Yep even back in the early 80's when the store was running their made in the USA adds I remember reading an artical stating K-Mart had about 13% more made in America products than Walmart.
Yep even back in the early 80's when the store was running their made in the USA adds I remember reading an artical stating K-Mart had about 13% more made in America products than Walmart.
CPA
Elite Member
- Nov 19, 2001
- 30,322
- 4
- 0
Yet, none of them have paid in extra or forgone tax-reducing strategies, even though both are easy enough to do.
See above
You haven't heard Buffett on CNBC, have you?
??? Most Rich Republicans haven't either, what's your point?
??? So what?
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
I have a question... why the hell don't the 30% buy some shares or something? How many of those 30% do you think have ever bought shares?
And don't come to me saying they are expensive. Individual shares are expensive yes but you get fractional shares and I'm sure there are Exchange Traded Funds in the US where for a small contribution like $20 a month you can invest.
I keep reading about US companies with record profits, if you are invested you'll get dividends from those profits and you can use it to invest more and eventually you'll become more financially independent...
And don't come to me saying they are expensive. Individual shares are expensive yes but you get fractional shares and I'm sure there are Exchange Traded Funds in the US where for a small contribution like $20 a month you can invest.
I keep reading about US companies with record profits, if you are invested you'll get dividends from those profits and you can use it to invest more and eventually you'll become more financially independent...
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
- Nov 30, 2006
- 15,456
- 389
- 121
I imagine that the reason they don't "invest" is because the vast majority of the 30% live hand-to-mouth. Keeping the lights on is a little more important.
peonyu
Platinum Member
- Mar 12, 2003
- 2,038
- 23
- 81
His company is still around and its bigger than it ever was, if anything he would be proud of his family for having the ability to adapt. Its not Walmart's fault that we dont tax imports enough to make it worthwhile to buy from American companies. The liability there goes all the way up to the President of this country. And if Walmart wasnt buying from China, then Kmart or another Mart would and would undercut them.
Oh come ON!
Walmart is only around now because it has DESTROYED competition through any "legal" means necessary.
We all know legal does NOT always equal moral.
They would do things like the following:
Find a supplier that sold widgets to several different distributors. They sold a total of 10K widgets per year at $1 apiece.
OK, Walmart comes in and says "We want 14K!". Wow! Great! $14,000!!! Christmas party! Oh, but we can't supply our other distributors.....
Oh well.
2 years go by and WalMart says, "hey, we want to do 15K this year, but we will only pay you $13,000".
??!?
You want more for less? Fuggetaboutit!
The widget mfr then goes back to their original distributors, but nobody wants to buy them. they found other suppliers and, at best, would only be able to buy them at a smaller volume than before for the next season.
So, this company is now locked into supplying WalMart.
The same thing goes for their leveraging lower prices in a neighborhood by taking local loss, and having a crew of "professional" staff when first opening.
Once the competition is gone, the prices creep up to national average and the crew gets swapped out for cheaper locals (Home Depo does this too. I have seen the degradation in staff between a new opening and a place that has been around...)
They are just NOT a good example of how Capitalism should work, or what we should strive for.
As for the people saying that these poor should invest, it is easy to say $20 is nothing until you see how much beans and rice that pays for.
So, having someone (with no real internet access, market knowledge, or technical knowledge) go in and invest in shares in a stock they do not know about, to wait around 15 years to see any real profit from, is not realistic in the slightest.
Hell, even people that were given company share as a part of their compensation package were easily screwed as the company issued more stock and essentially devalued any shareholders piece of the pie.
It is all a game, and those that make the rules will get as much as they can without the mob going bloody on them. The problem is, they have gotten pretty close and, combined with a lingering recession, may have stepped over the line of tolerance a few times.
If they do not watch out, we may see an actual bloody revolution as the number of hungry exceeds the number needed to break societies social "discression" boundaries.
Walmart is only around now because it has DESTROYED competition through any "legal" means necessary.
We all know legal does NOT always equal moral.
They would do things like the following:
Find a supplier that sold widgets to several different distributors. They sold a total of 10K widgets per year at $1 apiece.
OK, Walmart comes in and says "We want 14K!". Wow! Great! $14,000!!! Christmas party! Oh, but we can't supply our other distributors.....
Oh well.
2 years go by and WalMart says, "hey, we want to do 15K this year, but we will only pay you $13,000".
