quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird
I have some admiration for Sam Walton's initial efforts, but not for how it turned out, or the family, or society, but it is still an interesting story how it all came about. The guy almost invented 'monospsony power' all by himself. To give a basic econ intro to the subject (you just can't wait for this one, can you?), 'monopoly power' describes the degree to which one holds all the cards or whatever can be close to it, in having all or most of the market in his possession for that item. Like DeBeers in diamonds, at one time. No one holds absolute monopsony, but if someone says "I will buy 15,000 pair of baby booties and 40,000 child pyjamas and 60,000 cheap sweaters of whatever size, -at my price- " then "If you can't meet that price, I'll find some other factory that will." That is monopsony power. The buyer dictating terms, with the buying power to do so.

Sure. And what benefit towards society have the Walton children who inherited all of that money demonstrated? If anything they have set up slave- like working conditions for their employees. Too much power in the wrong hands.
And i doubt that he figured that out all by himself. I am pretty sure the government tapped his shoulder to open up trade with China and also deal with the welfare- to- work issue later on.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka
And the Walton children did what exactly?

I have some admiration for Sam Walton's initial efforts, but not for how it turned out, or the family, or of ultimate effect on society, but it is still an interesting story how it all came about. The guy almost invented 'monospsony power' all by himself. To give a basic econ intro to the subject (you just can't wait for this one, can you?), 'monopoly power' describes the degree to which one holds all the cards or whatever can be close to it, in having all or most of the market in his possession for that item. Like DeBeers in diamonds, at one time. No one holds absolute monopsony, but if someone says "I will buy 15,000 pair of baby booties and 40,000 child pyjamas and 60,000 cheap sweaters of whatever size, -at my price- " then "If you can't meet that price, I'll find some other factory that will." That is monopsony power. The buyer dictating terms, with the buying power to do so.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird
I have some admiration for Sam Walton's initial efforts, but not for how it turned out, or the family, or society, but it is still an interesting story how it all came about. The guy almost invented 'monospsony power' all by himself. To give a basic econ intro to the subject (you just can't wait for this one, can you?), 'monopoly power' describes the degree to which one holds all the cards or whatever can be close to it, in having all or most of the market in his possession for that item. Like DeBeers in diamonds, at one time. No one holds absolute monopsony, but if someone says "I will buy 15,000 pair of baby booties and 40,000 child pyjamas and 60,000 cheap sweaters of whatever size, -at my price- " then "If you can't meet that price, I'll find some other factory that will." That is monopsony power. The buyer dictating terms, with the buying power to do so.

Sure. And what benefit towards society have the Walton children who inherited all of that money demonstrated? If anything they have set up slave- like working conditions for their employees. Too much power in the wrong hands.
And i doubt that he figured that out all by himself. I am pretty sure the government tapped his shoulder to open up trade with China and also deal with the welfare- to- work issue later on.

Who is forcing these people to work at WalMart?!?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka
Fuck off lady. I've never been entitled to shit. I am just stating common sense. There is no need for 1 person to have the money he's got and in fact... it could be very dangerous.

Why could it be "very dangerous?"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

Because it makes more sense.

Nothing more than your opinion. And an entitled one at that.

Fuck off lady. I've never been entitled to shit. I am just stating common sense. There is no need for 1 person to have the money he's got and in fact... it could be very dangerous.

You said that you worked hard to pay your way through college, you don't see why everyone else shouldn't be able to as well.

But you also said that someone who has worked hard to build their own fortune should be made to share it with everyone else.

Looking at it, I can easily see how you would rather revert to your standard nastiness with "fuck off' rather than explain how this makes sense, as you say.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka
Fuck off lady. I've never been entitled to shit. I am just stating common sense. There is no need for 1 person to have the money he's got and in fact... it could be very dangerous.

Why could it be "very dangerous?"

Just think of what 'Bad things' could be done with all of that money if they wanted to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

Because it makes more sense.

Nothing more than your opinion. And an entitled one at that.

Fuck off lady. I've never been entitled to shit. I am just stating common sense. There is no need for 1 person to have the money he's got and in fact... it could be very dangerous.

You said that you worked hard to pay your way through college, you don't see why everyone else shouldn't be able to as well.

But you also said that someone who has worked hard to build their own fortune should be made to share it with everyone else.

Looking at it, I can easily see how you would rather revert to your standard nastiness with "fuck off' rather than explain how this makes sense, as you say.

You got what you wanted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka
Fuck off lady. I've never been entitled to shit. I am just stating common sense. There is no need for 1 person to have the money he's got and in fact... it could be very dangerous.

Why could it be "very dangerous?"

Just think of what 'Bad things' could be done with all of that money if they wanted to.

That's your reasoning for not allowing rich people to keep the money they have earned? Because they might do bad stuff with it?

Not even getting into the fact that you apparently have no clue what Warren Buffet does with his money and plans to do with his money in the future,...

But a society"s economic system should be built on the idea of what someone 'might' do with what is theirs?

quote:


You're not much of a thinker are you. Warren Buffet is not the only rich person in the

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

quote:


You're not much of a thinker are you. Warren Buffet is not the only rich person in the

Yeah well, read the title of the thread, which was started by you, zeroing in specifically on him.

I am still waiting to hear your explanation of how it makes sense that if you can work your way through college, then everyone else should be able to, but that if a man can work his way up to a billion dollars, he should be made to share.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird


Who in their right mind would want a job at 8 an hour?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

quote:


You're not much of a thinker are you. Warren Buffet is not the only rich person in the

Yeah well, read the title of the thread, which was started by you, zeroing in specifically on him.

I am still waiting to hear your explanation of how it makes sense that if you can work your way through college, then everyone else should be able to, but that if a man can work his way up to a billion dollars, he should be made to share.

Two different topics. One is personal responsibility. The other is controlling financial power.

quote:

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl
And regardless of what you think of the person who is President, you should be respectful to the office of President.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl

We're in a system that thinks it's okay for us to pay $1671 per month for two people for the worst plan to support a family of 6 paying $75 a month for the best plan.

Please cite creditable reference for the latter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl

We're in a system that thinks it's okay for us to pay $1671 per month for two people for the worst plan to support a family of 6 paying $75 a month for the best plan.

Please cite creditable reference for the latter.

My health insurance is $1671 per month with a $5000 per person deductible for the Bronze plan under Covered California. An acquaintance of ours, both he and his wife work minimum wage jobs, pays $75 per month for themselves and their 4 kids on the platinum plan.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl

We're in a system that thinks it's okay for us to pay $1671 per month for two people for the worst plan to support a family of 6 paying $75 a month for the best plan.

Please cite creditable reference for the latter.

My health insurance is $1671 per month with a $5000 per person deductible for the Bronze plan under Covered California. An acquaintance of ours, both he and his wife work minimum wage jobs, pays $75 per month for themselves and their 4 kids on the platinum plan.

Well, he couldn't afford to pay any more probably. Would you prefer that he and his family go without health insurance?

quote:

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl

We're in a system that thinks it's okay for us to pay $1671 per month for two people for the worst plan to support a family of 6 paying $75 a month for the best plan.

Please cite creditable reference for the latter.

My health insurance is $1671 per month with a $5000 per person deductible for the Bronze plan under Covered California. An acquaintance of ours, both he and his wife work minimum wage jobs, pays $75 per month for themselves and their 4 kids on the platinum plan.

Well, he couldn't afford to pay any more probably. Would you prefer that he and his family go without health insurance?

I have never said that I thought they should go without insurance - what I said is that Government should stay out of healthcare and impose regulations that prevent price gouging.