Retail Collapse 2019: Bezos realized that marriage is a form of union

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Retail Collapse 2019: Bezos realized that marriage is a form of union

«‹›367 »

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

KingNastidon posted:

Right, but operating at a loss or razor thin margins for a decade until the company realizes economies of scale isn't as easy without capitalism. Should there be a mechanism to nationalize such industries once the tech and supply chain innovatiom becomes uniquely valuable and beneficial to society? Maybe -- sounds dope! But that's pretty drat fringy for the US and not something we are likely to see anytime soon.

Reinvesting all the money you make is good, being more efficient via economies of scale is good, etc.

In terms of overall strategy, amazon is one of the less blatantly shortsighted capitalist companies, the issues with amazon are soul crushing warehouse jobs and accumulation of corporate power (note to quarkjets: the latter is true of every company that gets real big), so "amazon but socialist", or given irl limitations of America, "amazon but with reasonable amounts of regulation" are not particularly bad outcomes?

# ? Jan 2, 2019 01:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 26, 2024 18:14

QuarkJets: Sep 8, 2008

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

So as both a non monopoly and not even functionally a monopoly why should any of us care about literally any of the things you are worried about them doing? Like filling an entire row with their own products?

Please write this on a chalkboard 100 times:

QuarkJets posted:

A company doesn't have to be a monopoly to engage in behavior that's harmful to the consumer.

Recall that Microsoft has not ever satisfied the thread's definition of a monopoly but was still busted for having anti-competitive practices that they were forced to give up.

# ? Jan 2, 2019 01:28

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

QuarkJets posted:

Please write this on a chalkboard 100 times:

please give examples of amazon doing harm to consumers (preferably examples of things that aren't also common with most other retailers)

very specifically, since you are for some reason angry about amazon basics, in what way is "amazon shoves some extra amazon basics items onto page 1" harming consumers

# ? Jan 2, 2019 01:30

OJ MIST 2 THE DICK: Sep 11, 2008; Anytime I need to see your face I just close my eyes
And I am taken to a place
Where your crystal minds and magenta feelings
Take up shelter in the base of my spine
Sweet like a chica cherry cola
-Cheap Trick; Nap Ghost

QuarkJets posted:

Please write this on a chalkboard 100 times:

Recall that Microsoft has not ever satisfied the thread's definition of a monopoly but was still busted for having anti-competitive practices that they were forced to give up.

they did however satisfy the conditions for monopoly set forth in the Sherman Anti Trust act per the US DOJ and US federal courts

US DOJ complaint posted:

2. Microsoft possesses (and for several years has possessed) monopoly power in the market for personal computer operating systems. Microsoft's "Windows" operating systems are used on over 80% of Intel-based PCs, the dominant type of PC in the United States. More than 90% of new Intel-based PCs are shipped with a version of Windows pre-installed. PC manufacturers (often referred to as Original Equipment Manufacturers, or "OEMs") have no commercially reasonable alternative to Microsoft operating systems for the PCs that they distribute.

US District Court findings posted:

33. Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without losing an unacceptable amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market.
34. Viewed together, three main facts indicate that Microsoft enjoys monopoly power. First, Microsoft's share of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems is extremely large and stable. Second, Microsoft's dominant market share is protected by a high barrier to entry. Third, and largely as a result of that barrier, Microsoft's customers lack a commercially viable alternative to Windows.

US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit posted:

