Amazon Is Getting Too Big and the Government Is Talking About It (marketwatch.com) 205
An anonymous reader quotes a report from MarketWatch: Fresh off its biggest Prime Day yet, the Whole Foods Market bid, and a slew of announcements including Amazon Wardrobe, Amazon.com Inc. was the subject of two investor calls Thursday that raised concerns that it is getting too big. In one case, hedge-fund manager Douglas Kass said government intervention could be imminent. "I am shorting Amazon today because I have learned that there are currently early discussions and due diligence being considered in the legislative chambers in Washington DC with regard to possible antitrust opposition to Amazon's business practices, pricing strategy and expansion announcements already made (as well as being aimed at expansion strategies being considered in the future," wrote Kass, head of Seabreeze Partners Management. "My understanding is that certain Democrats in the Senate have instituted the very recent and preliminary investigation of Amazon's possible adverse impact on competition," he said. "But, in the Trump administration we also have a foe against Jeff Bezos, who not only runs Amazon but happens to own an editorially unfriendly (to President Trump) newspaper, The Washington Post."
Kass said he thinks the government "discussions may have just begun and may never result in any serious effort to limit Amazon's growth plans." But he has been writing a series of columns about whether we've reached "peak Amazon," and said in an earlier column that the Whole Foods deal puts "Amazon's vast power under the microscope." "Is Amazon a productive change agent and force for the good of the consumer by virtue of a reduction in product prices? Or is Amazon's disruption of the general retail business a destroyer of jobs, moving previously productively employed workers into the unemployment line?" he asked.
Kass said he thinks the government "discussions may have just begun and may never result in any serious effort to limit Amazon's growth plans." But he has been writing a series of columns about whether we've reached "peak Amazon," and said in an earlier column that the Whole Foods deal puts "Amazon's vast power under the microscope." "Is Amazon a productive change agent and force for the good of the consumer by virtue of a reduction in product prices? Or is Amazon's disruption of the general retail business a destroyer of jobs, moving previously productively employed workers into the unemployment line?" he asked.
Disruption (Score:5, Interesting)
Or is Amazon's disruption of the general retail business a destroyer of jobs, moving previously productively employed workers into the unemployment line?
Yup. Same as xerox copying machines moved previously employed secretaries (see the massive secretarial pools in older movies) to the unemployment lines. ...
And how cranes and bulldozers put laborers out of business.
And how container ships put dockworkers out of business.
And
The real concern is not Amazon being more efficient and more fun to use than a mom-and-pop bookstore, music store, etc... but what happens when automation in Amazon's warehouses replace 90% of their employees.
Re: (Score:3)
If history is any indicator, there will be a period of time when those displaced workers are unemployed and on welfare. But they will represent a smaller and smaller proportion of the population due to population increase. So their welfare burden will be mitigated. Then they'll die/retire and the new generation that springs up will be more capable and skilled, having gone through better education systems born out of a need to produce employable people. And new categories of jobs will spring up as new servic
Re: (Score:2)
I was kind of wondering where your comment was going.... until the second paragraph kicked in. Yea, I believe you are correct that our public education system has become something other than what most desire. We have seen where the "everyone gets a trophy" mentality will lead us. We have seen where the "No one left behind" will lead us. It did nothing to prepare the next generation for the realities of life.
As for the US, UK, Japan not being there in the future. I will disagree with that statement.
Re: (Score:2)
But they will represent a smaller and smaller proportion of the population due to population increase
That might be a problem since population is currently decreasing. That would be fine if you offset it with increased immigration, but we all know how the current administration feels about that..
Re: (Score:2)
As far as the US is concerned - our population is exploding. At the current pace we'll be at about three quarters of a billion people at the turn of the century.
We were at
130 million in 1940 and
200 million in 1970 and
310 million in 2010
Form 1970 to 2010 (40 years) we had a 50% increase in population.
At that rate it will be at about 450 million in 2050 and 700 in 2090.
Re:Disruption (Score:5, Insightful)
Same as xerox copying machines moved previously employed secretaries (see the massive secretarial pools in older movies) to the unemployment lines.
But employed massive amounts of people at Xerox, opened up an entire new market.
How many people does Amazon employ? How many people does Amazon indirectly employ (think Ontrac, UPS, Fedex etc)?
I'm sure that thanks to Google, a lot of Encyclopedia salesmen are out of a job too. Would you like to ban Google?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure that thanks to Google, a lot of Encyclopedia salesmen are out of a job too. Would you like to ban Google?
