General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBernie and Trump are wrong on Amazon
I am disabled.. I can not go to the store. My life would be so much harder without Amazon. I would not be able to get my hygiene products if not for Amazon.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)As I was recently in a similar boat (couldn't drive for 6 months). But while the service is a lifesaver to a lot of people, it could continue to fill that important role without some of the practices that they are criticized for.
Bryant
leftstreet
(36,109 posts)I guess I missed something
melman
(7,681 posts)This thread's sole purpose is to put together the words 'Bernie and Trump'
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)Bernie did agree with Trump. The purpose was to inform people that many disabled people have improved their quality of life because of Amazon. Being able to wear nice clothes bought from Amazon, staying clean, reading free books and watching free movies.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)He made a vague statement that Amazon "should be looked at". His concern appeared to be based upon their span and their control, or potential thereof, of markets.
Many folks are beginning to share that concern. It is one that has come up regularly in the past. Microsoft and Walmart are two of the more recent past examples where folks felt their impact of the larger markets was outsized. These days we hear such concerns about Google and Amazon. It comes and goes about Apples influence on the music market too. God knows we hear about it with respect to TV and newspaper consolidation.
To the OP I'd suggest not to worry. E-commerce isn't going away and about all they would do is to divide Amazon into separate business units to ensure competition. We broke up AT&T and no one lost their phone service.
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,921 posts) 
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
Demsrule86
(68,586 posts)
Eliot Rosewater
(31,112 posts)mountain grammy
(26,624 posts)KPN
(15,646 posts)this fake scandal involving this Democrat in principles, words and actions only who happens to inspire many millions of voters/potential voters who are disenchanted with status quo because of those exact principles, words, values.
Does someone(s) feel threatened I wonder?
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
Which Democrat are you referring to?
It's clear that NOBODY actually feels "threatened," but it's easy to see that that the OP (or this topic) has touched a sensitive nerve.
Vote Democrat!
I too am disabled and being amazon is such a huge rip-off, I get what I need at far lower prices on ebay.com. Also, you can pick-up a few extra via ebates.com.
To hell with amazon.com. They can rot in hell for all I care!
TexasTowelie
(112,250 posts)I didn't see where he made a statement to that effect which makes me wonder why you believe that the OP did?
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)My life would be so much harder without Amazon
That seems to suggest that someone, in this case two people are mentioned, wants to get rid of Amazon. While a certain donald seems to be hell bent on destroying the dominant online retailer Senator Sanders didn't come close to such a suggestion.
Demsrule86
(68,586 posts)look at the words and try to make it less damaging for our side...it doesn't work. It gives Trump cover regardless of Sen. Sanders intentions. And I am not saying that is what Sen. Sanders meant to do. It is just an unfortunate outcome. We should all be condemning Trump's attacks on Amazon. How dare he attack a publicly traded company and deliberately drive its stock down. And I have no doubt he and his worthless family will make money on this somehow.
Demsrule86
(68,586 posts)
Fla Dem
(23,691 posts)But he certainly fired a warning shot across Amazon's bow. Instead of pushing back on Trump's inflammatory rhetoric, he just piled on, giving Trump's position legitimacy.
Rob Price
Apr. 2, 2018, 1:49 PM
Sen. Bernie Sanders thinks Amazon has gotten so large that it requires closer scrutiny of its "power and influence."
On CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday, the anchor Jake Tapper asked Sanders whether Amazon had gotten too big.
"Yeah, I do, I do," said Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont who ran as a Democratic presidential candidate in 2016.
"This is an issue that has got to be looked at," he added. "What we are seeing all over this country is the decline in retail. We're seeing this incredibly large company getting involved in almost every area of commerce. And I think it is important to take a look at the power and influence that Amazon has."
http://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-amazon-is-too-big-2018-4
BY JOE DIFAZIO ON 4/2/18 AT 11:32 AM
Independent Vermont senator and 2016 presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders echoed President Donald Trump in expressing concern about retail giant Amazon.
Sanders said that he felt Amazon had gotten too big on CNN’s "State of the Union" Sunday, and added that Amazon’s place in society should be examined.
“And I think this is, look, this is an issue that has got to be looked at. What we are seeing all over this country is the decline in retail. We're seeing this incredibly large company getting involved in almost every area of commerce. And I think it is important to take a look at the power and influence that Amazon has,” said Sanders.
The senator’s comments came on the heels of a number of tweets from Trump, who has long criticized the online retailer.
http://www.newsweek.com/amazon-bernie-sanders-donald-trump-us-postal-service-868445
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)what it means to disabled people on another thread. Also to geographically disadvantaged people, like all those who live in urban desert neighborhoods and just away from good shopping like us.
Sure, this revolution will cost us things we don't want to lose, like the newspaper kiosk at the corner and the shoe shine stand, the neighborhood bookstore, the ice cream truck each summer, the mom-and-pop grocery around the corner we've shopped at for 40 years, but also milk and baked goods delivered to our doors.
Oh. Wrong nostalgia. Well, at least I'll miss Walmart.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)should have regulated Walmart, and Sanders has not been shy about the disdain he has for Walton business practices, but why does that inability preclude a willingness to do so with Amazon?
You have to make a straw-man to knock it down as thoroughly as you have here.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)and although change tends to solve, or better, some problems (that's very often why it takes the forms it does), inevitably new problems are created that then must be addressed.
But, hey, go ask conservatives how anxiously "standing athwart history yelling stop!," instead of embracing and directing newly possible needed changes (and bravely addressing those new problems), has been working for them.
Btw, did you know the estimated average life span for people around the planet, not just advanced nations, is now 71.5 years? (!!!) Or that the rate of abject poverty is now about 10% in spite of the growth in population from, especially, all those babies and children who aren't dying?
Thanks mostly to intelligent liberalism, we do progress more than otherwise, even if it's often more like 9 struggles backward for every 10 steps forward.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 3, 2018, 02:34 AM - Edit history (2)
is that he is trying to slow us down where change is doing catastrophic short and midterm damage to the workforce, which totally makes sense, except that change can't be stopped and shouldn't be in opposition to actual progress. The real solution is something like UBI. We need to appreciate what could be but should not be a dire reality, that there is not going to be enough decent paying work as time moves on to sustain people. We need to move beyond the notion that a living is earned, because it doesn't have to be. It can be a right, and it needs to be a right.
I don't know if he isn't ready for this idea or if he thinks its still too early to get people on board, so instead he's trying to improve the minimum wage rather than advocating for a basic income guarantee, but in the mean-time, that's a good platform because it at least does good. As far as Amazon goes though, what is Sanders proposing that is actually critical and corrective of the good things it does? He's talking about the negatives, and the exploits it has taken advantage of. Trump...well we know why trump suddenly cares...its personally related to his bank account...and that's all he needs to know about it.
As to the upsides of technologyand progress, you do recognize though, that supply side, just as an example is raping the planet. It is consuming and producing waste and biproduct at an enormous rate that the planet can't sustain, so sometimes it pays to put on the breaks, or to at least try. We are at an interesting point in history where our advances will either kill us or save us, but that outcome is far from certain, and I have less and less faith in an uninformed and intentionally misinformed public's ability to push us in the right direction.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Boy, aren't we, and then some. If only we were running the nation right now, stabilizing things, raising incomes and calming people.
