5 ms·

“companies like Amazon and Tesla that have a net positive effect on society” Citation needed.

ipnon 4y ago
My claim is that if these companies weren't useful than they wouldn't exist. People hate Bezos but they spend their money at Amazon. Methinks they doth protest too much!
- hetspookjee 4y ago
  You could argue the same for the likes of Philip Morris or the Sackler families business. Just that people are very willing to buy a product doesn’t imply that it’s good. So I wouldn’t raise the fact that folks buying Amazon or Tesla products as a pointer that their products are any good perse.
  - ipnon 4y ago
    I think so. Cigarettes are enjoyable and Oxycodone is on the World Health Organization's Essential Medicine list.[1] You can also drive your Tesla off a cliff, or attack someone with a knife you bought from Amazon. The possibility of risky behavior doesn't necessarily make a thing useless. In the interest of full disclosure I enjoy the occasional cigar. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxycodone https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxycodone
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  Amazon is immensely useful, but perhaps they are no longer a net positive to society. The goods and services they provide are certainly useful. But their status as a monopoly prevents a flourishing, competitive market that could address their failings. Amazon as a product is arguably poorer in quality than it used to be: just look at the state of their spammed-out reviews, scam products sold on their platform, etc. Their logistics offerings (built on poor working conditions) and AWS have certainly improved compared to the past. But other aspects have fallen short. Maybe we shouldn't speak of companies as being "net positive" or "net negative", but rather speak of what could be improved if there was more competition, more companies, more market. Less monopolies.
  - themacguffinman 4y ago
    So what if their product is arguably poorer in quality than it used to be, so what if there are spammed-out reviews or whatever? You're not showing that any of their competitors are better in the eyes of most consumers, and they definitely have competitors, very large ones in fact (eg Walmart, AliExpress, eBay). If you think Amazon is unfairly using their monopoly to keep others out and capture the market, state your claim. If you think competitors could do better, prove it with consumer choice. Walmart or Shopify or eBay or wherever you want to shop are just a click away. If consumers think they can do better, then they will. I have already ditched Amazon for all those reasons. But you cannot speak for others.
    - Apocryphon 4y ago
      Consumer choice is binary, but it's not always tied to quality. There are factors like information asymmetry. Superior competitors may not be able to get a word in edgewise when the dominant player is able to blanket the airwaves with its brand. A disproportionately dominant position becomes a kind of monopoly of its own when its reach and resources are so much greater than the next set of competitors. The competitors you list also aren't head-on in competition with Amazon. Aliexpress predominantly serves non-American markets. eBay, like it, is an auction site. Shopify does not have one central market, it's completely decentralized. Walmart is the most similar to Amazon, and perhaps with its acquisition of Jet.com and its growing investments in ecommerce, it may yet prove to be a lasting competitor. Stay tuned.
      - themacguffinman 4y ago
