#46 President Joe Biden

brianlux

nicknyr15 said:

https://twitter.com/JeffBezos/status/1543409762867494912?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

">

It sounds to me like what Bezos really wants to say is, "Mr President. don't ask the oil companies to stop gouging consumers.  That would be to unusual for business as usual!"

RunIntoTheRain

Gas is coming down. 4.25 today in Dallas. Down from 4.59. 

Sure comes down slower than it goes up. 

mrussel1

RunIntoTheRain said:

Gas is coming down. 4.25 today in Dallas. Down from 4.59. 

Sure comes down slower than it goes up. 

Yeah that's the criticism

Lerxst1992

brianlux said:

nicknyr15 said:

https://twitter.com/JeffBezos/status/1543409762867494912?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

">

It sounds to me like what Bezos really wants to say is, "Mr President. don't ask the oil companies to stop gouging consumers.  That would be to unusual for business as usual!"

Before oil cos pay taxes, that’s about 9 percent profit on the price of gas. It’s something, but gas would still be sky high expensive. Grandstanding by both of them . If we were Saudi, we’d at least be getting free education and healthcare plus a not so small stipend from energy, but in a capitalist society, we get to see the wealthy corporations get wealthier.

Not sure why Americans can’t see the different systems for what they are. If you are creative and make a billion, so be it. But if you are providing an essential like energy, it sounds like gouging.

So if the anger is at folks like Bezos who benefited beyond their wildest dreams from the system, why is that anger misplaced?

benjs

Lerxst1992 said:

brianlux said:

nicknyr15 said:

https://twitter.com/JeffBezos/status/1543409762867494912?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

">

It sounds to me like what Bezos really wants to say is, "Mr President. don't ask the oil companies to stop gouging consumers.  That would be to unusual for business as usual!"

Before oil cos pay taxes, that’s about 9 percent profit on the price of gas. It’s something, but gas would still be sky high expensive. Grandstanding by both of them . If we were Saudi, we’d at least be getting free education and healthcare plus a not so small stipend from energy, but in a capitalist society, we get to see the wealthy corporations get wealthier.

Not sure why Americans can’t see the different systems for what they are. If you are creative and make a billion, so be it. But if you are providing an essential like energy, it sounds like gouging.

So if the anger is at folks like Bezos who benefited beyond their wildest dreams from the system, why is that anger misplaced?

I agree. This is just part of the hypocritical relationship with capitalism.

mickeyrat

benjs said:

Lerxst1992 said:

brianlux said:

nicknyr15 said:

https://twitter.com/JeffBezos/status/1543409762867494912?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

">

It sounds to me like what Bezos really wants to say is, "Mr President. don't ask the oil companies to stop gouging consumers.  That would be to unusual for business as usual!"

Before oil cos pay taxes, that’s about 9 percent profit on the price of gas. It’s something, but gas would still be sky high expensive. Grandstanding by both of them . If we were Saudi, we’d at least be getting free education and healthcare plus a not so small stipend from energy, but in a capitalist society, we get to see the wealthy corporations get wealthier.

Not sure why Americans can’t see the different systems for what they are. If you are creative and make a billion, so be it. But if you are providing an essential like energy, it sounds like gouging.

So if the anger is at folks like Bezos who benefited beyond their wildest dreams from the system, why is that anger misplaced?

I agree. This is just part of the hypocritical relationship with capitalism.

coming from someone who founded and heads what has become a behemoth that seems to have a dictatorial relationship with its "partner" vendors selling on his site, I'd rather he keep his opinion to himself.

benjs

mickeyrat said:

benjs said:

Lerxst1992 said:

brianlux said:

nicknyr15 said:

https://twitter.com/JeffBezos/status/1543409762867494912?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

">

It sounds to me like what Bezos really wants to say is, "Mr President. don't ask the oil companies to stop gouging consumers.  That would be to unusual for business as usual!"

