3 ms·

More clear to write "mainstreet-mom-n-pop-store-killers-dumping-cheap-junk-for-ever-lower-prices-who-cares-about-any-future.com"

manigandham 7y ago
They're only this successful because consumers prefer them. There's not some noble meaning or morality to having a "mom-n-pop" store.
- RHSeeger 7y ago
  There are a lot of people that _do_ believe there is something noble and moral about mom and pop stores and supporting them. I believe the belief flows from the idea that local communities are important, and such stores are an integral part of them.
  - pwodhouse 7y ago
    What's the difference between a bourgeoisie middle class stealing labor from the masses of workers, and one titan of industry? The difference is a rounding error to the mass public.
    - wutbrodo 7y ago
      I think the concern from these complainants is precisely for this bourgeoisie, not for mass labor.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    If all those people believed in them then they would buy from them. Their actions prove otherwise. It's fine to be an entrepreneur and own a small business that takes part in the local community, but that has nothing to do with the business you're in. Selling regular household merchandise is not a good business anymore.
- pessimizer 7y ago
  To be clear, they're only this successful because they were in early with a lot of cash behind them, and didn't have to charge sales tax. Fairly quickly they got to a size where they could simply steamroll over the competition or buy it, and instead of taking profits, they could reinvest them, because as a future monopoly, they would have free rein to raise prices. If they were always going to be just a piece of the market, they would have had to show profits for that, what, 15 years that they didn't have to? This put brick and mortar stores at an extreme disadvantage.
  - pwodhouse 7y ago
    Of course that helped Jeff Bezos get $100B, but even with sales tax, there's no way small companies can survive as major players in a commodity market at national to global scale.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    Walmart existed for 30 years before Amazon was founded. It was much bigger, better capitalized, sold far more than books and was responsible for putting entire malls out of business. Amazon just executed better. Competition is good for consumers who have clearly stated they prefer the prices and availability of online shopping. Small neighborhood stores no longer served the market.
- krick 7y ago
  Of course they "are successful because consumers prefer them", that's kinda definition of being successful. This is saying nothing. What would be a little more revealing is to give a real explanation of why consumers prefer them. And, as it happens, a whole lot of this explanation would consist of what basically is dumping, very dubious anti-competitive practices and other things that kinda-sorta are considered violating antitrust laws. And sometimes it is so blatant, that I can only admire the virtue of lawyers managing to keep this thing afloat. And antitrust laws exist for a reason as well, because game theory offers plenty of ways to make people choose what is worse for everyone in the long run. So saying there's nothing intrinsically good about "mom-n-pop" stores compared to what Amazon is is a very dubious thing to say. To re-iterate, sure, consumers chose Amazon for a reason, but things are not black-and-white and deciding if something is good or bad is far more nuanced than just that.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    It says everything. Consumers don't care to support small local stores because they would've otherwise. You realize Walmart was around for 30 years before Amazon? And several other major chains? People want the prices and selection of online shopping and so that industry has changed. I'm not sure where this rustic idea of "mom-n-pop" general stores comes from because there are still millions of thriving small businesses well integrated in their local communities. The key is that they don't sell the same basic goods that Amazon sells.

manigandham 7y ago

They're only this successful because consumers prefer them. There's not some noble meaning or morality to having a "mom-n-pop" store.

RHSeeger 7y ago
There are a lot of people that _do_ believe there is something noble and moral about mom and pop stores and supporting them. I believe the belief flows from the idea that local communities are important, and such stores are an integral part of them.
- pwodhouse 7y ago
  What's the difference between a bourgeoisie middle class stealing labor from the masses of workers, and one titan of industry? The difference is a rounding error to the mass public.
  - wutbrodo 7y ago
    I think the concern from these complainants is precisely for this bourgeoisie, not for mass labor.
- manigandham 7y ago
  If all those people believed in them then they would buy from them. Their actions prove otherwise. It's fine to be an entrepreneur and own a small business that takes part in the local community, but that has nothing to do with the business you're in. Selling regular household merchandise is not a good business anymore.
pessimizer 7y ago
To be clear, they're only this successful because they were in early with a lot of cash behind them, and didn't have to charge sales tax. Fairly quickly they got to a size where they could simply steamroll over the competition or buy it, and instead of taking profits, they could reinvest them, because as a future monopoly, they would have free rein to raise prices. If they were always going to be just a piece of the market, they would have had to show profits for that, what, 15 years that they didn't have to? This put brick and mortar stores at an extreme disadvantage.
- pwodhouse 7y ago
  Of course that helped Jeff Bezos get $100B, but even with sales tax, there's no way small companies can survive as major players in a commodity market at national to global scale.
- manigandham 7y ago
  Walmart existed for 30 years before Amazon was founded. It was much bigger, better capitalized, sold far more than books and was responsible for putting entire malls out of business. Amazon just executed better. Competition is good for consumers who have clearly stated they prefer the prices and availability of online shopping. Small neighborhood stores no longer served the market.
krick 7y ago
Of course they "are successful because consumers prefer them", that's kinda definition of being successful. This is saying nothing. What would be a little more revealing is to give a real explanation of why consumers prefer them. And, as it happens, a whole lot of this explanation would consist of what basically is dumping, very dubious anti-competitive practices and other things that kinda-sorta are considered violating antitrust laws. And sometimes it is so blatant, that I can only admire the virtue of lawyers managing to keep this thing afloat. And antitrust laws exist for a reason as well, because game theory offers plenty of ways to make people choose what is worse for everyone in the long run. So saying there's nothing intrinsically good about "mom-n-pop" stores compared to what Amazon is is a very dubious thing to say. To re-iterate, sure, consumers chose Amazon for a reason, but things are not black-and-white and deciding if something is good or bad is far more nuanced than just that.
- manigandham 7y ago
  It says everything. Consumers don't care to support small local stores because they would've otherwise. You realize Walmart was around for 30 years before Amazon? And several other major chains? People want the prices and selection of online shopping and so that industry has changed. I'm not sure where this rustic idea of "mom-n-pop" general stores comes from because there are still millions of thriving small businesses well integrated in their local communities. The key is that they don't sell the same basic goods that Amazon sells.