Amazon is proof capitalism in America is out of hand. Jeff Bezos

>>1689628
I don't really understand what you are complaining about. The only thing Amazon proves is that the system is working as intended. He is smarter than the rest of us and was able to find a way to grow his empire. No need to be salty because you're poor/unmotivated/unintelligent

>>1689628
>When his stock crashes, Amazon goes with it
and this would be bad? free market pal, someone would move in to fill the void.

>>1689628

Literally none of this is an argument

All you did was throw out imsults, ad homs, appeals to emotion, straw men, and flat out lies.

>>1689628
All the tech companies are monopolies. They are never going to be broken up because they are simply too big and breaking them up would be too complicated. The political climate is just not there because American workers just want to take it up the ass.

Of all the tech companies, Amazon is actually doing the most good. The more shit jobs that get automated the better.

Google, Facebook, Twitter et al just rest on their laurels and try wacky shit that has little chance of succeeding.

>>1689644
Amazon isn't a tech company you mongoloid.

>>1689641
maybe OP is a salty millennial that is mad he missed the internet gold rush of the late 90's and early 2000s?

>>1689628
Are you retarded? Amazon is the free market at work, you sound like the retarded coal miners who complain about their shit jobs disappearing because we made progresss in energy production and don't have to dig rocks out of the fucking ground for energy anymore. You troglodytes are everything wrong with humanity and need to remove yourselves from the gene pool

File: laughing animegirl.gif (521KB, 500x280px) Image search: [Google]

521KB, 500x280px

>>1689646

>>1689637
>>1689641
>>1689648
>>1689647
Read the fucking thread you retards.

Do you know what antitrust is? He's violated it. He should be in jail.

I'm salty because he hurts the economy you materialistic fucks. His net worth of 65 billion is acquired from destroying business. Not just destroying businesses in one industry-that's fine. That's business. But when you start venturing into other industries, and other industries - you become a dangerously powerful empire nobody can touch. It is fucking pitiful and a disgrace to capitalism.

>>1689663
Are you also mad at Google? They're doing the same shit.
Seems like you just don't like Bezos lol

>>1689628
>capitalism is out of hand
>this faggot has violated so many antitrust laws
>capitalism
>antitrust
Pick one and only one.

>>1689666
Google's prime source of income is simply ads. Google is doing well, pure legal business.

Amazon is just scum.

>>1689670
Antitrust comes with capitalism. When the government stops enforcing law then antitrust runs rampant in capitalist societies-as we're seeing

>>1689646


time to jump of the tallest building in your city senpai

>>1689676
>Google's prime source of income is simply ads
>simply ads
dohohoh! get a load of this guy!

>>1689702
Almost 90% of googles profits are from ads you fucking idiot. And "simply" because ads are an extremely efficient and invasive form of income

>>1689641

/thread

not a thing wrong with Amazon's actions, except for how they treat their employees. Its a shit place to work i've heard.

>>1689663
>He's violated it.
Prove it you fucking retard.

>nothing wrong with monopolies says /biz/

This really is just a containment board

>>1689747
If you think amazon is a monopoly you may just be retarded

>>1689747
Not really here for ideology, mate. I'm actually a communist, straight outta /leftypol/. I'm here to meme about making money, because money helps keep me alive. No one gives a damn about your complaints of the capitalist machine controlling too much. These complaints have been raised many times by people far smarter and more influential than you, and your complaints will do nothing on this traditional Thai cryptocurrency shitposting site. That's why all I'm never selling what I own in the DIA and SPY ETFs, it's all going to my kids.

>>1689628
And wal mart has destroyed thousands of small businesses and has destroyed entire towns. Fuck them

Retard go away

>>1689628

He's a reptilian.

>>1689628
Why dont we just shoot these people?

Im honestly tired of seeing the worl be turned to shit time and time again because companies want more and more.

Theyve eaten our wealth, theyve eaten our societies spirit, its time for their dinner to end.

LOL meanwhile, probably used Amazon at one point or another and have had no direct effect from their being. Go be a SJW somewhere else you stupid faggots.

Nobody would use them if it wasn't better. Most people in the world can't even afford to use them(remember you need to be on the Internet?)

Want to get rid of Amazon? Kick out all the Mexicans so we all pay more for food, no discounts anywhere down the line. Bet that offends you, although it's the SAME. FUCKING. THING.

You stupid NEETs have an idea, but not a clue. Log off, get a real job, see how the real world works. These aren't the droids you're looking for.

You know why Trump won?

People like you.

You had it in the hole. Things were going good, but you wanted blood. You wanted more. It wasn't good enough, you got greedy. Everyone got sick of your greed, all of your shit. But nobody sees that at the time, do they? Your time is done. That's why he won. You can only blame yourself. You're a pack of thieves.

>>1689992
>You know why Trump won?
friendly reminder that most americans voted for Clinton.

trump won because the losers are allowed to win sometimes in our democracy. it's how boosh got the presidency the first time also. Losers. Get to win.

so don't be drawing any moral lessons, the minority won. Most people hate him and didn't want him in office.

>>1689628
Pretty sure you just described vertical integration, no problem with that, it is a pretty basic business tactic.

>>1689996
If you don't know why the electoral college exists, why would you bother to embarrass yourself? Only liberals don't understand state sovereignty, for some reason. Probably because they are a lot less educated than they pretend to be. Be as friendly as you want, this Country was federated on a mutual agreement of states, not an entire people, for this reason. How's that for a friendly reminder? God, I feel awkward for you.

>>1689992
>>1689965
>>1689996
lol fucking libtards

youre a lunatic and theres nothing to respond to your shitty posts. and no, never used it but nice projection

>>1689663
how exactly has violated antitrust?

he isnt colluding with others to keep prices high.
he isnt killing competition, in fact by branching out into so many industries it creates more.
and finally he doesnt have a monopoly

>>1690000
Cause libtards. I don't mean liberals, either. Those are very different, and getting fewer, unfortunately.

>>1690005
I'm not talking politics.

I'm telling you conservatives don't have a 'moral majority' or mandate from the masses.

Trump lost the popular vote, most americans don't agree with him or you.

that's a fact.

notice how suddenly you went from "you're the reason trump won" to "electoral college is the reason trump won."
you don't get both.

>>1690005
no one brought up the electoral college, bud

>>1690000
This isn't just vertical integration, this is a company that is set to destroy any and all competition in as many industries as it can. Illegal. Definition of antitrust.

>>1690025
we've let Walmart slide. Home depot.

we're boiling the frog. At least the laws are still on the books, there may come a day when we decide to enforce them again. Remember Ma Bell.

>>1689992
Are you a complete fucking idiot?

Trump has literally said that Bezos has "huge antitrust problems."

