Affiliate Marketing Secrets

Before you begin, I want to let you know this is a serious topic. This is for some trivia for economic majors. Please keep in mind you should have some economic background before you read this. If you want to give it a try then read everything slowly and thoroughly. PLEASE don’t leave any response as “too long I didn’t read everything blablabla”, sorry about my grammar
I know the saying that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and it caught my attention that I know how the rich can’t spend all their savings amassed from corporation business, even if they are taxed certain percentage of their earnings to help poor people get by.
I know the saying that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and it caught my attention that I know how the rich can’t spend all their savings amassed from corporation business, even if they are taxed certain percentage of their earnings to help poor people get by.
I know simple economic models help demonstrate the problem. Let me know if I am wrong. For simplicity we will start without a government.
Example 1.
Let’s say in the economy there is only 2 dollars, and there are 2 people and each have 1 dollar.
Person A has the secret trade to grow apples but needs land. Person B has the land and housing acquired through inherency. Thus person A pays 1 dollar for the use of his land to grow unlimited apple as well sleep in it shared by person B. Person B in return pays 1 dollar to eat his apple. Thus the money velocity is 1. No one is in debt. No wealth is gained.
Example 2.
Let’s say there are 3 people now. And there is 3 dollar in the economy and each have 1 dollar. Person C is a low IQ laborer, and because he has 1 dollar to spend he will always be broke (in debt) after spending that 1 dollar on either housing or food. Either way Person C is screwed.
Example 3.
Let’s say there are 4 people now, and each have 25 dollar. So there is (25×4) 100 dollar in the economy. Person A still pays 1 dollar for land and sells apple at 1 dollar each, and Person B still charges 1 dollar per person for housing. However Person C and D are willing to work to provide for food and housing, and also demands higher wages. Even If Person C and D work for labor at 1 dollar, they can only pay for either food or shelter. Because of Market theory that as there is more demand, price will rise, therefore there’s an incentive for “A” to sell apple at a higher price let’s say 2 dollar. Because of our desire to survive, C and D will demand higher wages, and then “A” demands even higher prices to compensate for the labor. Person B is fine as long as he can feed himself. This vicious cycle continues. Therefore Person A and B will always amass wealth while Person C and D therefore be spending from their savings until they are broke, meaning they will always be poor.
Example 4.
Let’s say there are 5 people now. Each have 20 dollar. So there is (20×5) 100 dollar in the economy. Because Person C and D are broke. There is an incentive for them to steal. ONLY when the stealing starts, Person A hires person E to work as a police man to safeguard the asset paying him 2 dollar, minimum sustainment. Thus Person A and B will always accumulate wealth, Person C and D will suffer the same faith of poverty. Person E will neither go up or down the wealth ladder.
Example 5.
Let’s say there are is still 6 primary people and 100 other people who are Low IQ laborer, who will still suffer the same faith of Person C and D, just in the matter of moment. The money supply is a lot more now, almost uncountable Person F sees that the world is unjustified and therefore revolt and later a government is form. Person F is a government official and requires the merchant to pay taxes to compensate for the housing, therefore Laborers are only working for food 1 dollar labor for 1 dollar apple, while Person B is also taxed from housing to supply better jobs at better wage to build railroad, sewers, buildings, schools. Keep in mind that not government cannot compensate everyone, therefore some will always be unemployment and broke. While some Low IQ laborers are lucky to acquire free education to get the better paying jobs. Person F is in the safe zone of being a government official.
For now keep in mind there is no bank for money multiplier, bank ratio, money printing, etc. Even if there is, it does not affect the poor people, even if they have savings, the interest is miniscule. Person A will still have more interest base on his large Capital acquired from all the people who used up their savings. There is no longer equality.

From the sixteenth to the early nineteenth centuries, Westerners were interested in Chinese markets chiefly
a. to acquire larger amounts of Chinese manufactured goods.
b. to acquire raw materials and cheap labor.
c. to sell cheap goods to the masses.
d. to gain access to China’s technological secrets.

*Okay, I’ve figured this out…the question was too long, and YahooAnswers cut me off. Sorry for the confusion.*
A friend of a friend was selected for promotion to management at the Wal-Mart where he worked. They drove him to another building nearby, separate from the store, led him into a room – all the while in a very hush-hush, top secret manner – and there he was told to watch a training video. They also made it clear to him that he was not, under any circumstances, to share with others what he had seen in this video. What he did see, in that video, he described as such blatant propaganda, specifically against labor unions, that he was instantly rendered unable to stomach the idea of management, period. He turned down the position. I believe I was even informed that he may have just quit his job entirely. Not sure about that part, this is something I was told about several months ago.
At least in my area, there are attorneys who have been contacted with requests to file a lawsuit against Wal-Mart. Did they take any of these cases? NO. Why? Because Wal-Mart is so big, so powerful, that any isolated lawsuit would stretch on for years, whether or not the plaintiff won at all, and eventually force the plaintiff into sleeping in a cardboard box on the street, because the legal fees alone would destroy their pocketbooks. These attorneys seemed to care too much about the clientele to even bother with such a risk. This is why the class-action suit mentioned above is a class-action suit in the first place…it is the only truly effective fight against such a behemoth. The company remarked that they would find it easier [whatever they mean by that] to treat every case individually, and that seems to tie in with the truth about their “ethics”…or lack thereof…does it not?
Am I the only one who feels that this company, if not others [Target, KMart, others…] is behaving as the true enemy of Capitalism? Is it all a sign that Wal-Mart is a problem for this country [depending on how problematic we view one economic system over another]? Child labor, something that would NEVER happen in America, unless a few rotten incidents happened to slip through the cracks, partnership with communist countries, mistreatment of employees, destruction in any other form it chooses to implement for the sake of itself?