Hillary said she almost ran on a UBI, to be paid out of a fund developed by taxes on carbon and financial transactions. She's very committed to the idea but said she couldn't make the numbers work for 2016. So many things have been neglected and need fixing, and funding adequate to kick it off, like SocSec back in the 1930s, would have required taking away from important immediate needs. But beginning the raising of incomes by various means, all in some way involving redistribution of our national wealth, to where they should be was planned.
Just paid our power bill, averaging horribly high with this crazy weather, which has me thinking about the half a billion solar panels we planned to have on our roofs by 2020. So we should be hearing right now how much actual utility savings those who had them in power-sharing agreements in various states were seeing. And, of course, many jobs would have been created by that and many other infrastructure and education projects.
Oh, well. Not cancelled, just delayed. Including a UBI. It does seem inevitable, unless Republicans manage to steal and consolidate even more power. Again.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)support than Sanders has given for UBI at this point, which amounts to, "it and other things should be considered...," which I take as him not trying to make his platform more radical than it already is(in this US of A)(though it may just that he's too old school and locked into his own long-cultivated solutions) but also not wanting to disparage the idea.
Its encouraging that it was that close to being part of a major platform, as surprising as that is to me.
Yep, A 0 marginal cost society(or something close)is something I wish we could get on board as a nation sooner than later, but hopefully the advantages continue to break down the resistance over time.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)have put UBI on her agenda for the 2016 term anyway. In retrospect, of course.
I just looked and was surprised to see you're right about Sanders sort of waffling around without coming right out. https://medium.com/basic-income/on-the-record-bernie-sanders-on-basic-income-de9162fb3b5c
He's right that there are a lot of ways we should work toward a minimum income, though, and no doubt he'd be on board for this one along with others. Probably the biggest difference between Clinton and Sanders is that, as a huge policy wonk (she loves this stuff), she'd already consulted intensive studies and had the frameworks of plans that could be tweaked and implemented when doable.
National wealth is so tremendous thanks to modern production that we have the means to do this, "just" need to get the fund and systems set up.
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)TexasTowelie
(112,250 posts)such as promoting public safety or avoiding true monopolies to keep the market competitive. However, I don't approve of conservatives when they pick winners or losers in the marketplace, so it would be hypocritical to approve of the same behavior from liberals.
Amazon does not have a monopoly and I can say that I've never ordered anything from Amazon even though the nearest major shopping center is 35 miles away. If I can purchase the same product at approximately the same price, then why would I want to wait for something to be shipped to me instead? I prefer to buy local so that I can check out the quality of the product, know the actual color of textiles rather than what is on a computer screen, and ask questions to the sales people.
In a free market economy some retailer may get a large market share, but if the service is poor, the price is exorbitant, or the quality of the products is inferior then there will be another competitor that will enter the market to meet my needs. There may be short term aberrations or an occasional exception (I'm thinking of price gouging for medicines that people need in order to live), but free/fair markets eventually will reach a state of equilibrium.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)with cheap labor, affecting locally made products...they do what is technically illegal but hard to prove, and price competitors out of the market because they can simply take a loss for an extended period of time, and once they have a bigger share of the market they can re-stabilize their prices. Or once they are the only real known "trusted" source for something, they can raise their prices to higher than previous market value, assuming people have to buy said goods. For non-essentials they can continue to sell on the cheap to communities that have been decimated and can't afford to pay for said goods at an exorbitant price, and then, finally, close up shop when they've nothing more to draw from a community. And so much of that money is taken OUT of local economies. It doesn't stay in the community, and no, those part time jobs without benefits do not re-infuse them with any meaningful wealth. And when it comes to monster operations like Amazon and Walmart, they effect all other product companies(even the big guys) because they can charge an extortive amount of money to have them stocked on their shelves or listed on their website, and the alternative is not pretty. Its a catch 22. You can't go through alternative advertisers or box stores with far less presence and expect your brand to not take a hit, so you pay what these companies insist. Granted, that's the market. That's what other companies are willing to pay for the space on those shelves or the attention on those websites, but that's because if enough people drop out, there will certainly be the few winners who get a huge market bump. The others though...they could be screwed.
In a free market economy this is what happens, to say nothing of the influence this kind of money has on Washington and local governments and the laws that regulate these industries, determine things such as whether or not something is actually too big or has too much market power to the point where it discourages competition...etc.
Yes, quality matters(to some extent, but quality is weighed against price) when you have a choice. Go figure that a big company can offer quality, so long as there is a hint of competition. They are huge and have the capital to do so. Competing with that quality and far more important, that convenience and price point, becomes more and more difficult for other vendors.
Oh damn, that doesn't even get into the simplification of the workforce. Huge operations need less executives than hundreds of operations that used to exist in their stead. They influence a downward trend on wages. They have cookie cutter and centralized policies and structuring.
TexasTowelie
(112,250 posts)Yes, companies are going to find the least expensive way to produce a product so I can get a better price myself. It's called the "economies of scale" and it is good business sense. It should also be considered that the companies that follow that practice are also consumers--in that case they are wage labor consumers.
There are limits to that statement. A recent example was when Mylan hiked the price of the Epipen. The manufacturer gouged the consumers so another competitor entered the market because they saw a way to turn a profit. As stated earlier, there may be short term price aberrations but eventually the equilibrium in the market will reestablish itself. It might mean some hassle for the purchasers to get a prescription written for a generic option rather than a brand name, but regulating Walmart or Amazon won't change any of that.
And that is a bad thing? Personally, I want to pay a manufacturer for the price of materials and labor that go into making and delivering a product rather than provide for the financial security of a bloated executive workforce. Yes, it might mean that wages for some may decline but if the wages were excessive to start off with, then it is another example of equilibrium being met in the marketplace. I also have little sympathy for overpaid execs that are price gougers whether they run a business with no other employees or they run a conglomerate.
As far as people complaining about the prices of non-essential items there is a very simple solution:
Don't buy the product! Is it necessary to get the latest book two days after it has been published at full price or can it wait when the price has been discounted or it can be checked out of the library?
The arguments that you presented about the influence of big business on government is always popular. However, if you are concerned about the loss of high paying executive positions, then you should be equally concerned about the loss of high paying lobbying positions and the negative effect on wages overall if those jobs are lost.
Finally, we can also look back in history to see the failure of government getting involved in the marketplace. Nearly everyone agrees that when Nixon implemented price controls it didn't work. When the price controls were lifted it set off an inflationary spiral. Regulations can also artificially increase the price of products because people will think that since the government intervened the cost of the product is legitimate when it could actually be lowered.
Ultimately, the burden falls to the consumer to decide whether to spend locally, or online. The same also applies as to whether to spend with big companies or a proprietorship. I can understand why some people prefer Amazon, particularly if they live in rural areas, are disabled or have transportation issues. There are some people that benefit from Amazon so why would anyone want to punish those beneficiaries by increasing prices or limiting the options available to them?
