4 ms·

Society has collectively voted that Amazon massively improves their lives. If they didn't think so, they'd still be choosing to shop at Sears and Kmart and host

Society has collectively voted that Amazon massively improves their lives. If they didn't think so, they'd still be choosing to shop at Sears and Kmart and hosting their software on HP enterprise servers in a musty office basement. That's all the clear and evident result of the market system which is very democratic. People vote with their dollars every day. The winners of these billions of daily democratic votes rise to the top and losers die out.

devbent 3y ago
> If they didn't think so, they'd still be choosing to shop at Sears and Kmart Let's be clear: Amazon has been responsible for the shutting down of so many in-person businesses that entire product categories are can only be purchased on Amazon. The choice is a false one.
- rajup 3y ago
  Come on. You make it sound as if Amazon started a campaign to directly shut these in-person businesses down. The reality however is more mundane and exactly what parent comment mentioned: people voted with their feet and dollars, the in-person businesses that did shut down could not adapt and we are all the better for it.
  - rsoto2 3y ago
    I completely agree that it was mundane and expected that's why I don't think bozos deserves to be viewed as a demigod of productivity. It was bound to happen.
  - vacuity 3y ago
    Some people aren't better off for it, like the people who are being overworked at Amazon.
    - missedthecue 3y ago
      Better to be overworked at Kmart? That's a red herring.
      - vacuity 3y ago
        Why do we have to overwork people anywhere? But certainly it shouldn't happen at Amazon, seeing as Bezos makes so much money. If not that alone, then maybe the fact that Amazon has used many unethical business practices. Unbridled capitalism and propping up the super rich (who, if they are so impressive, surely wouldn't be handicapped by having to play fair) isn't good for society as a whole.
        missedthecue 3y ago
        I'm not saying we have to overwork anyone or that overworking is good. I'm pointing out that Amazon isn't where they are due to overworking people. And capitalism as it exists today isn't even close to being "unbridled". In fact many have good arguments that it's far too bridled in terms of tariffs and import quotas and price controls and so on and so forth.
        vacuity 3y ago
        > I'm pointing out that Amazon isn't where they are due to overworking people. I don't know enough to weigh in on if this was a thing in past Amazon, but if Amazon isn't willing to lose, say, 5% profit to ensure that people aren't overworked, that seems to be done in bad faith. And the lost profit certainly doesn't have to come out of the manual workers' paychecks. > And capitalism as it exists today isn't even close to being "unbridled". In fact many have good arguments that it's far too bridled in terms of tariffs and import quotas and price controls and so on and so forth. I think it's unbridled enough if we have companies outsourcing to other countries or hiring illegal immigrants so they can pay workers a pittance, exorbitant sums spent on lobbying to preserve the environment-negative status quo and whatnot, anti-competitive behavior leading to monopolies/oligopolies, and Boeing planes having fatal malfunctions because executives know how to build planes, I guess? (Hint: they clearly don't.) Oh, but the bottom line will be harmed. My bad, I guess we should continue overpaying executives and heaping negative externalities onto consumers and broader society. Maybe that isn't all what you personally think, but clearly a "profit at all costs" model has huge ramifications. You pretty much have to abandon your morals to become a person who comes out on top of the system.
- latency-guy2 3y ago
  > The choice is a false one. No, its just something you personally dislike and generate false equivalences to.
amalcon 3y ago
The meme that the market system is democratic is strange to me. It's not a dictatorship, but it's odd to claim that something is democratic when I (as a moderately well off American) have as many votes as ten less well-off people in my own country. More, if you adjust for the number of votes each person need to use to not die. The difference grows further when you consider that there are people with well over 1,000x my assets, and when you consider the global nature of the modern economy.
- missedthecue 3y ago
  The definition of democracy is NOT limited to one person one vote. For instance, corporate board seats are democratic, but you only get to vote with as many shares as you own.
  - amalcon 3y ago
    Not strictly, no, but there are limits. I think most people will agree that it's not a democracy when a single person controls all of the votes (dictatorship), or when a small group with usually-aligned interests controls a majority of the votes (oligarchy). That said I think you've helped a bit with my confusion here. The point where it moves from democracy to something else is obviously not clear -- so probably the people who consider the market system to be democratic just draw that line differently from me.

