Billionaires who've lost a lot of money

[GoodGame]

Frankly i am inclined to state that over the next decade, with reference to bailouts, economists will have to redefine the status of a monopoly. Walmart will fir the new definition as a corporation so large and so vast that can outcompete nearly every other entity in a given area. In the same way that you cant simply start up an automotive company, it is now a reality that you can't simply open a general store. Thus one corporation, while it does not control the market entirely, it owns such a large portion of it that if it were to fail there would be nothing capable of providing that service for a given period of time. A corporation shoudl only be vulnerable to competition, not to its own stagnation. Which is Walmart vulnerable to?
.

I think that's a shrewd point. Definitions of monopoly may be applied to local market shares, with an emphasis on locality. Realistically, there is much competition to Walmart, as there are tons of other big box stores, each with their own economic specializations. Walmart just happens to be noticeable because they specialize in qualities of goods that appeal to the majority of Americans, rather than other niches. The issue with Walmart monopolies is in fringe areas where Walmart is the only big box store.

 

[LucyDuke]

Sam Walton did more for this country than a lot of people could ever dream of doing, Lucy.

I don't disagree that he's done a lot. I disagree that most of what he's caused is "good". But then, the only thing you care about is money, so you're blind to the problems his monster has created.

I find it pretty concerning that we're so mired in jealousy over the people that have more than us that we've felt the need to condemn them like this.

I hope you're not talking about me. I don't see anywhere I've condemned anyone for having money.

Everybody likes blaming Wal-Mart but nobody ever blames the people that shop there.

It only makes sense to blame both.

 

[mrt144]

I think that's a shrewd point. Definitions of monopoly may be applied to local market shares, with an emphasis on locality. Realistically, there is much competition to Walmart, as there are tons of other big box stores, each with their own economic specializations. Walmart just happens to be noticeable because they specialize in qualities of goods that appeal to the majority of Americans, rather than other niches. The issue with Walmart monopolies is in fringe areas where Walmart is the only big box store.

isn't there a notion though that certain locations for living have their benefits and drawbacks? i mean, the places where walmart has really hurt local retailers is where they offer the same goods as local retailers. In a diversified and urban there is the benefit of economic diversity due to the abundance of choice by people and walmart is merely another place to possibly shop. The question is, why should economic diversity be guaranteed to fringe areas at the expense of people that choose to reject the rural life?

 

[Labtec600]

Someone who goes from being a billionaire to a hundred-millionaire is not in "misery;" they can still keep their "useless drain on society" lifestyle, they just have to cut back on the megalomania a bit. Misery requires much worse, like lacking a home or access to adequate healthcare.

Please, it's not the billionaire that spends a . .. .. .. . load of money thats the "useless drain on society" it's that schmuck living in the projects with 8 kids and is on welfare.

 

[JollyRoger]

Please, it's not the billionaire that spends a . .. .. .. . load of money thats the "useless drain on society" it's that schmuck living in the projects with 8 kids and is on welfare.

Many billionaieres get a ton of welfare. Look at all the taxpayer subsidies given to Wal-Mart or your typical sports stadium or big time real estate development project.

 

[mrt144]

Many billionaieres get a ton of welfare. Look at all the taxpayer subsidies given to Wal-Mart or your typical sports stadium or big time real estate development project.

And this is an inherent problem when governments believe they are obligated in providing entertainment, jobs, or income for their citizens (or are inclined into such action by campaign contributions from interest groups). The same people that believe in industrial policy for the united states are obviously going to howl at the idea that sports complexes or walmart are industries that need subsidies, but you open the door a crack and these are the policies enacted.

I find it aggravating that people that believe in the usefulness of subsidies from the government also are naive in believing subsidies will only go towards their pet projects.

 

[JollyRoger]

And this is an inherent problem when governments believe they are obligated in providing entertainment, jobs, or income for their citizens (or are inclined into such action by campaign contributions from interest groups). The same people that believe in industrial policy for the united states are obviously going to howl at the idea that sports complexes or walmart are industries that need subsidies, but you open the door a crack and these are the policies enacted.

I find it aggravating that people that believe in the usefulness of subsidies from the government also are naive in believing subsidies will only go towards their pet projects.

The point of my post was just to point out that the welfare queen bashers typically fall down and worship the biggest welfare queens out there.

