Amazon vs. Walmart: A Graphic Look at the Numbers on Prime Day

Amazon vs. Walmart: A Graphic Look at the Numbers on Prime Day

An Inc driver stands next to an Amazon delivery truck in Los Angeles, California, U.S., May 21, 2016. REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson
Lucy Nicholson
By Michael Rainey

Amazon’s campaign to create a Christmas-in-July shopping frenzy online seemed to be working on Wednesday, if the sheer number of blog posts debating the pros and cons of its big sales event are any measure.

Marking the company’s 20th anniversary while promoting Amazon Prime -- the $99 a year program which provides free shipping, online video and other perks -- Prime Day promises “more deals than Black Friday,” according to the retailing giant.

While some shoppers complained about lackluster offerings, critics were missing the point. Amazon’s likely goal was not to boost revenues through a massive sale, but to sell more Amazon Prime memberships. As always, Amazon has its eye on the prize of becoming the world’s largest retailer.

Walmart, the current retailer champion, didn’t the challenge sitting down, announcing its own massive online sale beginning July 15. It looks like the battle is on for control of the mass market online shopping space.

How do the two retailing giants stack up? This graphic from WebpageFX provides some basic facts.

Amazon vs. Walmart

Created by WebpageFX

Chart of the Day: Boosting Corporate Tax Revenues

By The Fiscal Times Staff

The leading candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination have all proposed increasing taxes on corporations, including raising income tax rates to levels ranging from 25% to 35%, up from the current 21% imposed by the Republican tax cuts in 2017. With Bernie Sanders leading the way at $3.9 trillion, here’s how much revenue the higher proposed corporate taxes, along with additional proposed surtaxes and reduced tax breaks, would generate over a decade, according to calculations by the right-leaning Tax Foundation, highlighted Wednesday by Bloomberg News.

Chart of the Day: Discretionary Spending Droops

By The Fiscal Times Staff

The federal government’s total non-defense discretionary spending – which covers everything from education and national parks to veterans’ medical care and low-income housing assistance – equals 3.2% of GDP in 2020, near historic lows going back to 1962, according to an analysis this week from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Chart of the Week: Trump Adds $4.7 Trillion in Debt

By The Fiscal Times Staff

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated this week that President Trump has now signed legislation that will add a total of $4.7 trillion to the national debt between 2017 and 2029. Tax cuts and spending increases account for similar portions of the projected increase, though if the individual tax cuts in the 2017 Republican overhaul are extended beyond their current expiration date at the end of 2025, they would add another $1 trillion in debt through 2029.

Chart of the Day: The Long Decline in Interest Rates

Wall Street slips, Dow posts biggest weekly loss of 2013
By The Fiscal Times Staff

Are interest rates destined to move higher, increasing the cost of private and public debt? While many experts believe that higher rates are all but inevitable, historian Paul Schmelzing argues that today’s low-interest environment is consistent with a long-term trend stretching back 600 years.

The chart “shows a clear historical downtrend, with rates falling about 1% every 60 years to near zero today,” says Bloomberg’s Aaron Brown. “Rates do tend to revert to a mean, but that mean seems to be declining.”

Chart of the Day: Drug Price Plans Compared

By The Fiscal Times Staff

Lawmakers are considering three separate bills that are intended to reduce the cost of prescription drugs. Here’s an overview of the proposals, from a series of charts produced by the Kaiser Family Foundation this week. An interesting detail highlighted in another chart: 88% of voters – including 92% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans – want to give the government the power to negotiate prices with drug companies.