Before oil cos pay taxes, that’s about 9 percent profit on the price of gas. It’s something, but gas would still be sky high expensive. Grandstanding by both of them . If we were Saudi, we’d at least be getting free education and healthcare plus a not so small stipend from energy, but in a capitalist society, we get to see the wealthy corporations get wealthier.

Not sure why Americans can’t see the different systems for what they are. If you are creative and make a billion, so be it. But if you are providing an essential like energy, it sounds like gouging.

So if the anger is at folks like Bezos who benefited beyond their wildest dreams from the system, why is that anger misplaced?

I agree. This is just part of the hypocritical relationship with capitalism.

coming from someone who founded and heads what has become a behemoth that seems to have a dictatorial relationship with its "partner" vendors selling on his site, I'd rather he keep his opinion to himself.

Valid, but my point is that if it weren't Bezos, there would be another person behind another behemoth - because that's what capitalism tends to permit and produce. We tend to flout capitalism like some sort of system that 'occasionally' produces these realities. Then, when a company becomes 'indispensable' (i.e. part of day to day life), we condemn the collection of wealth and talk about some implicit responsibility back to society of low prices. To me, it seems a flawed assumption to make that that transaction would be bidirectional and/or proportional.

mickeyrat

benjs said:

mickeyrat said:

benjs said:

Lerxst1992 said:

brianlux said:

nicknyr15 said:

https://twitter.com/JeffBezos/status/1543409762867494912?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

">

It sounds to me like what Bezos really wants to say is, "Mr President. don't ask the oil companies to stop gouging consumers.  That would be to unusual for business as usual!"

Before oil cos pay taxes, that’s about 9 percent profit on the price of gas. It’s something, but gas would still be sky high expensive. Grandstanding by both of them . If we were Saudi, we’d at least be getting free education and healthcare plus a not so small stipend from energy, but in a capitalist society, we get to see the wealthy corporations get wealthier.

Not sure why Americans can’t see the different systems for what they are. If you are creative and make a billion, so be it. But if you are providing an essential like energy, it sounds like gouging.

So if the anger is at folks like Bezos who benefited beyond their wildest dreams from the system, why is that anger misplaced?

I agree. This is just part of the hypocritical relationship with capitalism.

coming from someone who founded and heads what has become a behemoth that seems to have a dictatorial relationship with its "partner" vendors selling on his site, I'd rather he keep his opinion to himself.

Valid, but my point is that if it weren't Bezos, there would be another person behind another behemoth - because that's what capitalism tends to permit and produce. We tend to flout capitalism like some sort of system that 'occasionally' produces these realities. Then, when a company becomes 'indispensable' (i.e. part of day to day life), we condemn the collection of wealth and talk about some implicit responsibility back to society of low prices. To me, it seems a flawed assumption to make that that transaction would be bidirectional and/or proportional.

hmm, but when its fossil fuel energy, theres HUGE pushback to alternative forms and protective measures taken by Gov entities, not to mention the subsidies and the like all for THEIR and their shareholders profit. Deliberate restricting of supply to increase profit for shareholders and themselves , I take exception to.

Lerxst1992

mickeyrat said:

benjs said:

mickeyrat said:

benjs said:

Lerxst1992 said:

brianlux said:

nicknyr15 said:

https://twitter.com/JeffBezos/status/1543409762867494912?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

">

It sounds to me like what Bezos really wants to say is, "Mr President. don't ask the oil companies to stop gouging consumers.  That would be to unusual for business as usual!"

Before oil cos pay taxes, that’s about 9 percent profit on the price of gas. It’s something, but gas would still be sky high expensive. Grandstanding by both of them . If we were Saudi, we’d at least be getting free education and healthcare plus a not so small stipend from energy, but in a capitalist society, we get to see the wealthy corporations get wealthier.

Not sure why Americans can’t see the different systems for what they are. If you are creative and make a billion, so be it. But if you are providing an essential like energy, it sounds like gouging.