A. Monopoly Power
While merely possessing monopoly power is not itself an antitrust violation, see Northeastern Tel. Co. v. AT & T, 651 F.2d 76, 84-85 (2d Cir. 1981), it is a necessary element of a monopolization charge, see Grinnell, 384 U.S. at 570. The Supreme Court defines monopoly power as "the power to control prices or exclude competition." United States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377, 391 (1956). More precisely, a firm is a monopolist if it can profitably raise prices substantially above the competitive level. 2A Phillip E. Areeda et al., Antitrust Law p 501, at 85 (1995); cf. Ball Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Mut. Hosp. Ins., Inc., 784 F.2d 1325, 1335 (7th Cir. 1986) (defining market power as "the ability to cut back the market's total output and so raise price"). Where evidence indicates that a firm has in fact profitably done so, the existence of monopoly power is clear. See Rebel Oil Co. v. Atl. Richfield Co., 51 F.3d 1421, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995); see also FTC v. Indiana Fed'n of Dentists, 476 U.S. 447, 460-61 (1986) (using direct proof to show market power in Sherman Act 1 unreasonable restraint of trade action). Because such direct proof is only rarely available, courts more typically examine market structure in search of circumstantial evidence of monopoly power. 2A Areeda et al., Antitrust Law p 531a, at 156; see also, e.g., Grinnell, 384 U.S. at 571. Under this structural approach, monopoly power may be inferred from a firm's possession of a dominant share of a relevant market that is protected by entry barriers. See Rebel Oil, 51 F.3d at 1434. "Entry barriers" are factors (such as certain regulatory requirements) that prevent new rivals from timely responding to an increase in price above the competitive level. See S. Pac. Communications Co. v. AT & T, 740 F.2d 980, 1001-02 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
The District Court considered these structural factors and concluded that Microsoft possesses monopoly power in a relevant market. Defining the market as Intel-compatible PC operating systems, the District Court found that Microsoft has a greater than 95% share. It also found the company's market position protected by a substantial entry barrier. Conclusions of Law, at 36.
Microsoft argues that the District Court incorrectly defined the relevant market. It also claims that there is no barrier to entry in that market. Alternatively, Microsoft argues that because the software industry is uniquely dynamic, direct proof, rather than circumstantial evidence, more appropriately indicates whether it possesses monopoly power. Rejecting each argument, we uphold the District Court's finding of monopoly power in its entirety.

OJ MIST 2 THE DICK fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Jan 2, 2019

# ? Jan 2, 2019 01:31

KingNastidon: Jun 25, 2004

suck my woke dick posted:

Reinvesting all the money you make is good, being more efficient via economies of scale is good, etc.

In terms of overall strategy, amazon is one of the less blatantly shortsighted capitalist companies, the issues with amazon are soul crushing warehouse jobs and accumulation of corporate power (note to quarkjets: the latter is true of every company that gets real big), so "amazon but socialist", or given irl limitations of America, "amazon but with reasonable amounts of regulation" are not particularly bad outcomes?

Well agreed, but prepare to get raked over the coals for neoliberal technocratic incrementalism for wanting a higher minimum wage, universal equitable healthcare (because it lowers importance of wage), higher individual progressive income taxation, consumer transparency, smart and fair regulation, etc.

I'd like to believe that everyone can recognize the social value of capital-driven ventures Amazon much like Uber or Steam even Walmart or whatever, but it's what to do about the long-term downsides that divides milquetoast liberals vs. the guillotine left.

# ? Jan 2, 2019 01:37

QuarkJets: Sep 8, 2008

suck my woke dick posted:

please give examples of amazon doing harm to consumers (preferably examples of things that aren't also common with most other retailers)

very specifically, since you are for some reason angry about amazon basics, in what way is "amazon shoves some extra amazon basics items onto page 1" harming consumers

Was Apple's relationship with 3rd party developers in the year 2000 much better than Microsoft's? Probably not. But who wound up getting taken to court?

# ? Jan 2, 2019 01:38

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

QuarkJets posted:

Was Apple's relationship with 3rd party developers much better than Microsoft's? Probably not. But who wound up getting taken to court?

As I have repeatedly said, I do not give a poo poo about corporate well-being. Give examples of harm to consumers (or society at large) that are caused by amazon, which wouldn't occur anyway without it. If you can't do that and have to fall back on arguments about how amazon is being unfair to competing plucky little capitalists then your argument is worthless and nobody besides shareholders of competing retailers needs to care.

# ? Jan 2, 2019 01:42

Owlofcreamcheese: May 22, 2005; Can't post for 9 years!; Buglord

QuarkJets posted:

Was Apple's relationship with 3rd party developers in the year 2000 much better than Microsoft's? Probably not. But who wound up getting taken to court?

The one with 90% market share. Which is the part you are not getting, a company with 5% of the market is different than one with 95%

# ? Jan 2, 2019 01:43

nepetaMisekiryoiki: Jun 13, 2018; 人造人間集中する碇

QuarkJets posted:

Please write this on a chalkboard 100 times:

Recall that Microsoft has not ever satisfied the thread's definition of a monopoly but was still busted for having anti-competitive practices that they were forced to give up.

