internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
List archive
- From: "Shea Tisdale" <shea AT sheatisdale.com>
- To: "'Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/'" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: RE: [internetworkers] Re: Wal-Mart
- Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:52:19 -0400
Walmart employees more people than any other company in the US.
And they have the highest revenue of any company in America.
Oh, and they are the 8th largest trading partner with China. Just
edging out Britain and Russia.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: internetworkers-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:internetworkers-
> bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of James Manning
> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 1:39 PM
> To: 'Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/'
> Subject: [internetworkers] Re: Wal-Mart
>
> > > The fact that they are the largest company in America is just
scary.
> >
> > I've always wondered - what does it mean to be largest?
>
> As a sub-question, what does "largest company in America" mean?
>
> Company whose United-States-based (employees/assets/offices) are
maximal?
>
> OR
>
> Company whose global assets are maximal, then restricted to ones with
> US headquarters?
>
> IOW, is it based solely on the corporate assets held within America?
>
> Is "largest company in America" not go to an IBM, for instance (dunno
> what the comparative market caps are, and I'm not going to check :)
> because while their overall numbers may be higher than Wal-Mart, their
> intra-America ones are lower? Is an IBM (or whoever) invalidated from
> that list for having foreign offices in the first place?
>
> Meaningless rambles as I wait for a compile :)
> --
> James Manning <http://www.sublogic.com/james/>
> GPG Key fingerprint = B913 2FBD 14A9 CE18 B2B7 9C8E A0BF B026 EEBB
F6E4
> ---
> Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site!
> http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
> You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list
> To unsubscribe visit
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/internetworkers
-
[internetworkers] Re: Re: Pop culture was PART 2: history lesson
, (continued)
-
[internetworkers] Re: Re: Pop culture was PART 2: history lesson,
James Manning, 10/23/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: Re: Pop culture was PART 2: history lesson, Ruth Suehle, 10/23/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: Pop culture was PART 2: history lesson, Steven Champeon, 10/23/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Pop culture was PART 2: history lesson, Diana Duncan, 10/23/2003
-
Re: [internetworkers] Pop culture was PART 2: history lesson,
childers . paula, 10/23/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Pop culture was PART 2: history lesson, Michael Williams, 10/23/2003
-
Re: [internetworkers] Pop culture was PART 2: history lesson,
childers . paula, 10/23/2003
-
[internetworkers] Wal-Mart,
Shea Tisdale, 10/23/2003
-
[internetworkers] Re: Wal-Mart,
James Manning, 10/23/2003
-
[internetworkers] Re: Wal-Mart,
James Manning, 10/23/2003
- RE: [internetworkers] Re: Wal-Mart, Shea Tisdale, 10/23/2003
-
[internetworkers] Re: Wal-Mart,
James Manning, 10/23/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Wal-Mart, Ruth Suehle, 10/23/2003
-
[internetworkers] Re: Wal-Mart,
James Manning, 10/23/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Pop culture was PART 2: history lesson, Michael Williams, 10/23/2003
-
[internetworkers] Wal-Mart,
Shea Tisdale, 10/23/2003
-
[internetworkers] Re: Re: Pop culture was PART 2: history lesson,
James Manning, 10/23/2003
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.