So if the anger is at folks like Bezos who benefited beyond their wildest dreams from the system, why is that anger misplaced?

I agree. This is just part of the hypocritical relationship with capitalism.

coming from someone who founded and heads what has become a behemoth that seems to have a dictatorial relationship with its "partner" vendors selling on his site, I'd rather he keep his opinion to himself.

Valid, but my point is that if it weren't Bezos, there would be another person behind another behemoth - because that's what capitalism tends to permit and produce. We tend to flout capitalism like some sort of system that 'occasionally' produces these realities. Then, when a company becomes 'indispensable' (i.e. part of day to day life), we condemn the collection of wealth and talk about some implicit responsibility back to society of low prices. To me, it seems a flawed assumption to make that that transaction would be bidirectional and/or proportional.

hmm, but when its fossil fuel energy, theres HUGE pushback to alternative forms and protective measures taken by Gov entities, not to mention the subsidies and the like all for THEIR and their shareholders profit. Deliberate restricting of supply to increase profit for shareholders and themselves , I take exception to.

Bezos manipulated the system to create a near monopoly for himself,  but let's say that's distinct from my point. Regarding essentials like energy, capitalism creates a system that promotes and rewards gouging, and its disgusting to see a billionaire who also rigs the system for self benefit,  complaining.

mrussel1

Lerxst1992 said:

mickeyrat said:

benjs said:

mickeyrat said:

benjs said:

Lerxst1992 said:

brianlux said:

nicknyr15 said:

https://twitter.com/JeffBezos/status/1543409762867494912?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

">

It sounds to me like what Bezos really wants to say is, "Mr President. don't ask the oil companies to stop gouging consumers.  That would be to unusual for business as usual!"

Before oil cos pay taxes, that’s about 9 percent profit on the price of gas. It’s something, but gas would still be sky high expensive. Grandstanding by both of them . If we were Saudi, we’d at least be getting free education and healthcare plus a not so small stipend from energy, but in a capitalist society, we get to see the wealthy corporations get wealthier.

Not sure why Americans can’t see the different systems for what they are. If you are creative and make a billion, so be it. But if you are providing an essential like energy, it sounds like gouging.

So if the anger is at folks like Bezos who benefited beyond their wildest dreams from the system, why is that anger misplaced?

I agree. This is just part of the hypocritical relationship with capitalism.

coming from someone who founded and heads what has become a behemoth that seems to have a dictatorial relationship with its "partner" vendors selling on his site, I'd rather he keep his opinion to himself.

Valid, but my point is that if it weren't Bezos, there would be another person behind another behemoth - because that's what capitalism tends to permit and produce. We tend to flout capitalism like some sort of system that 'occasionally' produces these realities. Then, when a company becomes 'indispensable' (i.e. part of day to day life), we condemn the collection of wealth and talk about some implicit responsibility back to society of low prices. To me, it seems a flawed assumption to make that that transaction would be bidirectional and/or proportional.

hmm, but when its fossil fuel energy, theres HUGE pushback to alternative forms and protective measures taken by Gov entities, not to mention the subsidies and the like all for THEIR and their shareholders profit. Deliberate restricting of supply to increase profit for shareholders and themselves , I take exception to.

Bezos manipulated the system to create a near monopoly for himself,  but let's say that's distinct from my point. Regarding essentials like energy, capitalism creates a system that promotes and rewards gouging, and its disgusting to see a billionaire who also rigs the system for self benefit,  complaining.

How did he manipulate the system and how is it a monopoly?  You can't shop in a store?   You can't go to walmart.com which carries products in exactly the same way as Amazon? His 'monopoly' was created because he was faster to market and had a better product than the others.  Anyone can compete.  There's not some crazy barrier to market that the other players can't breach.  

