On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 21:24:33 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 10:31:47 +1000, Jeßus wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 16:59:41 -0700, "Cheri" >
>> wrote:
>>
> wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>> You must mean some of the third world countries to which NAs garbage
>>>> is shipped - or perhaps India where they break up whole container
>>>> ships on the beach for salvage, or Africa where they are overburdened
>>>> with old computer junk and the little kids sift through it looking
>>>> for the bits they can resell.
>>>
>>>Yeah, and they send a lot of garbage here too. They call it merchandise,
>>>which falls apart in a day or two, which then generates trash to send back
>>>to them.
>>
>> They wouldn't send it if people didn't buy it.
>> So who's to blame for that?
>
>Walmart has not given us an option.

Well... point taken but it's merely a question of making an effort to
find alternatives - which is something most people are too lazy to do
(but not lazy enough to come up with all sorts of excuses why they
can't do that).

>They fooled customers into buying
>crap at low prices while driving the quality manufacturers out of
>business.

Yes, in the grand scheme of things, Walmart has done a lot of harm in
all sorts of ways. It is precisely the type of business model which
should be avoided.