JCanete
(5,272 posts)preventing labeling of their foods, getting drugs approved ath may have no business getting approved, etc. At some point you have no choice but to choose the thing that is available, and rarely do you have all the details of what it is you are actually getting or losing by supporting a big company over smaller companies, in terms of the downward pressure on salaries...etc. Don't buy the product is literally the company position. They want it to "be up the consumers" to do all the research, to be appraised of all the details...of what nations a company is getting slave labor from, of what nations or localities a company is poisoning...etc. Most people don't have the time or bandwidth to be appraised of these things, and it takes money and dedication for these things to even reach people through any reasonable means in the first place.
Government has every responsibility to apply regulations and interventions.
You can cite examples where government intervention has been negative on the economy and there are certianly examples where it has been positive. You know this. I would say anti-trust laws are a good example. Labor laws are interventions. Minimum wage is an intervention.
TexasTowelie
(112,250 posts)believe that many people want. People need to accept more responsibility for their own actions rather than calling on the government to solve all of their woes, particularly when it comes to purchasing discretionary products. I also don't see where government intervention is going to alter the consumer spending behavior in a significant manner. If people don't spend the time to research labor practices and predatory pricing now, then why would they behave any differently just because the government compiles some information for them.
If you don't like Walmart or Amazon, then don't shop there but don't burden them with unnecessary regulations that increases the prices for everyone. It is not a crime for any company to offer lower prices than their competitors. Retailers have been willing to accept losses on some goods for the sake of building their customer base and that is something that has existed long before Walmart or Amazon. There are other issues that are much more significant that need to be addressed compared to creating punitive regulations on a retailer.
By the way, every time a new regulation is adopted it also results in a mandate to have more government employees to monitor for compliance. That cost is paid for by one of two methods: increased taxes to monitor compliance or build the compliance costs into the price paid by consumers. While it can be debated which method is preferable, in the long run neither of those methods are desirable.
Neither Walmart or Amazon is a monopoly so using anti-trust laws is an overreach. Divvying up a company like Amazon would more than likely result in higher prices for consumers along with the possibility that some products will no longer be offered. I don't see how that is beneficial to anyone.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)level libertarian.
That s just not the way things work at all. People literally cannot work their 2 or 3 jobs and raise their children and learn everything there is to know about these companies they are buying from. That is patently absurd. It would take a whole lot less time if there was literally something right on the label of a product don't you think? Its right there. the information the government thinks you as a citizen should have is right there for you to look for.
Government has value here. Where do you actually draw the line about what should be regulated? I assure you once we dig into it, that that line is going to get pretty damn fuzzy, or one can hope. Why not toxins in bottled water? Don't like the shit, buy somebody else's water with different toxins in it...or hey...once you realize that you've been feeding your kids something that ended up actually killing one, feel free to buy a different product in the future...but the company didn't do anything wrong since there's no regulatory agency so there's no investigation and the company pr is saying that the parents were to blame...so...probably wasn't the food in the first place.
or what about credit card companies that literally have financial advisory wings that might give people financial advice that gets them further into insurmountable debt. These are people intending to do their due diligence and then they are being lied to. And don't tell me there are regulations to prevent that, because that (as inadequate and clearly failing as those regulations are) entirely undermines your argument that the government shouldn't be involved. Your other option is to say that corporations should totally be allowed to market to the consumer how they see fit, and sell whatever product they want to sell, lies and all.
Or we can agree that fraud is another line that should not be crossed and should be regulated for.
And then we can get into minimum wage and worker safety conditions. If an employee doesn't want to work somewhere because of the conditions or the wages, why doesn't the employee just go work somewhere else? Why is it the government's job to make sure the employee doesn't get electrocuted? An employee should do his or her due diligence and learn some electrical engineering and assess his or her own workplace, and if that employee doesn't like the wage rate, shit, that person can walk right? I'm sure that no minimum wage would certainly make better paying jobs more the norm...all with the power of the employee to exercise the right to not work and put food on the table while holding out for something better.
What do you mean government oversight and the cost involved isn't desirable? According to who? First, you can only raise prices to the point where people don't want to buy your goods. So if that cuts into corporate profit margins, they will take the cut to keep the consumer or lose the consumer. I assure you at the profits they are making there is some wiggle room here. That said, people would have more money in their pockets if there wasn't a race to the bottom of salaries and wages, so they would be able to elect to buy the things they want at higher prices. I very much doubt this would impact production negatively, and whether something should is an entirely different question.
I have no problem at all with industries paying into taxes for the employees that regulate it. Government jobs are actually decent jobs, typically. They actually put money in people's pockets and those employees have health care and job security, and money in people's pockets is at least in part spent in their local economies, and then spent again and again in their local economies as it circulates. What is the problem here? That some goods will be more expensive? So what? Money will touch more hands. And if companies are regulated or taxed appropriately(by size would be nice) this might prevent companies from totally steamrolling their competition, which would foster an employee choice job market rather than a corporate choice talent market that we have now , and thus raise incomes.
Frankly I don't have a problem with companies having huge market shares if their contribution is a net positive on society, and that can far from be shown to be the truth with Amazon. A solid case could be made in contradiction to the premise that what is gotten outweighs what is lost. But if it could be regulated in a way that ensures it doesn't just siphon most of its wealth up into the hands of a few, then sure, that might be fine with me. If in the reduction of our workforce, the other side of things was a UBI where people were guaranteed a living wage, not forced to earn it 3.50 an hour in actual take-home driving for uber...I might be on board.
But you cannot tell me that our current system is working properly when the rich are getting richer and hold like 85 percent of global wealth in the hands of what, the top 1 percent? the top .1 percent? Anybody who tries to tell me the pie grows, I'm sorry, that is utter bullshit. The pie is the pie, and money represents just how much of it the population owns or the very richest among us owns. And we are being bled dry by these poorly regulated, consolidated markets.
TexasTowelie
(112,250 posts)I was a state employee for 13 years and the president of the Austin region of the public employees association so I can speak with some authority on this issue. Throughout that time wages for state employees were 20-25% percent less than what is paid in the private sector which is why I eventually left the state. I can guarantee that I spent many late nights and weekends on the job and if I already had accrued the maximum amount of leave then I worked for free (as in $0.00/hour). State employees aren't known as second class citizens for no reason.
Not only did I collect data as a regulator, but I've also reported data to almost every insurance department in the country. There are significant costs involved for both regulated businesses and regulatory agencies so imposing new mandates on business was always questioned as to whether the benefits are worth the expense. The only reasons why state agencies collect that information are because of federal mandates or a crisis has developed in the marketplace such as not being able to purchase workers compensation or liability insurance. There is public clamor to more heavily regulate Amazon because there is no crisis.
If you had done some research you would have learned that the profit margins for Amazon are relatively small compared to other retailers. Market analysts have cited that as an issue with the company and withheld buy signals on their stock.
Your use of hyperbole saying that there are a multitude of people working 2 or 3 jobs is also comical since that is far from the norm. The labor utilization rate in the US is about 62% which means that more than one-third of the people are not employed (some by choice, some due to age restrictions, etc.). Even if it were true, then it appears that Amazon is providing a service that those shoppers need since they don't have time to do anything else. But since you insist on using hyperbole, maybe you would like all product manufacturers to be required to include a label saying that we used workers that were paid $1.25 an hour or that we use workers employed in sweatshops? That's just not the way things work at all and I'm not aware of any government (even the social democracies in the Scandinavian countries) that has implemented such a patently absurd requirement.