Lerxst1992

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mickeyrat said:

benjs said:

mickeyrat said:

benjs said:

Lerxst1992 said:

brianlux said:

nicknyr15 said:

https://twitter.com/JeffBezos/status/1543409762867494912?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

">

It sounds to me like what Bezos really wants to say is, "Mr President. don't ask the oil companies to stop gouging consumers.  That would be to unusual for business as usual!"

Before oil cos pay taxes, that’s about 9 percent profit on the price of gas. It’s something, but gas would still be sky high expensive. Grandstanding by both of them . If we were Saudi, we’d at least be getting free education and healthcare plus a not so small stipend from energy, but in a capitalist society, we get to see the wealthy corporations get wealthier.

Not sure why Americans can’t see the different systems for what they are. If you are creative and make a billion, so be it. But if you are providing an essential like energy, it sounds like gouging.

So if the anger is at folks like Bezos who benefited beyond their wildest dreams from the system, why is that anger misplaced?

I agree. This is just part of the hypocritical relationship with capitalism.

coming from someone who founded and heads what has become a behemoth that seems to have a dictatorial relationship with its "partner" vendors selling on his site, I'd rather he keep his opinion to himself.

Valid, but my point is that if it weren't Bezos, there would be another person behind another behemoth - because that's what capitalism tends to permit and produce. We tend to flout capitalism like some sort of system that 'occasionally' produces these realities. Then, when a company becomes 'indispensable' (i.e. part of day to day life), we condemn the collection of wealth and talk about some implicit responsibility back to society of low prices. To me, it seems a flawed assumption to make that that transaction would be bidirectional and/or proportional.

hmm, but when its fossil fuel energy, theres HUGE pushback to alternative forms and protective measures taken by Gov entities, not to mention the subsidies and the like all for THEIR and their shareholders profit. Deliberate restricting of supply to increase profit for shareholders and themselves , I take exception to.

Bezos manipulated the system to create a near monopoly for himself,  but let's say that's distinct from my point. Regarding essentials like energy, capitalism creates a system that promotes and rewards gouging, and its disgusting to see a billionaire who also rigs the system for self benefit,  complaining.

How did he manipulate the system and how is it a monopoly?  You can't shop in a store?   You can't go to walmart.com which carries products in exactly the same way as Amazon? His 'monopoly' was created because he was faster to market and had a better product than the others.  Anyone can compete.  There's not some crazy barrier to market that the other players can't breach.  

Anyone trying to compete with Amazons online sale marketplace gets crushed by its active attempt to either absorb competition or put it out of business. (referring to companies trying to have an online presence, either on their own or on Amazons platform).

I'm trying not to complain too much, as I am a customer. But we can post tons of links of amazons anticompetitive practices that are almost never addressed by regulation. 

But my point was accepting that all as nearly reasonable, its putrid to see someone benefitting so much by the system crying about the gouging and manipulation the energy markets promote. 

benjs

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mickeyrat said:

benjs said:

mickeyrat said:

benjs said:

Lerxst1992 said:

brianlux said:

nicknyr15 said:

https://twitter.com/JeffBezos/status/1543409762867494912?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

">

It sounds to me like what Bezos really wants to say is, "Mr President. don't ask the oil companies to stop gouging consumers.  That would be to unusual for business as usual!"

Before oil cos pay taxes, that’s about 9 percent profit on the price of gas. It’s something, but gas would still be sky high expensive. Grandstanding by both of them . If we were Saudi, we’d at least be getting free education and healthcare plus a not so small stipend from energy, but in a capitalist society, we get to see the wealthy corporations get wealthier.

Not sure why Americans can’t see the different systems for what they are. If you are creative and make a billion, so be it. But if you are providing an essential like energy, it sounds like gouging.

So if the anger is at folks like Bezos who benefited beyond their wildest dreams from the system, why is that anger misplaced?

I agree. This is just part of the hypocritical relationship with capitalism.

coming from someone who founded and heads what has become a behemoth that seems to have a dictatorial relationship with its "partner" vendors selling on his site, I'd rather he keep his opinion to himself.

