|
Our Safeway is pretty great, no complaints of any significance
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Jun 2, 2024 06:06 |
|
|
You can guillotine anything you want
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
That's still just a capitalism problem rather than an inherent problem with money
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2018 23:16
|
|
|
YouTube and Twitter really just take the place of the regular old rumor mill. Joe Shmoe isn't creating news coverage, his soap box just has a megaphone attached to it
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2018 01:45
|
|
|
Spacewolf posted:That's not from the Bible, BTW. It's from CS Lewis. Who do you think wrote the bible?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2018 06:11
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I'm not crying for him. I'm just saying that he monumentally screwed up. Like, to an unprecedented degree. On the contrary, more billionaires pumping their own money into businesses is a good thing
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2018 23:56
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:Just how would you break up a Amazon? Amazon has many internal divisions, splitting some of those off into separate business entities doesn't necessarily create many new retail competitors (because AmazonFresh doesn't compete with AWS) but it would reduce the strength of the Amazon corporation's bargaining position. I'm not personally suggesting that that should be done but it'd be a somewhat effective way of splitting them up
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2018 11:49
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:I realize Jeff Bezos being rich hurt people's feelings Oof, a century ago people were using that kind of wording to defend child labor and to deny voting rights to women. And I don't think that Jeff Bezos having immoral levels of wealth is relevant to the question of whether Amazon needs to be taken down a peg (I agree with the rest of your position, just not the words I quoted)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2018 05:42
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:Sigh but that is the thing. Only applying such measures against Amazon does not make of sense. This keeps getting brought up but is that an actual position that anyone has taken? I'm serious, is there anyone in the thread saying "we need to break up Amazon but ONLY AMAZON don't you dare touch any other businesses"? What has lead to you believing that someone who wants to break up Amazon wouldn't want to apply the same measures against other corporations? I know that your example of this was the lack of a Microsoft breakup but I don't think that "well we should apply those rules to everyone" is what caused that to not happen. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Oct 18, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2018 04:16
|
|
|
Dylan16807 posted:Every time someone brings up statistics of how big amazon is, that implies that amazon needs to be singled out. No it doesn't, it only means that Amazon is a relevant example of a really big business
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2018 11:07
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Is just breaking up non-monopoly non-banks for just being big even a thing? What would the supposed benefit even be to doing that? Like if they broke up every fortune 500 company automatically that seems like that would make the economy bad and crazy and everything more complicated but not inherently improve worker's lives or bring full communism now or help consumers or anything. Like sears was on the fortune 500 in the last few years. Would having 8 sears have done anything for anyone? It's probably just boomers upset at losing another piece of their childhood and blaming Amazon for it instead of the bizarre capitalist-fetishm practiced by the Sears CEO, I have no idea what their actual goal is other than "they're simply too big! TOO BIG, who's going to be next, Target?!" It seems like the kind of person who would want to break up Amazon recognizes that everyone being beholden to 1 big corporation is probably going to produce some bad outcomes but doesn't recognize that that's just a natural product of capitalism or that the more effective answer is to socialize public necessities
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2018 13:00
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Arguably a shitton of tiny companies will have less political power than a handful of megahuge companies with the same total headcount, so it'd be harder for them to stop full communism now. That doesn't seem like it would accomplish that goal, though? PACs exist, it's not like Amazon splitting up into 10 sub-Amazons actually diminishes their political power at all e: and the people calling for Amazon to break up don't seem to be communist or even socialist leaning QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Oct 18, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2018 23:34
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:It would be nice of people to not misrepresent climate scientist. It is not matter of everybody going die and all the animals die because the temperature goes up. It means instead that patterns and settlement has to shift and incident is of much of the global poor will have to move the most. Especially westerners are unlikely to need move much, so the self-loathing 'oh but it will kill us all' stuff comes off tasteless. A counterpoint to this is that laissez-faire capitalism has no mechanism for effecting global warming other than "we'll stop burning fossil fuels as soon as it is no longer profitable", whereas literally any other model allows countries to try and do something other than accelerationism. So arguably pure capitalism is to blame for global warming, and practically any other system (e.g. social democracy, communism, etc) is superior in that regard for at least having the option of doing something
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2018 23:45
|
|
|
I don't think that the lack of a pure laissez-faire capitalist country really changes the blame at all, it's ultimately capitalism that put us in this position and capitalism alone is unable to fix the problem
