- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 11/30/18 at 12:35 pm to LosLobos111
quote:
Google is the real problem
Everybody could always start using Bing.com instead
Posted on 11/30/18 at 6:03 pm to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
No, it doesn't. It has volume-based discounts in line with what other firms can get from USPS (and USPS's private competitors). But guess what? When you have the largest volume in the world, your fixed costs per unit tend to be the lowest, and you get great pricing per unit.
Here is what I said:
quote:
Amazon is not a monopoly, but it is being subsidized by the USG and has unique access to government run agencies, such as USPS, at taxpayer expense.
So it sounds like you are agreeing with me. Amazon get its best deals through a quasi state postal service, which exists entirely due to state subsidies. It doesn't matter one bit if 500 other companies also get this it only matters that Amazon gets the discounts which are clearly the result of subsidies to the postal service.
quote:
They turned a profit mostly off AWS. It has been understood that Amazon could monetize its eCommerce platform if it really wanted to for at least fifteen years and chose to pump its cash back into business instead. Kindle, Fire, original content production, and on and on and on are all a direct result of Amazon choosing to do things the way they did.
So they weren't profitable, but could have been profitable had they not decided to swap profitability in favor of growth and development.
quote:
It should be whatever it wants to be within the parameters of the law.
This is exactly the crux of the issue. Amazon plays by a different set of rules than 95%+ of American companies. It has special arrangements at every single level of governance, whether it be real estate zoning and transportation arrangements, special tax considerations, exclusive, no-bid government contracts etc. It doesn't matter WHY this is the case, it only matters that it is, in fact, the case. It's the case with many other companies too, telecommunications, utilities, real estate firms, the list goes on forever.
These companies directly benefit from special arrangements made with national, state, and local actors, and those benefits come without the consent of, and at the cost of, the constituents in those areas.
So no, you are not correct to frame Amazon as merely being ultra efficient and forward looking. The decisions they make are based as much on special arrangements that they have at every single level as they are their own efficiency.
I also don't believe Amazon is a monopoly, and I don't particularly dislike them.
This post was edited on 11/30/18 at 6:10 pm
Posted on 11/30/18 at 6:10 pm to Boatshoes
Seems like a lot of you don't understand the definition of monopoly, much less a conglomerate which Amazon actually is.
Posted on 11/30/18 at 6:18 pm to arcalades
quote:
what do they have the monopoly on?
Online shopping. And not just in America, but worldwide. Ironically the only competition is in China from the likes of AliExpress.
This post was edited on 11/30/18 at 6:19 pm
Posted on 11/30/18 at 6:29 pm to AUstar
quote:
what do they have the monopoly on?
Online shopping. And not just in America, but worldwide. Ironically the only competition is in China from the likes of AliExpress.
They absolutely DO NOT have a monopoly on online shopping.
Posted on 11/30/18 at 6:31 pm to Parmen
quote:
Amazon is a monopoly
Nah
Posted on 11/30/18 at 6:33 pm to MrCarton
quote:
quote:
No, it doesn't. It has volume-based discounts in line with what other firms can get from USPS (and USPS's private competitors). But guess what? When you have the largest volume in the world, your fixed costs per unit tend to be the lowest, and you get great pricing per unit.
Here is what I said:
quote:
Amazon is not a monopoly, but it is being subsidized by the USG and has unique access to government run agencies, such as USPS, at taxpayer expense.
So it sounds like you are agreeing with me. Amazon get its best deals through a quasi state postal service, which exists entirely due to state subsidies. It doesn't matter one bit if 500 other companies also get this it only matters that Amazon gets the discounts which are clearly the result of subsidies to the postal service.
The key modifier there being "unique". What Amazon has access to is not unique at all. Every firm can utilize it.
quote:
quote:
Amazon is not a monopoly, but it is being subsidized by the USG and has unique access to government run agencies, such as USPS, at taxpayer expense.
So it sounds like you are agreeing with me. Amazon get its best deals through a quasi state postal service, which exists entirely due to state subsidies. It doesn't matter one bit if 500 other companies also get this it only matters that Amazon gets the discounts which are clearly the result of subsidies to the postal service.
Then it logically follows that it has nothing to do with Amazon being a monopoly. It's fine if you think the USPS shouldn't exist (I disagree), but that's a different argument.
quote:
quote:
They turned a profit mostly off AWS. It has been understood that Amazon could monetize its eCommerce platform if it really wanted to for at least fifteen years and chose to pump its cash back into business instead. Kindle, Fire, original content production, and on and on and on are all a direct result of Amazon choosing to do things the way they did.
So they weren't profitable, but could have been profitable had they not decided to swap profitability in favor of growth and development.
Yes. And? That's a trade off that every firm ever has had to make at some point. Amazon strategically delayed their decision to start turning profit.
quote:
quote:
It should be whatever it wants to be within the parameters of the law.
This is exactly the crux of the issue. Amazon plays by a different set of rules than 95%+ of American companies. It has special arrangements at every single level of governance, whether it be real estate zoning and transportation arrangements, special tax considerations, exclusive, no-bid government contracts etc. It doesn't matter WHY this is the case, it only matters that it is, in fact, the case. It's the case with many other companies too, telecommunications, utilities, real estate firms, the list goes on forever.