 

[mrt144]

The point of my post was just to point out that the welfare queen bashers typically fall down and worship the biggest welfare queens out there.

This is true.

 

[Alpine Trooper]

The question is, why should economic diversity be guaranteed to fringe areas at the expense of people that choose to reject the rural life?

I would consider a suburb of a city as a fringe area but certainly not a town. I wouldn't look to protect the economic diversity of a suburb either. I'd rather see them torn down personally. Hopefully rising gas prices will encourage a return to life in the city. But I fear the damage has already been done to at least two generations who will know nothing else but the convenience of purchasing all of their items and visiting the doctor at one store.

 

[GoodGame]

isn't there a notion though that certain locations for living have their benefits and drawbacks? i mean, the places where walmart has really hurt local retailers is where they offer the same goods as local retailers. In a diversified and urban there is the benefit of economic diversity due to the abundance of choice by people and walmart is merely another place to possibly shop. The question is, why should economic diversity be guaranteed to fringe areas at the expense of people that choose to reject the rural life?

Personally, I think most fringe areas would view Walmart as a godsend. The point of a discussion on monopolies isn't about assumed quality of life issues though, just anti-trust issues. If a monopoly blocks other competitors from entering into a market, then it deserves some government attention. Walmart setting up shop in a previously poorly developed region doesn't automatically equal monopoly.

The original point was can a market distributor (e.g. Walmart) be monopolistic just like a manufacturer (Microsoft) or service provider (Ma Bell). My answer is 'probably', but realistically in some of its market areas Walmart is just one more big-box store, even if it's a gigantic chain of them.

I think your last question is outta place here. Someone enforcing anti-trust laws would mostly ignore an arguement of the type that rural people don't have the rights of urban people. It'd be irrelevant to enforcing the law.

I think a great example would be if Walmart moved into an area that only had small indepedent chains (which realistically pretty much don't exist anymores), and bought up those chains's suppliers in a way that amounted to "I'll pay you extra not to sell any supplies to my local competitors" in an effort to drive them out of business. That'd probably be judged a monopolistic move.

 

[LucyDuke]

I think a great example would be if Walmart moved into an area that only had small indepedent chains (which realistically pretty much don't exist anymores), and bought up those chains's suppliers in a way that amounted to "I'll pay you extra not to sell any supplies to my local competitors" in an effort to drive them out of business. That'd probably be judged a monopolistic move.

They move in and undercut all competitors - costing Wal-Mart money during this phase - until the competitors are driven out of business. Then they resume regular pricing. This happens all the time.

 

[Infantry#14]

take that billionaires!

 

[Newbunkle]

Hmm. A lot of chips on shoulders here.

 

[aneeshm]

It appears the loser brigade has turned out in full force in this thread.

 

[Maimonides]

Greed at the expense of others is bad.

This requires some clarification. If I buy a can of corn for 27 cents & sell it for 33 cents, I am profiting at the expense of others. Is that bad?

There are some that create wealth out of nothing by developing a formerly useless resource or creating a new technology, but even they mark up their wares to profit. Besides the obvious (theft & robbery for example), when is greed bad?

To acquire great power, you really have to be an evil doer.

By that logic, you regard Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr. & every baby that inherited a throne as evil doers.

Yet, you name youself after somebody that is greedy enough to want a "pound of flesh."

Your hypocrisy is monumental.

Oh boo hoo we only have a billion dollars left. Cry me a river when you live off of less than 20k a year you rich bastards.

If you make less than $20k per year, you are the one most responsible. Blaming others won't help you.

Do something for yourself besides complaining. Try to get a better job. Don't have kids you can't afford. Move to an area with more employment oppotunities. Get educated. Deliver excellent performance at work.

I can't begin to say how many times I've seen employees who drag their feet at every task, complain excessively, show up late consistently, call in sick every time they sneeze, barely have enough education for their current role, have multiple children out of wedlock, etc. &, after all of that, complain that they are not making enough money... As an employer, I have a hard time finding people who are qualified for promotion & more money. I don't just hand it out when someone whines.

Good people are "diamonds in the rough" & your attitude makes you part of the "rough." Take responsibility for yourself.

They couldn't compete with Wal-Mart's pricing or corporate strategy. People that criticize Wal-Mart typically don't think about how the company has changed retailing (for the better) with things like the fact that Wal-Mart doesn't charge slotting fees, for example.