You are also incorrect about the pie not growing. While I'm not an economics professor, any objective observer knows that the economy has grown exponentially over the past century (and more). That is the whole idea of why we use sovereign currency so that more capital is available for businesses to expand. If we had only used precious metals as currency then that would have had a severe economic impact over the past century.
I've never complained about paying taxes because for the most part I think it is money well spent (with the exception of the MIC). Calling me a libertarian just because I have the personal experience to recognize that big government does not mean good government is also insulting since you couldn't be more wrong. I simply don't want the government in anyone's business unless absolutely necessary because that is a contributing cause to black markets and tax evasion.
I admit that I can't solve all of the problems that you perceive are wrong in the world. The impression that you've given me throughout your posts is that you won't ever be satisfied even if Amazon met every wish on your list. I don't see how any company can stay afloat with that business model. However, if you are willing to pay even more of your income to support the government then march to the front of the line, but I suspect that you will be very lonely.
By the way, do you have an idea of what percentage of people do competitive price shopping when renewing their auto or homeowners insurance policies where they can possibly save hundreds of dollars each year? Do you believe that most consumers are going to research more than two or three options to save a few dollars on a book or that they care about the labor conditions of foreign workers? You will need to present a far more compelling case than you already have to impose anti-trust regulations or any other regulatory requirements on any company because you haven't provided a coherent cost benefit analysis to take such action.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)and there is only one earth, on which there are only a finite amount of resources, which includes human resources. The only exception to this is intellectual property and virtual-space. And the value here is entirely in relation to the value of real-world tangibles.
What has happened is that more and more of mineral wealth previously untapped has been tapped into, from sometimes better, sometimes more invasive or destructive mining processes, and there has been improved efficiency that has come with technology that has allowed us to stretch resources further. And perhaps, new value has been found in other parts of the pie previously discarded.
And for a time this approach has rewarded a larger sector of people(particularly in the 90's, not so much now), but exponentially the richest have reaped most of these rewards. Which is why when broken down, they own such a ridiculously high percentage of global wealth. That said, maybe you have the missing puzzle piece to fill the gap of my understanding. How would you explain that this pie could possibly increase? Where does the extra pie filling come from?
Right, the old 'why don't you do it"...where have I heard that one before? It's damn popular. Some things take a village. One individual forfeiting his spare wealth is a drop in the pan and will probably not even be utilized correctly because the system still works as it does now. You have to know this too. To make that tired argument is kind of insulting.
As to you finding the libertarian line insulting, I was worried that it might come off that way in retrospect. It was meant more of a question, as in, do you identify as leaning libertarian. Your follow-up here suggest that you do. While I certainly have disagreements with that philosophy, I don't mean to use it as a pejorative.
Regarding 2 and 3 jobs, If I said multitude, I didn't mean that. I was giving an example, and there are absolutely people who do work 2, 3, 4 jobs, obviously a bunch of part time ones because that's what they have to cobble together. That is a huge tax on their time and energy. Others simply have the pressures of family and the stress of a single job that they take home with them. Others have to worry about the neighborhood they live in and the police and how to pay next months rent while being out of a job. They do not by and large have the bandwidth in the scheme of the things they are dealing with to do their own independent research on corporations and their employment and environmental practices, etc.
As to hyperbole...I'm not actually sure anything I said was particularly hyperbolic, although it was absolutely scatter-shot and mashed together into something not particularly cohesive. I was in a rush to leave for work. When you make claims that industries should not be regulated I think that we need to establish the boundaries here. I very much doubt you mean no regulations. What should be regulated and what shouldn't be?
You may have a point that certain states pay their government employees crap. That doesn't surprise me at all, since some states do everything in ways that are egregious. I was thinking specifically federal jobs when I said that(and I'm sure even in that category there are probably some pay levels that I would find don't meet the level I was imagining, but I'm pretty sure that they do have medical packages, etc.).
No, I don't want a label that says that...I do want our government to ensure that humanitarian levels of labor are maintained by companies that wish to sell their products in the US, and that goes for their sourcing of materials as well. And I am quite aware, given the economic conditions of our citizens what is going to drive them.What is foremost on their minds for the most part, I agree, is not "who is making these cloths and how much are those people being paid..." But our choices, driven by personal need/want do affect which companies rise to the top. Maybe, if you look at all of the externalities that people don't see or would rather not look at, those companies aren't the ones that should be succeeding. It IS government's role to make sure that we as citizens don't destroy ourselves. The personal responsibility argument is silly in this context, because we aren't all individuals making decisions that only affect ourselves. This affects everything.
And shopping at Walmart and Amazon in their current states does feed a downward pressure on everybody's wages. That is why it takes leadership and laws to do what is hard for people to do, to make sure that companies enjoying this kind of success aren't siphoning huge chunks of global wealth into the hands of the few. Again, look at the numbers and how much richer the rich have gotten while wages for the average American have stagnated for decades. So don't tell me there isn't a problem. And if you agree there is one, man I would love to hear what your solution to this would be, since you want to be entirely hands-off.
I don't understand your argument about tax evasion. By that logic taxes themselves are a contributing cause to tax evasion. If you didn't have taxes, you wouldn't have tax evasion.
By the way, what you avoided while you talked about my hyperbole was whether or not you actually agree that there even should be a minimum wage, or safety standards, etc. I'm trying to figure out where your line is when it comes to regulation and I still have no idea. Oh hey, for that matter what about social security? Isn't that really the nanny state taking away personal responsibility? Shouldn't people just invest on their own or squirrel away their money into their own mattresses?
Your point about Amazon barely making a profit is a choice. They are currently swallowing up a huge amount of the market share(for that matter diversifying into multiple markets) by providing products as cheap as is sustainable, so sure, in the interim they aren't particularly profitable, but lets be honest here, a company's profits are considered after all of the people, including Bezos as CEO take home their salaries. There are rich people getting very rich off of Amazon currently, and however it is that Amazon isn't profitable, Bezos himself, according to TIME, has net-worth in the billions. That's on paper somewhere, so if it isn't literally in his pocket that number is reflecting wealth that exists on some level. I'd call that profit.
So as to what would be sustainable for that poor company to endure, I haven't even proposed anything specific so I'm not even sure what you're saying would be too hard for them, but paying their fair share of taxes would be a reasonable thing for Amazon to do. That there are loopholes they can exploit is a problem.
also, some new regulations might require new oversight departments, which requires more bodies, but not all laws would do this. . If a law is passed, say to raise minimum wage from 10 to 12 dollars an hour, that doesn't require new government workers. It simply requires that the companies who pay their employees follow the new letter of the law. If a law eliminates certain tax loopholes, well, I would assume that Amazon would follow the letter of the law. This wouldn't require a new agency or extra people to regulate.
TexasTowelie
(112,250 posts)such as food stamps, minimum wage and Social Security because you strayed from the subject being raised in the OP.