        No it's not always tied to quality, it's just tied to what they want. If consumers don't prioritize quality, that's their rightful choice in the market, it's no one else's place to tell them what they should prioritize. Greater reach and resources is part & parcel of being the top consumer choice. If they blanket the airwaves, if there is some asymmetry, still who cares? You're going to have to show how consumers do not have a choice or how it doesn't help consumers. Because regardless of how intense Amazon's marketing and reach get, their competitors are still one click away. Finding out about competitors is one search query away, one media article away, or one advertisement away. Frankly, if a consumer is unable to expend the minimal effort to find & choose an Amazon competitor to buy a product, they're basically not trying at all. And not trying is their choice.
- cute_boi 4y ago
  People spend money on Amazon because it is convenient? However, I don't consider it to be net positive in current society. In many countries like India, many mom & pop stores are closed due to Amazon. They are destroyed thousands of business. Amazon is funneling money into its company which would have been distributed to multiple people. Seeing this drastic implications even CCP tried to clamp services like Amazon, Alibaba in China so they won't be too powerful. So, I think you need to prove how Amazon is net positive in society?
  - 0xLaMDA 4y ago
passivate 4y ago
For me, I am convinced that they create jobs, spend money in the economy, help provide valuable goods and services to society, etc. Amazon is famous for not hoarding money but re-investing their profits. Most 401ks invest in index funds that are buoyed by the tech stocks. I don't have ready citations but I believe these to be relatively uncontroversial statements. This whole talk about "net positive" and what is "net" is a pointless discussion that is going nowhere. There is no way to prove anything unless we have an alternative universe without Amazon to study. What sort of citation will make you happy?
- runarberg 4y ago
  States provide the infrastructure and educate the workforce which enables the job creations. Jobs would be created without the rich. See responses sibling post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31743755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31743755) about the issue with 401(k) (or pension funds in non-USA countries). This is indeed a very controversial statement because the rich are living a lifestyle which is at best unsustainable for the planet. They emit more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere for their own lavish lifestyles. They exploit poor labor conditions and lobby against every minor improvement. They don’t contribute to our shared funds like regular people, decreasing the state’s funds for more infrastructure which would have created more jobs. And they cause stress with their increased wealth disparity. Many research has shown perceived inequality is a significant stress producer. We may very well be bettor off without them.
  - passivate 4y ago
    >States provide the infrastructure and educate the workforce which enables the job creations. Yes, there is a nice division of responsibilities. But ultimately, governments are doing the jobs they get paid for. And they're not only wasteful with our money (spending on wars, defense, etc), ironically (in a sad way) they pay government workers poorly - See teachers' salaries. >Jobs would be created without the rich. Jobs were created at all stages in history in all kinds of social and economic conditions. Also, plenty of rich people got rich after starting companies and creating jobs. We're incentivizing people who like money to create jobs, among other things. >See responses sibling post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31743755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31743755) about the issue with 401(k) (or pension funds in non-USA countries). Those are not responses to my comment, so specifically what part of my comment was inaccurate? I can correct any misunderstandings, or improve my comment to fix any errors on my part.
cultofmetatron 4y ago
I do love that we have viable electric cars and that I can order something on amazon and have it at my door in 2 days. Seriously, try living in a developing country and have ANYTHING delivered...

