Earlier quoted context omitted.
> most of the profit goes to Bezos. Incorrect. Bezos only owns 8.8% of Amazon. Most of the profit is distributed to a wide variety of shareholders in the form of rising share prices, reflected in things like retirement accounts. In other words, a lot of that profit goes to grandmas across the country with their money in a Vanguard retirement fund. Including grandmas in your local community. And you really think the l…
> And you really think the local shopowner kept all the profit in their community? E.g. they didn't send their kids to college in another state? Imagine spending money and having that money allow people in your local community to afford college. Then imagine thinking that’s a bad thing. Obviously it’s complicated, but the gist is longer money stays in a local area, the better off that area is going to be. It’s better…
You seem to have missed my point entirely. I'm not saying that's a bad thing -- but I'm saying that by your logic, you seem to think it is.
You're looking at money like it's some kind of zero-sum thing that ought to be hoarded by every local community. You say:
> but the gist is longer money stays in a local area, the better off that area is going to be
That is contrary to all standard economic theories of free trade. The entire engine of economic growth is that when communities trade between each other, everyone's standard of living goes up.
The economy theory you seem to be promoting is what is known as mercantilism [1], which has been thoroughly discredited.
Circulating money broadly is a good thing. You don't need to worry about it leaving your local area, because it comes back according to whatever goods and services you produce! You don't need to hoard it locally.