Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter O'Brien who wrote (347653)	1/25/2003 1:32:09 AM
From: cosmicforce	Respond to of 769670

Actually, I think Target is generally a better value than Wal-mart and Wal-mart isn't any cheaper on many items of same quality. They might be cheaper on some items. And if price is all that matters, buy cubic zirconia. It actually out shines diamonds, is almost as hard and is a fraction of the price. What I want to know is how Wal-mart can get all those people with southern accents to work there for minimum wage? In California?

To: Peter O'Brien who wrote (347653)	1/25/2003 3:23:40 AM
From: Steve Dietrich	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

<<Wal-mart and Southwest airlines have the LOWEST prices. They also have the largest SURPLUSES (i.e., profits) in their respective industries.>> So would you say if they lowered prices further, their profits would go even higher? Would zero prices yield infinite profits? In government the exact opposite of what you assert is true. Reagan cut taxes: revenues fell and deficits exploded. Clinton raised taxes: revenue soared and deficits virtually disappeared. Bush cut taxes: revenue is dropping and deficits are exploding again. A perfect correlation and the exact opposite of what you claim to be true. In fact Federal revenue grew faster under Jimmy Carter than it did under Ronald Reagan. And of course it grew much faster under Clinton than under Reagan. Your theory is severely lacking. Steve