(Slotting fees are used by grocery stores and retailers to get companies to pay them to put their products in attractive positions on the store shelves.)

That isn't what slotting fees are. What you're describing are called merchandising fees. Walmart does receive merchandising fees. Frito-Lay is a big example of a company that pays retailers for sales floor space to squeeze out their competition. The retailers has to weigh whether accepting a merchandising deal is more or less profitable for them. Sometimes, it's best to turn down merchandising fees from one company because another company's products will deliver more sales per square foot or a higher margin.

Slotting fees are charged to manufacturers by warehouses because they have finite space & that space is very valuable. The area a particular item is held in a warehouse is called a "slot."

It is true that Walmart doesn't charge slotting fees, but it is also true that they are the only retailer that is big enough to dictate what price they will pay to manufacturers. Because of the unbelieveable volume that Walmart can deliver, manufacturers are very willing to move their operations to places with few labor & environmental regulations to cut production costs rather than lose Walmart as a customer. This is how modern countries lose manufacturing jobs & how Chinese children end up making lead-tainted products for very little pay. Sam Walton would fire his company's entire management team if he were alive today.

Jolly Roger put it a bit more simply:

They pay for slotting fees via price discounts. Same substance, different form.

Besides, Wal-Mart isn't going to be around forever. Remember that 30 years ago, the largest retailer in the U.S. was K-mart. How many of us still shop at K-mart? How about going back even further? What became of Woolworths and Ben Franklin stores? How about people ordering out of the Montgomery Ward catalogs? These critics don't seem to accept the reality that just because a company is big now, doesn't mean it can't be a small or medium-sized company later.

This is a good point. Walmart is so big, though, that the only thing scarier than Walmart is the fall of Walmart. If Walmart imploded, it would make Enron look like a lemonade stand going out of business. Literally millions of jobs worldwide would vanish. Small towns would go bankrupt, some counties & states, too. Countless contractors & manufacturers would be unable to repay loans. I really can't fathom the full implications. We have truly created a monster.

This whole Walmart subject is getting the thread waaay off topic, folks.

Everybody likes blaming Wal-Mart but nobody ever blames the people that shop there.

I think what is more troubling is that it is a bit less extreme than that; I think that there is an ultimate belief that with the reduction in income and wealth disparity, it follows that there will be more political equality. Just as a point of reference though, even in societies with more income and wealth equality, the systems of power still exist, but are not necessarily tied to money and they do work to exclude those that don't have whatever power and leadership is derived from (either family backround, favoritism, allegence to political ideology, etc etc).

Please, it's not the billionaire that spends a . .. .. .. . load of money thats the "useless drain on society" it's that schmuck living in the projects with 8 kids and is on welfare.

Many billionaieres get a ton of welfare. Look at all the taxpayer subsidies given to Wal-Mart or your typical sports stadium or big time real estate development project.

I think a great example would be if Walmart moved into an area that only had small indepedent chains (which realistically pretty much don't exist anymores),

Actually, there are still lots of independant regional chains & even single-store operaters. That's not to say that Walmart hasn't driven many extinct, though. They have. There are still ways to compete with Walmart. I've gotten pretty good at it, but I won't say how without a serious consulting fee.

and bought up those chains's suppliers in a way that amounted to "I'll pay you extra not to sell any supplies to my local competitors" in an effort to drive them out of business. That'd probably be judged a monopolistic move.

That would be illegal. You're describing a mafia or "good ole boy" situation. I've seen it happen over the years, but it's very unlikely Walmart would be that dumb. There are better ways to fight your competition.

They move in and undercut all competitors - costing Wal-Mart money during this phase - until the competitors are driven out of business. Then they resume regular pricing. This happens all the time.

Walmart isn't the only one. Grocers large & small do it to each other all the time these days. Times change. It never happened during my grandfather's era. Those old-timers knew it was better to stay off each others' toes & make money than lose money fighting for a busy intersection. I do miss the old days sometimes.

take that billionaires!

What's so funny?

 

[LucyDuke]

This requires some clarification. If I buy a can of corn for 27 cents & sell it for 33 cents, I am profiting at the expense of others. Is that bad?

