... I was typing up a long reply about the excessive power and influence of companies like Walmart, Amazon, or Apple (the app store) and the effects of companies pursuing vertical monopolies and monocultures, but, seriously, do I need to explain this?
Yes, but try to stay specific to this situation. How is Walmart obligated to buy milk from one specific supplier forever?
You seem to want to go wide with this, but the question isn't a generic one; it's very particular to Walmart, milk, and the claim that Walmart is somehow supposed to buy from Dean Foods, or else they're acting immorally.
The issue here from the article, specifically, is Walmart cut them out of the supply chain after building their own dairy plant - the buried lede, and literally the last sentence.
So it follows: Walmart dropped Dean as a result of its continued efforts to vertically integrate its supply chain. This kills Dean.
And given we are talking Walmart here, I feel pretty safe assuming it's the key actor in this situation, not the 50 some million dollar almond milk industry :P
That is a profoundly complicated question. The simplest answer is they aren't responsible for Dean's bankruptcy, even though they might be responsible for the direct chain of events that lead to it. Walmart has caused a lot of similar events in the past.
So, my position would be: Walmart is a paperclip optimizer and a bad neighbor, and deserves to be called out for it whenever it does its thing.
Between being forced to reduce margins to meet Walmart and other grocery stores price points and then the sudden loss of 4% of their sales volume. I feel pretty comfortable in the assertion.
What's trolly is to derail a conversation, repeatedly trying to get on your soapbox to parrot word association rants about a company that you agree did nothing wrong in this specific situation.