devbent 3y ago

> If they didn't think so, they'd still be choosing to shop at Sears and Kmart Let's be clear: Amazon has been responsible for the shutting down of so many in-person businesses that entire product categories are can only be purchased on Amazon. The choice is a false one.

rajup 3y ago
Come on. You make it sound as if Amazon started a campaign to directly shut these in-person businesses down. The reality however is more mundane and exactly what parent comment mentioned: people voted with their feet and dollars, the in-person businesses that did shut down could not adapt and we are all the better for it.
- rsoto2 3y ago
  I completely agree that it was mundane and expected that's why I don't think bozos deserves to be viewed as a demigod of productivity. It was bound to happen.
- vacuity 3y ago
  Some people aren't better off for it, like the people who are being overworked at Amazon.
  - missedthecue 3y ago
    Better to be overworked at Kmart? That's a red herring.
    - vacuity 3y ago
      Why do we have to overwork people anywhere? But certainly it shouldn't happen at Amazon, seeing as Bezos makes so much money. If not that alone, then maybe the fact that Amazon has used many unethical business practices. Unbridled capitalism and propping up the super rich (who, if they are so impressive, surely wouldn't be handicapped by having to play fair) isn't good for society as a whole.
      - missedthecue 3y ago
        I'm not saying we have to overwork anyone or that overworking is good. I'm pointing out that Amazon isn't where they are due to overworking people. And capitalism as it exists today isn't even close to being "unbridled". In fact many have good arguments that it's far too bridled in terms of tariffs and import quotas and price controls and so on and so forth.
        vacuity 3y ago
        > I'm pointing out that Amazon isn't where they are due to overworking people. I don't know enough to weigh in on if this was a thing in past Amazon, but if Amazon isn't willing to lose, say, 5% profit to ensure that people aren't overworked, that seems to be done in bad faith. And the lost profit certainly doesn't have to come out of the manual workers' paychecks. > And capitalism as it exists today isn't even close to being "unbridled". In fact many have good arguments that it's far too bridled in terms of tariffs and import quotas and price controls and so on and so forth. I think it's unbridled enough if we have companies outsourcing to other countries or hiring illegal immigrants so they can pay workers a pittance, exorbitant sums spent on lobbying to preserve the environment-negative status quo and whatnot, anti-competitive behavior leading to monopolies/oligopolies, and Boeing planes having fatal malfunctions because executives know how to build planes, I guess? (Hint: they clearly don't.) Oh, but the bottom line will be harmed. My bad, I guess we should continue overpaying executives and heaping negative externalities onto consumers and broader society. Maybe that isn't all what you personally think, but clearly a "profit at all costs" model has huge ramifications. You pretty much have to abandon your morals to become a person who comes out on top of the system.
latency-guy2 3y ago
> The choice is a false one. No, its just something you personally dislike and generate false equivalences to.

amalcon 3y ago

The meme that the market system is democratic is strange to me. It's not a dictatorship, but it's odd to claim that something is democratic when I (as a moderately well off American) have as many votes as ten less well-off people in my own country. More, if you adjust for the number of votes each person need to use to not die. The difference grows further when you consider that there are people with well over 1,000x my assets, and when you consider the global nature of the modern economy.

missedthecue 3y ago
The definition of democracy is NOT limited to one person one vote. For instance, corporate board seats are democratic, but you only get to vote with as many shares as you own.
- amalcon 3y ago
  Not strictly, no, but there are limits. I think most people will agree that it's not a democracy when a single person controls all of the votes (dictatorship), or when a small group with usually-aligned interests controls a majority of the votes (oligarchy). That said I think you've helped a bit with my confusion here. The point where it moves from democracy to something else is obviously not clear -- so probably the people who consider the market system to be democratic just draw that line differently from me.