Yes I would, but not for that (implied) reason.
Re: (Score:2)
I am slightly concerned about the disruption coming from automated cars, trucks and warehouses.
We have millions of taxi drivers, truck drivers, bus drivers, and stock clerks. These jobs will go the way of the horse shoe. Long term that's good. Short term. There may be issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I started work at the IT department of a large ad agency in 1993. When I started we had an ancient and rudimentary version of cc:Mail which nobody really used -- I found out by sending email to a coworker, who didn't read it for 3 days.
We also had a large secretarial staff, probably 30-odd people for a company of around 400, and a big task for them was scheduling meetings and printing memos.
By 98 or so, we had a full email/calendaring system installed and I'd say by about 2000 we only had 1/4 of the secret
Re:Disruption (Score:5, Insightful)
So Amazon increases prices to compensate for the taxes, and then the UBI becomes ineffective because prices have risen and negated the UBI. You can't eat your arm to keep yourself from starving.
just like Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:just like Microsoft (Score:5, Informative)
MS didn't just "increase campaign contributions", that doesn't accurately describe how things went down.
MS had *zero* lobbyists and made *zero* political contributions. Bill Gates was a naive computer nerd who thought corruption and shakedowns only happened in poor countries. Then when his company started making too much money in the 90's, suddenly it started getting all kinds of government trouble.
Bill, being a quick learner, rectified the situation and now MS has an army of full time lobbyists in Washington and a whole department dedicated to disbursing large sums of money as "contributions". And yes, their government problems went away.
Re:just like Microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft now has a Senator, who previously was in the House of Representatives, and whose district included Redmond, WA. Many years ago, one of the politicians from that state was referred to as the "Senator from Boeing". When you get really big, your politicians take care of you, but you have to get big first.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft's government problems went away, because they became a dinosaur and the market created other solutions. Windows just isn't as important as it used to be.
Doug Kass? Really? (Score:2, Insightful)
Doug Kass is a fearmonger. One of those people who focuses on the one in a hundred times he is right, and ignores all the times he is just trying to cause panic. I'm not saying this couldnt happen, not in the slightest. But Doug Kass is far from a reliable source.
This story smells (Score:3, Insightful)
If there are some early talks that aren't public knowledge, wouldn't shorting be insider trading.
If there are and it is public, shouldn't we have a corroborating source?
If there aren't talks, and he knows it, isn't that some sort of illegal market manipulation as well?
If there aren't talks, but he thinks there is, then wouldn't anyone following his advice be the picture of foolishness?
Something is off here.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes x 4
Re:This story smells (Score:5, Interesting)
Something is off here.
If you're looking for some "too big" to get worked up about.... 2016: Amazon revenue: $136 billion. Walmart revenue: $486 billion.
The latter has been wiping out competitors and distorting the wholesale and retail supply chain of the US for decades. Amazon has a looong way to go before they approach the damage of Walmart.
There are a lot of things "off" here.
Amazon has made a mistake. They disturbed the US professional class when they dared touch one of its refuges by grabbing Whole Foods. So yeah, sic the government ban hammer on them. Completely in character.
Re: (Score:3)
Now you hit the nail right on it's head. Amazon has become threatening to Walmart the true destroyer of communities and Walmart's lobbyists are now out to get Amazon. Amazon is a logistics company with a retail arm and any logistics company can compete with them on the same basis. From the producers production lines to an Amazon warehouse to be picked and delivered to your home. Of course instant gratification does require click and mortar elements.
Basically apart from a period of bullshit lobbyiest crap,
Re: (Score:2)
(IANAL, but I am a law student and st
How the Government Works (Score:5, Insightful)
"Hi there. Oh I'm just your friendly local congressman. I notice you haven't been doing a lot of lobbying lately. You know, campaign funding, that sort of thing. Say, that's a really nice business model you got going on there. Boy it looks really successful. I'm really happy for you. But, I'm worried about this legislation that's knocking around in congress that might affect it..."
There's a This American Life episode where a congresswoman left, pretty much, that message on someone's answering machine. "I notice your in the construction business and I'm on the panel for construction spending so..."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Government is a protection racket? (Score:2)
"That's a nice business you got. Be a shame if anything happened to it."
At least, that's what I'm hearing.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect it's a bit less sinister. The old saying of never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.