You're a complete fucking moron. Next time don't try and speak and act like you know about fucking anything when you don't have a clue. You just look like a fucking moron now trying to bring up politics when your example agrees with me. Retard.

>>1690028
Walmart is sticking in the supermarket niche though. So is Home Depot.

Amazon has hopped from book sales, to selling everything, to webhosting to delivery packages, to creating automated shopping. It is a monopoly.

>>1690014
No, YOU made that inference by even mentioning popular vote(vs why he actually won). If it wasn't for retards like you, Trump would not have even won the Electoral vote. Again, demonstrating your ignorance.

>>1690015
Yeah, bringing up the fact that he mentioned he won, despite the popular vote, has NOTHING to do with the Electoral College, doesn't infer making an argument against the Electoral College. The only difference is that I've called it by name, explicitly, and he hasn't, means that I brought it up? Holy shit, you can even vote?

>>1690033
>No, YOU made that inference by even mentioning popular vote(vs why he actually won).
then we agree that he won because electoral college rather than some moral mandate. You look like the fool you are and we're done here.
>>1690032
Walmart started as something other than a supermarket, it's a bit broad. Their online offerings are incredible as well, they're taking amazon on.

Home Depot has gone into prime contracting.

I'd say they're both pushing the bounds, but then perhaps I'm biased since both are edging into my territory.

>>1690032
Thats not what monopoly means

>>1690014
>mandate
>a real thing
A win is a win is a win

>>1690040
Yes it is, when they use money from their stock in Amazon and branch to other industries and artificially price the product so low that all competitors get fucked. It's disgusting and yes, it's illegal.

This isn't a hard concept. I get you guys think you're smart because you're siding with some billionaire, but it's very sad how cucked you are into not realizing his terrible schemes.

>>1690038
Not understanding why the electoral college even exists - calling me a fool. Go impress your friends, doesn't hold water. This "moral mandate" is only a recent thing, and only shallowly accepted, so I'm not sure where you're trying to go with that one. Moral mandate doesn't mean shit, actually. I'm in a liberal Connecticut state and I'm still taught about this in middle school. Your confusion/ignorance is actually astounding me. Our differences of frustration may just simply be we're more educated than you, despite how you'd like to fairy the laws into your own narrative. You can argue about the concept of the laws all you like, but I'm only speaking the truth.

>>1690048
>you're the reason trump won because moral failings X, Y, and Z that produced a mandate.
>but anon, trump didn't have majority backing...
>mandates aren't real and I didn't mean it and you're uneducated and waaaah!
ok, buddy.

>>1690046
>It's illegal to have more money than other people

>>1690050
>still don't understand why electoral college exists despite being able to somehow write english on the internet
>waahhh

I never said Trump had a mandate.

The fact you don't even understand why you have a problem on your hands, by not understanding why majority rules across the whole country, is truly embarrassing in itself. I cannot explain that to you, but you are welcome to research it on your own. HOWEVER, you can further make yourself look like an idiot, or do a little homework to find out why I'm right, before you embarrass yourself further. I'd recommend that, actually. There's no shame in saying "I'm wrong." In fact, our Country could a little more of that these days.

>>1690054
>im 15 and i cant read my name is Johnny

>>1690055
Not "why majority rules", but "majority doesn't rule".

See? I made my own correction because of a typo. Your turn. It's okay. You'll live.

>>1690055
>I never said Trump had a mandate.
you implied it when you said anon was the reason Trump won rather than giving the actual reason.

the majority of this country is what you'd call liberal, and the only reason they didn't win is because of a republican system designed to protect voters from electing a jackass.

and a fine job they've been doing.

>>1690029
There are a lot of big people who would want to kill Amazon, but they are competing the same markets. Even Walmart. Go to Walmart.com. Few of their material is actually stocked by them, they are third party stores "hosted" by them. eBay has been doing it for years. Amazon is just another medium.

Amazon's web services? Literally every technology company out there is doing it, and they're getting a piece of it.

If you think they're a monopoly, you are truly retarded about the market.

In any case, they're getting a piece of it. They might be getting a better piece of it than most because they are better at it. They're not even close to a monopoly.

>>1690065
>Few of their material is actually stocked by them, they are third party stores "hosted" by them.
truth.

the last two items I bought off Walmart.com were fulfilled by amazon and ebay.

>>1690064
The only thing I implied was that Clinton thought she was an automatic win because "everyone" loves her. Even from their(Democrat) own admission, she ignored a lot of the people who she should have been voting for most, the working class people. She could have had it in the bag, but she went with the populous, and totally fucked it up. She went to the cities and ignored the common folk who represent a better geographic of American.

The part you folks can't get through your thick skulls is that "most" Americans don't live in fucking LA or NYC, or any density of population. This is why the electoral vote matters, not that you isolated city fucktards would even understand. All's good in your hood, right? I don't even know where you live, but if you don't live there, you must be stupid enough to not even consider that anyway.

>>1690067
Actually, I worked with a client recently, helping them connect their fulfillment centers with their Paypal orders. They went with some client in China for European orders vs Amazon for North American. They're all over the place. I'm not saying that this shit isn't short-term bad for the economy, but I don't think specifically targeting Amazon is appropriate. It's all over the fucking place. I don't even use Amazon. I just respect their model

>>1690070
>I don't even know where you live, but if you don't live there, you must be stupid enough to not even consider that anyway.
I live in that rare beast, a liberal rural district.

we are of course gerrymandered in with that other rare beast, a conservative urban area so our votes don't count.

now whether that's good or bad doesn't matter to me, I don't think Trump won because anon up there is an entitled cunt or because people are getting sick of the new feminism or whatever it was you were trying to imply.

I think he won because our system is rigged to elect losers on occasion, and no demographic or economic shift should be read into it when that happens. There are no lessons to be learned from gerrymandering or electoral college distributions that don't reflect actual voting populations. It's just some of the stupid fuckery we've always put up with and it means nothing when trying to divine what the voters want.

>>1690073
After all of this, I think if we go back, and I wasn't so forceful, we'd probably be alike. My first argument was that Trump won because people were just sick of dealing with whatever it was(so generic.) There was no effort to smooth it out. Just complaint after complaint.

I guess my bias came in with the OP who was arguing against generic vertical business integration, who democrats have historically attacked for no actual rational reason, other than to incite a hateful dialect against the people who enhance their lives on a daily basis. I think we can all admit that we've deviated from the original post a bit. But, I'll leave it at that.

Have a good day, sir.

File: I said good day sir.jpg (29KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x375px

>>1690082
You're right about republicans being friendlier to big business, but from the dems point of view that means the election is bought by monopolies.

true or not we have to worry about backlash from a majority that believes it to be true.

OWS was completely ineffective, but voting democrat long enough will have the same results. There's been a change in the public attitude, and I don't think it's going in favor of amazon or Walmart or anything else incorporated. Perhaps they'll grow out of it, previous generations have.

Usually right around the time they buy their first shares of amazon or Walmart or whatever.

>>1690090
tl;dr: it's hard to bitch about a company you own stock in. Need to get these kids vested then their politics will follow.

Amazon is one of the greatest companies ever. Bezos is just a small part of his child. Ouroboros.

I work as an engineer in Amazon. Ask me anything.

>>1689628
>make lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, better
>creates better products at an affordable price
>bad guy

>>1689996
Lmao so dumb

>America
>capitalist

top lel friend

>>1690046
>expansion is illegal

>kicking the walmart waltons out of business
>walmart is cancer on earth
>bad guy

No my dear child, he is ushering in the new world!

Jeff Bezos is a fucking DOer. Not a fucking dreamer with delusions of grandeur like Musk.

Bezos & Zuck >>>>>>> Page/Brin >>>>>>>> Musk

Cook is just an Ops guy, not an innovator... albeit a really, really good ops guy.

File: Fuck You Labor Unions.png (269KB, 375x274px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 375x274px

>>1690703
>Jeff Bezos is a fucking DOer. Not a fucking dreamer with delusions of grandeur like Musk.

Labor Unions:
> "Pay us our arbitrarily high labor costs, our bloated benefits packages, our unsustainable Pensions or ELSE we will STRIKE and hold your entire business and all your customers as HOSTAGE!!!"

Jeff Bezos:
> lol :middle finger:


Based Bezos is the God of the new economy.

Awesome thread. Really top notch.

Amazon has been nothing but amazing for shareholders. If this board actually was /biz/ that would be all you gave a shit about.

>>1690703
>Jeff Bezos is a fucking DOer. Not a fucking dreamer with delusions of grandeur like Musk.

Musk is like a wealthy kid with ADHD... can't keep his focus on any single project and just thinks he can buy his way to success.

>>1690073
He wasnt a loser though. He lost California by such a wide margin that he lost the popular vote. He won the rest of the country by over a million votes. But...

WE DONT HAVE A POPULAR VOTE SYSTEM.

You have no idea how it would have ended up if we did. You're saying he got blown out in game 1 and 2 of the World Series, then barely won the next 4 games. You wouldn't say the loser won. The winner won.

>>1689663
Competing in many industries isn't a monopoly, you tard.
Amazon has competition in retail, it has competition in delivery, and it has competition in web hosting.
Why don't you tell me exactly which laws they've violated and how?

Here in the Netherlands the biggest online retailer (bol.com) works quite well together with the retailers.
If you aren't at home, then they bring the package to the nearest supermarket where you can pick it up.

Super convenient.

Should I buy amazon?

>>1690886
>If you aren't at home, then they bring the package to the nearest supermarket where you can pick it up.
>Super convenient.

Amazon had pickup centers & drop boxes years ago.

Why pay a grocery store 1 or 2% of your margins when your margins are razor thin to begin with?

>>1690029
Trump doesn't know what he's talking about, he won't even read a fucking security briefing it shouldn't surprise you that he's misinformed

>>1690850
>Competing in many industries isn't a monopoly
not when you have the capital to overcome the competition.
when companies get bigger, small companies either disappear or merge into big ones. that's capitalism.

>>1691001
It's all about scale of course. Not letting your competition get a foot between the door. Amazon hasn't been able to penetrate this market yet because they have to go against a dominant player that offers free shipping, drop off points at supermarkets, delivery within 24 hours etc. Amazon still has to build everything up here.

>>1689756
>/leftypol/
Fucking off yourself

>>1691025

You seem very young and naive in your economic assumptions.

I bet you probably think Alibaba and Amazon arrived at their success levels in the exact same method.

>>1691032
my point is that big companies have advertising power and lots of marketing stunts that small companies have.
coca cola still spends money on advertising should alert you on how important that is

>>1691040

Your confusing capital expenditures with a Monopoly.

spending alot MAY lead you to a monopoly, or it may lead you to bankrupcy.

You seem to be equating more spending to economic success...

Many a failed companies and start ups would disagree with your Spending = winning assumption.

>>1690135
>I work as an warehouse engineer at Amazon. AMA

FTFY

>>1690168
>Hasn't heard the horror stories of those who work in a distribution center/warehouse run by Amazon

You fucking retard

>>1691056
you can buy you way to the top
hilary almost won the election with thousands of little minions staging riots in her favor. just proves that you can either buy power to overcome competition or just buy the competition

File: railgun_c.jpg (133KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 720x720px

>>1689628
>"Walmart? Meijer? Kroger? Fuck you."
Walmart NEEDS a Fuck you, has for decades.
>Let's build automatic grocery stores
So niggers can steal from them. We covered this already. Amazon doesn't take over the grocery world on this.
>FedEx? UPS? Fuck you
FedEx told UPS this 30 years ago. LOL.
>He is a fucking SCUMBAG
Google: Fred Smith, Safeway, Sears, Apple

OP, u are a total fuckwit.Either that or u work 4 China

>>1690711
I've been to many car shows and I've seen how intrigued people are by those shitty ass Tesla's. They were mostly older people though or people with more money than sense.

>>1691071
If Amazon thinks they can outdo the supermarket market, he's fucking autistic.

>Thinking he's not a scumbag
If AliExpress, DHGate, and other online retailers in China had better logistics, Amazon would be done for.

>>1691056
btw you are talking about innovation, and innovation always draws investors.
we are talking about something blunt as grocery stores, its just 2 companies competing on the same terms, but one has alot more money than the other.
mcdonalds would bomb 5 guys HQ if it was legal to do so

>>1691031
>17 hours ago

>>1691094
>btw you are talking about innovation, and innovation always draws investors.
>we are talking about something blunt as grocery store

Whole Foods was both overpriced and smaller capitalized than the big players like Kroger, Safeway, etc.

Yet WF became a massive success while taking their market share.

Again, having larger assets and spending more does not equate to success, much less a Monopoly.

>>1691112
>Whole Foods was both overpriced and smaller capitalized than the big players like Kroger, Safeway, etc.

Whole foods, trader joes, sprouts, etc... are all disrupting the biggest players with more expensive products and less advertising power.

>>1691118
There are even smaller places that are locally-owned that have the same business model as WF, Trader Joe's, etc

>>1691069
You gonna complain about all the Chinese workers making your electronics/clothes/etc next? Working conditions at Amazon are still better than a lot of places in America

>>1691151
No, I'm not because the work ethic of a Chinese person far surpasses that of an American worker. The counterfeit market in China is gigantic and the wholesale market is even larger.

You wanna see how it is at an Amazon warehouse? Alright. Turn your heater up to about 85-90 degrees and grab a buddy to harass you for 8-12 hours.

>>1689628
well monopolies can be good some times bc they allow the company to create new innovations and improve quality of life. i mean yeah he does take away from small business but not everyone in the world uses amazon so relax. and besides, its time for small businesses to step up. someones gotta motivate them right.

>>1689663
oh btw amazon is made up of smaller businesses. that means small business can put all their shit online. nice try at arguing with a ceo.

>>1690058
im done

>>1690070
this guy gets it, she lost because she wasnt aggressive. she ignored all allegations just making her look bad.

>>1689865
because these are the only people who amount to anything. The keep things going forward in a world filled with dumb apes like you. "Oh, this person gives me stuff and services I want far cheaper in a way more convenient way thanks to innovation and skill. Better shoot him. Let's all keep living in the dirt like swine." Kill yourself. You are a waste of energy.

>>1691172
>made up of smaller businesses

Amazon takes a pretty sizable cut out of their profits. I should know, I deal in eCommerce a lot. It's how I make money.

Now is Amazon terrible? Not at all. Is Jeff Bezos a sociopath hellbent on taking over the global marketplace when it comes to eCommerce.

Journalist Shawn McCoy contrasted the philanthropic practices of Amazon and Bezos with the comparatively more generous Microsoft (also based near Seattle) and fellow billionaire Bill Gates. Some found Bezos more akin to Steve Jobs, who was skeptical of philanthropy and made few donations.

File: 1478245627217.png (80KB, 261x263px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 261x263px

>>1689646
>>>1689644
>Amazon isn't a tech company you mongoloid.

>>1689628
The fuck you on about anon? A Monopoly is a business that unfairly squeezes our competition by controlling the market and the resources.

Amazon is OUTCOMPETING other businesses thru innovation and cost cutting

The weak should fear the strong.

>>1689628
From what you said, it sounds like bezos is making genuine progress and doing the right thing. If you were alive a couple decades ago, you'd probably be complaining about how computers are destroying all the jobs like typewriter repairmen and shit.

>>1691068

You wish. I work in AWS faggot.

File: 1471199879775.jpg (128KB, 1500x844px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1500x844px

>>1689628

/x/

You're talking about socialism. Socialism is destroying America. Taking from the worthwhile to sustain the worthless as though all human life has some manner of intrinsic worth beyond self interest and narcissism. When I had nothing I was foolish and blamed societal structures and the greed of the rich but really I lacked self confidence. I now make 100k a year but pay 40k in taxes. I pay 10k in child support because I was foolish enough to trust a woman. Half of my income is taken from me and given to others, put into social programs I've no access to, spent on things that others vote on, it is all so unfair. Socialism will only work when we have the technology that allows for it. Pretending right now will only lead to unstable systems which fail again and again and again.

>>1689641
Hi Jeff

>>1689996
>Losers get to win.

Well there's a word for losers that won, Anon. Winners.

Most people didn't even vote. Clinton didn't win because she's a loser. The way you get elected president has been the same for 200 YEARS. If you fuck up somehow, you don't get to say the other guy's a loser. You knew the rules for three lifetimes and still didn't plan accordingly. It doesn't matter how hard you win California and New York; winning by 1 vote or 1 million votes in a state has the same result. Spread your campaign properly and you'll come out ahead of someone that markets super hard to a core demographic that primarily exists in only two already-won locations.

>>1692093
why are conservatives so stupid?

I'm saying Trump didn't win because some imaginary majority hates liberals.

I'm saying he won because the rules don't always allow the majority to win.

so when you pretend he won because liberals are stupid or the nation is turning against socialism or whatever you're lying to yourself and everyone else.

and we all know it. because the majority of the US didn't vote for the fucker.

and come next census California and NY will have more electoral votes and you silly fuckers will be screwed again. Because that's also how the rules work.

>>1692094
>so when you pretend he won because liberals are stupid
>Don't know how elections work
>Complain about the elections
>Get told how elections work
>W-why are conservatives so stupid?

>>1692095
>literally retarded

if the majority of people oppose your candidate you don't have any majority on your side.

the end.

>>1692096
>the end.

I never said he had a majority. I said the election isn't about getting the majority of the popular vote. It hasn't been SINCE OUR ELECTORAL SYSTEM WAS ESTABLISHED.

Our nation has literally never been a simple democracy. For you and other liberals to insist it is a simple democracy that's failing only means you're too stupid to realize that must mean it isn't actually a simple democracy. Our voting system was never made with the intent to simply appeal to the largest number of people. Hell, it only looks that way now because large groups gained voting rights over time.

But sure, go whine about conservatives because you don't know how presidential elections work.

>>1692099
>I said the election isn't about getting the majority of the popular vote.
I'm not disputing that he won the election.

read the fucking thread before trying to school people on stuff they aren't even discussing.

>>1692103
You're trying to qualify it as being an issue with the system where losers win, though.

But that hints you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the system works. It doesn't allow losers to win. You just don't get what constitutes a winner and loser by the rules of the system.

>>1692104
>You're trying to qualify it as being an issue with the system where losers win, though
I'm saying you can't draw any demographic or economic conclusions about the electorate based on the loser of the popular vote winning the election.

because demographically this nation is still majority liberal, no matter who won. And it's dangerous to bet money on that shifting when it has not.

>>1692107
I'd say you can, to an extent. Election outcomes show you which number of people are sold on whichever representative of a set of ideals (faithfully or not) over another. Losing the popular vote but winning the elections means certain spaces that ARE hardcore liberal must be concentrated heavily in certain areas, otherwise they would better effect election outcome.

It suggest that neutral territories have begun to lean right. Whether or not that trend will continue is anyone's guess.

>>1692110
>certain spaces that ARE hardcore liberal must be concentrated heavily in certain areas, otherwise they would better effect election outcome.
yes, and as I said the next census will correct that problem, granting more power to those same liberals.

the pendulum will swing back, but the progression is towards liberalism rather than the rejection of it.

this will be offset somewhat by younger liberal voters becoming vested in our economic systems and moving to the center, but they'll have kids which will also be leftists.

We came very close to nominating a socialist this year. Unthinkable even 16 years ago. This is our likely future. Not a rejection of liberal policies but an embrace of them.

I'm not saying that's good or bad, I see both. I'm just saying what I see. We're moving left very rapidly as a nation. When I was growing up Trump was viewed as a liberal....

>>1692113
>When I was growing up Trump was viewed as a liberal....
we've gone so far to the left that the liberals of 30 years ago are now seen as conservatives.

>>1692110
>>1692116
>the liberals of 30 years ago are now seen as conservatives

and you have to understand this from the perspective of liberal Gen X-

you took the stupidest liberal we had to offer and ran him as a conservative. And then WON based on his conservative values?

as far as we're concerned he's still a liberal and he's still retarded. Conservatives won in name only. Trump came close to getting lynched by real conservatives in the '80's and '90's.

you elected a retarded liberal and called it a conservative victory. We tried to warn you. Unfortunately we didn't offer anything better.

>I am jealous: the thread

>>1689628
>Have a family of 10, father, mother, and 8 sons
>All have to farm to sustain themselves
>Suddenly tractor is invented
>Only 2 sons required to run the farm
>6 remaining sons can now dedicate themselves to something else, this is the process that made internet possible, we wouldn't have internet if accessing to food was something we had to dedicate our whole day or budget into.

This guy is not destroying jobs, he is allowing people to work in something else. People who don't understand something as simple as this should just refrain from posting their idiocy in forums.

I I don't have an issue with Amazon's business model. I have Ian issue with how they treat their workers.

>>1689628
The competition is complacent which is why amazon is a success. They will adapt, it just takes time. You should know you've made a shitty post when the best answer is literally 'the free market will fix itself'

>>1692841
*tips fedora*

>>1689628
Also you can list Ebay based on the "used goods" section of Amazon, just saying. If you wanted to get really gay you could even mention how they are in position to destroy Netflix and even eSports because of Twitch.

They are even kicking Googles ass over the Home Robot shit with ALEXA.

I dunno from a certain respect I greatly admire him that he is in the league of the greatest businessmen ever, JP Morgan, Rockefeller, Ford, Besos.

>>1689628
He also gives opportunities to make money with amazon

>>1689628
>"Walmart? Meijer? Kroger? Fuck you." Let's build automatic grocery stores and destroy as many supermarket employee's jobs as we can.
thank god, fuck those retards.

>>1689628
Capitalism must run its course, Even Marx said this, It will eventually automate itself into the grave.

>>1689628
>people posting are too young to remember Walmart

>>1689644
Google has a ton of research shit and it has its hands in everything. It's not going away soon. Same is true of Facebook but to a lesser extent. No idea what's going on with Twitter but I'd assume they aren't going anywhere anytime soon when the potus loves them.

File: Hey-Guys-Itis-an-Internet-Fight.jpg (21KB, 292x298px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 292x298px

>>1690046
I just bought a oil diffuser at MSRP for $30. The same model is available through Amazon for $50+

>>1689628
>>1689644
>>1689748
I don't get the monopoly claim. What exactly do they have a monopoly on? Sure, they are big in some fields, but not big enough to be monopolies in any. Their webshop isn't even that big compared to Aliexpress.

>>1693768
>What exactly do they have a monopoly on?
online retail sales

>>1693777
>online retail sales
But they don't.

>>1693783
you have the luxury of explaining and excusing by thinking things like, "other retailers exist, they just don't make as much money because they're not as good." And that's fine. You can tell yourself and 4chan whatever you want.

You don't actually get to decide in court if they have a monopoly or not. Neither do I.

>>1693791
As far as I know, no court has determined Amazon to have an illegal monopoly on anything.
They certainly don't have a literal monopoly on online retailing.
So unless you can point to a law they've violated, and explain exactly how they've violated it, I don't think you have an argument.

>>1693777
>>1693791
I live in the EU. I never bought anything from Amazon and I don't know anyone who has. Perhaps it has a larger market share in the US but I don't see it as anything close to a monopoly. Coca-cola is big too, are they also a "monopoly"?

>>1693796
>no court has determined Amazon to have an illegal monopoly on anything.
our courts stopped enforcing that law in the 80's.

that doesn't say anything about whether or not amazon is breaking it.

>>1693805
>Coca-cola is big too, are they also a "monopoly"?
amazon has way more market share than coca cola.

>>1693805
>Coca-cola is big too, are they also a "monopoly"?
also, yes.
In the Caribbean and Central America coke is literally a monopoly.

those countries don't have laws against it though.

>>1693812
>our courts stopped enforcing that law in the 80's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.

>that doesn't say anything about whether or not amazon is breaking it.
So you don't have any evidence that they are breaking it?

>>1693830
>judgment was overturned, case was settled out of court.
go back a bit further, you'll find the last time we busted up a major monopoly was in the 70's iirc.

I don't have any evidence of anything about amazon. I suspect their market share is sufficient to land them in court if we ever decide to start busting trusts again.

>>1693830
He's fucking retarded, do you really think he has any kind of evidence?

>>1693840
>The proposed settlement required Microsoft to share its application programming interfaces with third-party companies and appoint a panel of three people who will have full access to Microsoft's systems, records, and source code for five years in order to ensure compliance.[24]
Gee it almost sounds like Microsoft was punished despite the settlement technically taking place out of court.

>I suspect their market share is sufficient to land them in court if we ever decide to start busting trusts again.
What do you base that on?
Can you cite the text of the particular law that you suspect Amazon is violating?
I'm looking at the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act and it doesn't say anything about having too much market share, only having an actual monopoly or engaging in certain anti-consumer practices like buying up the competition.

File: 1476005367334.png (599KB, 473x704px) Image search: [Google]

599KB, 473x704px

>>1689646
>Alexa, order more bullets

>>1693857
>Gee it almost sounds like Microsoft was punished despite the settlement technically taking place out of court
they weren't punished at all.

the last time we enforced the Sherman Act the offending company was seized by the government and forcibly split into several new companies which were then forced to compete with one another.

>it doesn't say anything about having too much market share, only having an actual monopoly
those are the same thing.
I'm pretty sure amazon won't be going to court over it and I'm quite certain if they do it won't be 4chan trying or defending them.

so nothing you think actually matters.

>>1689676
>simply ads

You really think that's their long-term strategy?

>>1693867
>they weren't punished at all.
They were forced to end their monopolistic trading practices.

>the last time we enforced the Sherman Act the offending company was seized by the government and forcibly split into several new companies which were then forced to compete with one another.
Gee it's almost like the circumstances of Microsoft abusing proprietary software and the telephone company literally being the only source of telephone service are different and require different actions.

>those are the same thing.
Then go ahead and define the cut-off. What % of market share qualifies a company as a monopoly and how do you know Amazon meets that cut-off?

>I'm pretty sure amazon won't be going to court over it and I'm quite certain if they do it won't be 4chan trying or defending them.
You continue to dodge the key question: which law have they violated and how? You didn't even mention the Sherman Act until I brought it up so I suspect you've done no research and have no idea what you're talking about. I'm inviting you to prove me wrong by pointing out which laws they've broken and how.

>>1693875
>trading practices.
Don't know why I said this. I meant business practices.

>>1693817
>Pepsi
>All those supermarket-brand sodas + local brands that you usually don't find on first-world countries since they're meant for low-income customers

Do people in this thread even know what a monopoly is?

>>1693875
>What % of market share qualifies a company as a monopoly
that's up to a judge and juries to decide
>and how do you know Amazon meets that cut-off?
I don't.
Public opinion would apparently like to see them in court defending themselves though.

and public opinion is capable of doing it eventually.

ignoring your question regarding law since we're both discussing the same law and it IS left open to broad interpretation.

>>1694126
I was in Belize a month ago and the someone asked the tour guide why there's a coke sign on every second house in the country.

Turns out coke went into latin America and the Caribbean and negotiated sole provider contracts blocking pepsi and other competition from marketing products there. Belize had only just removed the contract preventing outside competition for coke, after who knows how many years of monopoly.

from what I've seen other countries are the same. You're not going to find a lot of pepsi there, if any.

>>1689628
Op doesn't understand capitalism

>>1694138
Since you're completely clueless, I went and looked up what a monopoly is, legally speaking, and found the FTC's definition.

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined
>Judging the conduct of an alleged monopolist requires an in-depth analysis of the market and the means used to achieve or maintain the monopoly. Obtaining a monopoly by superior products, innovation, or business acumen is legal; however, the same result achieved by exclusionary or predatory acts may raise antitrust concerns.
>Exclusionary or predatory acts may include such things as exclusive supply or purchase agreements; tying; predatory pricing; or refusal to deal. These topics are discussed in separate Fact Sheets for Single Firm Conduct.

So, what predatory acts has Amazon engaged in?

>>1689644
It's a distribution and delivery company

>>1689663
>venturing into other industries
That's called diversification you mongoloid. Kinda like when apple started selling phones.

>>1689676
Google sells people's private information gathered from search history and email accounts so adds can be marketed at them. Their add practice is anything but legal

>>1694164
>what predatory acts has Amazon engaged in?
which ones hasn't it engaged in?

all businesses do some of those things. It's only when you own the entire market or supply chain that it becomes a problem.

>>1694179
>which ones hasn't it engaged in?
That's not how an argument works.
You are claiming that Amazon has a monopoly but whenever pressed about how they have a monopoly or which laws they're violating you avoid saying anything concrete.

Dominating the market by providing a superior product is specifically legal, especially when a company does not have a literal monopoly, so unless you can point out any cases of Amazon engaging in predatory, anti-consumer practices you're simply wrong about them violating antitrust laws.

>>1694184
He's just some limp dick berny loving socialist that thinks diversification = monopoly

>>1690706
AMZN is down 9% since October. The growth is not gonna last forever. AWS is the ONLY thing that's keeping the stock alive.

>>1693830
And what, pray tell, came of the Microsoft case? Oh, right, Bush's justice department walked away from it. Idiot.

>>1691400
Surprised my thread is still up

You're a dumb fuck. Amazon IS unfairly squeezing competition by controlling the market.

They barely make profits they price so low. But they make $ from their stock which they unfairly use to fuck the prices up for everyone. this may seem good for consumer, but absolutely awful for the economy.

Btw, kek @ amazon now trying to compete with Pandora. Fucking disgusting scum want to take over the world from his shitty overvalued stock.

>>1689628
Dog-eat-dog world, my friend.

>>1694300
>barely make profits
If they aren't even selling at a loss they aren't doing anything unfair, much less illegal.

>But they make $ from their stock
What? Are they diluting every month or something?

>>1694394
That dumbass doesn't even understand what a monopoly is, let alone how stock ownership and fundraising works.

>>1694184
>You are claiming that Amazon has a monopoly
No, I'm claiming they will very likely be dragged into court to prove they don't sometime in the distant future
>but whenever pressed about how they have a monopoly or which laws they're violating you avoid saying anything concrete.
the laws aren't concrete.
sorry.

the difference between legal and illegal business practices hinges on market share.
I can engage in predatory pricing. Walmart also engages in predatory pricing and may one day pay for that.

it's up to the people to decide when a company gets too big to use certain business practices, and if this thread or the OWS movement is any indication Amazon and Walmart and others may very well wind up in court one day.

>>1694401
>the difference between legal and illegal business practices hinges on market share.
Are you ever going to list the predatory practices Amazon engages in or are you just going to keep saying they do it?

>>1694406
they engage in all of them.

so do I
so does every business.
it's not illegal until people decide they're too big to get away with it. Usually that happens when they don't have any real competition. At 40%+ market share they're rapidly approaching that point.

>>1694407
>they engage in all of them.
Go ahead and give examples.

>40%
No one is going to come after them for monopolizing jack shit if they're under 50% market share.

>>1694413
>Go ahead and give examples.
Their market share has been taken by offering lower prices than brick and mortar stores. As their share has grown their prices have risen.

this is predatory pricing.
Walmart does it as well.
>No one is going to come after them for monopolizing jack shit if they're under 50% market share
I think you grossly misread the attitudes of the majority of people in the US. They are liberals. They are mostly anti-corporate. They are almost half socialists.

they will very certainly go after a company that owns almost half of the retail business in the US. Why wouldn't they?

>>1694421
>Charging less because you have lower costs is predatory pricing
LOL
O
L

Thanks, anon. That was the proof I needed that you're totally clueless and don't know anything about business.

Claiming that liberals disliking your company can magically make legal business practices illegal helps, too.

>>1694436
>>Charging less because you have lower costs is predatory pricing
of course it's not.
until you get huge and then it is.

you seem to have a very weak grasp on the gray areas of the law and stick to your black and white definitions.

I suggest you look up "predatory pricing" and see what it is in black and white. Every definition out there agrees with me. The reason you have trouble with it is because every business does it.

>>1694394
They didn't start making profits until TWENTY years later. Even now its sketchy. And they still used their stock while making ZERO money for the past 20 years earlier which is illegal.

>>1693841
Get the fuck out of my thread you autistic idiot. Every single post is "dumbass" "retard". You clearly know fucking nothing about business, law, or anything to justify your views besides posting like an oblivious autistic faggot.

>>1694158
You dont understand antitrust

>>1694440
>Obtaining a monopoly by superior products, innovation, or business acumen is legal
Straight from the FTC. Outcompeting the competition isn't a crime, no matter how good you are at it, as long as you don't engage in forbidden practices like exclusivity deals.

But I'll admit I misunderstood the term. "Predatory pricing" is apparently a synonym for undercutting, and not a term for an anti-consumer practice. It therefore has nothing whatsoever to do with antitrust laws.

>>1694445
>they still used their stock
What does this even mean?

File: get_a_load_of_this_pleb.jpg (54KB, 540x720px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 540x720px

The free market sucks and automation is a dystopia.

>>1694448
>Outcompeting the competition isn't a crime
monopolies aren't criminal in nature, they're the normal outcome of free markets.

the government used to step in and break them up not because they're criminal, but because they stop free trade.

> It therefore has nothing whatsoever to do with antitrust laws.
go back and read that FTC quote again.

>>1694450
Weren't making any money from any of their industries because of their predatorily prices in every single fucking industry they entered. Flourished simply on Amazon shares. Bezos could rely on his stock to make profits, he didn't give a shit about making profits from his company.

Thus, he can price so extraordinarily and unfairly low that competition stands no chance. Fine if in one industry, but to keep entering new industries and doing this? Fucking evil.

>>1694445
You have no clue what you're talking about, why do you think you deserve any kind of reply other than derision? You can't even provide examples for the shit you're claiming. Fucking retard.

>>1694456
Like this shit right here

>Flourished simply on Amazon shares. Bezos could rely on his stock to make profits

You think a company makes profit simply from their stock going up, without any kind of dilutive offering or selling off of their owned shares (which by the way need to be publicly disclosed, but I doubt you knew that). Zero understanding of how stocks work. And you want anyone to listen to your retarded ramblings about antitrust?

>>1694458
Everything I've said is fact about the company strategies, earnings, and legality broken

Just because you're too much of a fucking retard to comprehend anything doesn't mean it's not there. Hurr derrr "retard" hurr derr "dumbass" herrr durrr "you dont know anything"

Just so you fucking clueless idiots dont know

Jeff has been sued for antitrust before
He's afraid of getting arrested for antitrust

You know what he does to get out of it?

He BUYS politicians.

He spent millions on the Hilary campaign.
He BOUGHT a fucking news site for hundreds of millions to downplay Amazon's antitrust issues
He literally buys political power

If Trump can deliver his promises, he truly is fucked and I will laugh when fucking clueless idiots like you who dont know shit about anything were wrong

>>1694462
>you think a company makes profit simply from their stock going up
You're a fucking idiot

Amazon had no profits when they reached sky high prices

Twitter makes no money and there stock is still near $20

You're a stupid fucking retard. Stick to ad hominids because facts make you look dumb

>>1694465
Nice counterpoint, you still haven't provided an example of how amazon itself makes money from their stock price going up. Shareholders make money, but only if they actually sell their fucking shares (amazon doesn't even pay a dividend). You don't need profits for the price of a stock to go up, look at any biopharma company with negative earnings every year for examples.Twitter is near $20 because they don't have a market cap of 372 billion fucking dollars, but you probably don't even know what that means. You know nothing about how the markets work and you want anyone here to take you seriously?

>>1694463
>If Trump can deliver his promises, he truly is fucked and
Not really.

Trump would be impeached for using his office to exact revenge on political dissidents. What Amazon did or didn't do would be forgotten if that happened. Trump will probably do something retarded and unconstitutional like that, but it's not going to turn out how you imagine.

>>1694471
You are actually so stupid

Jeff has sold shares you complete fucking moron. Do you even research or just spew random shit thinking you're smart

August 5 sold 600 million $ worth of stock

Months before that he sold another million shares

I mean are you a downs? He's been selling shares off slowly since he's fucking owned it you stupid fuck

>Twitter is near $20 because they don't have a market cap of 372 billion fucking dollars.
>Do YOU even know what market cap is???
Terrible and completely retarded explanation. Did you just learn the word and think you're smart? twitter is near $20 because investors have hope the company will soon continue growing and hopefully make profits.

You are really, really stupid

>>1694473
He wouldn't be doing it for revenge. if a trial occurs and he is guilty, nothing wrong.

>>1689637
oh hai jeff

>>1694487
>sold shares according to a trading plan, so it was predetermined
>1 million out of his 81 million shares
Yeah, you're fucking dumb

>>1694487
What does bezos selling shares have anything to do with the funding of Amazon or its share price? If he sells shares it's his money, it doesn't add to amazon's profit or revenue or anything like that. You sound confused

>>1694498
lol @ every time you post you get proven wrong

he still sold 1 million shares. that is $755 million.

Like I said, he thrives off that money. Money from his STOCK. Not his businesses. Hence why he wasnt making profits. Hence why other companies who dont have a stock get fucked over. = antitrust

It's just fact. The only argument one can really make against it is that the lines between antitrust are somewhat vague. It's hard to completely define.

Either way, whatever the fuck you think you're saying you sound retarded. And either way, Jeff is still a fuck, who, in my and countless of others opinions who aren't bought by him for silence, is running a monopolistic company

>>1694500
I was responding to that moron who said "Shareholders make money, but only if they sell their shares."

Which is fucking retarded because Jeff IS selling his shares.

What I'm trying to say is that Jeff is using the profits from his stock to adjust prices disgustingly low. Predatory pricing. Competitors stand no chance. Fine I guess if in one industry, but when you continue doing this in multiple industries, it fucks the economy and becomes trouble with the law. That is, unless you buy off politicians like him

>>1694506
>What I'm trying to say is that Jeff is using the profits from his stock to adjust prices disgustingly low
kek

>>1689628
I fucking hate this cunt but you'd have to be really fucking stupid or ignorant to think that he's anywhere as bad as the Google trio or Mark Zuckerberg.

>>1694509
Why is that "kek"

Destroying the American economy and countless of jobs is "kek"

Not only in one industry, but creating an empire of 6+ industries. That is "kek" to you?

At least when most people do it, they are making a profit. THAT is a capitalism. Not just squandering back to your millions of shares then going to destroy companies in another industry

>>1694515
I was laughing at the cartoon world you live in

>>1694510
Not really.

Mark is an asshole for fucking over Eduardo but that is arguable and he ultimately was rewarded so no biggie. At least Mark built up a legitimate company on his own without trying to take his profits from Facebook to continue expanding his empire. Continuing advancing isn't bad, but it is when you thrive off FB stock to fuck competitors.

>google
not very familiar with google, but the majority of their revenue is ads so seem pretty harmless

>>1694522
Great argument, no facts, just a "kek, cartoon world". It isn't a cartoon world anymore when he has to start paying millions to our government and buying a news site to create bias articles, huh? Retard.

Who's next? No idiots, please with useless arguments.

>>1694525
>Great argument, no facts
exactly.
you say he's selling his personal stock to lower prices for you and me, and not getting anything out of it except being evil?

and you have no citation or evidence?

that's some funny shit. Is he also in league with bigfoot and has he sold his kidneys to his suppliers for an exclusive contract?

>>1694530
Hehe, I love educating others on the greed of Amazon.