??!?
You want more for less? Fuggetaboutit!
The widget mfr then goes back to their original distributors, but nobody wants to buy them. they found other suppliers and, at best, would only be able to buy them at a smaller volume than before for the next season.
So, this company is now locked into supplying WalMart.
The same thing goes for their leveraging lower prices in a neighborhood by taking local loss, and having a crew of "professional" staff when first opening.
Once the competition is gone, the prices creep up to national average and the crew gets swapped out for cheaper locals (Home Depo does this too. I have seen the degradation in staff between a new opening and a place that has been around...)
They are just NOT a good example of how Capitalism should work, or what we should strive for.
As for the people saying that these poor should invest, it is easy to say $20 is nothing until you see how much beans and rice that pays for.
So, having someone (with no real internet access, market knowledge, or technical knowledge) go in and invest in shares in a stock they do not know about, to wait around 15 years to see any real profit from, is not realistic in the slightest.
Hell, even people that were given company share as a part of their compensation package were easily screwed as the company issued more stock and essentially devalued any shareholders piece of the pie.
It is all a game, and those that make the rules will get as much as they can without the mob going bloody on them. The problem is, they have gotten pretty close and, combined with a lingering recession, may have stepped over the line of tolerance a few times.
If they do not watch out, we may see an actual bloody revolution as the number of hungry exceeds the number needed to break societies social "discression" boundaries.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
Thats EXACTLY how capitalism works. Theres quite a few companies who could have done the same thing Walmart did. But they didnt. The same tactics Walmart used to gain market share were available to any company with the money, the resources, and the will to invest. But they didnt.
And no, legal != moral. Im not sure its supposed to either. Moral is highly subjective.
Londo_Jowo
Lifer
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
Do you have a problem with that? Are you some sort of an evil socialist? I'm sure that those six Waltons worked very, very hard for their money and earned every penny of it. And don't even get started on how they're simply members of the Lucky Sperm Club. The rich work very very very hard for their money and they earned all of it! If you want to tax any of that wealth away from them, you're an evil pinko communist!
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
If they obtained much of that money by paying their employees low poverty-level wages, did their accumulation of the money hurt their employees? (Use the noggin and question the free market dogma.)
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
What did they blow the money on? Food and clothing for their children? Rent? Health care?
Better still is who would step up to offer goods and services to the "bottom 30%" at affordable prices that raises their standard of living once you've redistributed all their wealth?
Government?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL !!!
They've been waging a faux war on poverty that has accomplished nothing when it comes to actually eliminating "poverty" for those at the "bottom 30%". This is because poverty has so many causes and reasons for existing that it would be akin to declaring a war on indivdual apathy, self-pitty or reckless behavior that leads to people making horrible life decisions that eventually impacts their own personal wealth or ability to generate wealth.
Last edited:
Yeah, typical socialists/communists views. All successful companies made it using evil tactics and average Joe are too dumb to invest/protect themselves from big bad capitalists.
Like Walmart and Home Depot is the only companies there and supplier/customers can't go to their competitions like Target, Lowes, Costcos...etc.
And if you don't let the free market competition decide who makes money and who survives in the business world, what's the alternative?
Bureaucrats and politicians making business decisions for you? You sure they know what they are doing? You sure they are not worse sharks than your evil capitalists?
Get a clue man.
So do I.
That is NOT how these 6 people got this rich.
They got it for doing nothing.
Sam Walton got it partly for working hard.
But what he worked hard at was exploiting the places in the world where people will work for pennies to not starve. By not paying all of the costs for the goods he sold, by exploiting the enviroment. By using his buying power to drive all small town competitors out of business.
Free markets are great, but flawed. People like Sam Walton exploit those flaws to get more than they deserve, then use politicians to convince people it's the American way.
1.) What evidence do you have that they did or are doing "nothing" to earn or maintain their wealth? Please don't tell me you believe that wealth can't be mismanaged or thrown away.
2.) What is your justification for denying the unalienable right of a parent to pass on their wealth and business (which they have started and worked hard for to make successful) to their off-spring regardless of how much or little work they have done?
/Eagerly waits for the fallacy of the "Fairness" argument to be trotted out.
Wow how kind of you to partly admit that he did work hard for his wealth. /sarcasm
In other words you'd rather see those people who are directly employed as a result of the creation and success of Walmart without a job, thus denying them income and the ability to generate their own wealth and potential success. Gotcha.
