Cringe-worthy Army Commercial

[ShortBusRuss]

Yay. Good for you.

What does that have to do with anything?

Just noting that you are making a pretty big assumption that I don't know how the economy works. The difference between us is... You think just because you made money for your company, that doing business "the (current) American Way" is healthy for the society, in the long term.

We currently exist in an economy where corporations are getting a bigger and bigger slice of the pie, and using it to consolidate their power by buying politicians. Your company likely did this as well. And apparently you don't see this corporate dominance as a problem.

And to put it bluntly, sometimes C-level executives know farkall about what they are doing, and simply were in the chair at the right time, when their industry took a huge upswing as a result of factors completely out of their control. Doesn't mean they "made" any money for their company. There have been C-level execs who brought about the quick ruin of their company as well, through lack of foresight. (I.e Blockbuster Video....)

I got no problem with CEOs who know what they are doing, and don't rape customers and the economy to do it. Andrea Jung did a great job turning Avon around in the 90s. And she didn't need to buy politicians to do it. And the most recent CEO is getting ousted because the company is back in dire straits. Would you have known which was going to be successful? Doubtful.

 

[David in FL]

Just noting that you are making a pretty big assumption that I don't know how the economy works. The difference between us is... You think just because you made money for your company, that doing business "the American Way" is healthy for the society, in the long term.

We currently exist in an economy where corporations are getting a bigger and bigger slice of the pie, and using it to consolidate their power by buying politicians. Your company likely did this as well. And apparently you don't see this corporate dominance as a problem.

In spite of your “business degree”, you don’t seem to understand why businesses exist.

Perhaps that’s why you need to leverage your security clearance rather than your “business acumen”…

Damn, that sounds kind of snarky, but it’s really not meant to be. Just an honest observation based upon a long career that encompassed both the military and private sector.

 

[ShortBusRuss]

In spite of your “business degree”, you don’t seem to understand why businesses exist.

Perhaps that’s why you need to leverage your security clearance rather than your “business acumen”…

Well, then educate me.

Let's start with a simple discussion of Amazon. Do you know exactly HOW they rose to dominance so quickly?

Do you think it was solely on the basis of their product?

Or do you think it might have something to do with the money they stockpiled very quickly by "forgetting" to pay sales tax on both intrastate AND interstate transactions? That they then used to build their empire further, putting more small businesses under by undercutting their prices, as local businesses pay sales tax, and they weren't?

Do you think they would have been able to dominate the market without that little illegal stepping stone?

Amazon does an endrun around fair competition

Come on, come on... Dazzle me with your business acumen, smart guy.

 

[David in FL]

Well, then educate me.

Let's start with a simple discussion of Amazon. Do you know exactly HOW they rose to dominance so quickly?

Do you think it was solely on the basis of their product?

Or do you think it might have something to do with the money they stockpiled very quickly by "forgetting" to pay sales tax on interstate transactions?

Do you think they would have been able to dominate the market without that little illegal stepping stone?

Come on, come on... Dazzle me with your business acumen, smart guy.

None of that is relevant.

Why do they exist?

That’s what’s relevant.

Certainly your “business degree“ taught you that.

 

[ShortBusRuss]

None of that is relevant.

Why do they exist?

That’s what’s relevant.

Certainly your “business degree“ taught you that.

They exist to make a profit LEGALLY, within the bounds of the law. Which Amazon CLEARLY did not do.

Much of Amazon's wealth is ill-gotten gains.

I expect such a smarty-smart business guy to acknowledge that this is a real problem, from a purely competitive environment nature. If one of your competitors was using illegal means to gain a competitive advantage over you, would you want something done about it?

 

[David in FL]

They exist to make a profit LEGALLY, within the bounds of the law. Which Amazon CLEARLY did not do.

Correct, they exist to make a profit.

If someone doesn’t think that it‘s legal, it’s to the courts to decide. You and I may have one opinion, but again, it’s up to the courts to decide.

The responsibility of the company is to maximize value to its shareholders. Period.

Once a company is found to be doing something illegal, the shareholder benefit is reduced as a result, Then, the company leadership should be fired. Hopefully they go to jail too…

Has that happened in the case of Amazon?

By the way, for what it’s worth, I love the business concept, but I hate the company!

 

[ShortBusRuss]

Correct, they exist to make a profit.

If someone doesn’t think that it‘s legal, it’s to the courts to decide. You and I may have one opinion, but again, it’s up to the courts to decide.

The responsibility of the company is to maximize value to its shareholders. Period.

Once a company is found to be doing something illegal, the shareholder benefit is reduced as a result, Then, the company leadership should be fired. Hopefully they go to jail too…

Has that happened in the case of Amazon?

By the way, for what it’s worth, I love the business concept, but I hate the company!

The problem with Amazon is that they grew so big, so fast, they quickly amassed enough money to be able to buy politicians to largely avoid the consequences of their illegal actions.

Other businesses saw the play, and made their own playbooks off the blueprint.

All I am trying to say is that American capitalism has morphed into a monster that has almost no resemblance to the capitalism that existed for the prior 50 years or so. Back then, you had to have the best product, at a good price, and you had to follow the law, more or less.

You seem to be under the impression we still live under that sort of capitalist economy.