I don't have any issues with the safety net programs and I believe that they should be more generous. I have direct experience with those programs since I'm indigent and classified as permanently disabled by the psychiatrist at the mental health clinic. I receive SNAP benefits, basic medical care, and prescriptions, but I was denied SSDI even though I was hospitalized twice in a four month period because I was suicidal. I jump through hoops every six months providing tons of paperwork (getting affidavits completed and notarized, having a neighbor verify my residency, etc.) to keep those benefits. I couldn't even get into the doctor this week even though I was bit by a cat on my shin and it swelled up as big as a tennis ball and has been ooziing pus the last four days.
Thus, when I see people advocate for new government programs my response is that we need to shore the programs that currently exist. While I was angry with the cut in corporate tax rates and allowing corporations to repatriate income from foreign countries those are topics that are best discussed in a separate thread.
Returning to topic of the OP, I agree that Amazon has used the tax code to its advantage. However, I doubt that there are many corporations that haven't done the same. They would not be meeting their fiduciary duty to their shareholders if they knowingly failed to do so. When Amazon acquired Whole Foods last year, the deal was reviewed for anti-trust violations and the Trump administration didn't have any objections. It is unlikely that would have happened under either an Obama or Clinton administration. Even if there was a Sanders administration that would challenge the merger, it isn't likely that it would stop the merger because anti-trust provisions have in the past focused on horizontal mergers that concentrate business such that a monopoly would be created. Most of the analysts that have more expertise on this topic also agree that the anti-trust provisions do not apply.
I get that you don't like big corporations and that you believe our economic system isn't fair. I'll agree that it isn't fair, but picking on Amazon because they developed a successful business model is punitive. It also sends a message to other corporations that even if they obey the law then Big Brother will interfere in the business. Nothing could discourage entrepreneurship, innovation and competitiveness more.
If you want to address Amazon, but if you are going to digress into minimum wage, foreign labor and every other issue under the sun, then save your time and address someone else because I'm quite familiar with those issues. Frankly, I don't think that there is anything else left to say.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)partly because I was trying to figure out what role you thought government should have, and really some of these are direct regulations on companies...minimum wage affects companies, labor laws affect companies...and social security would I expect, by your definition, fall under the umbrella of nanny state." As to whether or not I simply expect corporations to behave morally rather than to best benefit their shareholders, that is do more than to simply follow the law as much as they think they have to, of course I have no unreasonable expectation here. I don't expect them to do more than to adhere to the law. I expect the law to be the force that makes companies behave responsibly, to the common good. I haven't at any point argued that Amazon is breaking any laws, only that we should have some.
I don't hate big corporations. I don't hate rich people. I hate that they have so much influence over policy and that we refuse to push back from the other side, and even act as apologists for their behavior and their "needs". We should be the counterbalance. We should be the check. Only with checks and balances does our society actually function. Anyway, good talk, you take it easy.
TexasTowelie
(112,250 posts)We may disagree on many issues, but it always best to be as civil online as it would be as though we were holding a conversation. I'll try to take it easy, but that can be difficult when living with a Trump worshiping brother. Unfortunately, I'm starting to look more like him in the face, but we're definitely the Odd Couple in almost every other respect. 
Demsrule86
(68,586 posts)stock fraud really...the idea that a president or any other elected politician can attack an individual or a company without due process and drive the stock down is terrifying...It doesn't matter what company it is. I happen to like Amazon. But it really is not the issue. And Sen. Sanders should not have chimed in...never agree with Trump if you are a progressive.
This is truly an awful situation and has nothing to do with regulation...it is a pack of lies manufactured to destroy a large successful company that employs many people that Trump hates. This is the issue...if Sen. Sanders wants regulation than he can introduce a bill...but shouldn't run to a cameral and agree with Trump. I don't even get how you find Trump's attacks a good idea. It is a despicable act no matter who the company is.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)right on something. To not do so is childish, and LOOKS childish to the American people, particularly our base who care about sincerity...I thought anyway.
What Trump is doing is, as stated over and over by me, self-serving. I agree with you that Presidents wield singular power when it comes to what they can affect regarding a company. Trump isn't using Amazon as an example of an industry practice or situation, because he could give a shit less about companies hurting the American people. You are right, he is literally singling out Amazon for target. What has the effect actually been though? Looks like Amazon stocks are taking a downward trend for the last month. And you do realize that the things Presidents and congress do actually affect industries right? They do pick winners and losers with legislation. That has far more market impact than one Senators opinion, or even one President's dumbass tweet or statement.
I am certainly prepared to say that senators and congress-people should take companies to task in the context of their industries, either as horrible outliers or as exemplary of a problematic field. You have not presented a reasonable way of talking about these issues and promoting them if we just bite our tongues and don't point to offenders. that makes no sense in terms of generating public will to regulate, and without public will, there will certianly not be political will. Our leaders are supposed to lead.
So you would say that talking about Smith And Wesson or any other company practices should be off limits for ...reasons....
That apparently should all be saved for legislation. As far as I can tell, you even take issue with hearings that dress down CEO's that headed the banks that caused the banking crisis and stole from millions. But please explain to me how it is not ridiculous at that point to anticipate any such legislation if you don't convince the public that something is needed. There is no impetus without it, but a whole lot of pain at the prospect of trying to legislate without any public will. And as a candidate or incumbent seeking reeleciton, how do you run on issues if you can't use examples in the world to plead your case?
Perhaps we can move beyond Trump with this discussion, because that's a point we agree on. He is irresponsible. Everything he does is irresponsible. We can't suggest that because this President is irresponsible that every type of action he takes should not be available to the Presidency or employed by Presidents...say executive actions. We know Trumps are shitty. Obamas were good.
Demsrule86
(68,586 posts)be done properly not with our elected just deciding who they like or don't like and attacking publicly. Now I am not saying Sen. Sanders did this. He didn't. However, he did give Trump cover and it is being reported as he 'agrees'. Now I know this is not true. And the only thing we can do is move one and ignore it. My thinking is it was an off the cuff remark and really pretty meaningless. He doesn't agree with Trump. We have procedures in place for antitrust. As for wages and working condition and also health care that will require legislation.
I shudder to think what it would be like if our elected could destroy an individual or a company they didn't like using stock manipulation. Congress or Justice should look into companies that are suspected of violating the law. But we shouldn't pick winners or loser. We don't get to decide if a company is too big.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Monopoly laws exist because congress has the authority to regulate that very thing. Talking about whether or not something is too big is part of the process. You can't just make up a theoretical example and talk about that fake company that exists on some theoretical planet. You have to talk about the real company you think is too big.
Demsrule86
(68,586 posts)monopoly or in violation of antitrust laws. The point is we have laws, a congress and a justice department to handle these things. Trump is engaging in stock fraud...I hate to see his actions which I consider vile reinforced even by accident.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)can't actually disagree that we have to talk about them and bring them to the publics attention then...that our senators and congress-people need to do this. Again, not what trump is doing. Just a matter of what should or should not legitimately be on the table for conversation. Are we finally on the same page here?
Demsrule86
(68,586 posts)name individual companies. It is an abuse of power. And some will do it in order to short sell stock as no doubt Trump is doing. Have an investigation. Follow procedure. We were always on the same page about this in terms that regulation is needed.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)what would you have otherwise. You can't talk about theoreticals. You have to talk about the reality, which requires that you name names. I don't understand why your so resistant to that basic, and in my opinion, obvious, principle. Otherwise, you need to give me an example of how this is done, not in vague terms but in specific ones...WHILE not naming names.
