|
MiddleOne posted:Didn't someone link an article explaining what the concrete long-term consequences of markets turning into monopolies and duopolies are just a few pages ago? The washing machine one. I just skimmed back and couldn't find this. Anyone got a link? I'm interested to read it.
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 11:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 05:57 |
|
|
I thought Amazon was 5% of retail in the US, not globally. I really doubt they have more global share than Walmart.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 12:25
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:I trust Amazon. lol.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 12:30
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Competition is what provides abundant choices and low prices. That's why you should care. "Who cares if everyone else is slowly driven out of business so long as prices are low right now" is surely not what you mean to say, but it's what you're saying I am unclear of what competition you'd like, if "amazon entering the market and selling things at lower prices" isn't it. Do you mean you want competition but you don't want anyone to actually compete because if people compete and competition is just some magical essence that two companies existing creates or something? Because again, you can't possibly be worried about a monopoly situation on things like whisks and staplers that is amazon basics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 13:02
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I thought Amazon was 5% of retail in the US, not globally. I really doubt they have more global share than Walmart. Online retail is a big slice of the global retail market, so that wouldn't surprise me, no one comes close to Amazon in that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 13:35
|
|
|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:Online retail is a big slice of the global retail market, so that wouldn't surprise me, no one comes close to Amazon in that. Walmart is like three times bigger than Amazon
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 14:16
|
|
|
Amazon Story Time: My wife works for a transportation company and Amazon forced them into a sweet-heart deal where they basically get to take their trucks and leave them anywhere. She hates them, and for years we couldn't get Amazon Prime. Then the wedding came and she needed a picture frame in two days. She became an instant convert when it was free and now it's gone now. I should have used it more. That's the story.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 15:06
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I'm complaining about the abuses of capitalism, not celebrating them, you illiterate dumbfuck. Do you even know who that is? Demanding "competition" to trickle down hypothesis benefits is capitalism worship. It is not anti consumer to have store brand and place this prominent. I refer again to the Aldi chains, I believe it is even popular in Americas now so you can visit one. They are very popular and almost every product is store brand. My condolence on your apparent towel brand investment failing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 15:47
|
|
|
"global retail" is not a market individual consumers select from.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 16:11
|
|
|
Amazon can be a huge piece of poo poo but having lower priced commodity goods prominent on their store front is pretty low on the chain of things to worry about from them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 16:16
|
|
|
We must bust the trusts
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 17:10
|
|
|
Quark, I just wanted to say that I understand where you are coming from. I think that, while the problem raised isn't extreme right now, you are justifiably concerned about Amazon's position of power and how things can devolve quickly. The thing that people don't realise is that Amazon is no longer a part of the market - if they were, they would only sell Amazon-brand products - they are the market and are in a position of power that will, as is the nature of capitalism, be abused for their benefit to the detriment of everyone else, including their "partners". I think that other people are either wilfully not engaging with your argument or, most likely, are responding in a "it's not currently causing me a problem, therefore why do you care?" in a narcissistic and short-sighted way. In brief, I sympathise. It's for that same reason that I stopped interacting with Zackack just a page or two ago. His only counterargument was essentially "Well, my wife's fine with it" while I was trying to speak broadly about a decline in benefits combined with a significant increase in price for a service offered by a ludicrously profitable company. Once he essentially insulted/chastised me for buying video games I realised that I was being patronised, which I don't appreciate and made me accept that further constructive debate was a waste.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 19:50
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I am unclear of what competition you'd like, if "amazon entering the market and selling things at lower prices" isn't it. if you think that people are upset because Amazon is selling their own line of products then you aren't paying attention, I don't know how to circumvent that level of lazy skimming
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 20:01
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:Demanding "competition" to trickle down hypothesis benefits is capitalism worship. You're just mashing together words at this point. Acknowledgement that a competitive commodity market reduces prices is not capitalism worship, it's an observation from the data; capitalism is what arises from that kind of observation. And throwing in "trickle down" in a discussion about commodities makes you look like an idiot
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 20:04
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Acknowledgement that a competitive commodity market reduces prices is not capitalism worship, it's an observation from the data; capitalism is what arises from that kind of observation. Well does it or doesn't it? Amazon basic is the new competitor, is it good or bad for consumers?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 20:13