There are some that create wealth out of nothing by developing a formerly useless resource or creating a new technology, but even they mark up their wares to profit. Besides the obvious (theft & robbery for example), when is greed bad?

Six cents per can doesn't sound unreasonable for the service you've provided in collecting the corn and making it available to your customers. (Where the hell can I find 33¢/can corn? I was thrilled when I found 50¢/can corn.)

Profiting at the expense of others by taking unfair advantage, then. I don't think I can back this up in a proper argument, since it's mostly just a gut feeling about fairness rather than something objective, so I don't really care to quibble about "what is unfair". We'll probably just disagree anyway.

Walmart isn't the only one. Grocers large & small do it to each other all the time these days. Times change. It never happened during my grandfather's era. Those old-timers knew it was better to stay off each others' toes & make money than lose money fighting for a busy intersection. I do miss the old days sometimes.

Right. And who usually wins? The guy that can afford to bleed the longest, no? How often does Wal-Mart get run out of town purely because of its prices?

 

[Maimonides]

Six cents per can doesn't sound unreasonable for the service you've provided in collecting the corn and making it available to your customers. (Where the hell can I find 33¢/can corn? I was thrilled when I found 50¢/can corn.)

I was throwing out a random example. 3/$1 canned veggies are unusual now. I rarely find them that low @ wholesale & save deals like that for big events like an anniversary sale.

Profiting at the expense of others by taking unfair advantage, then. I don't think I can back this up in a proper argument, since it's mostly just a gut feeling about fairness rather than something objective, so I don't really care to quibble about "what is unfair". We'll probably just disagree anyway.

It sounds like we're on common ground.

Right. And who usually wins? The guy that can afford to bleed the longest, no? How often does Wal-Mart get run out of town purely because of its prices?

No question. The side with the deepest pockets usually wins.

In North America, Walmart closes stores if they get unionized and if they have two stores located so closely that they are cannibalizing each others' sales. I've seen them close one store because of crime (internal theft, external theft, purse snatching, car theft in the lot, child abductions). That store got so bad, the police department built a jail cell in it's backroom because they couldn't transport apprehended criminals fast enough. I've never seen a competitor drive a Walmart store to shut it's doors.

 

[Richard Cribb]

This is neither a gloating nor a lamenting matter.
The losses of some wealthy parasites are not the core issue in all this.

I'm waiting for Obama to spread their wealth.

Congratulations, you just found your Godot.

To be honest I feal really sorry for those rich people. It most be awfull loosing that much money.

Save your compassion for the needy ones.

Someone who goes from being a billionaire to a hundred-millionaire is not in "misery;" they can still keep their "useless drain on society" lifestyle, they just have to cut back on the megalomania a bit. Misery requires much worse, like lacking a home or access to adequate healthcare.

Exactly.

Most folks with net worths of a hundred or so million dollars aren't meglomaniacs. Paris Hiltons and Trumps are the exceptions, not the rule. It's very tough to stay wealthy when you spend money on frivolous things.

I mean, knock on the clowns in the derivatives suits or the clowns from Detriot all you want, but the fact is that most business owners were acting responsible. A couple of bad apples taking advantage of a lax regulatory environment and rising tides screwed up everyone.

I don't care about clowns except for spending indecently much time on this board.

Cheer for the downfall of those who committed crimes or engaged in otherwise inappropriate conduct. Stop the freaking generalizations. Saying all rich people are lazy and you're glad they lost their wealth is exactly akin to saying that all poor people are lazy and you're glad they lost their welfare check. You are engaging in class warfare and classism, rather than helping to solve the problem.

Sheesh, maybe I am a third way proponent.[/QUOTE]
Everybody who gets involved in politics in a class society engage in welfare, not the least you with your passionate defence of the ruling class. I don't know if a quoatation I have seen floating around is genuine, so I am not going to cite it, but one of your great heroes supposedly said that there is a class warfare going on, and that his class is winning. But of course, the normal function of the bourgeoise state is not considered class warfare, that term is only used if you attack the privileged.
I think I will start a thread on this next week. That could prove educational.

I am very happy about it. As things stood his huge pile of accumulated wealth would only start to be shared out of his control (but under the control of foundations chosen by him) after he died. Now he "lost it"? Good, that means it got redistributed among other people earlier. If not the wealth - how much of these "losses" are virtual, overvalued stock prices going down? - then the power, that is quite real.