These companies directly benefit from special arrangements made with national, state, and local actors, and those benefits come without the consent of, and at the cost of, the constituents in those areas.
Yea, and? Welcome to the real world. And many, many, many companies have arrangements just like that. How many thousands of companies in the U.S. have tax breaks at the local level (what you're really referring to - their federal treatment isn't any different than most) and couldn't do 1/1,000,000th of what they've done? Try finding political economy in human history that doesn't have significant interplay between state and firm. It's a fart dream as wild as any socialist's.
quote:
So no, you are not correct to frame Amazon as merely being ultra efficient and forward looking. The decisions they make are based as much on special arrangements that they have at every single level as they are their own efficiency.
I never framed them as such, so don't put words in my mouth.
This post was edited on 11/30/18 at 6:40 pm
Posted on 11/30/18 at 6:37 pm to AUstar
quote:
quote:
what do they have the monopoly on?
Online shopping. And not just in America, but worldwide. Ironically the only competition is in China from the likes of AliExpress.
They're not even half of all eCommerce sales in the U.S.
Posted on 11/30/18 at 6:39 pm to Parmen
Being a conglomerate is not illegal. shite, ten years ago people were saying Wal-Mart had no competition.
Posted on 11/30/18 at 6:50 pm to AbuTheMonkey
Ok dude. So Amazon is one of the biggest recipients of subsidies in US retail history, but that has no bearing at all on how they should be regulated. It's interesting how you've not actually refuted my original post, nor my reply. It's almost like you are arguing about monopolies, and not the unique realities of subsidized mega corporations.
Let me welcome you to the "real world", lots of people disagree with treating a company that receives special consideration at other's expense the same as everyone else. These subsidies are not only derived from the pockets of these disgruntled people in many cases, they are helping a company that's disrupting, for better or worse, their economic outlook. That's just as real as megacorp business dealings.
quote:
Yea, and? Welcome to the real world. And many, many, many companies have arrangements just like that. How many thousands of companies in the U.S. have tax breaks at the local level (what you're really referring to - their federal treatment isn't any different than most) and couldn't do 1/1,000,000th of what they've done? Try finding political economy in human history that doesn't have significant interplay between state and firm. It's a fart dream as wild as any socialist's.
I've worked on well over 100 international deals, some involving more than half a dozen countries. I just wrapped up part of a 3/4 billion dollar multinational arrangement involving both all levels of government, state owned companies, and quasi private /private sector companies. I know how it works. Ok, so maybe I'm not the biggest badass ever, but between a career in low, mid, and high level government work and a career helping others from a huge variety of sectors understand how to connect the dots on complex issues, i think I have a firm handle on it. My argument is NOT that Amazon is the bad guy or that they are an evil monopoly. My argument is that BECAUSE they've received these advantages, they cannot be treated just like everyone else.
This post was edited on 11/30/18 at 7:07 pm
Posted on 11/30/18 at 6:55 pm to Smeg
quote:
Amazon? It may be big, but it doesn't control anything. You can get anything Amazon sells elsewhere. It's just the modern world's "Sears".
AWS may be considered a monopoly. Just pointing out that selling stuff online is not their bread and butter.
Posted on 11/30/18 at 7:28 pm to hottub
quote:Its where they have the largest market share, but it’s an incredibly competitive and fast ground market.
AWS may be considered a monopoly. Just pointing out that selling stuff online is not their bread and butter.
Besides, a monopoly, from an antitrust standpoint, would require much more than just a high market share.
Posted on 11/30/18 at 7:35 pm to MrCarton
quote:They recieced those advantages because they earned them by being first and best to these growing markets. They beat everybody else to them. Like every other successful company in history.
My argument is that BECAUSE they've received these advantages, they cannot be treated just like everyone else.
You’re argument sounds a lot like “you didn’t build that.”
Posted on 11/30/18 at 7:47 pm to MrCarton
quote:I just checked macro-trends, and it shows the annual financials dating back to 2005 through 2017.
go check out Overstock.com, which was profitable long ago, and is run by a very intelligent, honorable, libertarian CEO.
Overstock has had a negative net income 6 of the 13 years, and wasn’t in the black until 2009. It’s in pace for it’s worse year by far. Amazon only had a negative net income twice, first in 2012 and again in 2014. And it’s on pace for its best year by far.
So I don’t know anything about it’s CEO, but its never been what your describing, and in fact the opposite if you’re referring to their profitability compared to Amazon’s.
Posted on 11/30/18 at 7:51 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
They recieced those advantages because they earned them by being first and best to these growing markets. They beat everybody else to them. Like every other successful company in history.
1. Beating everyone else to a market is not the thing that "every other successful company" has done.
2. I have never ever claimed Amazon / Jeff Bezos is not responsible for his own success. Not once. Ever. Please, if you find + quote me saying that, and I will recant immediately.
