[tthun]

I am not sure how this article got past any editorial checks. First they state prices are too low in the US to make any profit, then on the next paragraph goes on to talk about “yet” Americans getting served less. Finally reverting back complaining Americans are not getting a good deal.

author also use gross profit of Walmart, which sells everything from salt to guns, as a measure of profitability for “grocery” stores.

What are the “peddling” here - dark store as a concept ?

[drewzero1]

Right- I would love to see the numbers compared with something like Kroger, whose main business is groceries. Calling Walmart a grocery store is like calling Target a grocery store-- technically true, since they both sell groceries, but neither of them seems to be especially focused on food.

I certainly don't argue with the idea that our grocery stores suck, though I'm not convinced it's a solely american problem nor that the reasons are those given in the article.

[runeks]

> author also use gross profit of Walmart, which sells everything from salt to guns, as a measure of profitability for “grocery” stores.

The article has an entire paragraph dedicated to this:

> Walmart’s shops are enormous, selling plenty besides groceries. Tesco operates over 4,000 shops, the bulk of which are its smallest. Walmart has only 4,700 shops in total, despite serving a population about five times larger. On average, its supermarkets are ten times larger by floor space than Tesco’s. Bigger stores increase consumer choice. A Walmart supercentre might stock 140,000 different items, compared with just 40,000 at Tesco’s biggest branches. But it also means they may be wasting a lot of space by stocking products that do not sell, adding to costs. American supermarkets sell far less per square foot of shop space than British supermarkets, notes Bryan Roberts, a consultant based in London.

[sieabahlpark]

The purpose of this article is to serve as propaganda. It purposely diverts the blame from the government to the "big bad stores"

[zugi]

Agreed, I too was surprised to see such a fact-deprived article from the Economist. While reading it I wondered if the Economist had started a public "blog" section or something, but that doesn't seem to be the case.