Amazon is nobody's friend

[Nyssa]

[QUOTE=Sil_liS;1757110]But this would be Florida, so more sun, less paneling, cheaper. Plus, it's a matter of how many years it takes to break even with how much there would be to pay to fpl.


Many posts ago, Nyssa said this:

Originally Posted by Nyssa

I find it interesting that so many people consider Amazon a monopoly. I have yet to find anything on Amazon that I could not find elsewhere if I looked hard enough. They just happen to make most things easier to find.

I also said:

Originally Posted by Nyssa

Based on your argument, Amazon should be in court right now, as should every other publishing house with exclusive rights, as well as every record label, movie production studio, etc. There is no antitrust issue, however, because they are not monopolies

I even repeated:

Originally Posted by Nyssa

Like I said earlier, if Amazon is a monopoly so is every publishing house, record label, dance company, and/or corporation that has its artist/clients sign exclusive rights deals.

You of course have chosen the to pick apart all of my posts to suit you're needs. Fine you win...Happy? But you're still wrong. As of September 26th 2011 8:40am EST, Amazon is not a monopoly. End of story.



Have a nice day.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Frahse... bubby... you're preaching to the choir. Me an' afa were both stating our opinions that Amazon is NOT a monopoly, by any accepted definition of the word. I love your enthusiasm, there, chubbsy-ubbsy, but it's customary when taking a contrary view in an argument to verify that you do indeed have a contrary view from those you're quoting and "arguing" with... Howard Hughes biography aside.

[Greg Anos]

Actually the point is not whether or not an exclusive agreement is a monopoly. ALL copyright is a granted (limited) monopoly. You're just discussing who is controlling a particular monopoly (copyright)...

[afa]

Originally Posted by frahse

Ooo..., I learned how to do a multiquote. Now we are all gathered here together.

Congrats. You know what I really want to learn? How people do that quote-inside-a-quote thing. I can do it manually (insert the original quote inside the secondary one), but I wonder if there is a better way...

I would beg to quibble just a little.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Frahse... bubby... you're preaching to the choir. Me an' afa were both stating our opinions that Amazon is NOT a monopoly, by any accepted definition of the word. I love your enthusiasm, there, chubbsy-ubbsy, but it's customary when taking a contrary view in an argument to verify that you do indeed have a contrary view from those you're quoting and "arguing" with... Howard Hughes biography aside.

What Double D said (minus the "chubbsy-ubbsy" bit).

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by afa

What Double D said (minus the "chubbsy-ubbsy" bit).

Just a Little Rascals term of endearment. I thought thought we were supposed to be lobbing those around willy-nilly in this thread. No? My bad.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Nyssa

I also said:



I even repeated:



You of course have chosen the to pick apart all of my posts to suit you're needs. Fine you win...Happy? But you're still wrong. As of September 26th 2011 8:40am EST, Amazon is not a monopoly. End of story.

You know what the funny thing is? I never actually said that Amazon is a monopoly. What I was arguing about was the fact that by what you said in post #152 you should consider it a monopoly.

[frahse]

Originally Posted by afa

--

If Amazon somehow managed to get exclusive rights on all ebooks, then they would be a monopoly, as they are now single-handedly controlling a market.

--

That is the sentence I was quibbling with. I thought it was a simple declarative sentence stating a belief/fact.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Frahse... bubby... you're preaching to the choir. Me an' afa were both stating our opinions that Amazon is NOT a monopoly, by any accepted definition of the word. I love your enthusiasm, there, chubbsy-ubbsy, but it's customary when taking a contrary view in an argument to verify that you do indeed have a contrary view from those you're quoting and "arguing" with... Howard Hughes biography aside.

I have now marked what I am contrary to, but "Oh great lord of darkness " I await your instruction.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by frahse

I have now marked what I am contrary to, but "Oh great lord of darkness " I await your instruction.

You'll find an old catalpa tree near the crumbling stone wall. Your instructions await you in the hollow of the tree. For god's sake hurry... it may already be too late.

[frahse]

Is there a "moon phase" connection as well?

I hate missing tides and secret caches.

You know "time(cache) and tides wait for no man."

[kennyc]

Cache me if you can.

[jethro10]

Well I've just read the article.
TBH, I can't see Amazon is doing anything any other large company is also doing.

And there are flaws in the article, about being tied to the kindle for instance, it mentions apps for ipad/android etc, that may be stopped, but they have a recently introduced web app that wont take long to work on basically anything with a web browser.

Ok, Amazon is a bad boy, but no worse than the rest of em really.

Jeff

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by jethro10

Ok, Amazon is a bad boy, but no worse than the rest of em really.

Jeff

Jeff?!

[jethro10]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Jeff?!

er yes, I'm called jeff!
sorry!
Not the best of names I know, but my mother is current dead, so I can't complain to anyone

Jeff

[Skip Wyona]

Originally Posted by frahse

I beg to differ Skip Wyona.

Amazon pays to ship directly to the customer. That is a higher expense than the so called brick and mortar stores pay for their bulk shipping in big tricks and on railways. You have to factor that cost into their overhead.

Yes state and local governments don't get their sales tax, but the citizens of those states and local governments get lower costs and thus are better able to support these state and local governments.

Amazon doesn't get a free ride. They provide the citizens good products at a low cost, and with incredible efficiency.

If you want to look at free rides, look at such artifices as not charging sales tax above $300 on an automobile sale. Look at giving tax breaks on first and 2nd mortgages. Look at farm subsidies, ethanol subsidies, homesteader exemptions, etc., etc., and so on forever.

What we have is politics in action where "people" decide what is fair, but there are groups of other people that disagree.

We can agree to disagree I guess. Shipping cost comparisons can not be made without data. I do not have any. Do you? In any case, books are not delivered by truck or rail to bookstores but by mail or UPS like everyone else.
Neither do I claim that Amazon does not provide good products at low cost or high efficiency. I agree. I am a frequent user of Amazon.
Neither is it fair to compare sales tax to other forms of taxation that you might have issues with.
The internet sales tax exemption is a result of a Supreme Court decision, Quill Vs North Dakota, that exempted catalog sales from sales tax in states where they have no physical presence. It was applied to online businesses as well when internet business was small. No one can claim that internet business is small anymore.
So I am stating: Isn't it time to reexamine these basic assumptions? My concern is that every action one makes often as unintended consequences. What might the consequences be for giving Amazon a massive tax break?

[RDaneel54]

Originally Posted by Skip Wyona

We can agree to disagree I guess. Shipping cost comparisons can not be made without data. I do not have any. Do you? In any case, books are not delivered by truck or rail to bookstores but by mail or UPS like everyone else.
Neither do I claim that Amazon does not provide good products at low cost or high efficiency. I agree. I am a frequent user of Amazon.
Neither is it fair to compare sales tax to other forms of taxation that you might have issues with.
The internet sales tax exemption is a result of a Supreme Court decision, Quill Vs North Dakota, that exempted catalog sales from sales tax in states where they have no physical presence. It was applied to online businesses as well when internet business was small. No one can claim that internet business is small anymore.
So I am stating: Isn't it time to reexamine these basic assumptions? My concern is that every action one makes often as unintended consequences. What might the consequences be for giving Amazon a massive tax break?

What is this massive tax break that Amazon has? The taxes are paid by the consumer, not Amazon. Were Amazon to charge the taxes, they would only be a funnel for the consumer, not the payer of the taxes.

I can see why we should readdress the issue, but I would rather not have the US Congress meddling further in state affairs. Let the states and the retailers fight it out.

Personally, I pay my state sales taxes for internet purchases on my tax form every year. Anyone who objects to Amazon not paying their taxes can take the same route.