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2018 05:07
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:You are playing game that all Soviet Union was secret capitalism now? No, read my post more carefully. Capitalism is the only economic system that has no method for reducing CO2 emissions, and it has been the predominant philosophy since the start of the industrial revolution. I never said that other systems could not pollute, only that they had the ability to control how much they pollute. Dylan16807 posted:The point is that while "capitalism has no mechanism to fight global warming" is a true statement, it's an irrelevant one. It's extremely relevant when even today there are people who authentically believe that pure capitalism has no problems and earnestly believe that we should be moving closer to pure capitalism. And in many cases that belief is what leads to the belief that global warming doesn't exist.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2018 19:51
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:So your claim then, is the United States is not capitalist, France is not capitalist, no country of today is capitalist? I do not understand what argument you think is made, every developed nation and most developing nation has measures for CO2 emissions control. Those countries are not pure capitalist societies, that is correct. They are able to pass regulations despite the protestations of the many American individuals who want pure capitalism. The argument being made is that pure capitalism sucks and good societies are created by moving away from pure capitalism, and the individuals who believe that pure capitalism is the only economic model worth striving for should go die in a ditch
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2018 20:48
|
|
|
Dylan16807 posted:We're not going to die if half the ports break and we have to prioritize. That's what so-called "pure capitalism" implies, yes. "No taxes" is not a strawman, it's a real concept that a surprising number of real people think would produce the best outcomes. They're wrong, but it's not something that I just made up.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2018 00:38
|
|
|
Dylan16807 posted:We're not going to die if half the ports break and we have to prioritize. Are you arguing that a market economy with CO2 taxes is actually more effective at curbing CO2 emissions than a command economy? There's no real way of empirically proving this either way but it seems completely wrong. If the governments of the United States and the USSR each wanted to stop producing coal power plants, how do you imagine each country would make that happen?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2018 01:35
|
|
|
Dylan16807 posted:I think it's probably similar in effectiveness if you have similar political will in both cases. Sure, we could. But we don't. The people with the most money are motivated to keep their taxes low and to brainwash the population into believing that global warming is a hoax. This creates the political climate that we have today, where a majority of Congress refuses to do anything about global warming. e: What Phi230 said, the economic incentive is to pollute so our economy motivates the individuals with the most power to oppose measures that would reduce pollution. Looking to China, they were huge polluters but then decided not to be and have made huge strides toward becoming green. Are we even capable of achieving that kind of pace? QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 03:45 on Oct 20, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2018 03:42
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:Huhm? The Western world started doing that over the 60th-70th period. In the USA the EPA was instiuted etc. Emissions from the west would be far far higher without that processes. Imagine if everyone in your city still burned coal in individual building furnaces, vehicles had no emissions filter or fuel efficient requirement, no laws at all against open dumping of wastes everywhere. The rates of ecological change between those periods are barely even comparable. That's like comparing a space rocket to a catapult
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2018 05:15
|
|
|
Sorry friend but I'm not interested in purchasing a subscription
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2018 06:40
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:That is nonsense. Much of the changes China made were ones that the western countries, and then most others, made already one at a time Say that there was a hypothetical capitalist version of China that did the same thing that you're accusing China of having done. I propose that the incentives of capitalism would prevent this not-China from even getting their green initiative off the ground, which is exactly what's making it so hard to achieve in the US. In 2015 China already had more solar power capacity than any other country on Earth, and in 2 years they tripled it. To achieve that in the US you'd have to accidentally create a deadly supervirus that only targets conservative politicians.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2018 06:51
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:The US, a capitalist country with modest levels of regulatory zeal and government power, managed to pass and enforce sustainability legislation 50 years ago. Your hypothetical capitalist version of China would need to be the laissez-fairiest of laissez-faire shitholes to be flat-out incapable of having a green initiative. The US right now does not have a green initiative. We can't even get off of our asses to clean up Flint's water supply; no one thinks that's a conspiracy or has a political reason to oppose it, we just don't give a poo poo. "Stock up on bottled water and go gently caress yourselves" basically. We're not a particularly laissez-faire country yet we seem to have infinite inertia when it comes to significant environmental cleanup A country with a command economy has no reason to create separate corporations for different sources of power. Generally you just have The Power Company and it has all kinds of power sources in its portfolio. In China they have two state-owned corporations managing their two electrical grids, and each has a huge portfolio that includes green and dirty sources. You're positing that China couldn't possibly triple their solar capacity, in direct opposition to reality, because of "shady backroom discussions" between central committee members and oil barons that don't exist.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2018 08:57
