The company that has grown to be a mega-giant by providing products at low cost and convenience that we've never seen before? Not to mention the fact that wal-mart, Costco, and millions of small businesses provide the same products.
In the hardest times, pure capitalism has failed.
- Thread starter fried-chicken
- Start date
Here's what I'm ok with. Bailout these companies and pay for it by raising CORPORATE taxes. I'm not interested in bailing out an industry that spent 95% of retained earnings on stock buy backs.
If your industry spent 45B on stock buy backs since the last crisis and you are now needing 50B to stay alive then you should get the money but not without penalty.
The corporation with an investor game plan that involved operating at a loss in order to drive countless other companies out of business by dramatically under-cutting their prices?
That's the 'capitalism' you want to defend?
Amazon is great.
You don't want to stop Amazon from existing, it makes everyone's lives better. The problem is just that they don't pay taxes and they put companies that do pay taxes out of business. And the workers that they put out of a job aren't replaced by a person at Amazon, they're replaced by a robot or not at all.
This is the new industrial revolution. The old economic structure doesn't work. Amazon must contribute the same to the community as the businesses it kills or we have a net loss that goes into Bezos's pocket. The goal isn't to kill Amazon it's to have a system where both individuals and corporations can exist in reasonable conditions.
Amazon must pay taxes.
You don't want to stop Amazon from existing, it makes everyone's lives better. The problem is just that they don't pay taxes and they put companies that do pay taxes out of business. And the workers that they put out of a job aren't replaced by a person at Amazon, they're replaced by a robot or not at all.
This is the new industrial revolution. The old economic structure doesn't work. Amazon must contribute the same to the community as the businesses it kills or we have a net loss that goes into Bezos's pocket. The goal isn't to kill Amazon it's to have a system where both individuals and corporations can exist in reasonable conditions.
Amazon must pay taxes.
One of the biggest issues in our tax system is that we only tax retained earnings.
Amazon makes profit of 100M
Decides to buy 100M of equipment to cut labor costs of 100M.
Shows no profit pays no taxes, reduces workforce.
Next year has profit of 200M
Invests in technology of 300M to cut labor costs
Shows profit of -100M no taxes reduces workforce
Next year carries over loss and on and on it goes.
Businesses used to be encouraged to invest in expanding and that meant workforce benefited too. Now investing profits is done on things like buybacks and automation. Workers no longer really benefit from these things. We can't and shouldn't stop it but the entire way we tax needs to change.
Amazon makes profit of 100M
Decides to buy 100M of equipment to cut labor costs of 100M.
Shows no profit pays no taxes, reduces workforce.
Next year has profit of 200M
Invests in technology of 300M to cut labor costs
Shows profit of -100M no taxes reduces workforce
Next year carries over loss and on and on it goes.
Businesses used to be encouraged to invest in expanding and that meant workforce benefited too. Now investing profits is done on things like buybacks and automation. Workers no longer really benefit from these things. We can't and shouldn't stop it but the entire way we tax needs to change.
Those stock buybacks went directly into the pockets of investors. Thousands of people make a ton of money when a corporation does it. I don't like the fact that the money came from the federal government at all, but in general it shouldn't be discouraged as a practice.
Disagree. If you tax earnings at a corporate level prior to disbursement then you create a system of double taxation. It's unfair to investors to pay tax on earnings that have already been taxed. The problem is in deferred taxation on gains. Yes, it facilitates reinvestment but the tax code is a game and it allows people to defer taxes indefinitely.
So was Ma Bell. But our anti-trust laws broke her up. Amazon is Amazon because Bezo knew our government no longer has the political will do break up monopolies. Bezo also knew, as you pointed out, that he could build a mega-company by investing the profits back into the company to increase automation (for ever-increasing profits) while using our tax system to avoid paying taxes.
But that's no excuse for looking-the-other-way when rich corporations are abusing our system.
Last edited:
Mostly true, but Amazon cant use fast-depreciation on capital investments so 100m in investment doesnt lead to 100m in deductible expenses.
Just because a company is big doesnt mean it's a monopoly. There is no reason to break up Amazon right now. Ma Bell was a totally different situation.
Come on, Crazy. You don't think Amazon doesn't have monopolies on many of the products it sells?
The company drove many of its former competitors out-of-business.
Lazy. No, they didn't drive anybody out of business any more than I've done on a smaller scale. Now answer my question
Okay, I would agree they're not a monopoly but, instead, a dangerous oligopoly. The bottom line is Amazon violates our antitrust laws which are designed to promote fair competition.
The Amazon model is a growing threat to an ever-growing list of American industries. This hurts workers and consumers when it comes to what they pay for goods and services.
I guess so.
However, with a single-payer system, the notion of healthcare being primarily profit-driven is changed.
In other words, it is a little more complicated than that.
The Trumpers don't care. They are completely oblivious.
It is as-if they have Mandingo jammed in their ass and still deny he is in there.
I single pay for my nation's defense too.
Does that mean I'm an anti-trust hypocrite?
How has Amazon hurt consumers? They are providing products at a lower cost at greater convenience than ever before. Anti-trust laws are intended to protect the consumer from price gouging, period.
Calling our current system "pure capitalism" is as wrong as calling democratic-socialism "socialism."
This isn't pure capitalism. Pure capitalism doesn't exist. The closest thing is some African and Asian countries where workers are exploited for slave wages and corporations rake in profits.
This isn't pure capitalism. Pure capitalism doesn't exist. The closest thing is some African and Asian countries where workers are exploited for slave wages and corporations rake in profits.
You don't think having a corner on the market doesn't impact prices? How did Amazon magically become worth 112 Billion dollars?
And during this corona virus thing, we have literally become consumer slaves to Amazon.
That is possibly the most non-sequitor post I've ever read. National defense has nothing to do with economic monopolies.
Thank you, I worked hard for that.
Kind of like a single payer health care system has nothing to do with the current health care monopolies.
What current healthcare monopolies? I know for a fact that you live in a town with dozens of independent clinics that compete with one another and 3 hospital systems that do the same. No monopoly exists in the healthcare industry, although the ACA did move toward that direction.Thank you, I worked hard for that.
They sure as hell haven't shown me any sympathy when I've lost my shirt at their establishments.
I think the theory that industry can't be capitalist and benefit many is unfounded. Imagine if Google, apple, etc didn't exist. The wealth those companies created is amazing.
Last edited:
Totally Agree. It keeps us from becoming an Oligarchy! You'll notice that over time many companies keep buying companies till somewhat of a monopoly is formed.
Latest posts
-
-
OT: TCU Star Hoop Player accused of sexual, physical abuse
- Latest: Knight_Light
-
-
-