The "corporations are bad, up there in their corporate tower being all corporation-y" wing of the American leftists seem to be gaining momentum in much the same way the Tea-baggers did after Obama won in 2008.
Expect a lot of screaming and crying about how people shouldn't make money and stuff...
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect it's a bit less sinister. The old saying of never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.
The "corporations are bad, up there in their corporate tower being all corporation-y" wing of the American leftists seem to be gaining momentum in much the same way the Tea-baggers did after Obama won in 2008.
Expect a lot of screaming and crying about how people shouldn't make money and stuff...
That old saying is retarded.
1: That's just what a malicious actor would want you to think.
2: If someone does some shit, why would you care about whether it was due to stupidity or maliciousness? The response shouldn't be more lenient if it was due to stupidity. That only enables stupidity AND malice. The stupid aren't punished and weeded out, and the malicious feign stupidity and aren't weeded out at the malicious actor rate. Instead, they get the stupid actor discount.
In the US, maybe (Score:3)
On the other hand Aldi and Trader Joe's bring in about half that world wide. It seems to me that we still need to be concerned about Wal Mart and their domination. Amazon is about the only venture that is going provide any real competition to Wal Mart, with discounted Amazon Prime to low income families, and the promise of affordable fresh vegetables and fruit through the Amazon Fresh program. In my town a family making three trips a month on the bus pays for the fresh membership.
I think the government may now be prioritizing east coast conservative corporate interests over the interests of voters, in the same way they prioritize legacy coal over the health interests of inner cities where the coal is burned.
Re: (Score:3)
I was wondering why Walmart wasn't targeted while they decimated small companies in the 80s/90s/00s.
There is actually a bit of free market going on here as far as I can tell.
Disclosure: I had two Amazon packages by my front door when I got home today... I can't get replacement side mirror glass for my wife's car from Walmart.
Full Disclosure: I bought a crapton of soda and snacks (for kids' lunches) at Walmart over lunch today.
Take my disclosures as you will...
Government is getting too big... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I bet he didn't short (Score:2)
Since people like this seem to always lie I"m guessing he didn't short and just trying to make some quick money.
It would be interesting to see who is really pushing this since politicians never do anything without someone pushing them to.
I suspect that it's Walmart who can't seem to get any real traction and aren't able to counter the shift away from the giant stores filled with crap.
There is no law against large corporations (Score:4, Insightful)
Dunno About Govt - Except Bailout (Score:2)
I think Bezos et. al. learned a valuable lesson from 2008 and applied it as part of their business strategy.
Re: (Score:2)
Simple solution (Score:2)
Simple solution: Amazon should just call itself a bank or an agri-business and the government will fund it getting bigger.
Yes/No/Whatever (Score:2)
>"Is Amazon a productive change agent and force for the good of the consumer by virtue of a reduction in product prices? Or is Amazon's disruption of the general retail business a destroyer of jobs, moving previously productively employed workers into the unemployment line?"
Neither and yet both and yet that isn't what matters. I love Amazon. Most of us do. But what I do not like is that there is no real/viable OTHER "Amazon". That makes Amazon a type of monopoly in their own playground. Monopolies a
Re: (Score:2)
simple solution for bezo (Score:2)
With that, trump/GOP could do nothing, except get mad that Amazon 1-5 are slowly throttling companies like walmart, target, etc all who bought GOP politicians have been throttling America.
Too big, eh? (Score:2)
Me thinks that there are enough other targets to go after than Amazon if you're going by size alone.
Wonder if Washington Post being a thorn in Trump's side has anything to do with this?
Queue influx of lobbying cash to Dems (Score:2)
I expect this is really a plea for lobbying cash by whoever the supposed Dems are, just in time for the 2018 election season
Prime Day? (Score:2)
I had to look up what Prime Day is - I thought it might be something like Pi Day, which would have been cool, in a way. Somewhere along the same off-topic, tangent, I'd like to suggest 2nd of August (or 8th of February, depending on whether you're American) as Perfect Day, since 28 is a perfect number. Sorry, slow moving day at work.
1st Amendment Issue (Score:2)
If the Trump administration seems to be a driving force behind the regulation it would be pretty easy to draw a link between that and the threats Trump made to punish Amazon for negative coverage from the Washington Post.
That would seem to be good application of the 1st amendment, I wonder if Amazon would have a good shot at prevailing in a court case.
Do an Alphabet (Score:2)
It didn't work for Google with the EU, but it's worth a try. Break up Amazon into different companies under a new parent company. They could call it Buy N Large.