3. When someone receives a government subsidy, they are gaining access to advantages that are not derived through natural competition. You know this, I know this, everyone knows this. The state "didn't earn that", it took it, and redistributed it. Regardless of how amazing Amazon is or isn't, those advantages are not earned by their corporations, they are expropriated and redistributed. This matters for reasons I shouldn't have to explain to intelligent people.
Often, Americans think that this redistribution goes to companies that are "the best, first, and most efficient" to "emerging markets". Sometimes that is true. Sometimes it isn't. Abroad, it's rarely true, yet no American seems yo have a problem saying that companies with 90% of their operations state funded shouldn't be treated the same as a company with little or no state funding. Do you have a problem seeing that?
So what's the magic cutoff number where we start recognizing that market interference matters, and that those benefitting from it should be subject to the same special considerations they were afforded when they received the subsidy /advantage? 1%? 5%? 95%? Who knows, but the number probably isn't 100%.
It's ironic that I'm catching all this shite for suggesting that these scenarios aren't market outcomes and shouldn't be treated like market outcomes, especially as some of the corporations begin to control huge amounts of important things like data and energy. The line between the state and corporation becomes extremely blurred when corporations like Google have data sharing arrangements with law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Is that hard to see? I don't think so.
Now, the question of how to handle it is another matter entirely, but I think it's pretty clear that "give subsidy >> do nothing" is not a great idea.
This post was edited on 11/30/18 at 8:10 pm
Posted on 11/30/18 at 11:29 pm to MrCarton
quote:I didn’t say beating them to the market, I said beating them to the advantages.
Beating everyone else to a market is not the thing that "every other successful company" has done.
quote:Well you’re sure making a lot of arguments about some special advantages and that we have to look at them differently because of that. Yet, you haven’t really explained what those advantages are, and why we have to look at them differently.
I have never ever claimed Amazon / Jeff Bezos is not responsible for his own success. Not once. Ever. Please, if you find + quote me saying that, and I will recant immediately
quote:And all of us take all of the advantages that we can. I’m able to claim some things in my taxes because of my side work, that wouldn’t be available to others. I didn’t earn it, and the tax savings didn’t make me doing anything I wasn’t going to already do, but I’m sure not going to save myself some money I’m legally entitled to.
When someone receives a government subsidy, they are gaining access to advantages that are not derived through natural competition. You know this, I know this, everyone knows this. The state "didn't earn that", it took it, and redistributed it. Regardless of how amazing Amazon is or isn't, those advantages are not earned by their corporations, they are expropriated and redistributed. This matters for reasons I shouldn't have to explain to intelligent people.
But I agree with what you’re saying. Government interference is almost always a problem. But your general points of principle are not supporting your argument regarding Amazon without specifics and uniqueness to them.
Posted on 12/1/18 at 8:08 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
Well you’re sure making a lot of arguments about some special advantages and that we have to look at them differently because of that. Yet, you haven’t really explained what those advantages are, and why we have to look at them differently.
It doesn't really matter. They receive special privileges from government at every single level. They are probably the most privileged and subsidized retailer in the history of the US. It doesn't matter why, and it doesn't matter if that's likely better for everyone. All that matters is that yes, Amazon has special privileges and subsidies not available to other businesses and individuals, and therefore should not be regulated just like a Joe Blow who works with an accountant to lower his tax bill. Those scenarios are not analogous.
I've already pointed out that it's not easy to determine exactly what my observations about Amazon should mean. "What do we do about it" is a hard question to answer but I'll tell ya, ifna company like Google is blatant lobbying for political candidates while also receiving insane subsidies from governments at all levels while also working in tandem with an adversarial government agency to collect and store data on citizens, the answer probably isn't "nothing, they are a private business". Same with companies like Verizon, or virtually all utilities, and many if not most transportation and energy sector companies.
This post was edited on 12/1/18 at 8:12 am
Posted on 12/1/18 at 2:23 pm to MrCarton
quote:
Ok dude. So Amazon is one of the biggest recipients of subsidies in US retail history, but that has no bearing at all on how they should be regulated. It's interesting how you've not actually refuted my original post, nor my reply. It's almost like you are arguing about monopolies, and not the unique realities of subsidized mega corporations.
You didn't really have a point.
quote:
I've worked on well over 100 international deals, some involving more than half a dozen countries. I just wrapped up part of a 3/4 billion dollar multinational arrangement involving both all levels of government, state owned companies, and quasi private /private sector companies. I know how it works. Ok, so maybe I'm not the biggest badass ever, but between a career in low, mid, and high level government work and a career helping others from a huge variety of sectors understand how to connect the dots on complex issues, i think I have a firm handle on it. My argument is NOT that Amazon is the bad guy or that they are an evil monopoly. My argument is that BECAUSE they've received these advantages, they cannot be treated just like everyone else.
Do you want a cookie? I've worked in corporate strategy and strategic economics for a decent chunk of the F500, but you don't see me bragging about it.
They haven't received anything that most other large companies - and many small companies - receive. You're advocating for treating them differently because they're the best at utilizing the advantages that thousands of companies get.
Posted on 12/2/18 at 1:15 pm to Green Chili Tiger
quote:
Green Chili Tiger
Living in your head rent free, and it looks like extended stay too.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News