Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Bezos backlash: Is 'big philanthropy' a charade?

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–146 of 146 posts

Re: The Bezos backlash: Is 'big philanthropy' a charade?

#141

Post by ionised »

bluecalm wrote: post #65
itsmenotyou wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That people benefited from internet shopping and delivery is not a defense of a company treating it's workers badly or evading paying taxes. Let's not pretend amazon is the only company that might have delivered those efficiencies, they were just the most successful, the most ruthless.

You can't expect companies to fight for greater good and sacrifice their interests for the overall good. In fact it's against the law for them to do that. Amazon hires a lot of people and in many countries pay reasonably well. With taxes it does what the law allows. If you want to change those things start with changing the law, ending policies hurting the working class (limiting low skill migration would be the firs…

> In fact it's against the law for them to do that.

No it isn't.

Re: The Bezos backlash: Is 'big philanthropy' a charade?

#142

Post by lwhi »

mindcrime wrote: post #131
lwhi wrote: post #45

Unrestricted capitalism will never be a force for good. Left running without any regulation, the gap between rich and poor will increase adinfinitum. This kind of philanthropy acts as a last ditch attempt to correct the negative affects the system produces .. but in my opinion, it's not an effective or elegant way of doing so. It's main purpose is an exercise in smoke and mirrors .. by trying to influence our percept…

Unrestricted capitalism will never be a force for good. Unrestricted capitalism, sadly, doesn't even exist. But capitalism in its various forms is already a potent force for good - perhaps the most powerful such force the world has ever known. No other system has done more to create wealth, raise standards of living, and improve the world. Attacking capitalism because it's slightly less than perfect at delivering the…

No it isn't.

The current system isn't working for enough people.

Re: The Bezos backlash: Is 'big philanthropy' a charade?

#143

Post by Symmetry »

onion2k wrote: post #139
Symmetry wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me it seems like philanthropists generally do a much better job spending money well than our government does. They don't tend to use it to bomb other countries, they often consider the lives of foreigners as important as the lives of Americans, and being able to ignore pork barrel considerations makes their projects more efficient. The money spent by philanthropists is small compared to the US budget so they aren'…

I suspect that, at least partly, that's because philanthropists can choose their battles. They don't spend money unless they can see there'll be a good outcome. They can leave the high risk problems and "lost causes" to the government. Consequently governments will always look worse even if they actually do a good job elsewhere.

That's certainly true to some extent. But sometimes the right thing to do is to not get involved. In the Great Lakes Refugee Crisis[1] Medecins Sans Frontieres and other private aid groups pulled out when they realized that their money was going to buy guns for Rwandan Génocidaires. But the UN thought they had a mandate to help refugees no matter what and in the end we had the Congolese Civil Wars which were much, much worse than the refugee crisis could possibly have gotten on its own. You can say that they weren't foreseeable and I'd agree but it's easy to imagine the Hutu forces managing to retake Rwanda and finish their genocide, for example.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lakes_refugee_crisis

Re: The Bezos backlash: Is 'big philanthropy' a charade?

#144

Post by gomox »

lucideer wrote: post #40
gomox wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By what measure are Bezos' contributions a net negative?

Unless you believe that commerce is a goal in itself, and that building a successful business contributes positively to the world by default (I'm sure many people do believe this so just getting it out of the way), then you have to look at the outputs. For Amazon that's largely: - extremely poor pay and conditions for Amazon's workers - dominance driving smaller less-efficient enterprises out of business; this isn't…

You are criticizing capitalism and globalization as a system for producing social progress, not Amazon.

Your points seem very weak to me. People perceive value from Amazon's tax "evasion" (efficiency) in buying goods at a cheaper cost. I'm sure you agree that not every dollar that goes to taxes is better spent than if it wasn't.

I highly doubt that net global employment in headcount dropped because of Amazon. For every store clerk that got fired in a US brick and mortar shop, probably 10 sweatshop workers in China were hired to make gizmos at a fraction of the cost.

If you are going to argue that the world would be better off without Amazon when hundreds of millions use and love their services every day, you need to at least make an attempt to quantify the value the company provides. You can't just point at 3 isolated data points. I'm not even saying you're wrong in your conclusions, but they're hardly unquestionable.

Re: The Bezos backlash: Is 'big philanthropy' a charade?

#145

Post by zem »

thedailymail wrote: post #140
zem wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the one thing i've read about amazon's impact that made a lasting, positive impression on me was by a black woman who noted that when she shopped on amazon, no one followed her around the store. there was also some commentary on underserved communities where traditional retailers were reluctant to set up shop. of course, this is really an argument for ubiquitous online retail rather than amazon in particular, but it…

That's an interesting perspective I hadn't thought about before. At the same time though, it is certain that her every move while on the site was being monitored, recorded and analyzed – just like everyone else's.

sure, but she's not being discriminated against for being black, which is absolutely the case in a ton of brick and mortar stores.

Re: The Bezos backlash: Is 'big philanthropy' a charade?

#146

Post by thefounder »

sokoloff wrote: post #66
thefounder wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> more choice and competition What competition?

For many products on Amazon, there are several sellers, each competing for the "buy box". Third party sellers are not an unalloyed good, but on balance are good for Amazon shoppers, IMO. Outside of Amazon, Amazon has helped to set new standards for online commerce (free shipping, fast shipping, no/few questions customer service). When you see Zappos (now Amazon), Jet, Walmart, Home Depot, Lowes, and Ebay all mimickin…

There is competition between small sellers until Amazon decides to compete with them, and that's it...remember Amazon refusing to sell Chromecast? Or using dumping against competitors? Not to mention that all the sellers have to pay Amazon a fee so there is no competition with Amazon.
Post reply on HN