Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jeff Bezos was the only person in the world who was able to come up with the idea of Amazon and execute it so perfectly. Therefore, he gets to reap the rewards for doing so. It’s that simple.
You, I.C., Winterfall, N.R. all want to argue theories and generalities but not realities. People argue for things like Capitalism based upon the classroom version, not how it's actually employed.
I ask all the time where is it we find bail outs in Capitalism. No one can answer. For so many that argue against the classroom Socialism they completely back it up when the government employs it when it benefits their politics.
I've pointed out many times that Bezo's only has the amount of money he has because of government programs. He doesn't have the money he has without the government/fed doing everything they can to inflate the markets. That is also not Capitalism.
These programs harmed those who saved and the poor. The argument is that those who benefited the most from government actions should see that those who were harmed also benefit. Was this not the argument? That these actions would "trickle down"?
Now you can argue that the government should have never done this in the first place. I agree. I've argued it for years. None of that matters, they did do it. I find it amazing that the very people who complain about the poor getting welfare also argue that the government giving it to the rich is fine and people need to quit being jealous over the government picking winners and losers.
We can also note that Amazon thrives in part because it's less expensive for a Chinese manufacturer selling on Amazon to send an item to Nebraska than it is for me. This is also not how Capitalism works.
You, I.C., Winterfall, N.R. all want to argue theories and generalities but not realities. People argue for things like Capitalism based upon the classroom version, not how it's actually employed.
I ask all the time where is it we find bail outs in Capitalism.
I've already told you that the purpose of the bailouts wasn't to save private corporations, it was to save American workers'/retirees' pensions, not the least of which are those of the local, state, and federal public employee/retiree variety. If their pension plan capital investments crash, how do the pensions get paid? Get your head out of the sand.
And you still expect to collect your own pension, no?
You, I.C., Winterfall, N.R. all want to argue theories and generalities but not realities. People argue for things like Capitalism based upon the classroom version, not how it's actually employed.
I ask all the time where is it we find bail outs in Capitalism. No one can answer. For so many that argue against the classroom Socialism they completely back it up when the government employs it when it benefits their politics.
I've pointed out many times that Bezo's only has the amount of money he has because of government programs. He doesn't have the money he has without the government/fed doing everything they can to inflate the markets. That is also not Capitalism.
These programs harmed those who saved and the poor. The argument is that those who benefited the most from government actions should see that those who were harmed also benefit. Was this not the argument? That these actions would "trickle down"?
Now you can argue that the government should have never done this in the first place. I agree. I've argued it for years. None of that matters, they did do it. I find it amazing that the very people who complain about the poor getting welfare also argue that the government giving it to the rich is fine and people need to quit being jealous over the government picking winners and losers.
We can also note that Amazon thrives in part because it's less expensive for a Chinese manufacturer selling on Amazon to send an item to Nebraska than it is for me. This is also not how Capitalism works.
My criticism is that capitalism never works as advertised, it centralizes labor around a few individuals, it destroys the free markets (big business can’t let demand create supply, they need to create the demand for their supply). It controls and limits labor, it organizes production to only be as efficient as is profitable (when others could use the production to live a healthy happy life), and it controls the input of labor so that it is practiced under an authoritarian model. Any paybacks in investments/derivatives is just meant to circulate money back into the company so they can accumulate more capital and further limit labor freedoms and their vitality to the economy (so they practically become a political power)
Or if you need to, read The Conquest of Bread. If you care about suffering you have to offer a vision of socialism (society built on social needs, not profit needs) to change or capitalist system to.
We do NOT know if Capitalism works as describe as no one employs it as described.
That might be a fair argument that it doesn't work like most people pretend it does.
Capitalism was tried in post colonial Africa.
Big US corps came in, and took control over all the resources and took control over the countries economies.
Nonetheless, we know the affects of the principles of capitalism. Collectivization of capital under a few companies, who use it to control the markets, consumerism, and labor, with feedback to keep giving them more thanks to investment package 'gifts'.
Jeff Bezos was the only person in the world who was able to come up with the idea of Amazon and execute it so perfectly. Therefore, he gets to reap the rewards for doing so. It’s that simple.
as it should be.
Businesses succeed when they make good decisions.
Wal Mart chose wisely, built a great Distribution network, kept costs low by avoiding urban property (Just as Southwest Air goes to cities secondary airports), and while Wal Mart did this, it thrived, even as many other discounters who ignored cost control on product movement side bit the dust.
Bezos decisions on Amazon were spot on. He saw via the internet things others failed to see. Of course, the rewards are properly his.
Wal Mart chose wisely, built a great Distribution network, kept costs low by avoiding urban property (Just as Southwest Air goes to cities secondary airports), and while Wal Mart did this, it thrived, even as many other discounters who ignored cost control on product movement side bit the dust.
Bezos decisions on Amazon were spot on. He saw via the internet things others failed to see. Of course, the rewards are properly his.
They kept prices low by throwing out producers like Tupperware for low cost Chinese substitutes.
They kept prices low by throwing out producers like Tupperware for low cost Chinese substitutes.
Just part of equation. KMart did that, too.
However, WM had a lower distribution cost as they spent billions developing their own methods, which also translated into reduced selling price capability.
That is why no one consistently sells the same products, same suppliers, and matches WM's price.
They kept prices low by throwing out producers like Tupperware for low cost Chinese substitutes.
Tupperware is a direct sale pyramid scheme company, like Amway, Avon, Mary Kay, etc. If you mean Rubbermade, their products are in fact sold at Walmart. So are Pyrex storage solutions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