This is just fucking stupid and makes no sense at all. You obviously don't understand why and how manufacturers discount their items to retailers. Furthermore if they (Walmart) had payed more for the items they sell/sold in their stores then they would have no ability to compensate for this added cost and still be able to offer lower priced goods and services that the "bottom 30%" could afford.
In essence they would have zero competitive advantage against their rivals for their targeted demographic and thus the cost of those goods and services that they offer would be out of reach of the "bottom 30%" because any increase of price at the manufacturer's end would be translated to the retail side of Walmart's of the business.
Care to be more specific on how exactly Walmart itself has "exploited the environment" any more so then say Costco, Best Buy, Whole Foods, Safeway, etc??
Oh you mean those small town competitors that relied on being the only game in town and over charged their goods and services or worse refused to or were unable adapt to changing consumer trends in manner to ensure the continued loyalty of the consumers? Do you think its the consumers responsibility to prop up a failing business model out of "fairness" or "good intentions"??
Oh please your tripe is the only thing that is flawed. Name me a system that efficiently and accurately allows for scare goods and services to be conveyed those who demand them while being able to accurately ensure that the true cost of those said scare goods and services are appropriately conveyed so as to prevent shortages, rationing, or worse massive waste. On top of raising the standard of living for all those involved without the need for one half the planet to manage the other half in a inefficient manner? Not to mention allowing for individuals to benefit from the knowledge of not only being able to view the cost of success but also the true cost of failure itself in a economic system without having to petition, appeal to or influence bureaucratic governmental committees, self-appointed royalty, etc who may have different agendas that conflict with the desires of the individual?
Last edited:
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
In other Lucky Sperm Club news, Chelsea Clinton seems to be producing reports for NBC Nightly News. I'm sure she would still be doing just that if her parents weren't Bill and Hillary Clinton. (It's just a little more evidence to suggest that success is more about who you and your parents know than hard work and merit.)
And here folks we see the "fairness" fallacy being displayed as nothing more then mere jealousy. A fallacy which is based on assumptions and generalizations without any verifiable evidence provided to support the actual claim that is being made by the poster.
Last edited:
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,596
- 20
- 81
All hail the aristocracy.
Our system of government was put together to try to prevent any one person or organization from gaining excessive power.
Money equals political power, and great amounts of it in the hands of very few people is almost like another branch of government that can simply buy out the others. It's a ruling class, but it is not referred to as such. Yes, it's good that people can become wealthy. However, at what point can the level of wealth start to pose a risk of damaging or destabilizing a society or system, due to the excessive political influence it can buy?
Money is power, and power has a great tendency to enable corrupt behavior.
Our system of government was put together to try to prevent any one person or organization from gaining excessive power.
Money equals political power, and great amounts of it in the hands of very few people is almost like another branch of government that can simply buy out the others. It's a ruling class, but it is not referred to as such. Yes, it's good that people can become wealthy. However, at what point can the level of wealth start to pose a risk of damaging or destabilizing a society or system, due to the excessive political influence it can buy?
Last edited:
If it were that simple then everyone would do it. Dividends per share are usually very low. Every stock has a P/E ratio, see here: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/price-earningsratio.asp#axzz1h6oIKM4t
In short, the P/E ratio is how long a stock will take to pay for itself from dividends. Stocks with a ratio under 20 (meaning 20 YEARS) are usually considered a good buy depending on the company's situation. Many stocks, especially tech, are way over 20.
The share prices are also not guaranteed to go up, they could go way down or the company could go out of business.
Very well said. This is my main beef with excessive wealth. As i said in the OP i dont mind people making money and even becoming rich. But there does become a point where enough is enough and any more is just taking money from people who could actually use it, but instead you just want to pad your wealth just for the sake of having more wealth than you know what to do with. If i ran walmart id bump everyones pay from minimum wage to like $25/hour. Why? Because i can and i have the money to do so. Given my employees a better life is much more rewarding that having a bigger bank account..IMO.
werepossum
Elite Member
- Jul 10, 2006
- 29,873
- 463
- 126
Then it's doubly ironic that you support those moving us as quickly as possibly toward the system under which those people were starving - where everyone is equal except for the enlightened political class. But I suppose the enlightened political class deserves nice things, for taking on the burden of deciding what each person deserves.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter