7 ms·

Classic strawman argument. OP didn't accredit all success to Bezos. And yes, Amazon is frighteningly large.

• soSadm4n 4y ago
• marricks 4y ago
  What was his vision? Destroying millions of mom and pop shops and forcing millions of people to work for poor wages and harsh conditions delivering Amazon products? I'm not sure a 2 day delivery window is worth that.
  • tppiotrowski 4y ago
    I believe his original vision was to be the worlds largest book store offering. Something brick and mortar book stores couldn't do because of shelf space limitations.
    • menzoic 4y ago
      Books weren't the end goal. He named it Amazon because he wanted something generic to expand into. I don't think third party sellers were in the initial vision but selling other items was
      • B1FF_PSUVM 4y ago
        > named it Amazon because ... it was "a river of one million books". That was the slogan when it came out to steamroll books.com (the first mover), an outfit from Ohio that sold books on the Internet and shipped without plastic packaging in 1991.
  • social_quotient 4y ago
    By mom and pop shops you mean retail. I don’t think the aspiration of humanity (or a participant) should be to have a retail business. It’s neither the good being sold nor the person utilizing it. The retail shop itself was inefficient and often expensive with little selection and almost no reviewing mechanism. It’s sad sure, but it was replaced with something far better. That replacement also drove costs down, and unlocked tremendous amounts of time spent “doing” retail shopping and as a society it’s our job to put that time and those savings to use. It’s also our job , in a moral sense, to make sure displaced industries/people like “retail” also find a new way of being productive. Let’s not forget the investors that have reaped tons of benefit from this. They too have allocated those funds back to the market either via spend, investment, or tax. Even if the capital is idle, the bank has it which is also giving someone a job.
    • marricks 4y ago
      It's feels like your "utopia" is a world controlled by a few giant corporations which guarantee the "effective movement of capital" around. If that's the case we have few things we'd agree on as our world views are just too different. I'll just say that as we have fewer major players the more those players will lower wages and generally exploit workers. Most people won't enjoy living in that world.
      • social_quotient 4y ago
        If you zoom in time scales it’s kinda what happens? Sure in 1,10,20 years it isn’t good. I don’t agree we need few companies controlling everything but when you disrupt something as pervasive as retail what do you expect to have happen? I wonder what Ford thought when he put horses and livery out of business… I wonder what the local grocery store thought when they killed the butcher shop. It probably takes a while for the “next” thing to come along that displaces amazon. I guess my point is evolution happens. It’s our job as individuals to find ourselves on the right side of these changes. It’s not the governments job to make sure I’m treated fairly and it’s certainly not bezos or fords job to make sure they don’t disrupt the status quo. The market votes and we all casted ours votes. I do believe in capitalism so maybe we disagree on a few things but I’d be curious how you see innovation without some value transfer proportional to that innovation. Amazon and I guess the “problem” is obvious but how do you get one without the other. Genuinely interested in your views.
        • int_19h 4y ago
          Capitalism doesn't work when the market is non-free, and the market is non-free when it's monopolized. So if you believe in capitalism and want it to function as intended, you should be actively promoting antitrust enforcement against the likes of Amazon.
          • MrMan 4y ago
            yes
          • 4y ago
  • bergenty 4y ago
    Mom and pop shops selling everyday goods don’t belong in the future. A 2 day delivery window (same day where I am) for goods, with reviews, and accessible customer support is amazing. It’s every item you can want. A mom and pop shop never offered that.
  • JackFr 4y ago
    Why should mom and pop get rich on the backs of local poor people? Jeff Bezos (and Sam Walton) did more to materially improve the lives of poor people than any politician or “advocate”.
  • pengaru 4y ago
    > What was his vision? Destroying millions of mom and pop shops... Wal-Mart was already leading that charge. And it shocks me to no end how many people I still encounter complaining about Wal-Mart for destroying their diverse local retail centers and eliminating jobs, while simultaneously receiving notifications on their smartphone from the Ring doorbell alerting Amazon packages being delivered on their front step. Amazon is basically Wal-Mart 2.0, now with even more consolidation, counterfeit goods, and fewer local jobs. Bezos isn't coming for the mom and pop shops, he's coming for Wal-Mart. Maybe Home Depot and Lowes are next?
    • mbg721 4y ago
      Wal-Mart itself is probably the second-most-thorough online general-store; they know that they and Amazon are in the same business.
  • refurb 4y ago
    Bezos didn’t destroy mom and pop shops. Consumers did when they chose Amazon over those stores.
  • miked85 4y ago
    Mom and Pop shops aren't all that reliable compared to Amazon. I've seen some with wires hanging out of the ceiling.