|
|
|
use the social security funds to buy amazon , now it's nationalized and the social safety net is automatically funded via prime membership. pass a law to adjust the prime membership cost for inflation and make it also automatically register you to vote
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 20:14
|
|
|
Hand Row posted:Walmart is like three times bigger than Amazon Yes, but not in the online retail market, where it has like 4% of the market vs. Amazon's 50%. Which is what I said in my post. No one comes close to Amazon in the online retail market.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 20:15
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Well does it or doesn't it? Amazon basic is the new competitor, is it good or bad for consumers? it is bad for consumers because it is against consumers interest to have a single billionaire-owned panopticon jacking itself off via the rules of capitalism, and amazon basic as a loss-leader with automatic primary placement in the store is something that currently existing regulations and politicians are absolutely 0% equipped to address. but yes you can get cheap phone chargers and towels and poo poo it's dope
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 20:16
|
|
|
I apologize for the lack of capital letters in my previous posts. Forgive me, this is one of a few non-CSPAM bookmarked threads I have. Please imagine there are the appropriate punctuation above, thank you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 20:18
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Well does it or doesn't it? Amazon basic is the new competitor, is it good or bad for consumers? If you're going to pretend that all Amazon is doing is offering fairly-priced products on the marketplace then I guess everything is fine! We'll all just shove our head in the sand and pretend that Amazon isn't doing anything but that
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:Quark, I just wanted to say that I understand where you are coming from. I think that, while the problem raised isn't extreme right now, you are justifiably concerned about Amazon's position of power and how things can devolve quickly. The thing that people don't realise is that Amazon is no longer a part of the market - if they were, they would only sell Amazon-brand products - they are the market and are in a position of power that will, as is the nature of capitalism, be abused for their benefit to the detriment of everyone else, including their "partners". No, instead you decided to stamp your feet and get pouty while making tangential complaints about Amazon, instead of doing the smart thing and admitting that your example was poor and finding a much better one. Here, I'll even do it for you using video games: Amazon used to be very competitive on video game pricing (AmazonTony days) but over the years as competition has dwindled and customers became entrenched into defaulting to Amazon for shopping it's obvious that Amazon now only feels the need to, at best, match the price of a competitor instead of competing for my business.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 20:30
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:If you're going to pretend that all Amazon is doing is offering fairly-priced products on the marketplace then I guess everything is fine! We'll all just shove our head in the sand and pretend that Amazon isn't doing anything but that Is the idea that we should put our heads in the sand and pretend whoever the billion dollar company that is the current leader in towel sales (walmart probably) is some sainted angel that keeps the prices low to be nice and it's only now that amazon is around that the idea of capitalism was invented? Having more big companies competing seems as good as anything could be and worrying that someday one might win a monopoly is as true as worrying no one will compete and one will win a monopoly. Right now the big companies competing is better than that not happening.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 20:56
|
|
|
IDK, the main effect of generic brands is tanking the profit margins of poorly-differentiated commodity products, which can be avoided by... innovating better-differentiated products.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 21:10
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:You're just mashing together words at this point. Acknowledgement that a competitive commodity market reduces prices is not capitalism worship, it's an observation from the data; capitalism is what arises from that kind of observation. And throwing in "trickle down" in a discussion about commodities makes you look like an idiot So you worship capitalism when it suits you, but it is not to be mentioned. So typical. Store making its house brand is part of competition. It is expected, and often a store is to preferentially place its house brand. Some store even are primarily house brand. You not once explain why this bad when Amazon do it. You just say well they will try to take over - so does every other towel company try to take over. So does every company try , that is supposed competition us poor should thank our gracious second place towel seller for, it is to laugh. JustJeff88 posted:Quark, I just wanted to say that I understand where you are coming from. I think that, while the problem raised isn't extreme right now, you are justifiably concerned about Amazon's position of power and how things can devolve quickly. The thing that people don't realise is that Amazon is no longer a part of the market - if they were, they would only sell Amazon-brand products - they are the market and are in a position of power that will, as is the nature of capitalism, be abused for their benefit to the detriment of everyone else, including their "partners". You are not aware Prime adds in much other products over the years? You can just not purchase it. I do not have it, much of its streaming offerings are different and worse here than in America and the shipping advantage is not great. It is only €49 a year here as partial compensation. I do not even understand the whole complaint, Amazon price for service should never change if services change??
