# Ultra rich don't get it............



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Interesting article on an art gallery built by a member of the Walton family.

Several things to note.............

The 6 members of the Walton family, of Sam Walton - Walmart fame, have more wealth than the combined bottom 30% of Americans..............or 120,000,000 people.

The irony in some of the art is evident as it celebrates women in the workforce..........while Walmart keeps people working less than 24 hours a week so they don't receive any health benefits. Walmart also has employees living in their cars on their parking lots.....in warm climates, I would presume.

This article is a good example of the failure of capitalism for many people. The Waltons would classify as the "job creators" the Republicans are always talking about.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...al-blight-commentary-by-jeffrey-goldberg.html


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

Same could be said of everyone driving a Ferrari... or a Benz... or driving a car at all. While she didn't earn the money, it was her father's wish for her to have it, so she's free to spend on whatever she wants unfortunately. 

While I'd like to see some more extensive form of tax on transfers of wealth, once you have accumulated wealth, no one should be allowed to dictate how it's spent.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Dmoney said:


> While I'd like to see some more extensive form of tax on transfers of wealth, once you have accumulated wealth, no one should be allowed to dictate how it's spent.


What you are saying is that a tax on assets is off the table. Yet there is plenty of indications that assets need to be considered. Property tax no longer relates to services provided, for example. And means tests might need to consider more than income in the future. Never say never.


----------



## sensfan15 (Jul 13, 2011)

The debt based monetary system is designed to transfer all the wealth to a small percentage of the population. People are finally starting to clue in and a voice is growing. In time, there is no doubt in my mind that as humans continue to evolve the current system will no longer be in place...


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

The ultra rich are the only ones who get it, and Walmart probably doesn't hold a candle to them.

The "ultra rich" are busy buying up state owned profitable assets in war torn countries or those hit by natural disasters. Then also taking cost-plus reconstruction contracts to rebuild the social programs, subcontracting them to subcontractors who import cheap labour and do next to nothing. When we call their endless shell games they simply point out there is no regulation/law in a globalized market. Their connections in international organizations, politicians and NGOs keep the charade going

Even if the rest of us caught on, it's irreversible without an act of war, because like Dmoney says you can't "dictate how someone's private property should be spent" That's the point, the world is being sold to the ultra rich so that they control it. What good is a democracy if the public controls nothing?


----------



## hystat (Jun 18, 2010)

mode3sour said:


> What good is a democracy if the public controls nothing?


whether real or an illusion, democracy keeps us getting up in the morning and going to work... 

As far as the walton's go, well
Sam Walton grew up poorer than I could ever be.


----------



## hystat (Jun 18, 2010)

sags said:


> Walmart also has employees living in their cars on their parking lots...


I used to commute 3 hours a day. I asked if I could sleep in a conversion van in the parking lot at my work. 
My employer said no. not as accommodating as WalMart.

I had a coworker that used to sleep in his car once in a while.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

hystat said:


> whether real or an illusion, democracy keeps us getting up in the morning and going to work...
> 
> As far as the walton's go, well
> Sam Walton grew up poorer than I could ever be.


I read Sam Walton's story..and yes, he grew up very poor in Bentonville Arkansas, where he borrowed money to take over the lease of a "Five and Dime" that had moved to larger premises (or gone out of business). 

He "squeezed everyone" to allow as much as he could save to get his business started, including putting in his own
money, borrowed family money, and muscle sweat equity to get the business going and growing. 

His competitors... right from the start, tried to make his business fail..the landlord even raising the rent and
then refusing to negotiate when Sam tried to buy extra
time until the store finally turned a profit...but he persevered and as their slogan goes "we sell for less"..his business grew. Then he opened up another store in a area of Ark, where there was no competition and that prospered.
He worked pretty much 24/7 and was so tired driving to his 3 stores by that time to keep the employees motivated
(and delivering items that he could truck himself), that he fell asleep and drove off the road and had a minor injury.

Later on as his business expanded from Arkansas into neigboring states, he couldn't hack the long distance night driving anymore and trained for a pilots license so he could fly from city to city..because he wanted to be at each store to verify what was sold and what orders need to be
placed. He also opened up a distribution centre..a concept
that was new in that area of Arkansas. 

I thought it was a great story of rags to riches..where atg least back then, you could get rich if you wanted to work hard at it...but not without many ups and downs, like in any upstart business. Interesting thing during one
time (80s?) where he represented his Walmart in front of congressional committee on unfair competition, (ie: buying from asian countries and selling for less than his competitors..he brought in some examples of "Made in
America" hand towels and the like.. and promoted to
Congress that his business buys American made products where possible.

Not sure if that still holds true today..but maybe they do with some products like car batteries etc.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

hystat said:


> I used to commute 3 hours a day. I asked if I could sleep in a conversion van in the parking lot at my work.
> My employer said no. not as accommodating as WalMart.
> 
> I had a coworker that used to sleep in his car once in a while.


Sam Walton spent many a night driving to his stores (in the early years), and sleeping in his truck in front of his store to catch up on some badly needed sleep..so maybe that's why at least in the US..Walmart tolerates
people pulling up and spending the night in their RV. After all,* that *was part of Walmart's success story in the formative years.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

mode3sour said:


> The ultra rich are the only ones who get it, and Walmart probably doesn't hold a candle to them.
> 
> That's the point, the world is being sold to the ultra rich so that they control it. What good is a democracy if the public controls nothing?


Democracy as we know it only exists on gov't papers. In business the rich and ultra rich (ie; Bill Gates/Warren Buffett and many others like them in the US) control the
economy. In America, 10% or so of the population control 80-90% of the wealth..the rest distributed amongst "middle America". The poor have nothing
and will continue to have nothing.