|
|
|
quote:Whether it's "The Coal Department" or "The Coal Unit in The Energy Department" doesn't really matter for that argument, congratulations for missing No I understood your general idea, it's just idiotic and not representative of reality. Again, See: China tripling their solar energy production (which "the coal unit" would oppose) while leveling off their coal usage per year (again, the "coal unit" would oppose this). In fact most of your post is reality-denying nonsense. 50 years ago America improved its environmental standards so the green revolution is surely right around the corner! Any day now we'll elect Jill Stein and enact a carbon tax so big that Al Gore shits himself. Also it's impossible to clean a town's water supply without pure unfettered capitalism (which definitely didn't cause the problem in the first place, no sir)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2018 12:16
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:This is so silly, every country being praised for advancing climate solutions is a capitalist country. Or is this that you also are deciding to talk about hypothetical perfect capitalist libertopia that never existed rather than engage with real country? Every capitalist country making headway on reducing CO2 emissions is using state-driven solutions, not capitalist solutions. That's the point. There is no economic incentive to combat climate change, governments have to step in and create one (e.g. carbon taxes, huge fines, etc). e: You and a few others in the thread keep getting hung up on the idea that socialism doesn't auto-solve climate change; no one is saying that it does. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Oct 21, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2018 22:33
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:I will, once again, ignore that you're implicitly arguing against a strawman fully privatised oligarchic stateless space anarcho-capitalism that has never been tried in the real world. No, I'm arguing that capitalist countries need to invoke non-capitalist solutions in order to combat climate change. I thought that was spelled out very clearly: QuarkJets posted:Every capitalist country making headway on reducing CO2 emissions is using state-driven solutions, not capitalist solutions. That's the point. There is no economic incentive to combat climate change, governments have to step in and create one (e.g. carbon taxes, huge fines, etc). quote:The thing is, you've still got to support the argument that political influence by capitalists is inherently a bigger barrier to solving climate change than every other form of political influence and/or institutional inertia that remains valid under socialism. Again you missed the point, it seems really weird that you could read this sentence and misinterpret it so weirdly: QuarkJets posted:e: You and a few others in the thread keep getting hung up on the idea that socialism doesn't auto-solve climate change; no one is saying that it does. I am not arguing that socialist countries intrinsically fight global warming better, or that everyone becoming socialist will auto-solve global warming. I am arguing (alongside others in the thread making the same argument) that capitalist principles are incapable of fighting global warming.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2018 22:54
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:Capitalist governments make capitalist solutions. Your point does not make of sense. It does, if you understand the role of government in a modern capitalist society. For example enforcing vehicle emission standards is inherently not a capitalist solution but virtually every western country does that.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2018 23:01
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:lol at the people in this thread saying that "all the countries currently making progress on lowering carbon emissions aren't using capitalist solutions! They are using cap and trade and carbon taxes!" Those are two things being done in a small handful of countries.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2018 07:42
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:I watched a TED talk about that very recently. In brief, the speaker basically said that the global economy is incapable of any meaningful change until severe climate change makes it literally impossible (read: less profitable) to continue as such. As spine-chilling as that was to hear, it's absolutely true. The only way that the global order can do anything about it is for everyone to work together, and that will never happen. It's a global "tragedy of the commons" issue. But it's even worse than that: even if it's actually more profitable for everyone to change behavior, many businesses still won't, and they'll somehow justify to themselves that doing nothing is the more profitable path (either denying that an alternative path is more profitable, or assuming that others will change enough that they'll be able to get away with doing nothing). Markets are irrational.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2018 07:58
|
|
|
In college we had a fat gay guy in our social group and one time he introduced himself as The Dairy Queen
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
Yeah Amazon's success is due to making the process of ordering and receiving stuff as easy as possible, I don't think that a book store that deliberately makes purchasing things a hassle would stick around long
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2018 11:55
|
|
|
As a dude who's a little overweight and a little above average in height I can confirm that basically every store in the world caters to me
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2018 08:00
|
|
|
Combination of insurance leading to higher prices across the board (as has happened for the entire medical industry) and older people not realizing that you can get good affordable glasses online