Where is the behavior harmful to the consumer?

# ? Jan 2, 2019 01:44

QuarkJets: Sep 8, 2008

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

The one with 90% market share. Which is the part you are not getting, a company with 5% of the market is different than one with 95%

How much of the full retail market do you suppose Microsoft had in the year 2000? Or even just the software market? Probably not even 5%

# ? Jan 2, 2019 01:48

Stretch Marx: Apr 29, 2008; I'm ok with this.

QuarkJets posted:

How much of the full retail market do you suppose Microsoft had in the year 2000? Or even just the software market? Probably not even 5%

Well considering the only options other than Windows is AppleOS or Linux, I'd probably say higher.

Let's not forget that Microsoft became big because they developed a usable operating system that allowed the average user to access programs that were normally relegated to command line inputs. The only other company to really try was Apple. And then on top of that Microsoft designed Windows specifically so it could work with 3rd party programs and equipment. AppleOS is a pain in the dick to install on things Apple hasn't designated and for the longest time God forbid you try to get 3rd party office equipment to install their drivers.

That's why they had a dominant market position. Literally no one else has tried to come up with an off the shelf OS. Google is getting there. Apple still unless it's specifically from their stores. Linux is free but is so above most people's heads that they won't bother.

Also have we all forgotten that Aliexpress, Ebay (which is basically another Amazon at this point), DHGate, and a poo poo load of other mass retailers exist? If we're going to talk about monopolies, Alibaba dwarfs the poo poo out of Amazon. FFS I recently got a plant from a nursery in Hawaii off Etsy.

# ? Jan 2, 2019 12:11

Liquid Communism: Mar 9, 2004; коммунизм хранится в яичках

Discendo Vox posted:

Well, you can, in fact, break up their warehouse and delivery infrastructure. Independent of antitrust, you can also do a lot with FTC/consumer protections on online marketplace information systems - a bit like how Steam has to deal with EU regulations.

Also check contractor vs employee on their last mile and warehouse employees to make sure they're on the up and up.

The usual 'check for violations of employment law around unionization agitators' goes without saying, but doesn't have teeth because they mostly warehouse in right to work states.

# ? Jan 2, 2019 22:21

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Liquid Communism posted:

The usual 'check for violations of employment law around unionization agitators' goes without saying, but doesn't have teeth because they mostly warehouse in right to work states.

This makes me curious about the viability of a constitutionality check on right to work state legislation.

# ? Jan 2, 2019 22:50

Liquid Communism: Mar 9, 2004; коммунизм хранится в яичках

KingNastidon posted:

Even if you're claiming it's not a monopoly you're criticizing Amazon for engaging in standard vertical integration practices which are of heightened importance because of their size/market share.

Is it a problem that needs to be addressed? If so, how and what are the conditions such that it will apply to both Amazon and every other retail outlet, be it e-commerce or brick and mortar?

Vertical integration (and horizontal integration) are rising to the point where it may be good to address them under anti-trust law, yes. To use a comparison, they didn't break up Ma Bell to let her reform under different divisions on paper.

# ? Jan 2, 2019 23:06

Dameius: Apr 3, 2006

Liquid Communism posted:

Vertical integration (and horizontal integration) are rising to the point where it may be good to address them under anti-trust law, yes. To use a comparison, they didn't break up Ma Bell to let her reform under different divisions on paper.

Nah, they let that happen under a series of mergers and acquisitions.

# ? Jan 2, 2019 23:27

Lambert: Apr 15, 2018; by Fluffdaddy; Fallen Rib

The past few pages make one long for the days of regular "clothes shopping" derails in this thread.

# ? Jan 3, 2019 04:00

Motronic: Nov 6, 2009

Dameius posted:

Nah, they let that happen under a series of mergers and acquisitions.

Many of which were absolutely required to keep the RBOCs solvent because, as it turns out, running a critical infrastructure service benefits from economies of scale.

# ? Jan 3, 2019 15:48

Foxfire_: Nov 8, 2010

For the people who are concerned about Amazon, if you were in charge of the FTC, what regulations would you add/enforce/change?