Just trying to make money (Score:2)
I mean the guy posting this, not Amazon. He shorts a stock, then writes an article telling everyone they ought to sell that stock. He hopes some people will listen to him, in which case the price goes down, he immediately covers his short, and makes money. Nothing to do with Amazon really. It's a standard trick you can do with any stock. But only if you can get enough people to listen to you so it affects the stock price.
Re: (Score:2)
The balls on this guy, oh my. Can't wait to see how that one turns out.
We can only hope he bought many, many puts on margin.
Re:Shorting Amazon today (Score:4, Interesting)
He's going to get killed. Probably only shorted 100 shares.
Amazon is good for America and the other countries they operate in. Amazon is forcing retail to become more efficient. And when things become more efficient everyone wins. The smart move here is to figure out how to compete or partner with Amazon, not to try and hobble it. In the long run I suspect Alibaba is going to be Amazon's top competitor but I'm not ruling Walmart out. The really big competition arena is just getting started -- the build out of planetary logistic networks. My prediction is that one of these three will acquire a large logistics company like FedEx, DHL or UPS.
Re:Shorting Amazon today (Score:4, Insightful)
This.
You don't strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
Re:Shorting Amazon today (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
But if you have a shark in your fish pond you control the shark otherwise,in the future, the only thing in the pond will be the shark. Then any new minnow that gets dropped into the pond will not be able to have a chance to live long enough to grow and become a fish.
In other words: to keep things competitive you need to ensure that there is enough business left for competitors. Even if Amazon kept good prices and service, would you like it if Amazon was the only retail outlet left ? We have seen many times that monopolies, like dictators, do not lead to good outcomes - no matter how much you welcome them to begin with.
Re:Shorting Amazon today (Score:5, Insightful)
The pond is not small (and economics is not a zero sum game). Amazon is just reaching the size of Walmart. Two companies that size fighting each other is vastly better than one alone.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for stating it so succinctly.
Re: (Score:2)
Two companies that size are just as likely to announce a merger, followed by share price increases and layoffs. And massive bonuses in the C-suite.
In the mean time, ask all those mom-and-pop businesses on Main Street how healthy competion is - when the competitor is a 900-lb gorilla and has the leverage to negotiate extra-favorable bulk pricing from its suppliers.
Re: (Score:2)
An imaginary scenario is still imaginary.
Re:Shorting Amazon today (Score:4, Interesting)
You are also looking at the pond when the real fight is happening in the ocean. Over the next twenty to thirty years these companies are going to have global logistic networks that work in both directions. Companies in the US will be able to make their wares appear in Chinese websites similar to how Aliexpress works today. Now repeat that model in every country in the world.
So we need to feed our two sharks Amazon/Walmart and then let them loose into the ocean. Remember what Microsoft did to the software industry in the rest of the world during the 80's and 90's?
Over the next few decades the national boundaries of retail are going to disappear. Everyone will be able to sell to anyone via these global store fronts and the big logistics platforms will deliver anything anywhere in two days. You don't really think those fleets of planes Amazon and Alibaba are buying will stay in just one country, right? Alibaba just bought an entire airport in Spain.
Logistics is the key to making a global market place. These companies are going to build massive, world-wide distribution and warehousing systems and wring every last efficiency out of them. At most there will be five competitors at this scale. Two unknowns plus Amazon, Walmart and Alibaba.
Re: (Score:3)
If the only thing in the pond is a shark, the shark dies of starvation.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Shorting Amazon today (Score:2)
And then Walmart closes their store, and loses revenue. They aren't doing so great today, are they?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe.... that's not so bad?
One could argue America is WAY too spread out anyway. All that extra land isn't getting used, per se.
If efficiencies get wrung all the way out, who's to say that the consolidation of towns into larger towns isn't a good thing? All the tiny 200-person towns I go through on a drive through America don't need to exist anymore. It's inefficient, and there's a lot of poverty there anyway (though who's to say it gets better with bigger towns....) With some consolidation into cities I'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is, of course, barring government interference. Like border tariffs or import/export restrictions. A true planetary logistics and shipping network would be fantastic. Doubly so if it can be automated.
But the trend seems to be against efficiency in favor of "the good old times". Forgetting all the bad things about the "good old times"...
Re: (Score:2)
And soon Amazon, embedded deeply in the American economy, will be too big too fail. I think we've seen how that worked out with the banks.