Wealthy man donating to charity after they die are only doing what they can to keep their fortunes at their service (of their memories) even after go feed the worms. They are "magnanimously offering" what death forces them to relinquish, and only after death catches them. Up until them they keep up their psychopathic accumulation of wealth, keep controlling it through foundations when they decide to start working on their "after-life" early, and virtually every dollar they amass is one dollar someone else earned for them, because no man can work in a lifetime for the equivalent of $50 billion. They are legalized robber barons.

A rich man worthy of admiration would be one who suddenly saw this and willingly relinquished the power and wealth he amassed, while alive and healthy. Can't think of many examples. That obscene accumulation should not have been possible in the first place. Without it we probably would not be in such a need for charities either.

That is the key.
Povery is not the problem, it is the regrettable function of the real problem.

Inno,

The wealth didn't get redistributed. IT IS GONE. It has been redistributed into nothingness. Most of that money was going to the Gates Foundation to fight Aids and Malaria in Africa. I guess you agree that its a good thing that billions of dollars that would have helped folks in Africa is gone forever.

As for your disdain of wealthy people and giving, the Library system in the United States was created by Andrew Carnegie. Libraries are free public repositories of all of our books, and anyone can use them. If that isn't a good use of resources, or a great way to give back money after you die, I don't know what is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_library

Carnegie libraries are libraries which were built with money donated by Scottish-American businessman and philanthropist Andrew Carnegie. More than 2,500 Carnegie libraries were built, including those belonging to public and university library systems. Carnegie earned the nickname Patron Saint of Libraries.

Books and libraries were always an important part of Carnegie's life, beginning with his childhood in Scotland. There he listened to readings and discussions of books from the Tradesman's Subscription Library which his father helped create. Later, in the United States, while working for the local telegraph company in Allegheny, Pennsylvania, Carnegie borrowed books from the personal library of Colonel James Anderson, who opened the collection to his workers every Saturday. In his autobiography, Carnegie credited Anderson with providing an opportunity for "working boys" (that some said should not be "entitled to books") to acquire the knowledge to improve themselves. [1] Carnegie's personal experience as an immigrant, who with help from others worked his way into a position of wealth, reinforced his belief in a society based on merit, where anyone who worked hard could become successful. This conviction was a major element of his philosophy of giving in general, and of his libraries as its best known expression. He was however aware that the actual society he lived in was not strictly meritocractic and that black people were sometimes denied access to his libraries in the Southern United States. Rather than insisting on his libraries being racially integrated, he built separate libraries for African Americans. For example, at Houston he funded a separate Colored Carnegie Library because of the difficulty black people had accessing the first Carnegie Library there.[2]

Carnegie believed in giving to the "industrious and ambitious; not those who need everything done for them, but those who, being most anxious and able to help themselves, deserve and will be benefited by help from others." [3] His other stated "best fields" for donating surplus wealth were universities, health care institutions, public parks, assembly halls, public swimming pools, and churches.

Nearly all of Carnegie's libraries were built according to "The Carnegie Formula", which required a kind of matching from the town that received the donation. It must:

* demonstrate the need for a public library;
* provide the building site; and
* annually provide ten percent of the cost of the library's construction to support its operation.

The amount of money donated to most communities was based on U.S. Census figures and averaged approximately $2 per person. While there were some communities that refused to seek a grant, as some people considered Carnegie's money to be tainted by his business practices or disdained the libraries as personal memorials, many communities were eager for the chance to build public institutions. James Bertram, Carnegie's personal secretary who ran the program, was never without requests.

The impact of Carnegie's library philanthropy was maximized by his timing. His offers came at a peak of town development and library expansion in the US. By 1890, many states had begun to take an active role in organizing public libraries, and the new buildings filled a tremendous need. Interest in libraries was also heightened at a crucial time in their early development by Carnegie's high profile and his genuine belief in their importance

While hundreds of the library buildings have been converted into museums, community centers, office buildings and residences—or demolished—more than half of those in the United States still serve their communities as libraries over a century after their construction, many in middle- to low-income neighborhoods. For example, Carnegie libraries still form the nucleus of the New York Public Library system in New York City, with 31 of the original 39 buildings still in operation. Also, the main library and seven branches of the Pittsburgh public library system are Carnegie libraries. The public library was named the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh.

