Do you shop at Walmart?

[Koios]

Okay genius, when Walmart spends a dollar for labor, overhead, or inventory it provides money for the employee to spend, provides jobs for those providing utilities or whatever or for contractors to provide the physical plant, or provides incomes for those who sell them the inventory items. It expects to regain that dollar plus a profit by selling its prodvcts to others. It is rising its own resources when it does that and takes nothing out of the economy.

Please advise us, oh brilliant one, how the government gets the dollar it uses for whatever purpose without first taking that dollar away from somebody.

My pleasure.

Indeed government takes money, however, due to the progressive nature of our tax policy, most comes from stagnant money, and less from folks who are likely to spend all or most of it, which the government does, near instantaneously, and then some, vis a vis borrowing.

It's one way to redistribute a nation's wealth, pumping it back through the economy, and letting it gain momentum on its way back to the top, by which time it's gathered other investment, making it larger.

Another way is higher wages, so that instead of languishing in retained earnings, as the record profits are in an increasing degree, it winds up with workers, who spend it in heartbeat, quite often.

Dollars are pauns we want moving around the board (our economy), which will not happen organically. The natural flow of capital is to the top, where it stagnates, to the detriment of the economic system, from which we all, poor, middle and rich, benefit ... nay, depend upon.

Spoken like a true Marxist redistributionist.

The rest of us know that the only prosperity comes from value received from value expended.

Definition of economic growth (Economics 100, let alone 101):

An increase in the capacity of an economy to produce goods and services, compared from one period of time to another. Economic growth can be measured in nominal terms, which include inflation, or in real terms, which are adjusted for inflation. For comparing one country's economic growth to another, GDP or GNP per capita should be used as these take into account population differences between countries.

Read more: Economic Growth Definition | Investopedia

'

There is no way the government can tax money from the productive, absorb a substantial amount of what taxes just to maintain the same government, and give whatever is left over to those who did not earn it, without diminishing the capacity of the economy to produce goods and services.

And that is why Walmart is of immensely more value to the health of the U.S. economy than any government program can ever be.

Rhetoric. Dogma. Ergo, meaningless.

 

[Foxfyre]

My pleasure.

Indeed government takes money, however, due to the progressive nature of our tax policy, most comes from stagnant money, and less from folks who are likely to spend all or most of it, which the government does, near instantaneously, and then some, vis a vis borrowing.

It's one way to redistribute a nation's wealth, pumping it back through the economy, and letting it gain momentum on its way back to the top, by which time it's gathered other investment, making it larger.

Another way is higher wages, so that instead of languishing in retained earnings, as the record profits are in an increasing degree, it winds up with workers, who spend it in heartbeat, quite often.

Dollars are pauns we want moving around the board (our economy), which will not happen organically. The natural flow of capital is to the top, where it stagnates, to the detriment of the economic system, from which we all, poor, middle and rich, benefit ... nay, depend upon.

Spoken like a true Marxist redistributionist.

The rest of us know that the only prosperity comes from value received from value expended.

Definition of economic growth (Economics 100, let alone 101):

An increase in the capacity of an economy to produce goods and services, compared from one period of time to another. Economic growth can be measured in nominal terms, which include inflation, or in real terms, which are adjusted for inflation. For comparing one country's economic growth to another, GDP or GNP per capita should be used as these take into account population differences between countries.

Read more: Economic Growth Definition | Investopedia

'

There is no way the government can tax money from the productive, absorb a substantial amount of what taxes just to maintain the same government, and give whatever is left over to those who did not earn it, without diminishing the capacity of the economy to produce goods and services.

And that is why Walmart is of immensely more value to the health of the U.S. economy than any government program can ever be.

Rhetoric. Dogma. Ergo, meaningless.

Well thank you for finally admitting that is what you have been attempting to feed us.

 

[Koios]

Read more: Economic Growth Definition | Investopedia

Not economics. Politics. Here's why:

Economics is the study of a system we call "our economy."

Politics endeavors to mold opinion, to the advatage of one person or another. One way, obviously, is by speaking from the metaphorical "soapbox." Tell folks what they want to hear, or you want them to think, to your benefit. Example: Boehner; ignore anything that's counter to your belief, and sight all manner of pseudo-economics that supports your belief, nay, core brand theme in getting your side elected.

Another way, quite popular: fund a study, with an end in mind. Add some "cred." It's pseudo-economics, and thus nothing more than political, obviously. If not, why fund it? Businesses are insatiably curious, and happy to spend the money in hopes of satisfying that curiosity? Or is there a pay-back? Can opinions be molded to the benefit of the businesses owners? (tip: the latter)

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, dragging the train back on the tracks--Koios is now changing the subject so we can conclude the concept of economic growth remains sound for the rest of us--I will have to say that my on line experience ordering from Walmart is even more satisfying than ordering from Amazon. But I am now wondering if Amazon hasn't quietly partnered with Walmart?