Demsrule86
(68,586 posts)making laws to gain those those things that we need in terms of worker safety, wages, healthcare or antitrust. If a company is breaking the law than we need to act...but the idea that we might not like a company or think it is too big and then attack it publicly...I just think that is wrong. And talking a company down can affect the stock as in Amazon's case. We agree on the need for regulation... just a slight difference of opinion on how it should be handled. Now that the cat is out of the bag with Trump's actions with Amazon, I fear the unscrupulous GOP will use it to undermine companies they don't like.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)"this seems like a solution looking for a problem....nobody is doing this..."
"uh, I beg to differ jake, there are companies doing this..."
"who?..."
"uh..it wouldn't bge right to say..."
Demsrule86
(68,586 posts)Update/ It is snowing hard now...a couple of inches in Ohio...I will be shoveling "flurries" again as the snow blower is dead. Arrgh!
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Demsrule86
(68,586 posts)to busy...please Mom...so I baked three dozen cupcakes, made magic bars, and toffee candy ...oh and six dozen chocolate chip cookies and also peanut butter cookies! It took about 2 1/2 hours. She needs the money for the show they are putting on to pay the pros (we never had pros when I went to college) so I figured if she gets the money Mom won't be donating the money to pay the pros...thus I baked. I had spent the day wallpapering the kitchen...so now I am dead. Hope you have a great evening.
Demsrule86
(68,586 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)Demsrule86
(68,586 posts)KPN
(15,646 posts)is disingenuous.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)is destroying local businesses and leaching off the taxpayers to make the founder(s) even richer. All else is subordinate and incidental to that.
RandySF
(58,911 posts)Do we punish them? While we are at it, should we go after automobiles for killing the coachwhip industry? The world changes.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Also things like polio and high stillborn rates. Heck, let's burn coal in every house in pigiron, potbellied stoves, while momma's cook dinner on the stovetop. 
Change happens, but it scares the shit out of some people.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)
alarimer
(16,245 posts)Those of us who use it are personally benefiting from abusive employers. Just like we are when we patronize WalMart (which in many small towns is all that there is). What Amazon does, though, is hide their abusive through several layers of contractors, so they maintain a certain ignorance of the results.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/mac-mcclelland-free-online-shipping-warehouses-labor/
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)I can have my adult kids pick up my prescriptions at the pharmacy but they can not shop for me.. Amazon lets me choose and do my own shopping.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But we must understand that Bezos, especially in his quest for taxpayer subsidies, is also a negative force for US workers and taxpayers.
There have been studies that show that WalMart is a net loss for local communities. Many sub-living wage workers qualify for welfare and that is an example of the Walton heirs externalizing their costs onto local taxpayers.
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)But the pay is on par with most companies.
https://www.indeed.com/cmp/Amazon.com/salaries
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)and minimal benefits, and no guarantee of hours. A recipe for an economic race to the bottom, while the 1% become ever richer.
Demsrule86
(68,586 posts)hour jobs which in parts of Ohio are considered decent money sadly. You can't control private or publicly traded companies. You can make a law setting the wages , taxes etc. But you don't get to decide if a company is 'too' big. Anti-trust is based on way more than that. And I expect that many here would condemn Trump for this despicable behavior if Sanders was not involved. Sometimes Sen. Sanders makes a mistake. This is one of those times.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Some of us disagree. People NEED jobs that pay a living wage, not McJobs that require taxpayer assistance for the workers.
Demsrule86
(68,586 posts)lets not ruin it for those who depend on $12.00 an hour jobs. You know there are some here who work for minimum wage. Those jobs are better than many other jobs and actually in demand.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,112 posts)control of the government to get it, look CLOSELY at them
Demsrule86
(68,586 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)The idea that "all else is subordinate to that" is short-sighted nonsense. The simple fact is that Amazon is basically superior to "local businesses" is many ways. It has a better selection, better prices (usually), and I don't need to drive all over town to get the stuff I need. The idea that "local stores" are always preferable is mushy-headed nonsense.
If there is a tax issue, by all means fix it. But I am entirely uninterested in stifling new economic trends, with some clear advantages, purely for the purpose preserving old structures.
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)Small businesses can sell on Amazon.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)And I do understand the concern about "Mom and Pops." But the solution for Mom and Pops is to offer something unique and not mass market. Some local shops are thriving in my town... but they are not general merchandise stores. We have a local chocolatier that makes AMAZING gourmet chocolate. A married lesbian couple runs it and they call it "The Queer Chocolatier." We have a shop offering locally made decorative arts. We have craft breweries and brewpubs, local restaurants are really taking off, many using locally sourced ingredients. There are ways for small shops to compete, but it is not trying to offer mass-produced items, generally speaking.
Well said.
Sid
lunatica
(53,410 posts)But unfortunate the evil cars made them obsolete.
Progress is evil
IronLionZion
(45,455 posts)so many small specialty products can reach their customers who would never get to their brick and mortar store or specific website.
There are even women who knit pussy hats on there.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I am not saying that Bezos is evil, just that he is greedy.
Demsrule86
(68,586 posts)blake2012
(1,294 posts)vs. many other brick and mortar stores. Go ahead--check.
dameatball
(7,398 posts)1. It is too easy for POTUS to manipulate stock values for his own purposes through public commentary.....positive or negative.
2. Mom & Pops have been being destroyed for decades by Walmart, Lowes, Home Depot, etc. Trump has never commented on that because he never knew or cared about Mom and/or Pop. But Amazon is affecting the bottom line of his business associates. I am surprised he hasn't thought of banning Netflix yet.
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,209 posts)Not to mention the hundreds that will be living in seasonal tents outside of the WalMart and Amazon warehouses, as they burn their bodies up working a job that is abusive to them. Seniors park trailers to work seasonal, with Amazon's trailer program, and after one season, they are so physically debilitated, they can not perform routine physical work anymore.
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)Many are seniors. It's not easy work.
TheBlackAdder
(28,209 posts)lunatica
(53,410 posts)Hopefully they will.
I owed my job to my union many times over. I’m retired now and I draw a pension for life because of my union (Teamsters).
I hope amazon workers can create a union. It’s the only way they will ever see any improvement.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)On Amazon you don't have to wait for Christmas goods to arrive at your local store. You can order in November, get better delivery, and smooth out Amazon's warehouse staffing needs.
mountain grammy
(26,624 posts)Wish I could remember where. I'll look for it. found it.. excellent article
https://www.wired.com/story/meet-camperforce-amazons-nomadic-retiree-army/
Demsrule86
(68,586 posts)conditions but attacking outside of our governmental system is wrong. Boycott Amazon if you feel that strongly...but we have laws and procedures. Nothing will happen until we regain power.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)That kind of artificial manipulation rarely result sin any good. Rather than looking to preserve dying structures, we should seek to help the "losers" to transition into the new structures.
Demsrule86
(68,586 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)There are good and bad things about Amazon. Unfortunately nuanced discussion is hard.
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)Prime has a lot of perks. Movies, newspaper discounts,music, books, and free shipping.
mcar
(42,334 posts)I have the choice of Walmart or driving an hour to get to other stores. Or, I can shop online.