Anything very big, superstructured, superdominant, is in my opinion not good for the society.
Re: (Score:2)
And what did theGovernment do about these banks? NOTHING. It would be better if the government started with the banks rather than Amazon.
Re: (Score:2)
And when things become more efficient everyone wins.
Tell that to the buggy whip makers when the automobile came along. For almost every change (increases in efficiency among them), there are losers as well as winners.
Re: (Score:2)
Where are the buggy whip makers now?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think Amazon already has a logistics arm. The last mile will be handled by the local postal service unless the customer paid for better shipping.
To my house, Amazon shipments have been delivered by an Amazon employee in their own car for the past few months, sometimes the same day. For short distance delivery within a dense population when you have a lot of stuff to deliver, it's clearly cheaper to employ someone to deliver it than it is to use a postal service.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention if you use prime two day shipping, you pay for prime as well as the prime shipping markup to cover two day shipping costs.
Re:Who is John Galt? (Score:4, Insightful)
The myth of Galt's Gulch is a fallacy based in the Great Man theory [wikipedia.org]. The only thing that happens when inventors sit on their hands and refuse to invent is someone else comes along and produces the same invention anyway. All that are required are circumstance and motivation.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Got a credible cite for that?
Re: (Score:2)
The arrogance of creative people is usually their downfall because they assume they are irreplaceable. I've had artists passionately explain to me why I couldn't possibly do the things that they do, and that they could easily do the things that I do. (sure I agree that most anyone could do kernel and microcode development with the appropriate education, but most people would hate that my job and wouldn't have the drive to excel at it.)
Re: (Score:2)
That is a statement from people who've never been challenged by their coursework. Have them take a compilers or algorithms course and then they can provide a informed opinion.
I think art is important, but IMO that statement arises out of ignorance.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, art is important, but not the modern crap "weird for the sake of weird" art that we see today.
https://youtu.be/jHKW5AWLby0?t... [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:3)
Substitute 'art' with 'blogging'.
Works, doesn't it?
Re: (Score:3)
Have them shepherd a change to the web site through diagnosis, analysis, funding, development, testing, redevelopment, release, fast follower fixing, user pushback, redesign, repeat.
They will be sitting in the bathroom in a puddle of tears. I'll gladly clean brushes twice a day and sell a tenth of what I make for the equivalent of $3.30/hr in wages, except my work in that would be worth $0.02.
Just like their work in my area without 40 years experience.
Re:Who is John Galt? (Score:4, Insightful)
I had a damn tech writer smugly inform me that their was 'now a creative person on the team'. I said: 'Fuck off, your job is writing an goddamn instruction manual for a system _created_ by the rest of the people in this room.'
Most 'creatives', aren't.
Re: (Score:3)
Or, as one writer told me, 'restating reality'.
I was thinking more like 'restating failure', but that's only true 33% of the time around here, if you ignore sprints 20 through 86.
Re: (Score:3)
He was showing off that grammar can be creative. Theirs no raisin too bicker.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There was quite a fight over who invented the telephone. When you get to television, it gets even murkier. And then again, surely you've seen those old films about all the different people trying to invent the airplane.
Rand's real failing (other than that she wrote a "30-minute" speech that can't even be read in 30 minutes and insulted the reader by assuming that he/she was too dim to have gotten the point by then) was the assumption that all creative people are conservative-types, when so many in real life
Re: (Score:2)
"she wrote a "30-minute" speech that can't even be read in 30 minutes"
I can read as fast as I can talk.
Think it through.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The only thing that happens when inventors sit on their hands and refuse to invent is someone else comes along and produces the same invention anyway. All that are required are circumstance and motivation.
Ah, the evil post-modernist idea that "competence is a myth". That anything could really be done by anyone, that there are no experts except by accident of work history, that no one really has more talent than anyone else. Total crock of shit, of course.
Creative output follows a Pareto Distribution [wikipedia.org]. Whether it's papers published [wikipedia.org], points scored in professional sports, distribution of bestsellers among authors, or successful CEO founders, a tiny percentage of the people working at it are so far beyond the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, the evil post-modernist idea that "competence is a myth". That anything could really be done by anyone, that there are no experts except by accident of work history, that no one really has more talent than anyone else. Total crock of shit, of course.
There's a difference between "someone else comes along" and "anyone else comes along". Of course competence matters.