At any rate, when you consider the massive complexity of the entire Walmart system, it would take a hell of a CEO to be on top of it all.

 

[Uncensored2008]

In the "grown-up" right wing koolaid-drinking fantasy world, businesses do this:

1. Try to get cost down everywhere, except labor; workers get paid the most businesses can afford to pay them, because, well, they're morons (tip: they're not, only the right-wing dipshits on message boards are morons)

2. Labor is X% of sales. When sales go up, businesses give everyone a raise or bonus or whatever so all of that percentage budget is spent. Hahahahahahaha. Fuck me, I am rolling, here.

Need I go on? Any other myths you'd like to have bitch-slapped since ya'll haven't the slightest knowledge of what's politics and actual economics?

Nothing I'd love more than a shot at it. Go hog wild, please.

You know, what you stated (cut and pasted?) about pricing is fairly correct, there are a lot of variables involved.

The same is true with wages. Labor is an expense, the accounting equation dictates that expenses should be minimized when possible. But lower wages doesn't lower costs if quality or productivity suffers. Cat shit is cheaper than beef tenderloin, yet fine dining doesn't serve cat shit - why not? Because we are willing to pay for better quality.

When you get to 8th grade, you'll start to learn about these things.

 

[Koios]

Okay, dragging the train back on the tracks--Koios is now changing the subject so we can conclude the concept of economic growth remains sound for the rest of us--I will have to say that my on line experience ordering from Walmart is even more satisfying than ordering from Amazon. But I am now wondering if Amazon hasn't quietly partnered with Walmart?

At any rate, when you consider the massive complexity of the entire Walmart system, it would take a hell of a CEO to be on top of it all.

Okay fine.

Indeed, Amazon's online ordering is so highly-evolved that it handles, and in many instances fulfills, online ordering for other vendors. Walmart might well be among them, which is simply consistent with the Amazon model, and nothing secret nor sinister, albeit, Walmart might wish the relationship to remain non-disclosed so as not to diminish it's own online ordering.

Moreover, Walmart is highly successful, and thus does not need a great CEO, as Chrysler did and got, and Hostess sure as shit could use. CEOs bring the vision that creates the system, which ideally, and indeed in Walmart's case already does, functions well, and can be effectively monitored by the myriad managers and corporate executives, who then reported back to the CEO / Board to monitor whether goals are being met.

 

[Koios]

In the "grown-up" right wing koolaid-drinking fantasy world, businesses do this:

1. Try to get cost down everywhere, except labor; workers get paid the most businesses can afford to pay them, because, well, they're morons (tip: they're not, only the right-wing dipshits on message boards are morons)

2. Labor is X% of sales. When sales go up, businesses give everyone a raise or bonus or whatever so all of that percentage budget is spent. Hahahahahahaha. Fuck me, I am rolling, here.

Need I go on? Any other myths you'd like to have bitch-slapped since ya'll haven't the slightest knowledge of what's politics and actual economics?

Nothing I'd love more than a shot at it. Go hog wild, please.

You know, what you stated (cut and pasted?) about pricing is fairly correct, there are a lot of variables involved.

The same is true with wages. Labor is an expense, the accounting equation dictates that expenses should be minimized when possible. But lower wages doesn't lower costs if quality or productivity suffers. Cat shit is cheaper than beef tenderloin, yet fine dining doesn't serve cat shit - why not? Because we are willing to pay for better quality.

When you get to 8th grade, you'll start to learn about these things.

Go find out. Google any of the text strings and see if it's prior art.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Then you'll begin to grasp the magic of progressive taxation (tax money that is less likely to be spent, and spend it into the economy) and the wonderful "redistributive effect" that modern economies depend upon.

this is perfect example of a low IQ 100% illiterate liberal.

A rich man will save his money for sure but not in a mattress, in a bank or investment where he expects to grow his principle and the economy after very very careful consideration of different alternatives available for his hard earned money.

When his hard earned money is taxed away by liberal bureaucrats to merely churn the economy to buy votes all possibility of growth is lost.

Accordingly to your perfectly idiotic reasoning Europe should be booming and all economists would know that the higher the tax the higher the growth. Its almost too stupid for words but so perfectly liberal and stupid.

Welcome to Econ 101 class one day one!!