Right before Hurricane Irma, I was able to order batteries and flashlights. Walmart and local stores were cleaned out early that week.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)still be lots of on-line alternatives to local stores. And I doubt that Amazon has a big enough market-share to have to cut back on it.
Think what portion of the US market Walmart has.
Demsrule86
(68,586 posts)anti-trust laws. And the courts will step in as they should. Being a large company and expanding market share is not against any law nor does it violate antitrust laws. And let me just say if you force any company who is not violating antitrust to sell any part of their company, I consider it theft. It won't happen. And no matter how you feel about Amazon, Trump should shut his f'ing mouth.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)It's just hype. Amazon may be a large internet seller. But there are so many, many smaller internet companies that sell a lot that Amazon's market share would not really be that great. It may dominate when it comes to book sales, but there are lots of competitors like Powell's Books and others.
Demsrule86
(68,586 posts)do with antitrust or stealing a person's company because you don't like them?
kacekwl
(7,017 posts)trumpy's beef is envy and childish but what Bernie is talking about is a real concern . If you think it's in the countries best interest to have one company hold so much power and influence over all manner of commerce and media and who knows what else then you need to think again. No one is talking about shutting down Amazon so you can still get your batteries or what not.
Cha
(297,317 posts)
David__77
(23,421 posts)...
Demsrule86
(68,586 posts)or what have you, I am sure the GOP would be delighted to oblige, but short of that he should be quiet. Bezos has been very fair and hands off with the post which is why Trump is pissed. What you say about Amazon is not true...it pains me to see people jumping on the Trump bandwagon and attacking Amazon in order to defend Sen. Sanders. If Amazon has broken laws than there is a process for that. But just deciding that you don't like large successful companies is not enough. And running to a camera or twitter to defame Amazon is wrong. And I sincerely hope Amazon sues the piss out of anyone who does this.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Demsrule86
(68,586 posts)Amazon is...haha. What goes around comes around.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)If there should prove to be a problem (and the important word is prove), all Amazon would have to do is sell off some part of its company.
But, personally, I doubt that Amazon will prove to have a problem if you consider it is just one of many, many companies selling on-line. It has a big share of the on-line market, but in my opinion, not that big.
greatauntoftriplets
(175,742 posts)Due to a painful medical condition, I've been unable to drive for the last 2 1/2 years. I can't even walk to the CVS that's three blocks from my home.
Amazon has been a lifesaver for things I need in daily life, Christmas and birthday gifts for family, things for my home, as well as medical supplies.
Spanky and Sanders can scoff, but Amazon provides a needed service for many people.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Trump is wrong; Bernie is right.
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)What are Bernie's policy ideas about Amazon? Elizabeth Warren joined in too this morning. I'm wondering what kind of policy they think would be fair and if they would include other corporations.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Corporations that get as big as Amazon, or nearly as big, need proportional scrutiny as we decide whether to permit them the power to crush smaller businesses.
Bernie's "agreeing with Trump" on this issue is a bullshit talking point posted on DU only for the most obvious of reasons.
ellie
(6,929 posts)business owners who run a store on the Amazon sales platform. If Amazon would go away I would lose part of my livelihood. And then what would I do? I would like Bernie and Trump to address that.
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)Elizabeth Warren weighed in today too. I'm starting to think they know nothing about business and are insensitive to disabled people who would suffer without Amazon
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)Senator Warren now? What did she say that causes you to believe she would shut down Amazon? Are you able to understand that it is possible to value Amazon's services and still think the business model is rapidly turning predatory? Those of us who do think Amazon is moving deep into predatory teritory would like to see those practices curbed. It doesn't mean I don't use Amazon and it certainly doesn't mean I'm joining any movement to shut it down. Amazon exists and it works for you, maybe you could try to develop some sympathy for the little people involved in getting goods delivered to you.
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)I'm not going to war with anyone. I'm just wondering what policies could help with what they are thinking and would it apply to all businesses.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)but this doesn't sound like love:
Elizabeth Warren weighed in today too. I'm starting to think they know nothing about business and are insensitive to disabled people who would suffer without Amazon
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)I can't walk more than 10 feet. I'm home bound, Amazon has helped me a lot. Whatever policy they maybe thing of would directly affect me. I just want them to take disabled people to account. I should not have said it the way I did change scares me. I'm sorry. I love Elizabeth, not so much Bernie but if he runs and wins the primary I would happily vote for him.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)but I don't understand how you can be so unfeeling regarding the people who are actually working to deliver the stuff you need. I don't understand why you have no concern if Amazon is a predatory business, poor labor conditions for their employees and using the data from sellers who participate in their forum to poach customers as two examples. What donald has said and is doing is petty and vindictive he has addressed no legitimate issue. In contrast Senator Sanders was asked a question in light of the controversy sparked by donald's outrageous twits. The question was
"Do you think Amazon has gotten too big?"
To which he answered
"Yes, I do. I do."
Then he went on to say
"And I think this is -- look, this is an issue that has got to be looked at. What we are seeing all over this country is the decline in retail. We're seeing this incredibly large company getting involved in almost every area of commerce. And I think it is important to take a look at the power and influence that Amazon has."
If you don't see that as a legitimate issue I don't know what you might see as legitimate.
Senator Sanders had a little bit more to say that if one wants to be honest definitely took him off of donald's page.
"But, by the way, when we talk about the Trump administration, I think the most important point to be made, Jake, is that, on issue after issue, they are doing exactly the opposite of what the American people want us to do.
You know, right now, in this country -- we don't talk about it enough -- there are millions of people who are working two or three jobs because wages are much too low. And what the American people say is, raise the minimum wage to a living wage, 15 bucks an hour."
I don't want to rob you of the life saving benefit that Amazon delivery provides you nor do I believe that Senator Sanders does either. I just want a fair shake for the employees and contractors that find themselves in business with Amazon.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)and now someone with disabilities gets creamed for not honoring every whim or TV answer Bernie has.
How much groveling are people expected to do just because they like goods and services delivered in a manner conducive to their lifestyle. Warren certainly lives well. Bernie lives well. Bernie uses Amazon. I don’t see them being attacked and ordered to apologize for their lives of great comfort. 
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)discussion with Jack Taper as chiming in with donald? Who in the fuck is being asked to grovel or apologise?
The fact is Amazon is taking retail by storm a lot of times their labor practices are deplorable and they have been known to poach customers from their sellers. If you can read for content try to understand this I don't want to shut down Amazon and I don't think Senators Warren and Sanders want to either. There is a lot of room between killing Amazon and curbing some of their preditory practices.
If you can point to the statement I made that indcates any groveling needs to be done or apologys are to be proffered I would be interested in how you got that interpretation.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)Chime in, agreed, reiterated, whatever you want to call it, he agreed with Trump instead of calling out Trump’s obvious motives.
These cookie cutter attacks that have to fit his world view are very recognizable, so I won’t waste my time stating the obvious. Now it’s pile on Amazon time because Bernie was on a TV show.
Bernie has no problem questioning people’s motives, so it’s bizarre why he gave Trump a pass on this.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)"But, by the way, when we talk about the Trump administration, I think the most important point to be made, Jake, is that, on issue after issue, they are doing exactly the opposite of what the American people want us to do."
