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

What “Amazon Supply Chain Services” tells us about what Amazon is

gadallon.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 69 posts

Re: What “Amazon Supply Chain Services” tells us about what Amazon is

#51

Post by thayne »

SoftTalker wrote: post #6

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…

Also worth pointing out the "Optimize it to a level that drives marginal cost below the buyer’s internal alternative" includes reducing labor costs by underpaying and overworking workers.

Re: What “Amazon Supply Chain Services” tells us about what Amazon is

#52

Post by NickC25 »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #45
NickC25 wrote: post #36

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.

it would be a very different and interesting world if individuals lost their right of free speach if they organize as a group

This is being disingenuous. Maybe not deliberately so, but still.

There's a difference between a few people getting together and petitioning the government for redress; versus, a multitrillion dollar corporation (that pays little to no tax, and is the recipient of very generous government contracts) buying its way to the front of the line and whining until it gets its way.

Re: What “Amazon Supply Chain Services” tells us about what Amazon is

#53

Post by SoftTalker »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #50
SoftTalker wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That isnt dumping. There is a big difference between running a company at a loss and selling a good at a loss. This is exactly what we want our tax structure to incentivise. Investing in the future for growth and cheaper goods.

Yes, I should not have used the word dumping there as it's not in the same context as its usage upthread. I just meant they plowed all their profits into R&D and infrastructure growth, and as a result had very little or even negative taxable income. They operated at a loss, but it was contrived. They had revenue pouring in.

While I agree we want to incentivize investing in future capacity, I don't think we intend that incentive to be used to create monopolies. As with many things, what's good at small scales can be bad at huge scales.

Re: What “Amazon Supply Chain Services” tells us about what Amazon is

#54

Post by s1artibartfast »

NickC25 wrote: post #52
s1artibartfast wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it would be a very different and interesting world if individuals lost their right of free speach if they organize as a group

This is being disingenuous. Maybe not deliberately so, but still. There's a difference between a few people getting together and petitioning the government for redress; versus, a multitrillion dollar corporation (that pays little to no tax, and is the recipient of very generous government contracts) buying its way to the front of the line and whining until it gets its way.

I thought we were talking about free speach? If so, I dont think it is off topic at all. People literally advocate that.

In citizens united, the government’s position was that, under their interpretation of the law, the government had the authority to prohibit a corporation or a non-profit organization of any size from publishing a book or pamphlets if they had political implications.

Where would you draw the line? what does "buying its way to the front of the line and whining until it gets its way" mean in practice?

Re: What “Amazon Supply Chain Services” tells us about what Amazon is

#55

Post by twoodfin »

NickC25 wrote: post #36
twoodfin wrote: post #34

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.

The Constitution applies to the People of the United States. Not only citizens, and not only people who haven’t formed certain kinds of voluntary associations (another right protected up front!)

Re: What “Amazon Supply Chain Services” tells us about what Amazon is

#56

Post by s1artibartfast »

SoftTalker wrote: post #53
s1artibartfast wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isnt dumping. There is a big difference between running a company at a loss and selling a good at a loss. This is exactly what we want our tax structure to incentivise. Investing in the future for growth and cheaper goods.

Yes, I should not have used the word dumping there as it's not in the same context as its usage upthread. I just meant they plowed all their profits into R&D and infrastructure growth, and as a result had very little or even negative taxable income. They operated at a loss, but it was contrived. They had revenue pouring in. While I agree we want to incentivize investing in future capacity, I don't think we intend tha…

The tax situation isnt what created monopolies. It was and is available to all.

It is unclear what is bad about it, as long as they provide a better or cheaper product than the competitor.

If they are ilegally preventing competition, then regulatory action should be swift. Otherwise, it is a win-win and the consumer is getting a better product than others could provide. This is the classic walmart scenario.

Re: What “Amazon Supply Chain Services” tells us about what Amazon is

#57

Post by s1artibartfast »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #43
NickC25 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the way you think. But most wouldn't agree, they believe a company should have the right to influence government.

Unproven, really. I don't think I'd argue that most people think that the individuals in a company (even its CEO) have the right to influence government. But the question is whether the corporation ("are people too, my friend) itself has this right. I'm not clear that most agree with that.

The corporation is the primary structure for individuals to organize - from soul crushing businesses to chess clubs, environmental non-profits, or labor unition.

Government influence primarily consistes of sharing information with votes passing flyers on the street or running adds.

When framed this way, I dont think most people would agree that groups should be prevented from getting their message out.

Re: What “Amazon Supply Chain Services” tells us about what Amazon is

#58

Post by kennywinker »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #57
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unproven, really. I don't think I'd argue that most people think that the individuals in a company (even its CEO) have the right to influence government. But the question is whether the corporation ("are people too, my friend) itself has this right. I'm not clear that most agree with that.

The corporation is the primary structure for individuals to organize - from soul crushing businesses to chess clubs, environmental non-profits, or labor unition. Government influence primarily consistes of sharing information with votes passing flyers on the street or running adds. When framed this way, I dont think most people would agree that groups should be prevented from getting their message out.

Are there actually chess clubs that are incorporated?

Coops, unions, guilds, non-profit societies, knitting circles, meetups, etc. are all non-corporations.

> Government influence primarily consistes of sharing information with votes passing flyers on the street or running adds.

Lobbying, and superpacs are not about getting a message out - they are about spending money on ads to buy votes. That’s different from advocating for your hobby or interest.

Not to mention the asymmetry. If 20,000 grain farmers want to lobby about wheat by spending $10 each, that’s different from one man spending the same $200,000k on getting a candidate in. Or millions - e.g. elon, etc last election.

Re: What “Amazon Supply Chain Services” tells us about what Amazon is

#59

Post by s1artibartfast »

kennywinker wrote: post #58
s1artibartfast wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The corporation is the primary structure for individuals to organize - from soul crushing businesses to chess clubs, environmental non-profits, or labor unition. Government influence primarily consistes of sharing information with votes passing flyers on the street or running adds. When framed this way, I dont think most people would agree that groups should be prevented from getting their message out.

Are there actually chess clubs that are incorporated? Coops, unions, guilds, non-profit societies, knitting circles, meetups, etc. are all non-corporations. > Government influence primarily consistes of sharing information with votes passing flyers on the street or running adds. Lobbying, and superpacs are not about getting a message out - they are about spending money on ads to buy votes. That’s different from advoc…

Interesting.i was wrong about unions. You are wrong about co-ops and non-profits, both of which are almost universally Incorporated. So much so that I've never seen a non Incorporated Co-op.

That said, we could also ban informal groups from political speech.

How are these things different, getting the message out versus buying votes? Also where do I go to collect my vote payments? Getting the message out usually cost money. If you like some but not others, is it the content of the messaage you find disagreeable?

Post reply on HN