 

[David in FL]

The problem with Amazon is that they grew so big, so fast, they quickly amassed enough money to be able to buy politicians to largely avoid the consequences of their illegal actions.

Other businesses saw the play, and made their own playbooks off the blueprint.

All I am trying to say is that American capitalism has morphed into a monster that has almost no resemblance to the capitalism that existed for the prior 50 years or so. Back then, you had to have the best product, at a good price, and you had to follow the law, more or less.

You seem to be under the impression we still live under that sort of capitalist economy.

You don’t think Amazon has the best product in their category?

Who’s better?

 

[ShortBusRuss]

You don’t think Amazon has the best product in their category?

Who’s better?

I think they do a lot of shady-arse stuff, like turn a blind eye to counterfeit Chinese goods that undercut their legitimate sellers, and screw customers, all in the name of making an extra dollar or two. (A specific example that comes to mind is customers getting chemical burns from Chinese cosmetics labeled (and priced) as luxury brands.)

Their tax-avoidance strategy allowed them to capture customers that they should not have been able to capture as easily. Their "product" is "as good" as any other company's would be, if they got to market first and did whatever illegal shenanigans they could to capture market share as quickly as possible.

But, since you went there..... Given that what we are REALLY talking about here is market dominance, and not quality of product... What do you think of "Ma Bell"? They had most of the customers in the telecommunications industry at one point. Think the way they did business was good for the economy?

 

[David in FL]

I think they do a lot of shady-arse stuff, like turn a blind eye to counterfeit Chinese goods that undercut their legitimate sellers, and screw customers, all in the name of making an extra dollar or two. (A specific example that comes to mind is customers getting chemical burns from Chinese cosmetics labeled (and priced) as luxury brands.)

Their tax-avoidance strategy allowed them to capture customers that they should not have been able to capture as easily. Their "product" is "as good" as any other company's would be, if they got to market first and did whatever illegal shenanigans they could to capture market share as quickly as possible.

But, since you went there..... Given that what we are REALLY talking about here is market dominance, and not quality of product... What do you think of "Ma Bell"? They had most of the customers in the telecommunications industry at one point. Think the way they did business was good for the economy?

Again, it’s irrelevant. A company doesn’t exist to be “good for the economy”.

They exist to make money and bring value to their shareholders.

If the manner in which they try to do that results in their not doing that, then the company is not being run successfully, not maximizing value to their short shareholders, and the leadership should be replaced.

This is really a fun discussion, but we’re really getting outside of the subject of this particular thread and we should probably back off or, take it elsewhere…

 

[ShortBusRuss]

Again, it’s irrelevant. A company doesn’t exist to be “good for the economy”.

They exist to make money and bring value to their shareholders.

If the manner in which they try to do that results in their not doing that, then the company is not being run successfully, not maximizing value to their short shareholders, and the leadership should be replaced.

And if a company ends up doing serious damage to the economy, no biggie, right? So.. Profit is your only measuring stick?

Sounds about right. Almost like it was taken straight out of one of the sociopath CEO's mouths. I mean, who really cares if prescription prices go up 2000%, and other pharmaceutical companies see the dollars and immediately follow suit as long as a pharmaceutical company makes profit for it's shareholders, amiright?

 

[DynoDan]

My worry, is what will happen when ’free shipping‘ finally goes away? It just doesn’t make business sense when the cost of shipping is typically more than the product’s value. Amazon will likely leverage it’s superlative customer service reputation, and try to compensate. I guess we’ll see.

 

[David in FL]

And if a company ends up doing serious damage to the economy, no biggie, right? So.. Profit is your only measuring stick?

Sounds about right. Almost like it was taken straight out of one of the sociopath CEO's mouths. I mean, who really cares if prescription prices go up 2000%, and other pharmaceutical companies see the dollars and immediately follow suit as long as a pharmaceutical company makes profit for it's shareholders, amiright?

is it Amazon‘s responsibility to worry about the brick and mortar stores that it’s competing with and potentially driving out of business?

Of course not.

If a company is providing goods and services to its customers in a manner that earns profits that benefit its shareholders, then it’s doing what it was designed to do.

It really is as simple as that…

If you don’t like that, you probably shouldn’t buy their goods or services. If enough people feel that way, then the company will cease to be profitable and will change the way in which they do business, or cease to exist.

That’s the way the free market works.

 

[ShortBusRuss]

is it Amazon‘s responsibility to worry about the brick and mortar stores that it’s competing with and potentially driving out of business?

Of course not.

If a company is providing goods and services to its customers in a manner that earns profits that benefit its shareholders, then it’s doing what it was designed to do.

It really is as simple as that…

If you don’t like that, you probably shouldn’t buy their goods or services. If enough people feel that way, then the company will cease to be profitable and will change the way in which they do business, or cease to exist.

That’s the way the free market works.

Is it a free market, though? When Amazon gains a competitive advantage over it's rivals by not paying taxes?

It's cute that you think we still have largely free markets now in America.

 

[VarmintKong]

 

[BasementDweller]

I see SBR has beaten up on the corporations from the left, and fairly so. Now the myth that everything is about shareholder value can be pointed out from the right as well, when you consider there are entire bloated, bureaucratic monstrosities within corporations whose sole purpose is to beat you over the head each and every day with their DEI catalog. Nobody will convince me they are adding any value to the shareholder.

Now about that scoop shot....