reasonably close to WalMart’s prices with a much higher standard of social and environmental responsibility as well as responsibility to make a profit for shareholders, and pay its workers well.  If this chain existed, then WalMart truly would have a competitor. For once, consumers would be positioned to say, “Unless you raise your standards of production practices and labor relations, we will take our business elsewhere.” And, unlike today, the threat would hold sway because every job lost at WalMart would be a job gained at WalMart 2.0 (This time, with a conscience :))

I disagree with the idea that this is a purely political struggle.  If we want to shift the balance of power in our economy, I believe that we need to use the instruments most appropriate to success. I honestly think that the best tool we have as consumers is to support the rise of real competition - not through lobbying DC, but by voicing our desire for retail alternatives that have more than just a solid bottom line, but demonstrate a strong triple-bottom-line (read more: livepage.apple.com )

We each have one vote, seldom requested, to offer our government in deciding the laws of the land.  More plentiful than our votes are our dollars, and our thoughts. These resources, when directed artfully, they can make powerful, lasting change.