Preferably ones that are legal and wouldn't cost hundreds of billions, so no :thermidor:

or nationalize it things.

# ? Jan 4, 2019 07:28

DR FRASIER KRANG: Feb 4, 2005; "Are you forgetting that just this afternoon I was punched in the face by a turtle now dead?

I mean, define legal at this point.

# ? Jan 4, 2019 07:29

WAR CRIME GIGOLO: Oct 3, 2012; The Hague
tryna get me
for these glutes

Foxfire_ posted:

For the people who are concerned about Amazon, if you were in charge of the FTC, what regulations would you add/enforce/change?

Preferably ones that are legal and wouldn't cost hundreds of billions, so no or nationalize it things.

Amazon gets tax free fuel on any food goods delivered.

# ? Jan 4, 2019 07:43

Foxfire_: Nov 8, 2010

poo poo POST MALONE posted:

I mean, define legal at this point.

Congress doesn't have to pass anything. Could be done within existing antitrust law.

# ? Jan 4, 2019 07:45

Liquid Communism: Mar 9, 2004; коммунизм хранится в яичках

Foxfire_ posted:

Congress doesn't have to pass anything. Could be done within existing antitrust law.

Doesn't do much if anything about double dipping as a vendor and marketplace to avoid any responsibility for letting others sell counterfeit goods under Amazon's name, but probably the only direction to come at it from.

# ? Jan 4, 2019 21:15

Name Change: Oct 9, 2005

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/07/sears-in-stalemate-with-eddie-lampert-liquidates-without-tuesday-fix.html

Sears may go out of business on Tuesday despite everything, because Lampert's already :downs:

-level bid to buy the company out is too lovely to satisfy creditors.

Lambert posted:

The past few pages make one long for the days of regular "clothes shopping" derails in this thread.

Guilty as charged but I may also confess to a stealth attempt to keep the thread on track and not debating the Sherman Act of 1890.

# ? Jan 8, 2019 02:29

Invalid Validation: Jan 13, 2008

Oh no whatever shall we do without Sears?

# ? Jan 8, 2019 02:52

DR FRASIER KRANG: Feb 4, 2005; "Are you forgetting that just this afternoon I was punched in the face by a turtle now dead?

AND WHAT OF ROEBUCK?

# ? Jan 8, 2019 04:08

Brony Car: May 22, 2014; by Cyrano4747

Invalid Validation posted:

Oh no whatever shall we do without Sears?

I hope a majority of the 68,000 people still working at a Sears have a good answer.

# ? Jan 8, 2019 04:13

RandomPauI: Nov 24, 2006; Grimey Drawer

So do I go to there tomorrow to buy something or will the stores still be open Weds.

# ? Jan 8, 2019 04:19

Gazpacho: Jun 18, 2004; by Fluffdaddy; Slippery Tilde

the stores will be open for as long as it takes to bring liquidation specialists in and sell all of the stock out

# ? Jan 8, 2019 04:34

T.C.: Feb 10, 2004; Believe.

Foxfire_ posted:

For the people who are concerned about Amazon, if you were in charge of the FTC, what regulations would you add/enforce/change?

Preferably ones that are legal and wouldn't cost hundreds of billions, so no or nationalize it things.

You have

The online store - revenue from sales of products directly from amazon
The marketplace - the website platform itself, including sales from their online store and others. Presumably this has to combine with the warehousing infrastructure
Delivery - a very significant investment in air and last mille shipping.
Online stuff - web services, prime video, etc.
Physical stores - whole foods

If the argument is that amazon is using a dominant position to hinder entry and competition, you split things into a few groups and mandate that their services be available to other companies.

Personally, I think the way to do it is to spin it off like this

<online store>
<marketplace and delivery>
<web stuff>
<physical stores>

It breaks the vertical integration and gives others even access to the infrastructure without unreasonably handicapping the units. It removes each unit's ability to leverage strength in one area into another.

You could further split delivery, or maybe split delivery off but let the store and marketplace be combined instead. I'm sure there are other options.

# ? Jan 8, 2019 10:42

Dehry: Aug 21, 2009; Grimey Drawer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09s-c2JVI40

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1082660970160365568

# ? Jan 8, 2019 17:20

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

Who could have possibly predicted that.