Perhaps you read that differently.
Cha
(297,317 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)Bernie should have been calling out Trump's obvious motives and agenda and explaining in more detail what is at stake in maligning "big business" like we've seen with the stock drop, etc. Not everything fits into rally cries. Eventually you have to be accountable for consequences. This was a bad move on Bernie's part -- i.e., tone deaf, you are right.
Cha
(297,317 posts)you would think he would know exactly the best thing to say when he has the mic.
kacekwl
(7,017 posts)it is very concerning that a company is becoming too powerful because they are now getting into media and who knows what else. Wal-Mart now in banking, healthcare, insurance etc. Too powerful is not good ,look at history for proof.
Demsrule86
(68,586 posts)hate them. It is wrong period. If a person other than the president had done this, he/she would be charged with stock fraud.
David__77
(23,421 posts)Cuthbert Allgood
(4,921 posts)He was saying they were too big and that having one company be such a large portion of our economy was troubling.
But, sure, TRUMP AND BERNIE!
Cha
(297,317 posts)Cuthbert Allgood
(4,921 posts)Just that they were getting too big. That doesn't preclude him from selling his books there. Just like it doesn't preclude Clinton from giving paid speeches to Goldman Sachs even though she clearly wanted policies limiting them.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)or of having any other nefarious motives. That was just another attack meant more for attention than substance.
That superficial What about Hillary Speeches!!!!!! attack is the canvas for illustrating the double standards. He should have been attacking Trump’s motives like he did Hillary’s. Trump clearly had a personal vendetta about Amazon and Bernie should have called that out instead of agreeing with him.
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,921 posts)Clinton correctly wanted things changed about Goldman Sachs. She also took money from the to speak. And that's OK. Just like Bernie not wanting Amazon to get big but still selling his books on Amazon. They aren't mutually exclusive.
Maybe Bernie needs to check in with DU more often to get the list of the fights he should be fighting.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)"big business" yet contributing to it by using their services. Clinton was just gratuitously maligned for his campaign agenda. Those are not the same things.
edit: and your obvious reference to "Wall Street" was supposed to be a big gotcha as if that is some ace card that makes Bernie superior to Clinton and therefore no one should question him about recently agreeing with Trump about Amazon. More people saw that "Wall Street" mantra as more contrived than anything real, actually. No proof of his comments were ever provided -- it was just for his rallies.
Cha
(297,317 posts)the "..Again..".
I said he needs to stop giving trump cover.. especially while he sells his own books on amazon.
cbdo2007
(9,213 posts)I hate agreeing with Trump but I do not think our news services should be for profit and owned by the largest corporations.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Bezos does. They are separate entities.
cbdo2007
(9,213 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)You think it is liberal or progressive to argue that position?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)cbdo2007
(9,213 posts)I just try not to argue with people who's argument is telling me what I should believe as a progressive or liberal instead of just trying to have a conversation about something.
Cha
(297,317 posts)vindictive idiot. Pushing Fake News on every GD thing but fox and any other Sinclair owned station.
onenote
(42,714 posts)And who should decide who gets to own them?
cbdo2007
(9,213 posts)Information is power and we should all be suspect of large corporation conglomerates that own news services. I don't feel any more comfortable with Bezos owning the WaPo than I would Zuckerberg or Trump...he just happens to be closer to my political leanings, at least for now.
Demsrule86
(68,586 posts)The post would have ceased to exist had Bezos not bought it. He has done a fine job. And with Murdoch owning Fox, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post, I think what you say is completely untrue. And I never agree with Trump.
Response to Tavarious Jackson (Original post)
LovingA2andMI This message was self-deleted by its author.
vi5
(13,305 posts)..but Democrats/progressives/liberals should hold them to the same standards we do every company with regard to labor practices, taxes, monopolies and many other issues.
The same as Wal-Mart, the same as any and all of the Koch brothers industries.
If we're going to abandon our principles for one company just because of some misguided "enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic with regard to Trump and Amazon then what the fuck are any of us bothering with anything for?
David__77
(23,421 posts)Mostly con, sometimes pro, this is BSU.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)He's losing the script
TexasTowelie
(112,250 posts)and how many of the products are consumer goods that are not essential? I'm for regulating businesses that provide necessities like prescription drugs where the manufacturer holds a patent, but it seems like nonsense to regulate a company that sells things like books, movies, textiles, and appliances. There are other retailers besides Amazon to fill those desires. The government doesn't need to get involved picking winners and losers in the marketplace.
Demsrule86
(68,586 posts)
randr
(12,412 posts)Is beyond dispute.
For the lsos it is a person problem, for Bernie it is denial of a better future
RandySF
(58,911 posts)Workers are not paid what they should be and that should be fixed by the states by passing livable wage laws.
WRONG:
eCommerce is here to stay whether it be Amazon, Target, Macy's or any other major retail outlet. That's a fact of the modern economy, most people like it and there's no going twenty-five years back in time.
UNSURE:
Most online services are charging sales taxes where states require it (I know I do). As for Amazon paying taxes where they are located, elected officials need to stop the giving everything away to every business that dangles the bait in front of them.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I was working for a company that was contemplating moving their non revenue generating departments from Manhattan to New Jersey to save money. Both states and both cities then began throwing concessions at that company unbidden. Because its employment, state tax revenue and all kinds of stuff.
MontanaMama
(23,322 posts)Local tax laws can be and are often an inequitable shit show. My spouse and I haves owned a small business with a store front for 30 years and we do not get anything handed to us in terms of tax breaks and incentives. Chain stores and businesses get all kinds of incentives for coming into our city. That said, local elected officials and governments have a lot of power and don’t use it...they could give tax incentives to businesses that come to town and guarantee that workers will be respected will be treated well but they don’t. Last year we had a local donut shop go under and two months later a Krispy Kreme came to town and were awarded a $20,000 tax incentive to do so. The local donut shop didn’t get any tax incentive.
I use Amazon often. Like it or not. Chain stores all tend to carry the same stuff and it is a waste of my time to drive all over this town looking for what I need, comparing prices etc when I can get on Amazon, compare products and prices, read reviews and get back to running my business where I provide a living wage to our employees, health insurance and a 401k. I wish Amazon did things differently and when we get Congress back in our grasp we can hold their feet to the fire and lead them to make a change.
One more thing...I have an old kitty who has special needs when it comes to his cat box. We have always used liners for his box that are really large, heavy duty and drape over the sides of his box because he misses the mark sometimes and he scratches them up so thin liners would leak and make a mess. Those liners have made him successful and made my life easier. Well, there was only ONE store in this city that carried them and that store is across town but I happily made the drive and would stock up a few times a year...then that store stopped carrying the liners. They won’t order them in for me either. Amazon has them so that’s where I get them now. We can all bitch about Amazon but clearly they provide a service that people want and NEED. Especially folks who are home bound.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)
CountAllVotes
(20,876 posts)Got some great cordless blinds from them for $60. Also, a LED light fixture that Walmart wanted $25 more for the same exact thing! Had the painter put 'em up and he didn't charge me a cent being I gave him my old bed!
Great deals can be made and FOUND! 