 

[Koios]

Then you'll begin to grasp the magic of progressive taxation (tax money that is less likely to be spent, and spend it into the economy) and the wonderful "redistributive effect" that modern economies depend upon.

this is perfect example of a low IQ 100% illiterate liberal.

A rich man will save his money for sure but not in a mattress, in a bank or investment where he expects to grow his principle and the economy after very very careful consideration of different alternatives available for his hard earned money.

When his hard earned money is taxed away by liberal bureaucrats to merely churn the economy to buy votes all possibility of growth is lost.

Accordingly to your perfectly idiotic reasoning Europe should be booming and all economists would know that the higher the tax the higher the growth. Its almost too stupid for words but so perfectly liberal and stupid.

Welcome to Econ 101 class one day one!!

Hahahahahahaha. Ahhh, Ed.

You see, pal, any who say it's this-and-that 101, probably hasn't studied any of it. It's a pretty retarded turn of phrase, to those of us who've gone beyond mere intro courses.

FWIW,

-K

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Then you'll begin to grasp the magic of progressive taxation (tax money that is less likely to be spent, and spend it into the economy) and the wonderful "redistributive effect" that modern economies depend upon.

this is perfect example of a low IQ 100% illiterate liberal.

A rich man will save his money for sure but not in a mattress, in a bank or investment where he expects to grow his principle and the economy after very very careful consideration of different alternatives available for his hard earned money.

When his hard earned money is taxed away by liberal bureaucrats to merely churn the economy to buy votes all possibility of growth is lost.

Accordingly to your perfectly idiotic reasoning Europe should be booming and all economists would know that the higher the tax the higher the growth. Its almost too stupid for words but so perfectly liberal and stupid.

Welcome to Econ 101 class one day one!!

Hahahahahahaha. Ahhh, Ed.

You see, pal, any who say it's this-and-that 101, probably hasn't studied any of it. It's a pretty retarded turn of phrase, to those of us who've gone beyond mere intro courses.

FWIW,

-K

the illiterate liberal is reduced to personal attack because he lacks the IQ and education for substance.
Hitler, Stalin, and Mao thought they were smart guy liberals too. Illiterate bigoted arrogance is nothing knew; in fact it is the essence of liberalism.

Do you know why our liberals spied for Hitler and gave him the A-bomb??

 

[Koios]

this is perfect example of a low IQ 100% illiterate liberal.

A rich man will save his money for sure but not in a mattress, in a bank or investment where he expects to grow his principle and the economy after very very careful consideration of different alternatives available for his hard earned money.

When his hard earned money is taxed away by liberal bureaucrats to merely churn the economy to buy votes all possibility of growth is lost.

Accordingly to your perfectly idiotic reasoning Europe should be booming and all economists would know that the higher the tax the higher the growth. Its almost too stupid for words but so perfectly liberal and stupid.

Welcome to Econ 101 class one day one!!

Hahahahahahaha. Ahhh, Ed.

You see, pal, any who say it's this-and-that 101, probably hasn't studied any of it. It's a pretty retarded turn of phrase, to those of us who've gone beyond mere intro courses.

FWIW,

-K

the illiterate liberal is reduced to personal attack because he lacks the IQ for substance.

Apparently so, Eddie.

But since the IQ bit seems a bit of rhetoric you're fond of using so frequently, let me clue you in on that as well ...

Intelligence is more of a thing we're born with. Kinda earned for doing nothing but being born. IQ testing endeavors to measure it, for what it's worth. Actually it can be a pain, since intelligence merely sees order where others see chaos. I'd liken it to being an English speaker in a world where others only speak Japanese. It can be frustrating, since you cannot share your inner-most thoughts.

And what you're alluding to, Informed/Educated, is different. That's actually earned through great/some/not much effort. Intelligence can help greatly, since new information can be more easily processed, and also considered within the context of other information, leading to new revelations. But in the end, information is something we can all gather, irrespective of IQs, to a point. Some have IQs so low that information simply does not take. Ergo, I'd encourage you to not ponder that too much nor spend time looking in mirrors.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Hahahahahahaha. Ahhh, Ed.

You see, pal, any who say it's this-and-that 101, probably hasn't studied any of it. It's a pretty retarded turn of phrase, to those of us who've gone beyond mere intro courses.

FWIW,

-K

the illiterate liberal is reduced to personal attack because he lacks the IQ for substance.

Apparently so, Eddie.

But since the IQ bit seems a bit of rhetoric you're fond of using so frequently, let me clue you in on that as well ...

Intelligence is more of a thing we're born with. Kinda earned for doing nothing but being born. IQ testing endeavors to measure it, for what it's worth. Actually it can be a pain, since intelligence merely sees order where others see chaos. I'd liken it to being an English speaker in a world where others only speak Japanese. It can be frustrating, since you cannot share your inner-most thoughts.