Valid, but my point is that if it weren't Bezos, there would be another person behind another behemoth - because that's what capitalism tends to permit and produce. We tend to flout capitalism like some sort of system that 'occasionally' produces these realities. Then, when a company becomes 'indispensable' (i.e. part of day to day life), we condemn the collection of wealth and talk about some implicit responsibility back to society of low prices. To me, it seems a flawed assumption to make that that transaction would be bidirectional and/or proportional.

hmm, but when its fossil fuel energy, theres HUGE pushback to alternative forms and protective measures taken by Gov entities, not to mention the subsidies and the like all for THEIR and their shareholders profit. Deliberate restricting of supply to increase profit for shareholders and themselves , I take exception to.

Bezos manipulated the system to create a near monopoly for himself,  but let's say that's distinct from my point. Regarding essentials like energy, capitalism creates a system that promotes and rewards gouging, and its disgusting to see a billionaire who also rigs the system for self benefit,  complaining.

How did he manipulate the system and how is it a monopoly?  You can't shop in a store?   You can't go to walmart.com which carries products in exactly the same way as Amazon? His 'monopoly' was created because he was faster to market and had a better product than the others.  Anyone can compete.  There's not some crazy barrier to market that the other players can't breach.  

Anyone trying to compete with Amazons online sale marketplace gets crushed by its active attempt to either absorb competition or put it out of business. (referring to companies trying to have an online presence, either on their own or on Amazons platform).

I'm trying not to complain too much, as I am a customer. But we can post tons of links of amazons anticompetitive practices that are almost never addressed by regulation. 

But my point was accepting that all as nearly reasonable, its putrid to see someone benefitting so much by the system crying about the gouging and manipulation the energy markets promote. 

I see what you were getting at - sorry for taking us down a windy road there  

Agreed, he's practicing what he preaches against.

Lerxst1992

Amazon has cornered the online market, impeding the ability of small businesses to operate independently and blocking them from having direct relationships with their customers

 Amazon steals independent businesses’ best ideas and innovations

Amazon imposes high fees on sellers, putting them at risk of going under.

Amazon compels sellers to buy its warehousing and shipping services, even though many would get a better deal from other delivery providers.

Amazon blocks independent businesses from offering lower prices on other sites.

Amazon strong-arms small brands, destabilizing their businesses and making it harder for them to grow and develop new products.

Amazonshutsdownsmallbusinesseswithoutdueprocess

..

Amazon is not only a near monopoly as an online marketplace, it’s essential to recall they use their vertical powers to crush horizontal competition. I guess some are just too accustomed to how far we strayed from Mr. Smith

Correct me, but it’s not putrid to see Bezos complaining about “market dynamics?”

Lerxst1992

Been awhile since we asked Adam to join us here at AMT. Perfect date for it,

” …Men of inferior wealth combine to defend those of superior wealth in the possession of their property, in order that men of superior wealth may combine to defend them in the possession of theirs. All the inferior shepherds and herdsmen feel that the security of their own herds and flocks depends upon the security of those of the great shepherd or herdsman; that the maintenance of their lesser authority depends upon that of his greater authority, and that upon their subordination to him depends his power of keeping their inferiors in subordination to them. They constitute a sort of little nobility, who feel themselves interested to defend the property and to support the authority of their own little sovereign in order that he may be able to defend their property and to support their authority. Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.”

brianlux

Lerxst1992 said:

Amazon has cornered the online market, impeding the ability of small businesses to operate independently and blocking them from having direct relationships with their customers

 Amazon steals independent businesses’ best ideas and innovations

Amazon imposes high fees on sellers, putting them at risk of going under.

Amazon compels sellers to buy its warehousing and shipping services, even though many would get a better deal from other delivery providers.

Amazon blocks independent businesses from offering lower prices on other sites.

Amazon strong-arms small brands, destabilizing their businesses and making it harder for them to grow and develop new products.

