|
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 |
|
|
# ? May 27, 2024 03:23 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
QuarkJets posted:Please write this on a chalkboard 100 times: 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. US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit posted:A. Monopoly Power OJ MIST 2 THE DICK fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Jan 2, 2019 |
# ? Jan 2, 2019 01:31 |
suck my woke dick posted:Reinvesting all the money you make is good, being more efficient via economies of scale is good, etc. 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 |
|
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) 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
QuarkJets posted:Please write this on a chalkboard 100 times: Where is the behavior harmful to the consumer?
|
# ? Jan 2, 2019 01:44 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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. 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 |
|
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 |
|
The past few pages make one long for the days of regular "clothes shopping" derails in this thread.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2019 04:00 |
|
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 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jan 4, 2019 07:28 |
|
I mean, define legal at this point.
|
# ? Jan 4, 2019 07:29 |
|
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? Amazon gets tax free fuel on any food goods delivered.
|
# ? Jan 4, 2019 07:43 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 -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 |
Oh no whatever shall we do without Sears?
|
|
# ? Jan 8, 2019 02:52 |
|
AND WHAT OF ROEBUCK?
|
# ? Jan 8, 2019 04:08 |
|
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 |
So do I go to there tomorrow to buy something or will the stores still be open Weds.
|
|
# ? Jan 8, 2019 04:19 |
|
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 |
|
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? 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 |
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09s-c2JVI40 https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1082660970160365568
|
# ? Jan 8, 2019 17:20 |
|
Who could have possibly predicted that.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2019 00:01 |
|
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 |
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/08/business/sears-future-bankruptcy-delay/index.html 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 |
|
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 |
|
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. 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 |
|
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 |
|
twerking on the railroad posted:He would not be the first by any means 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 |
|
twerking on the railroad posted:He would not be the first by any means 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 |
|
twerking on the railroad posted:He would not be the first by any means quote:From being a billionaire, Mallya quickly escalated down to a criminal.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2019 06:15 |
|
|
# ? May 27, 2024 03:23 |
|
Yeah Lampert has to be a True Believer at this point.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2019 07:25 |