And what you're alluding to, Informed/Educated, is different. That's actually earned through great/some/not much effort. Intelligence can help greatly, since new information can be more easily processed, and also considered within the context of other information, leading to new revelations. But in the end, information is something we can all gather, irrespective of IQs, to a point. Some have IQs so low that information simply does not take. Ergo, I'd encourage you to not ponder that too much nor spend time looking in mirrors.

a typical illiterate liberal changes the subject because he lacks the IQ to discuss the subject

When hard earned money is taxed away by liberal bureaucrats to merely churn the economy to buy votes all possibility of growth is lost.

Accordingly to your perfectly idiotic reasoning Europe should be booming and all economists would know that the higher the tax the higher the growth. Its almost too stupid for words but so perfectly liberal and stupid.

Welcome to Econ 101 class one day one!!

 

[Koios]

the illiterate liberal is reduced to personal attack because he lacks the IQ for substance.

Apparently so, Eddie.

But since the IQ bit seems a bit of rhetoric you're fond of using so frequently, let me clue you in on that as well ...

Intelligence is more of a thing we're born with. Kinda earned for doing nothing but being born. IQ testing endeavors to measure it, for what it's worth. Actually it can be a pain, since intelligence merely sees order where others see chaos. I'd liken it to being an English speaker in a world where others only speak Japanese. It can be frustrating, since you cannot share your inner-most thoughts.

And what you're alluding to, Informed/Educated, is different. That's actually earned through great/some/not much effort. Intelligence can help greatly, since new information can be more easily processed, and also considered within the context of other information, leading to new revelations. But in the end, information is something we can all gather, irrespective of IQs, to a point. Some have IQs so low that information simply does not take. Ergo, I'd encourage you to not ponder that too much nor spend time looking in mirrors.

a typical illiterate liberal changes the subject because he lacks the IQ to discuss the subject

When hard earned money is taxed away by liberal bureaucrats to merely churn the economy to buy votes all possibility of growth is lost.

Accordingly to your perfectly idiotic reasoning Europe should be booming and all economists would know that the higher the tax the higher the growth. Its almost too stupid for words but so perfectly liberal and stupid.

Welcome to Econ 101 class one day one!!

Attaboy, Ed. I'm flattered you heeded my encouragement.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Apparently so, Eddie.

But since the IQ bit seems a bit of rhetoric you're fond of using so frequently, let me clue you in on that as well ...

Intelligence is more of a thing we're born with. Kinda earned for doing nothing but being born. IQ testing endeavors to measure it, for what it's worth. Actually it can be a pain, since intelligence merely sees order where others see chaos. I'd liken it to being an English speaker in a world where others only speak Japanese. It can be frustrating, since you cannot share your inner-most thoughts.

And what you're alluding to, Informed/Educated, is different. That's actually earned through great/some/not much effort. Intelligence can help greatly, since new information can be more easily processed, and also considered within the context of other information, leading to new revelations. But in the end, information is something we can all gather, irrespective of IQs, to a point. Some have IQs so low that information simply does not take. Ergo, I'd encourage you to not ponder that too much nor spend time looking in mirrors.

a typical illiterate liberal changes the subject because he lacks the IQ to discuss the subject

When hard earned money is taxed away by liberal bureaucrats to merely churn the economy to buy votes all possibility of growth is lost.

Accordingly to your perfectly idiotic reasoning Europe should be booming and all economists would know that the higher the tax the higher the growth. Its almost too stupid for words but so perfectly liberal and stupid.

Welcome to Econ 101 class one day one!!

Attaboy, Ed. I'm flattered you heeded my encouragement.

a typical illiterate liberal tries to change the subject because he lacks the IQ to discuss the subject and hopes no one will notice.

 

[Koios]

a typical illiterate liberal changes the subject because he lacks the IQ to discuss the subject

When hard earned money is taxed away by liberal bureaucrats to merely churn the economy to buy votes all possibility of growth is lost.

Accordingly to your perfectly idiotic reasoning Europe should be booming and all economists would know that the higher the tax the higher the growth. Its almost too stupid for words but so perfectly liberal and stupid.

Welcome to Econ 101 class one day one!!

Attaboy, Ed. I'm flattered you heeded my encouragement.

a typical illiterate liberal tries to change the subject because he lacks the IQ to discuss the subject and hopes no one will notice.

Indeed. So you've being saying, repeatedly, ad nasseum.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Attaboy, Ed. I'm flattered you heeded my encouragement.

a typical illiterate liberal tries to change the subject because he lacks the IQ to discuss the subject and hopes no one will notice.