Amazonshutsdownsmallbusinesseswithoutdueprocess

..

Amazon is not only a near monopoly as an online marketplace, it’s essential to recall they use their vertical powers to crush horizontal competition. I guess some are just too accustomed to how far we strayed from Mr. Smith

Correct me, but it’s not putrid to see Bezos complaining about “market dynamics?”

A big part of the problem is the buyers.  First of all, a huge numbers of people don't care about any of the things you listed.  That's what Amazon is so big.  Too many people are cheap and short sighted.  But also, I believe there are many who are simply not aware that what you are saying is true. 

To anyone here who shops on Amazon:  I am not trying to shame you by saying the above.  I'm speaking in generalities, but I believe what I said is true.   I think a lot of people just don't understand how destructive Amazon is.  If you shop on Amazon, please re-consider. 

mrussel1

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Amazon has cornered the online market, impeding the ability of small businesses to operate independently and blocking them from having direct relationships with their customers

 Amazon steals independent businesses’ best ideas and innovations

Amazon imposes high fees on sellers, putting them at risk of going under.

Amazon compels sellers to buy its warehousing and shipping services, even though many would get a better deal from other delivery providers.

Amazon blocks independent businesses from offering lower prices on other sites.

Amazon strong-arms small brands, destabilizing their businesses and making it harder for them to grow and develop new products.

Amazonshutsdownsmallbusinesseswithoutdueprocess

..

Amazon is not only a near monopoly as an online marketplace, it’s essential to recall they use their vertical powers to crush horizontal competition. I guess some are just too accustomed to how far we strayed from Mr. Smith

Correct me, but it’s not putrid to see Bezos complaining about “market dynamics?”

A big part of the problem is the buyers.  First of all, a huge numbers of people don't care about any of the things you listed.  That's what Amazon is so big.  Too many people are cheap and short sighted.  But also, I believe there are many who are simply not aware that what you are saying is true. 

To anyone here who shops on Amazon:  I am not trying to shame you by saying the above.  I'm speaking in generalities, but I believe what I said is true.   I think a lot of people just don't understand how destructive Amazon is.  If you shop on Amazon, please re-consider. 

Well yes.  So in other words everyone has a problem with Amazon being able to provide a superior service at a cheaper price.  And what he's saying is no different than any other business would try to do in a similar situation, with a similarly brilliant business plan.  And none of Lex's criticism violate any part of the Sherman Act. Offending your sensibilities or thinking something is 'unfair' doesn't make it so.  

And here's the really dirty little secret that I'd challenge anyone on.  Amazon pays it people, from lower level to upper level, more than a small business owner would pay for a similar service and Amazon provides substantially better benefits than a small business.  No offense to those small business owners, but I have yet to see where small businesses compensate better than large corp for similar services on a consistent basis.  Sure you can find an example here and there, but by and large corps provide better compensation, benefits, work/life balance, severance plans, etc.   

So better product, better pay, better benefits.. yet Amazon is the bad guy.  Who exactly is the good guy here?  

brianlux

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Amazon has cornered the online market, impeding the ability of small businesses to operate independently and blocking them from having direct relationships with their customers

 Amazon steals independent businesses’ best ideas and innovations

Amazon imposes high fees on sellers, putting them at risk of going under.

Amazon compels sellers to buy its warehousing and shipping services, even though many would get a better deal from other delivery providers.

Amazon blocks independent businesses from offering lower prices on other sites.

Amazon strong-arms small brands, destabilizing their businesses and making it harder for them to grow and develop new products.

Amazonshutsdownsmallbusinesseswithoutdueprocess

..

Amazon is not only a near monopoly as an online marketplace, it’s essential to recall they use their vertical powers to crush horizontal competition. I guess some are just too accustomed to how far we strayed from Mr. Smith

Correct me, but it’s not putrid to see Bezos complaining about “market dynamics?”

