3 ms·

One small point: 'their money is money that is taken from your pocket'. I wonder how you work that out. We buy from Amazon (if we do) because after consideratio

One small point: 'their money is money that is taken from your pocket'. I wonder how you work that out. We buy from Amazon (if we do) because after consideration we reckon on getting more value, in its broader sense, from that supplier than from elsewhere. We have a choice. Amazon would go bust in short order if that value was not perceived to exist. And of course the same (with exceptions mostly due to government interference) happens with all other businesses. Wealth creation is not a zero sum game.

door5 8y ago
You're talking about one aspect of businesses -- their relationship with their consumers, which generally is not exploitative (although there are obvious exceptions). However, Jeff Bezos's relationship with his employees is exploitative (especially warehouse employees). Consider also his relationship with publicly-funded research. We as taxpayers pay for public research, we helped pay to build the internet, and yet we don't see any dividends for that money. Also, the mere fact that one person controls that much wealth is problematic politically. Jeff Bezos owns one of the largest newspapers in the world, which concerns me greatly. He has tremendous political influence in Seattle, and has been able to bully other cities into giving into his demands for HQ2. Massive amounts of wealth comes with it massive amounts of power, and power is a zero sum game.
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  Indeed, the only contribution we see is a tiny bit of corporate taxes for the billions of dollars of public research Amazon and especially others use. This is, depending on point of view, either a failure of the patent system (government cannot directly patent nor license) or of taxation, or both. Oh the low level, additional failure of laws promoting economic growth such that employees are evaluated by the company and paid any low offer with no recourse. This could be either fixed by unions (though these like dramatic not everyday negotiations and tend to produce fiefdoms) or again government, not necessarily directly central, setting and overseeing wage standards based on their globally agreed policies. In short, introducing an intermediary who can negotiate with clout and is not easy to buy. (As seen in the past, union leaders and politicians are easy to buy.)
pas 7y ago
After Amazon drives others out of the market and changes the barriers to entry it is in a monopolistic position and that has a natural premium to to it. The value consumers perceive is there in part because there are very few healthy other sites. For a lot of products probably zero. (Size matters after all.)

door5 8y ago

You're talking about one aspect of businesses -- their relationship with their consumers, which generally is not exploitative (although there are obvious exceptions). However, Jeff Bezos's relationship with his employees is exploitative (especially warehouse employees). Consider also his relationship with publicly-funded research. We as taxpayers pay for public research, we helped pay to build the internet, and yet we don't see any dividends for that money. Also, the mere fact that one person controls that much wealth is problematic politically. Jeff Bezos owns one of the largest newspapers in the world, which concerns me greatly. He has tremendous political influence in Seattle, and has been able to bully other cities into giving into his demands for HQ2. Massive amounts of wealth comes with it massive amounts of power, and power is a zero sum game.

AstralStorm 8y ago
Indeed, the only contribution we see is a tiny bit of corporate taxes for the billions of dollars of public research Amazon and especially others use. This is, depending on point of view, either a failure of the patent system (government cannot directly patent nor license) or of taxation, or both. Oh the low level, additional failure of laws promoting economic growth such that employees are evaluated by the company and paid any low offer with no recourse. This could be either fixed by unions (though these like dramatic not everyday negotiations and tend to produce fiefdoms) or again government, not necessarily directly central, setting and overseeing wage standards based on their globally agreed policies. In short, introducing an intermediary who can negotiate with clout and is not easy to buy. (As seen in the past, union leaders and politicians are easy to buy.)

pas 7y ago

After Amazon drives others out of the market and changes the barriers to entry it is in a monopolistic position and that has a natural premium to to it. The value consumers perceive is there in part because there are very few healthy other sites. For a lot of products probably zero. (Size matters after all.)