My claim is that if these companies weren't useful than they wouldn't exist. People hate Bezos but they spend their money at Amazon. Methinks they doth protest too much!

hetspookjee 4y ago
You could argue the same for the likes of Philip Morris or the Sackler families business. Just that people are very willing to buy a product doesn’t imply that it’s good. So I wouldn’t raise the fact that folks buying Amazon or Tesla products as a pointer that their products are any good perse.
- ipnon 4y ago
  I think so. Cigarettes are enjoyable and Oxycodone is on the World Health Organization's Essential Medicine list.[1] You can also drive your Tesla off a cliff, or attack someone with a knife you bought from Amazon. The possibility of risky behavior doesn't necessarily make a thing useless. In the interest of full disclosure I enjoy the occasional cigar. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxycodone https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxycodone
Apocryphon 4y ago
Amazon is immensely useful, but perhaps they are no longer a net positive to society. The goods and services they provide are certainly useful. But their status as a monopoly prevents a flourishing, competitive market that could address their failings. Amazon as a product is arguably poorer in quality than it used to be: just look at the state of their spammed-out reviews, scam products sold on their platform, etc. Their logistics offerings (built on poor working conditions) and AWS have certainly improved compared to the past. But other aspects have fallen short. Maybe we shouldn't speak of companies as being "net positive" or "net negative", but rather speak of what could be improved if there was more competition, more companies, more market. Less monopolies.
- themacguffinman 4y ago
  So what if their product is arguably poorer in quality than it used to be, so what if there are spammed-out reviews or whatever? You're not showing that any of their competitors are better in the eyes of most consumers, and they definitely have competitors, very large ones in fact (eg Walmart, AliExpress, eBay). If you think Amazon is unfairly using their monopoly to keep others out and capture the market, state your claim. If you think competitors could do better, prove it with consumer choice. Walmart or Shopify or eBay or wherever you want to shop are just a click away. If consumers think they can do better, then they will. I have already ditched Amazon for all those reasons. But you cannot speak for others.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    Consumer choice is binary, but it's not always tied to quality. There are factors like information asymmetry. Superior competitors may not be able to get a word in edgewise when the dominant player is able to blanket the airwaves with its brand. A disproportionately dominant position becomes a kind of monopoly of its own when its reach and resources are so much greater than the next set of competitors. The competitors you list also aren't head-on in competition with Amazon. Aliexpress predominantly serves non-American markets. eBay, like it, is an auction site. Shopify does not have one central market, it's completely decentralized. Walmart is the most similar to Amazon, and perhaps with its acquisition of Jet.com and its growing investments in ecommerce, it may yet prove to be a lasting competitor. Stay tuned.
    - themacguffinman 4y ago
      No it's not always tied to quality, it's just tied to what they want. If consumers don't prioritize quality, that's their rightful choice in the market, it's no one else's place to tell them what they should prioritize. Greater reach and resources is part & parcel of being the top consumer choice. If they blanket the airwaves, if there is some asymmetry, still who cares? You're going to have to show how consumers do not have a choice or how it doesn't help consumers. Because regardless of how intense Amazon's marketing and reach get, their competitors are still one click away. Finding out about competitors is one search query away, one media article away, or one advertisement away. Frankly, if a consumer is unable to expend the minimal effort to find & choose an Amazon competitor to buy a product, they're basically not trying at all. And not trying is their choice.
cute_boi 4y ago
People spend money on Amazon because it is convenient? However, I don't consider it to be net positive in current society. In many countries like India, many mom & pop stores are closed due to Amazon. They are destroyed thousands of business. Amazon is funneling money into its company which would have been distributed to multiple people. Seeing this drastic implications even CCP tried to clamp services like Amazon, Alibaba in China so they won't be too powerful. So, I think you need to prove how Amazon is net positive in society?
- 0xLaMDA 4y ago

passivate 4y ago

For me, I am convinced that they create jobs, spend money in the economy, help provide valuable goods and services to society, etc. Amazon is famous for not hoarding money but re-investing their profits. Most 401ks invest in index funds that are buoyed by the tech stocks. I don't have ready citations but I believe these to be relatively uncontroversial statements. This whole talk about "net positive" and what is "net" is a pointless discussion that is going nowhere. There is no way to prove anything unless we have an alternative universe without Amazon to study. What sort of citation will make you happy?

runarberg 4y ago
States provide the infrastructure and educate the workforce which enables the job creations. Jobs would be created without the rich. See responses sibling post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31743755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31743755) about the issue with 401(k) (or pension funds in non-USA countries). This is indeed a very controversial statement because the rich are living a lifestyle which is at best unsustainable for the planet. They emit more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere for their own lavish lifestyles. They exploit poor labor conditions and lobby against every minor improvement. They don’t contribute to our shared funds like regular people, decreasing the state’s funds for more infrastructure which would have created more jobs. And they cause stress with their increased wealth disparity. Many research has shown perceived inequality is a significant stress producer. We may very well be bettor off without them.
- passivate 4y ago
  >States provide the infrastructure and educate the workforce which enables the job creations. Yes, there is a nice division of responsibilities. But ultimately, governments are doing the jobs they get paid for. And they're not only wasteful with our money (spending on wars, defense, etc), ironically (in a sad way) they pay government workers poorly - See teachers' salaries. >Jobs would be created without the rich. Jobs were created at all stages in history in all kinds of social and economic conditions. Also, plenty of rich people got rich after starting companies and creating jobs. We're incentivizing people who like money to create jobs, among other things. >See responses sibling post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31743755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31743755) about the issue with 401(k) (or pension funds in non-USA countries). Those are not responses to my comment, so specifically what part of my comment was inaccurate? I can correct any misunderstandings, or improve my comment to fix any errors on my part.

cultofmetatron 4y ago

I do love that we have viable electric cars and that I can order something on amazon and have it at my door in 2 days. Seriously, try living in a developing country and have ANYTHING delivered...