41–50 of 69 posts
What this mainly says to me is that my life is going to get much worse - as Amazon logistics cannot deliver to my house. I used to be a big user of Amazon prime, but they recently swapped over to logistics for my rural area which has no cell service and huge distances between houses and that apparently means they can’t deliver. They try and packages sit at the local warehouse for a couple of weeks before being sent b…
The pattern is quite simple. Build infrastructure to serve internal operations at a scale no rational external buyer would justify. Optimize it to a level that drives marginal cost below the buyer’s internal alternative. When the surplus capacity is too large to write off, open the API and sell it. Forgot the last part: when you have eliminated all the competition and have all your customers locked in with no other o…
break. up. Amazon. break up Apple, Meta, MSFT, etc... while we're at it. Or, keep it simpler - if a company passes a market cap of 1 trillion dollars, they must forgo lobbying and "government relations". if you're worth a trillion dollars or more, you don't need the government to hold your hand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A trillion? Why wouldn’t we set the bar at $0 - companies are not people, and allowing them to influence politics, at any size, corrupts democracy
I like the way you think. But most wouldn't agree, they believe a company should have the right to influence government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately for this project, the First Amendment puts the right to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances” alongside freedoms of speech, the press, and religious exercise.
Citizens can absolutely do that. Corporations might be "people" but they aren't citizens. Especially if they participate in shenanigans designed to "minimize" their tax exposure that involve shell corporations in other countries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately for this project, the First Amendment puts the right to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances” alongside freedoms of speech, the press, and religious exercise.
Citizens can absolutely do that. Corporations might be "people" but they aren't citizens. Especially if they participate in shenanigans designed to "minimize" their tax exposure that involve shell corporations in other countries.
What this mainly says to me is that my life is going to get much worse - as Amazon logistics cannot deliver to my house. I used to be a big user of Amazon prime, but they recently swapped over to logistics for my rural area which has no cell service and huge distances between houses and that apparently means they can’t deliver. They try and packages sit at the local warehouse for a couple of weeks before being sent b…
Do you have an Amazon Locker nearby that you could use as an alternative?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Citizens can absolutely do that. Corporations might be "people" but they aren't citizens. Especially if they participate in shenanigans designed to "minimize" their tax exposure that involve shell corporations in other countries.
As the bumper sticker/fridge magnet says, "I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one of them".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A trillion? Why wouldn’t we set the bar at $0 - companies are not people, and allowing them to influence politics, at any size, corrupts democracy
I like the way you think. But most wouldn't agree, they believe a company should have the right to influence government.
https://issueone.org/press/new-polling-citizens-united-money...
The law and the majority don’t agree way more often than one would expect in a democratic society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't that already illegal in many countries (dumping)? The issue is that AWS is embedded in many governments and there is no appetite to do anything about it. If a country started proceedings against AWS they'd risk their country infrastructure going down, so it is a no go. I wonder why this has not been considered as national security risk and frankly negligence.
Dumping is selling at a loss. The quote clearly describes selling for a profit. Aws marginal cost is below the internal production price of the buyer
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dumping is selling at a loss. The quote clearly describes selling for a profit. Aws marginal cost is below the internal production price of the buyer
Amazon "operated at a loss" for years, avoiding income taxes, as they dumped all their profit into building their infrastructure, which they are now selling for less than anyone else can because the taxpayers effectively subsidized it.
This is exactly what we want our tax structure to incentivise. Investing in the future for growth and cheaper goods.