# ? Jan 9, 2019 00:01

Name Change: Oct 9, 2005

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/08/business/sears-future-bankruptcy-delay/index.html

This is really getting quite pathetic.

# ? Jan 9, 2019 00:17

JustJeff88: Jan 15, 2008; I AM
CONSISTENTLY
ANNOYING
...
JUST TERRIBLE

THIS BADGE OF SHAME IS WORTH 0.45 DOUBLE DRAGON ADVANCES

of SA-Mart forever

Sodomy Hussein posted:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/08/business/sears-future-bankruptcy-delay/index.html

This is really getting quite pathetic.

I don't understand what Lampert's end-game is apart from having to keep Sears at least partly functional because, otherwise, he would have to admit that he was wrong and that his Randian superiority led to more holes in a sinking ship. He could let the whole thing collapse and still be disgustingly rich, so apart from ego why not just let it die and then convince himself that it was due to Big Government/excessive regulation/lazy workers/black people like all libertarian sociopaths?

# ? Jan 9, 2019 00:39

nepetaMisekiryoiki: Jun 13, 2018; 人造人間集中する碇

He seem to think his big holdings of decaying real estate and hourly workers will be a magic money fountain if he just makes the one more change to it. He is a true incompetent who may yet be the first man in history to go from multibillionaire to broke if he keeps up his incompetents streak. He already lost billions off his personal assets because his mismanagement scared people off his other companies that were mutual fund and real estate investment projects.

Usually these people get themself a fat bonus as they exit a company they ran into ground too much. But he doesn't seem to accept there is a real problem so he should leave, and him and his friends control so much of company he can not be made to leave unwilling. Reminds me of the Overstock guy? Who is selling off the actual online retailing part of the company that makes money, but keeping bullshit gold and bitcoins division for himself.

# ? Jan 9, 2019 00:52

Name Change: Oct 9, 2005

nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:

He seem to think his big holdings of decaying real estate and hourly workers will be a magic money fountain if he just makes the one more change to it. He is a true incompetent who may yet be the first man in history to go from multibillionaire to broke if he keeps up his incompetents streak. He already lost billions off his personal assets because his mismanagement scared people off his other companies that were mutual fund and real estate investment projects.

Usually these people get themself a fat bonus as they exit a company they ran into ground too much. But he doesn't seem to accept there is a real problem so he should leave, and him and his friends control so much of company he can not be made to leave unwilling. Reminds me of the Overstock guy? Who is selling off the actual online retailing part of the company that makes money, but keeping bullshit gold and bitcoins division for himself.

He stands to become the world's foremost parking lot baron. I would like to think that he wants the 68,000 employees to have a soft landing, but somehow I doubt a guy with a yacht that he named The Fountainhead has that in mind.

# ? Jan 9, 2019 00:56

twerking on the railroad: Jun 23, 2007; Get on my level

nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:

He is a true incompetent who may yet be the first man in history to go from multibillionaire to broke

He would not be the first by any means

https://www.rankred.com/billionaires-who-are-now-broke/

# ? Jan 9, 2019 03:45

JustJeff88: Jan 15, 2008; I AM
CONSISTENTLY
ANNOYING
...
JUST TERRIBLE

THIS BADGE OF SHAME IS WORTH 0.45 DOUBLE DRAGON ADVANCES

of SA-Mart forever

twerking on the railroad posted:

He would not be the first by any means

https://www.rankred.com/billionaires-who-are-now-broke/

I remember Holmes and Madoff, so this made me smile. As much as I abhor avoidable suffering and don't want anyone to be destitute, I would love to be able to walk by Lampert some day as he begs for money on the street and kick him in the head. It will never happen, but it's cathartic to think about it. Just in case, I should came up with a pithy Ayn Rand quote, but she was such a terrible writer and disgusting person that I can't stand to even glance at her work.

# ? Jan 9, 2019 04:00

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

twerking on the railroad posted:

He would not be the first by any means

https://www.rankred.com/billionaires-who-are-now-broke/

Almost all of those people went bankrupt because they were arrested for some kind of fraud and their businesses were dissolved.

Lampert has already lost almost 80% of his management company's and his own personal wealth from 100% self-inflicted decisions.

And he's going even more all in tonight.

# ? Jan 9, 2019 04:24