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2018 11:54
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Prices in stores are obviously inflated but the online stuff is sketchy But if you put your glasses on and your vision is worse won't you immediately notice that and return them?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2018 22:00
|
|
|
Sundae posted:Not necessarily. You can have it be closer to correct but not all the way there or differently wrong (wrong focal point but right strength, etc etc). It's not a single-factor correction. On top of that, a lot of people go for a very long time without glasses or incorrect prescriptions, so when they put on a new pair they go "whoa" and assume this is how they're supposed to be seeing, rather than that their glasses are "differently wrong." Use a credit card, bingo bango bongo For what it's worth my prescription is pretty weak and zennioptical never seems to get it wrong. I say seems because my vision is better than 20/20 if I have my glasses on and worse without them, but I guess hypothetically someone could do an even better job at correcting my vision. But I seriously doubt that the average glasses shop is really going to give me better results on average, in my own experience I've had 2 pairs from walk-in shops that were seriously hosed up whereas all of my zenni pairs have been fine nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:Is not the issue that glasses have major fashion focus and major need for fitting? It is hard to think of other medical equipment besides the glasses that has both requirements, and they are both major way to upsell and constrain price-shopping. Where I live, prescription glasses prices can often be over €200 if paid all by consumer at the physical stores, even though one can receive very generic ugly kinds for minimal costs around €30. It is also not uncommon that a person might still have to pay €100 or so for their frame and lenses even after health coverage. Unless you have a majorly asymmetric face then "fitting" is too strong a term for what most people do when they get new frames; most frames fit a pretty wide range of face sizes and people walking in to get "fitted" are usually just being told "look on these shelves for glasses that fit your face" rather than getting some frames they like resized or something. For the online shops if you know your actual PD then you can use that to find frames that fit you, take an existing pair of glasses and figure out what what the PD likely is for those, or the online stores offer guidance for how to measure your PD accurately enough for you to pick out a set of frames that will probably fit At Zenni I always get a pair of normal glasses for like $20 and then a blinged out pair of polarized+reflective sunglasses so I can look pimp in my 1995 sedan with the windows rolled down and I pull up next to young ladies to say "sup" and tell them a dad joke before driving off with my rad shades
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2018 07:05
|
|
|
but look those online glasses don't withstand our rigorous tests *smashes your glasses with a hammer* see they're all broken now, shoulda gone to lenscrafters
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2018 07:39
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:I'm really curious if you have any questions example of a truly unique product that Amazon has made a white label version of. I'd be convinced if some as see on TV or sharper image hit got an immediate Amazon basics version. But Amazon basics versions of towels and batteries seem to me like a good idea. Why does it have to be unique? Amazon Basics sells a pretty good 3-button optical mouse. Someone else was selling that exact mouse and tons of people were buying it because hey, nice cheap 3-button optical mouse I don't need anything more complicated than that cool. Then Amazon was like "hey that's selling really well" and released their own while making it the first, cheapest result for "mouse". Isn't that what the complaint is about?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2018 22:49
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:Do you wish to sue all retail stores who do the same? It would seem the courts have not had issue for many decades. There are even stores that rely heavily on the house brands, like the Aldi brother chains, even though they allow some small amount of outside brand. When I go to Safeway the Safeway brand noodles are just sitting on a shelf next to all of the other noodles, they aren't placed in front of the other brands
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2018 05:07
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:In the grocery business they say the best place to put up the product to sell to adults is on the shelf that is the average eye level, and on the side of section that you expect the most people in the aisle to see first. No brand is the literal in front of other boxes, but the one that paid the store most, or the one the store wants to sell most, is given the most favorable spot. And of the second favored brand, the second best spot. So on it goes. The complaint is that Amazon is giving premier placement to their own products after making a generic version of a competitor's, I don't give a poo poo if a bunch of competitors are bidding for premier shelf space at a store so long as the store isn't saying "gently caress all of you, I'm putting my pasta on all of the premier shelves and yours is going on the bottom shelf"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2018 06:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Jun 2, 2024 06:06 |
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:But there are many store out there where the house brand is the prominent ones, and not the other brands. For many product. Do you want this illegal, as it is not now? The house brand is always right next to other brands in my experience Like you're also just making a bad comparison since people will buy the first item in an Amazon listing but there may be a dozen different products at "premier eye level height", you understand that right?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2018 07:14
|
|