Indeed. So you've being saying, repeatedly, ad nasseum.

a typical illiterate liberal tries to change the subject because he lacks the IQ to discuss the subject and hopes no one will notice.

 

[Koios]

a typical illiterate liberal tries to change the subject because he lacks the IQ to discuss the subject and hopes no one will notice.

Indeed. So you've being saying, repeatedly, ad nasseum.

a typical illiterate liberal tries to change the subject because he lacks the IQ to discuss the subject and hopes no one will notice.

See other thread.

Bye-bye for now, Ed.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Indeed. So you've being saying, repeatedly, ad nasseum.

a typical illiterate liberal tries to change the subject because he lacks the IQ to discuss the subject and hopes no one will notice.

See other thread.

Bye-bye for now, Ed.

yes come back when you can contribute. SHow some character, not just pure ego. Thanks

 

[thereisnospoon]

Sure I shop at K-Mart (that's how its called here)

So many well known cosmetics brands at such a cheap price .... it's all good! YUM!

Out in California, K-Mart is just scary. Most of the stores have long since closed, and those that are left are in the lowest socio-economic neighborhoods. There is very little that would get me to enter a K-Mart. Walmart is downright upscale in comparison.

To date, K-Mart demise is tied directly to the expansion of Walmart.
What did Walmart do to cause the demise of K-Mart?
1. Walmart placed it's stores in higher income areas away from cities. most K-Mart stores were located in in close suburbs or in urban areas where income levels of local residents were lower.
2. Walmart cut distributors out of the buying process then went directly to the manufacturers to purchase products. K-Mart was still using distributors to acquire stock for it's stores which adds to the cost of goods.
3. Walmart stores for the most part are cleaner, have wider aisles and are in NEW buildings. K-mart stores were located in older existing buildings that required up fits and repairs.
4 Walmart dropped private brands and transitioned to national brand merchandise.

 

[Uncensored2008]

My pleasure.

Indeed government takes money, however, due to the progressive nature of our tax policy, most comes from stagnant money,

Ah yes, those swimming pools filled with gold coins that Scrooge McDuck wallows in...

Wealthy people like Mitt Romney got rich by keeping capital stagnate. You leftists sure are smart...

and less from folks who are likely to spend all or most of it, which the government does, near instantaneously, and then some, vis a vis borrowing.

So taking monies that would "stagnate" in capital projects and venture capital to distribute to non-productive public sector "workers" and to entitlements is a brilliant means to economic growth then?

It's one way to redistribute a nation's wealth, pumping it back through the economy, and letting it gain momentum on its way back to the top, by which time it's gathered other investment, making it larger.

Yes, nothing grows wealth quite like expending capital on disposable consumer goods for the entitlement sector.

Another way is higher wages, so that instead of languishing in retained earnings, as the record profits are in an increasing degree, it winds up with workers, who spend it in heartbeat, quite often.

ROFL

Such a slow child. I'm not convinced 8th grade will help you, son.

For the lurkers who don't simply regurgitate ThinkProgress idiocy;

{In its simplest form, a law setting a minimum
hourly wage is a statement to workers that unless they can find jobs at or above the
specified minimum they cannot work. It is simultaneously a statement to employers that
workers who would be employed at lower wages must be paid the minimum (plus legally
required fringe benefits) or they cannot be employed. Employment, per se, is not required;
instead, the law establishes the terms of whatever employment occurs.}

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv2n6/v2n6-6.pdf

Dollars are pauns we want moving around the board (our economy), which will not happen organically.

That is about the most ignorant statement I've yet read. Dollars are neither pawns nor are they static. What you cannot grasp, partially because you are a child lack education, and are lacking in critical thinking skills, but dollars are not value. I tried to explain this to you yesterday, but you lack the capacity to grasp even simply economic concepts. There is not a big bucket of dollars to be split up among all the good little boys and girls. Before value, wealth, can be looted, it must be created.

Yes, I know in the cartoon world painted by the leftist hate sites that do your thinking for you, we just need to borrow more from China and all is good. We can add to that static pile of dollars and then split it up more fairly.

Of course you are again showing foolish ignorance. While obscene, China holds but $1.2 trillion of the $16 trillion federal debt. The vast majority of the federal debt is held in t-bills, notes and bonds. Most of the bonds are held by American corporations. In other words, we borrow from the very same people you want to loot.

The natural flow of capital is to the top, where it stagnates, to the detriment of the economic system, from which we all, poor, middle and rich, benefit ... nay, depend upon.

LOL

No offense, but you're a fucking moron - seriously.