A big part of the problem is the buyers.  First of all, a huge numbers of people don't care about any of the things you listed.  That's what Amazon is so big.  Too many people are cheap and short sighted.  But also, I believe there are many who are simply not aware that what you are saying is true. 

To anyone here who shops on Amazon:  I am not trying to shame you by saying the above.  I'm speaking in generalities, but I believe what I said is true.   I think a lot of people just don't understand how destructive Amazon is.  If you shop on Amazon, please re-consider. 

Well yes.  So in other words everyone has a problem with Amazon being able to provide a superior service at a cheaper price.  And what he's saying is no different than any other business would try to do in a similar situation, with a similarly brilliant business plan.  And none of Lex's criticism violate any part of the Sherman Act. Offending your sensibilities or thinking something is 'unfair' doesn't make it so.  

And here's the really dirty little secret that I'd challenge anyone on.  Amazon pays it people, from lower level to upper level, more than a small business owner would pay for a similar service and Amazon provides substantially better benefits than a small business.  No offense to those small business owners, but I have yet to see where small businesses compensate better than large corp for similar services on a consistent basis.  Sure you can find an example here and there, but by and large corps provide better compensation, benefits, work/life balance, severance plans, etc.   

So better product, better pay, better benefits.. yet Amazon is the bad guy.  Who exactly is the good guy here?  

You already know how I feel about Amazon, M, so I'm not going to argue, but I will answer your question:  Many independent retailers.  I've worked for a few of them and the past and and still have my own independent used book business.  Until last year, my wife co-owned and managed a used bookstore for 38 years and she is literally loved by all her former employees, most of whom still keep in touch with her.   I also (as you probably remember) manage a small used record section at out local used bookstore. 

That's all I'm going to say here.  Seeing as the net result is basically always the same, I should have known better than to get into a discussion about Amazon. Sorry about that.

mrussel1

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Amazon has cornered the online market, impeding the ability of small businesses to operate independently and blocking them from having direct relationships with their customers

 Amazon steals independent businesses’ best ideas and innovations

Amazon imposes high fees on sellers, putting them at risk of going under.

Amazon compels sellers to buy its warehousing and shipping services, even though many would get a better deal from other delivery providers.

Amazon blocks independent businesses from offering lower prices on other sites.

Amazon strong-arms small brands, destabilizing their businesses and making it harder for them to grow and develop new products.

Amazonshutsdownsmallbusinesseswithoutdueprocess

..

Amazon is not only a near monopoly as an online marketplace, it’s essential to recall they use their vertical powers to crush horizontal competition. I guess some are just too accustomed to how far we strayed from Mr. Smith

Correct me, but it’s not putrid to see Bezos complaining about “market dynamics?”

A big part of the problem is the buyers.  First of all, a huge numbers of people don't care about any of the things you listed.  That's what Amazon is so big.  Too many people are cheap and short sighted.  But also, I believe there are many who are simply not aware that what you are saying is true. 

To anyone here who shops on Amazon:  I am not trying to shame you by saying the above.  I'm speaking in generalities, but I believe what I said is true.   I think a lot of people just don't understand how destructive Amazon is.  If you shop on Amazon, please re-consider. 

Well yes.  So in other words everyone has a problem with Amazon being able to provide a superior service at a cheaper price.  And what he's saying is no different than any other business would try to do in a similar situation, with a similarly brilliant business plan.  And none of Lex's criticism violate any part of the Sherman Act. Offending your sensibilities or thinking something is 'unfair' doesn't make it so.  

And here's the really dirty little secret that I'd challenge anyone on.  Amazon pays it people, from lower level to upper level, more than a small business owner would pay for a similar service and Amazon provides substantially better benefits than a small business.  No offense to those small business owners, but I have yet to see where small businesses compensate better than large corp for similar services on a consistent basis.  Sure you can find an example here and there, but by and large corps provide better compensation, benefits, work/life balance, severance plans, etc.   