But even if this is a capitalist society method of operation..the former "evil empire" (communist system) was no better..a few rich oligarchs controlled the output of the state..the working poor just got subsistent wages
and inspite of their hard efforts..there was NO credit or consumer goods available to them. 
Where did the GDP of the communist state end up?...
mostly making war materials during the cold war era and selling them to countries that could afford them...Egypt under Nassar/Cuba under Castro..etc.

http://www.orwelltoday.com/redriding.shtml

So just like there is no true democracy, the other forms of gov't (communist/facist) are no better. In most cases a single dictator controls all the wealth of the country. 

Nazi Germany, Socialist Italy pre WWII....now the Arab states/Iran and a few South American countries as well.


----------



## sensfan15 (Jul 13, 2011)

Are we really that stiffled to believe that capitalism, communism, fascism, and socialism are the only choices we have?

Oh wait, yes we are...


----------



## Square Root (Jan 30, 2010)

sensfan15 said:


> The debt based monetary system is designed to transfer all the wealth to a small percentage of the population. People are finally starting to clue in and a voice is growing. In time, there is no doubt in my mind that as humans continue to evolve the current system will no longer be in place...


No it wasn't designed for this. Plenty of doubt in my mind.


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

sensfan15 said:


> Are we really that stiffled to believe that capitalism, communism, fascism, and socialism are the only choices we have?
> 
> Oh wait, yes we are...


There's always hippyism.

In theory, many systems are great... who doesn't love the concept of to each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities?

Who doesn't love the idea that hard work and merit will get you to the top?

Unfortunately in any system the deck is stacked for those with power so as to retain power. Any system can and will be corrupted, it's not the system that is to blame.


----------



## kaleb0 (Apr 26, 2011)

I think eventually we'll be able to automate nearly everything so that human workers will be all but obsolete. Some people say "There's always got to be a human to complain to" etc. but in a decade or two I wouldn't doubt if A.I. evolves enough to the point where even your customer service call is _more efficiently_ handled by a robot than by a real person - or in other words, that said robot sounds human enough that no one knows the difference.

'automation' has long been feared by people in labour, etc. but I think it's better if we embrace it and start thinking ahead as to how the world might work in a world where human workers are no longer needed or otherwise replaceable with machines.

One thing I'm mostly certain of is that the current money system would struggle to work for the vast majority of the population in such a world.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Sam Walton (Walmart) story may be a good synopsis of what went wrong in America over the course of time.

Walton demanded loyalty and hard work from his employees, he also promised to be a different kind of employer. "Fair and just" were words that permeated the Walmart culture under Walton.

He promised profit sharing, low but sustainable wages, and a prosperous retirement for long term employees. He introduced time and a half pay for weekend work and health benefits.

Those who worked and retired while Walton was still operating the company did well, but since his passing the corporate culture changed dramatically over the years.

Employees are treated as a necessary and evil cost, to be eliminated at every opportunity. 

Wages have been kept at the lowest levels, profit sharing was eliminated, and health benefits have been reduced or eliminated.

All have taken place, while the 6 remaining members of the Walton family have become outrageously wealthy.

In part, their combined wealth, was gained from taking it away from their employees.

When 6 people in one family own more wealth than the bottom 1/3 of all Americans, what is to be gained by either "them" or "society"?

For what earthly purpose does one family need 93 Bililon dollars?

This absurd scenario is being carried out across America.......and the world for that matter.

We hear of "wealthy Asians" buying property in Vancouver. They are the 1% of the Chinese people. The other 99% still live in abject poverty.

As history has shown, the system will continue until it can't anymore. It will eventually break down under the weight of it's own greed. 

What will replace it.........is anyone's guess.


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

kcowan said:


> What you are saying is that a tax on assets is off the table. Yet there is plenty of indications that assets need to be considered. Property tax no longer relates to services provided, for example. And means tests might need to consider more than income in the future. Never say never.


Well I'd like to a see a system that doesn't provide a disincentive to people working hard and accumulating a huge amount of wealth. At the same time, we need to realize that many people work as hard as they do to accumulate wealth to provide their children with a better life. 

However, leaving a kid $20 billion is different than leaving someone $1 million or $10 million. There should be some significant form of tax on huge wealth transfers.

Taxing wealth is an option, but it would have to be an extremely low % so wealth can grow, otherwise no one will aspire to be wealthy. Maybe 0.25% of wealth over X amount.

At the same time, I'm not sure giving the government the opportunity to tax more will change anything... they'll just find a way to waste it. 

When all is said and done, I'm sure by spending this $1 Bn on building and staffing the museum, more jobs etc. were created than had it sat in a bank account. Why is that necessarily a bad thing?


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Dmoney said:


> When all is said and done, I'm sure by spending this $1 Bn on building and staffing the museum, more jobs etc. were created than had it sat in a bank account. Why is that necessarily a bad thing?


What bothers me is when an immigrant spends $2 million on a house, puts a new Mercedes in the garage, then installs Grandma and the kids and applies for social assistance while he returns to China/Iran. This has been happening for over 25 years...


----------



## DanFo (Apr 9, 2011)

The story seems a farce to me. Sure she has a lot of stock and is a large % voting member..but she has little to do with the overall outcome of the Walmart empire..(Her 2 brother seems to be the only ones directly involved).... She was a finance person by education and career the artical just seems to want to demonize her for her fathers successes. She has given back in different ways..can she do more sure but why?? because the poorer ppl say so?? Would there not have been estate taxes and such when the initial wealth was passed on down??


----------

