4 ms·

I am always surprised by the turn of events when legislation is not involved. Several years ago, documentaries were coming out attacking Walmart over everythin

I am always surprised by the turn of events when legislation is not involved. Several years ago, documentaries were coming out attacking Walmart over everything. Now it's Amazon. I don't hear as much about Walmart from the rabble-rousing press anywhere now. Moreover, Amazon ended up killing many of the mom and pops anyway. We could not get a Walmart near our city because of the political opposition, and in the end, the political opposition only delivered us a different overlord.

CPLX 9y ago
I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at. Both Amazon and Walmart have problematic side effects on society. The general trend over this period has been more consolidation of corporate market power and rising income inequality. The idea that these problems don't just fix themselves is certainly supported, rather than undercut, by these observed realities.
- jsight 9y ago
  I think the point is that a narrative of "Amazon is destroying awesome local companies... like Sears!" is both misleading and not useful in any particular way. A more general narrative of the dangers of our current "winner take all" market environment might be useful.
jsight 9y ago
I think about this quite a bit. Why does there only have to be one boogeyman? I also remember when Wal-Mart was the company destroying boogeyman. It was easy to see why. Their sales in electronics, some furniture, housegoods, and some clothing were causing massive erosion to some key competitors. It wasn't really mom and pop shops either, it was places like Sears and other big box stores. And, of course, other shops were eating other businesses for some of them as well (for example, Home Depot and Lowes having a devastating impact on appliance sales at Sears). But somehow, the media somehow decided that Amazon should be the new boogeyman. Thinking about that list above, are those even things that I would buy at Amazon? Generally, they are not. Amazon has had a huge impact, but not necessarily in the obvious way that gets bandied about in our politics and our press.

CPLX 9y ago

I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at. Both Amazon and Walmart have problematic side effects on society. The general trend over this period has been more consolidation of corporate market power and rising income inequality. The idea that these problems don't just fix themselves is certainly supported, rather than undercut, by these observed realities.

jsight 9y ago
I think the point is that a narrative of "Amazon is destroying awesome local companies... like Sears!" is both misleading and not useful in any particular way. A more general narrative of the dangers of our current "winner take all" market environment might be useful.

jsight 9y ago

I think about this quite a bit. Why does there only have to be one boogeyman? I also remember when Wal-Mart was the company destroying boogeyman. It was easy to see why. Their sales in electronics, some furniture, housegoods, and some clothing were causing massive erosion to some key competitors. It wasn't really mom and pop shops either, it was places like Sears and other big box stores. And, of course, other shops were eating other businesses for some of them as well (for example, Home Depot and Lowes having a devastating impact on appliance sales at Sears). But somehow, the media somehow decided that Amazon should be the new boogeyman. Thinking about that list above, are those even things that I would buy at Amazon? Generally, they are not. Amazon has had a huge impact, but not necessarily in the obvious way that gets bandied about in our politics and our press.