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 21:11
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Is the idea that we should put our heads in the sand and pretend whoever the billion dollar company that is the current leader in towel sales (walmart probably) is some sainted angel that keeps the prices low to be nice and it's only now that amazon is around that the idea of capitalism was invented? Having more big companies competing seems as good as anything could be and worrying that someday one might win a monopoly is as true as worrying no one will compete and one will win a monopoly. Right now the big companies competing is better than that not happening. No one has ever complained about Walmart before
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 21:18
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Well does it or doesn't it? Amazon basic is the new competitor, is it good or bad for consumers? If your analysis stops at "what makes prices lowest" then go away.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 21:20
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:So you worship capitalism when it suits you, but it is not to be mentioned. So typical. Again you are showing that you are too soft-brained to differentiate between worship and observation
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 21:21
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Again you are showing that you are too soft-brained to differentiate between worship and observation I would like to amend an earlier post: Under no circumstances do you "have to acknowledge the existence of" reality.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 21:24
|
|
|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:Yes, but not in the online retail market, where it has like 4% of the market vs. Amazon's 50%. Which is what I said in my post. No one comes close to Amazon in the online retail market. And you were using that point to say that’s how you could believe Amazon is 5% vs Walmart’s 2. But it’s not even close to true because ecom is nowhere near that large in sales yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 21:25
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Again you are showing that you are too soft-brained to differentiate between worship and observation But what you say you observe, it does not occur. The only reason to believe it does is worship of capitalism. Will you ever address the long standing use of house brands for commodity product in real stores?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 21:30
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:No one has ever complained about Walmart before They are the competition a company like amazon has
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 21:36
|
|
|
Zachack posted:The point which you continue to miss is that my wife isn't "fine with it", she actually observed a high monthly value increase in services that corresponded with a minor cost increase (an extra $2 month isn't breaking her bank). That's what makes using Prime as an example a bad idea - it's a morphing service that can wildly benefit different groups. That you were complaining about a <$2/mo increase at the same time you lost the ability to save maybe $10 on something that you could probably save $20+ if you wait a few months to buy is what made it funny to me, a person who buys way too many video games, but who also somehow has the ability to just wait 1-6 months for a price reduction. And somehow I don't think you'd be complaining if Prime had gone the opposite direction and given you %50 off preorders but canceled the free music and video services instead. Amazon has been increasing the prime membership cost at an annualized rate of 10% and for many users the services they use have remained the same or gotten worse. You claim that your wife observed an increase of services offered thus making her elated (or which adjective would you prefer since apparently "fine with it" wasn't good enough) about what she perceived to be as a marginal price increase. What services did they add to increase the value for your wife? Or how have they expanded services (that your wife enjoys or whatever other adjective you prefer) they currently offered to justify the cost increase Zachack posted:No, instead you decided to stamp your feet and get pouty while making tangential complaints about Amazon, instead of doing the smart thing and admitting that your example was poor and finding a much better one. Here, I'll even do it for you using video games: Amazon used to be very competitive on video game pricing (AmazonTony days) but over the years as competition has dwindled and customers became entrenched into defaulting to Amazon for shopping it's obvious that Amazon now only feels the need to, at best, match the price of a competitor instead of competing for my business. It's actually a really good example because as they stated, some people will see value in the price increase, while others won't. And in fact, it does seem like they're making the prime benefits as it relates to buying and shipping goods worse but trying to make up for it by having so much bundled that it becomes hard to determine the value. I might have missed the new services they've added but as far as I can tell all of their offerings have been offered for quite a while now and they haven't added anything additional to them. It seems like at best the price increase is keeping things the same...and at 10% annualized increases that means they were either underpricing the service prior and are trying to make up for it now that they have market share or since they have the market share they feel emboldened to generate extra profit from it. And it's all well and good to find the current pricing still worth the money for the services used, it just didn't actually go towards improving the services. It reminds me a bit of when Netflix last increased their prices and they justified it based on them needing more money to keep offering the same great movies that we all enjoy. Their examples of such content was "The Little Rascals" and "Tin Tin". Ahh yes, I'm really seeing the value there. They have of course since removed tin tin from their line up (not that I ever cared, but I thought my money was supposed to be going towards great flicks such as that!?) and numerous other tv shows and such while adding dubious content. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would say that the price increase was fine and they still see the value in the subscription. But the reality is that they're now charging more for the same or less; and maybe it is a financial reality they have to realize to keep the doors open, and as a consumer we should care to a certain degree about sustainability, but we really shouldn't expect price increases to correspond to value increases.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 21:52
|
|
|
Amazon and wallmarts clients are not nearly the same. The former attempts to turn the localized area into SNAP recipients and kill local competition so they're the only player for food fir guaranteed snap revenue. Amazon relies on people who think they're too rich for wall Mart.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 21:59
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:It reminds me a bit of when Netflix last increased their prices and they justified it based on them needing more money to keep offering the same great movies that we all enjoy. Their examples of such content was "The Little Rascals" and "Tin Tin". Ahh yes, I'm really seeing the value there. They have of course since removed tin tin from their line up (not that I ever cared, but I thought my money was supposed to be going towards great flicks such as that!?) and numerous other tv shows and such while adding dubious content. Then cancel netflix? Like I get it being sad if services get bad or go up in price but I don't get how it's "a problem" if they do. I like netflix being good and hate it being bad, but like, nothing particular holds anyone if their service ever is not giving value. If someday they are too expensive or not very good that seems more unfortunate than immoral or illegal or a problem or anything like that. I've subscribed to then later canceled all sorts of things as they do then don't provide a thing I want, netflix doesn't even make you commit to multiple months at time or have any onerous process to cancel or anything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 22:06
|
|
|
For what it’s worth I had asked some people who handle Amazon at my company about it. They said they believe the story that Prime customers are placing more orders than ever as the main reason for the increase and we can see it in our own data.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 22:12
|
|
|
So when do we find out how bad the Christmas bloodbath was for malls and department stores
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 23:07
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Then cancel netflix? Like I get it being sad if services get bad or go up in price but I don't get how it's "a problem" if they do. I like netflix being good and hate it being bad, but like, nothing particular holds anyone if their service ever is not giving value. If someday they are too expensive or not very good that seems more unfortunate than immoral or illegal or a problem or anything like that. I've subscribed to then later canceled all sorts of things as they do then don't provide a thing I want, netflix doesn't even make you commit to multiple months at time or have any onerous process to cancel or anything. Can you run me through your thought process of why you thought this was a good post? Because I said nothing about the ability to cancel (or if I had or not!) services. My post was about if price increases are leading to the service improving or not. Obviously one can cancel netflix (or any other service) they don't find value in it; regardless of how the price has changed. Did you know that even if they lowered the monthly price and I didn't find value in it I could cancel? Amazing stuff, right? Anyway, with the actual point highlighted for you, would you like to take another stab at it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 00:02
|
|
|
It's not that you can definitively point to the price increase immediately improving the service overnight, it's that they're steadily spending more year by year, which may necessitate raising the price at some point. All that original content Netflix is making isn't cheap.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 00:05
|
|
|
Inflation happens most years too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 00:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 05:57 |
|
|
Raldikuk posted:Can you run me through your thought process of why you thought this was a good post? Because I said nothing about the ability to cancel (or if I had or not!) services. My post was about if price increases are leading to the service improving or not. Obviously one can cancel netflix (or any other service) they don't find value in it; regardless of how the price has changed. Did you know that even if they lowered the monthly price and I didn't find value in it I could cancel? Amazing stuff, right? Like, it sucks if a good service gets to be a bad value or something but it's not capital P problematic. If amazon prime at some point in the future becomes a really bad value it's also super optional and easy to get out of. You got a lot of consumer power on it. If netflix raises their price a ton and gets bad movies that is sad to see it go, but it's not really a hard situation or anything. It's not like health insurance or something where you invariable have to pay it no matter how high it goes. Amazon prime or netflix or something have no good leverage over you having to pay if they raise the price or lower the service past what you find acceptable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 01:25
|
|