Anyway, Rand's premise for the book was that all the top talent, all that limited pool conspired to go on strike. Not just the current CEOs, but the few smart people who actually mattered in the big companies too, wherever they were in the hierarchy. It would be a pretty lame labor action if only a few of the workers stopped working, wouldn't it? Not a very realistic premise, but the rest made sense if you granted that set-up.
See, that's a crock of shit. There's more talent in the pool which doesn't reach the top because the top is already filled. Top talent going on strike creates a talent vacuum and someone else steps up to fill the vacuum. If Linus Torvalds had decided to be lazy and never created Linux, we would still have something like Linux today. Either BSD or Hurd would have filled the void or someone else
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Without git we'd all be using mercurial instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Without integrated circuits, cell phones would be virtually impossible. Without miniaturized microwave tech they would not be practical. Without DTMF they would be unusable. Without improved batteries they would be undesirable.
Claiming you invented cell phones is a lot like claiming 'you won' the Super Bowl. Your team did, built on the successes and failures of prior team mates, your coaches' experiences elsewhere and previously, and a generous dose of serendipity.
But inventions do in fact occur, and some
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, the good old fairy tale of irreplaceable talent.
The graveyards are full of "irreplaceable" people.
Re: (Score:3)
Where did I say "irreplaceable". Oh, you made that up.
The point is that the pool of top talent - in any complex endeavor - is small. So, sure, you can replace a good CEO if you have a good selection process, but you can't keep doing that very long. If we're instead talking about, say, novel publishing, it's not so obvious who replaces the top talent. There are a handful of authors that sell very well indeed, and only some of that is marketing. At the extreme of the bell curve, you go centuries between W
Re: (Score:3)
"you should realize that as a company gets larger - it gets more average"
Not where I work. After 160+ years it is bigger and better by every measure. No surprise, it is also virtually devoid of sexist practices, covert corruption, and for the past 16 years devoid of overtly defrauding customers. Yeah, that happened. Not any more.
Re: (Score:3)
HAD you read the book you would recognize three things:
0) The story is a stylized depiction of government run amok. Exmphasis on stylized. It shows a somewhat unrealistically extreme result.
1) Galt Gulch is similarly overstated. How much is in the opinion of the reader.
2) Rand has some interesting infatuations, such as absolute individual freedom, thin fit and successful people, and their personal pursuits. Skipping over that and a 60+ page soliloquy that makes Shakespeare read like a kindergarten primer, a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
John Galt is a fictitious character of a children's book. In the world created by the author, Ayn Rand, there are these worthwhile people who create by hard work, creativity, and just grit that they created for themselves by hard work and superior character - no help from ANYONE!!
In the Ayn Rand World, the genes and abilities that you inherited from your parents do not exist nor does their nurturing - the books, pre-school, music lessons, just being sober, not being impoverished, etc...
Nor does your race.
Re: (Score:2)
John Galt is fiction. Ayn Rand is *really bad* fiction. When corporations become too large they take on many characteristics of unaccountable government.
Re: (Score:2)
Right now the bets are being placed that this comes true for Detroit ranging from 5 to 10 years. Even suggesting that it is 15 or 20 years out now seems unreasonably optimistic. And I wonder if 5 years is even too far out, that would place it into Trump's second term and this really seems like something that has to happen during his first term.
Re: (Score:2)
What if a low-budget science fiction film successfully predicts 30 years into the future? We may be only 3 years away from finding out for certain.
Re: (Score:2)
"One share, one vote. The CEO has 50,000 shares and the board has a grant of another 20,000 that's virtually guaranteed even if he trashes the company. You have 100 and a bill for a kidney transplant. What could be more democratic than that?"
Re: (Score:2)
Our parents did.
Re: (Score:2)
"What id like is a way to run something like pixel or even just program them like an arduino"
For that you need to pay more than $25. A Mega or RasPi, touchscreen, and battery will cost more, case optional.
Sorry, what I meant to say was 'you're comparing different fruit.'
Re: (Score:2)
Sears has been dying since 2000. I learned it was dying back then because my girlfriend worked there, and I got the inside scoop on how messed up things were. The sad thing about that is they could have become Amazon. Sears had been doing catalog sales since forever, and they could have jumped into online sales, but they were too slow.
Re: (Score:2)
They STILL could survive, but they will not. To survive they need to get rid of the MBA's they keep hiring and focus on getting new customers and new products. The best way for them to do that, is go after Small American start-ups.
But, they will not.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon (Bezos) does run the Washington Post.