So again Inno, what's so great about billions of dollars going poof that would've gone to fight Aids in Africa. Better yet, why don't you go to Africa and explain to the folks there that it's a GOOD THING that they won't be getting malaria nets.

Yay! Cheer for misfortune! Woohoo! If we're all gonna lose our wallets, make sure the rich lose theirs too! And the poor people! YAY! It's so awesome to cheer for bad things to happen to other people! Revolutionary!

I am reluctant to engage in a debate wit you on a medium dominated by your groupies, on the other hand this an the section below begs for some comments. So here I go, "losing" another forum debate.
Typical. Carnegie seems to be some sort of super hero for right wing toffs. A quick googling resulted in quite a few hagiographic documents and very little criticism. I guess Tocqueville indeed was right about America.
I just wonder if any body would have fancied working in one of mr.Carnegie's steel mills. 12 hours every day under risky conditions for a meagre salary. No unionizing. Perhaps even getting Hampsteaded.
Of course it is a good thing that mr. Carnegie later in his life remebred some of his chartist ancestry and tried to make amend for his earlier practices. But I think that was no consolation for those who sacrificed their life and health so that he could become a saint.
However, this is quite a good exposition of the deformed bourgeoise mindset and the contempt for common people.

Maybe I don't get it because I pulled myself up by my own bootstraps to be relatively wealthy, and now I've seen that wealth get reduced. Nevermind what uses I had planned for it (starting up a PF scholarship, among others). Nope.

And here is a bit more of it. Either one is very, very naive or one has some ideological agenda (or both) if one really believes that one can get anywhere only through one's own efforts.

You now have stated that you hate me. Let me tell you my story then. My father's family immigrated to the US to avoid Stalin's Death Squads. They made shoes. My dad worked on telephone pole lines. What a rich family I come from! I worked my way through college, working full time and going to school full time. I've held every horrible retail and fast food job there is. I got an education, and parlayed that into a pretty nice career. We own our home, so that makes me a property own. So congrats buddy, you hate someone who pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps. There's millions of folks like me. I can't believe you'd blindly state that I didn't pull myself up when you don't know me from Adam in the real world. Very arrogant of you, sir.

Yes I get it. I think everybody does. After all, you love to tell this story. You the the best, captain Flashheart. The chair gets an orgasm if you only sit down on it.
However, rhetorics and emotions aside, it is a bit sad. Sad because any adult should rise above to trumping one's effort so often on a board dominated by unteenagers. Sad, because this is not the topic here. Sad because it betrays a lack of understanding of the trivial fact that without a slice of luck nobody, however talented will be able to realize their potential in any sort of privilege society. Sad because somebody claiming to come from modest ancestry has so little class conscience. I guess that could be the the difference of coming from peasant stock and industrial worker stock though.
And just for the record. I don't hate you. But I have only contempt for your mentality.

FINALLY, if you looked up the definition of prejudice, then yes, you are very much prejudiced if you hate someone for owning private property. It's the same darn thing as hating someone because of their skin color, they can hit a baseball better than you, or because they have big boobs and you don't.

No it is not the "ame darn thing" Not at all. And Ithink you are aware of that yourself.

 

[JerichoHill]

So this is the debate tactic? Belittle the accomplishments of someone who's done pretty decently in life? Denigrate the creation of a major public works project because it happened late in a man's life, or because the working conditions weren't pristine (hey, nothing was back then, but it sure beat subsistence farming.

And yes, hating someone JUST because they have more wealth than you is the same damn thing as hating someone who is of a different race.

So call me naive Luce. Because I do believe "one can get anywhere through one's own efforts" And that's the criticial difference between you and I Luce. You make excuses as to why someone can't get a better standing in life, thus blaming the "system." Our world isn't perfect, that is for sure, but there is nothing stopping someone who is steadfastly determined from improving their lot in life.

PS: I tell my life story repeatedly because it needs to be heard. YES, you can create a better life. YES, it takes alot of hard work. YES, you will have setbacks. But, YES, you can.

 

[amadeus]

But I have only contempt for your mentality

We should all be so lucky as to have a get-up-and-go mentality like Jericho, as opposed to your self-loathing, unaccomplished hand-wringing.