Two responses to that, pay attention to the second one.

a) low prices for consumers are not always good. if they're from finding a more cheaper way to make a product - that's good. if they're from using your stock so now it's literally impossible for competitors to price accordingly - bad.

b) amazon wasn't making profits at first like i said. over 20 years. They *had* to price low to destroy competition. The reward would be great in the long run, and Jeff knew this. Now that Amazon is on top and competition is fucked. Amazon is now fucking customers over. The prices are no longer what they once were. Everything is more expensive now. Now that Amazon is big they can fuck over consumers too. This article sums it up well:

"Instead of always having the rock-bottom cheapest prices, Amazon now reliably has prices that are decent, if not the absolute lowest available. What keeps Amazon’s sales humming along, then, is that it’s convenient. The site that used to be all about saving money is now the Internet shopper’s “prime”—pun intended—resource for saving time."

Pure evil. Jobs fucked, consumers fucked, economy fucked. Terrible, terrible guy

>>1694541
>Pure evil. Jobs fucked, consumers fucked, economy fucked. Terrible, terrible guy
neither point indicates he's selling his own stock to lower prices.

that's where you went full retard.

>>1694543
Amazon not making profits, Bezos selling $750 million worth of stock in one day... GEE i wonder HMMMMMMM

>>1694544
How would amazon profit from their CEO selling his own shares? Except he already isn't
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/amzn/insider-trades
Also: Profit = Revenue - Expenses
Both Revenue and Expenses are high, the latter one because they are investing to expand their market share.
You don't know too much about their business model, do you?

>>1694557
>How would amazon profit from their CEO selling his own shares?
They wouldn't. ? Jeff does. Jeff can use that $ to enter a new industry and price as he wishes. He certainly isnt using the profits from amazon since they werent making any

Thanks for linking me to a nasdaq showing him constantly disposing shares, making $ though

>>1694564
>He certainly isnt using the profits from amazon since they werent making any
he can take a loss and pass it on to shareholders, there's no reason at all to take a personal loss.

also with gross of over $100 billion, the shares he sold would drop rates less than 1%. Certainly not enough to price anyone out of any market.

your explanation simply isn't possible and quite frankly is one of the funniest things I've read on /biz/.

File: 1448730627977.png (975KB, 640x1440px) Image search: [Google]

975KB, 640x1440px

OP is 100% right. It's amazing how these fucks get away with breaking the law because they hired good lobbyists. Bezos probably thought he could blackmail politicians with his purchase of the Washington post, only to have it explode in his face when Trump won despite his propaganda paper constantly pushing the narrative to back Hillary.

Remember, Microsoft did 1/1000th of what Amazon did back in the 90's with their monopoly over Internet explorer. They got fined heavily and had to maintain an entire building of regulators to make sure they don't do something like that again. There was an entire congressional investigation into this as well. I say the hell with Obama's birth certificate, this bald headed cuck needs to be investigated.

>>1694613
>>1694590
>>1694564
I hope he changes the industry, everything gets automated and every mom and pop shop gets fucked so we can get closer to our dystopian future. Efficiency is king and everything else is shit. Deal with it and deal with being poor unless you are the automators. I can't wait.

>>1694657
>deal with being poor unless you are the automators.
the automators will be self-optimizing algorithms.

not that poor or rich will mean anything in a world where human labor no longer produces wealth.

>>1694660
if someone can create a self-optimizing algorithm someone else can create a more efficient one. Computers are not gods.

>>1694452
>monopolies aren't criminal in nature, they're the normal outcome of free markets.

Pretty sure taxing the shit out of every new potential contender and filling them with regulations thins out the chance to compete against monopolies.

Besides, Amazon is not a monopoly, it's just bigger than the rest. Monopoly has the "mono" latin prefix, which means one, or only. I could name at least 6 competitors of Amazon without even starting with the local ones.

>>1690070
Most Americans live in cities http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-33.html

>>1689663
>>1689628
Antitrust rules are an outdated and misguided set of laws. They should be abolished.

>>1689628

Oh no, people are going to have to actually make productive shit instead of being paper/product/people shufflers? How will the important parts of society survive?

>>1689628
>Implying automation is evil

>>1689628
>>1689663
>Amazon ships goods that you normally can't get in a B&M for competitive prices
Why should I care about your whiny bullshit, OP? Amazon benefits me as a consumer much more than it harms me. If nobody else can do it better than Amazon then Amazon gets my business.

They aren't a rich company because they are powerful. They are a rich company because they give consumers what they want. You have it all backwards.

>>1689628
>as many supermarket employee's jobs as we can.

well if stores actually hired enough cashiers i wouldnt be getting pissed off because it takes me 30 minutes to check out.

I want to get my shit, then fucking leave.

They're slow, and fucking hate their jobs, why not cut them off?

They removed the job of a few hundred cashiers, and gave their jobs to thousands of developers. (remember that every single integrated circut on the boards will have an entire development team behind them, be it amazon, TI, or a random IC supplier.

also FYI i've been doing self checking since i've been able to, this argument is retarded as you will still need truckers,stockers,cleaners, and machine maintenance operators, you literally removed 1 job from a company that has thousands, and replaced it with a job that requires an entire team.

>Webhosting? Fuck you guys, we'll develop our own servers and lower the cost from our other industries so you cannot compete.

do you even web?
Their services are only "cheap" when you need large scale infrastructure, the t2 free tier fucking sucks for anything that isnt HTML, you cant even reliably host wordpress on the free tier, and any other tier will automatically cost more than anyone like DigitalOcean

and seriously if you're far enough into the internet services game, you're already looking at owning space in a physical data center, and building your own hardware rather than leasing hardware.

he just knows good business and you'e upset you couldnt do this yourself, theres literally nothing wrong with amazon

>>1694144
>company negotiated with the government
And there you go. Government regulation leads to monopoly power.

>>1695132
So we should just use popular vote and ignore 48% of the country? K

>the natural outcome of the free market is a non-free market
>people in middle-management and coding positions thinking they're the ones who are going to survive automation

The Jews did this.

>>1694284
That's because Microsoft did nothing wrong. The major case was brought up because MS bundled IE with Windows.

Wooooow, how monopolist

>>1695195
>I don't understand economics
Stop browsing /pol/

>Wal mart
thank dog

>>1694541
>What keeps Amazon’s sales humming along, then, is that it’s convenient. The site that used to be all about saving money is now the Internet shopper’s “prime”—pun intended—resource for saving time."

Amazon is providing a valuable service to the people, how horrible!

>25+ posts of some assblasted trump tard railing against Bezos

Zzzzzzzzz.

>>1689663
>I'm salty because he hurts the economy you materialistic fucks.

>economy
>not materialistic

fucking wew me up my fucking lad