So better product, better pay, better benefits.. yet Amazon is the bad guy.  Who exactly is the good guy here?  

You already know how I feel about Amazon, M, so I'm not going to argue, but I will answer your question:  Many independent retailers.  I've worked for a few of them and the past and and still have my own independent used book business.  Until last year, my wife co-owned and managed a used bookstore for 38 years and she is literally loved by all her former employees, most of whom still keep in touch with her.   I also (as you probably remember) manage a small used record section at out local used bookstore. 

That's all I'm going to say here.  Seeing as the net result is basically always the same, I should have known better than to get into a discussion about Amazon. Sorry about that.

Brian,  I understand why you don't like Amazon.  I hope you can understand why others do like it.  

Lerxst1992

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Amazon has cornered the online market, impeding the ability of small businesses to operate independently and blocking them from having direct relationships with their customers

 Amazon steals independent businesses’ best ideas and innovations

Amazon imposes high fees on sellers, putting them at risk of going under.

Amazon compels sellers to buy its warehousing and shipping services, even though many would get a better deal from other delivery providers.

Amazon blocks independent businesses from offering lower prices on other sites.

Amazon strong-arms small brands, destabilizing their businesses and making it harder for them to grow and develop new products.

Amazonshutsdownsmallbusinesseswithoutdueprocess

..

Amazon is not only a near monopoly as an online marketplace, it’s essential to recall they use their vertical powers to crush horizontal competition. I guess some are just too accustomed to how far we strayed from Mr. Smith

Correct me, but it’s not putrid to see Bezos complaining about “market dynamics?”

A big part of the problem is the buyers.  First of all, a huge numbers of people don't care about any of the things you listed.  That's what Amazon is so big.  Too many people are cheap and short sighted.  But also, I believe there are many who are simply not aware that what you are saying is true. 

To anyone here who shops on Amazon:  I am not trying to shame you by saying the above.  I'm speaking in generalities, but I believe what I said is true.   I think a lot of people just don't understand how destructive Amazon is.  If you shop on Amazon, please re-consider. 

Well yes.  So in other words everyone has a problem with Amazon being able to provide a superior service at a cheaper price.  And what he's saying is no different than any other business would try to do in a similar situation, with a similarly brilliant business plan.  And none of Lex's criticism violate any part of the Sherman Act. Offending your sensibilities or thinking something is 'unfair' doesn't make it so.  

And here's the really dirty little secret that I'd challenge anyone on.  Amazon pays it people, from lower level to upper level, more than a small business owner would pay for a similar service and Amazon provides substantially better benefits than a small business.  No offense to those small business owners, but I have yet to see where small businesses compensate better than large corp for similar services on a consistent basis.  Sure you can find an example here and there, but by and large corps provide better compensation, benefits, work/life balance, severance plans, etc.   

So better product, better pay, better benefits.. yet Amazon is the bad guy.  Who exactly is the good guy here?  

You already know how I feel about Amazon, M, so I'm not going to argue, but I will answer your question:  Many independent retailers.  I've worked for a few of them and the past and and still have my own independent used book business.  Until last year, my wife co-owned and managed a used bookstore for 38 years and she is literally loved by all her former employees, most of whom still keep in touch with her.   I also (as you probably remember) manage a small used record section at out local used bookstore. 

That's all I'm going to say here.  Seeing as the net result is basically always the same, I should have known better than to get into a discussion about Amazon. Sorry about that.

Cmon Bri, the point is to discuss!

I like the service Amazon provides, however, when they beat up on other sellers with their logistics business, thats when I disagree with their actions. They are using their marketplace power to leverage their vertical/ supply chain business. 

And the point I was trying to make, as a customer i agree their service is good, bit its rich hearing bezos complain about free markets, as Amazon is using its power to destroy no only its horizontal (seller ) competition,  but the vertical (logistics and fufillment) as well .

Lerxst1992

"Be better by being better, not by being an arse to the competition"