Amazon - Will they become evil

[darryl]

One company, under Bezos ....

[tubemonkey]

"one Corporation under Jeff, indivisible, with stock shares and profits for the 1%."

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

"one Corporation under Jeff, indivisible, with stock shares and profits for the 1%."

No "profits", remember?

one amoral Corporation under Jeff, indivisible, with stock shares for all?

Businesses only care about where you spend your money and don't care what you are or think, otherwise.
Not necessarilly a bad thing if it rids us of handwringers and moralizers.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

No "profits", remember?

one amoral Corporation under Jeff, indivisible, with stock shares for all?

Businesses only care about where you spend your money and don't care what you are or think, otherwise.
Not necessarilly a bad thing if it rids us of handwringers and moralizers.

Minimal profits

Amoral, of course; but dividends only for the upper echelon.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by darryl

But the whole buggy whip industry likes to portray Amazon as a monopoly.

darryl, I'm going back to your OP because I just thought of an answer to the "buggy whip" jibe.

Jeff Bezos has a reasonable perspective on the idea that change is the sine qua non of good business strategy:

I very frequently get the question: 'What's going to change in the next 10 years?' . . . I almost never get the question: 'What's not going to change in the next 10 years?' And I submit to you that that second question is actually the more important of the two -- because you can build a business strategy around the things that are stable in time.

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Amoral, of course; but dividends only for the upper echelon.

The only dividends I can find Bezos quoted on are "dividends for our customers." I could be wrong, but my guess is that he'd be dead set against sending checks to a bunch of stockholders.

[darryl]

Interesting post, Steve. Yes, I do like my buggy whip jibes. I also liked your Bezos quote, though I don't think it actually constitutes an answer. It is simply an observation on one facet of change. The things that are not going to change may sometimes be enough to form the basis of a sound business model for the future, and a sound basis for where a business should invest its money and efforts.

I am quite scathing of the Big 5 and confess my prejudice against them. However, the reality is that few firms cope well with the so-called innovator's dilemma.

[Tarana]

Just like every other retailer, eventually Amazon will overextend themselves. Never assume a giant won't fall.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Tarana

Just like every other retailer, eventually Amazon will overextend themselves. Never assume a giant won't fall.

Of course.
They already have with the Fire Phone.
But overextending or being outperformed isn't the same as abusing their customers.
And there are plenty of companies that rise, flourish, and fade without ever crossing the line.
It is not a given that they will sooner or later do so.
Companies that do so start out with predatory--soak the customer--cultures in the first place and keep doing so until they are forced out by market forces.
Look to the BPHs for an example of the kind of corporate culture that leads to scams like AUTHOR SOLUTIONS or the Harlequin self-dealing scam. Neither was or is necessary to corporate survival yet the damage they inflict is substantial to their victims.
That is as good an example of corporate "evil" as any, no?

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Actually, very little can be fixed by regulation.

Which would fail to explain the world-trashing financial crash of 2008. Who needs regulation?

[darryl]

Originally Posted by Rizla

Which would fail to explain the world-trashing financial crash of 2008. Who needs regulation?

Once again your logic eludes me. The conventional method to argue against a statement that "very little can be fixed by regulation" is to point to examples of cases where significant things have been fixed by regulation. Giving an example where regulations fail as you did tends to support the statement by fjtorres. Perhaps he should leave you some karma?

In addition, it does not follow logically that where regulations fail the solution is further regulations. As above, it may well indicate that regulations in general are not an effective solution.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by darryl

Once again your logic eludes me. The conventional method to argue against a statement that "very little can be fixed by regulation" is to point to examples of cases where significant things have been fixed by regulation. Giving an example where regulations fail as you did tends to support the statement by fjtorres. Perhaps he should leave you some karma?

In addition, it does not follow logically that where regulations fail the solution is further regulations. As above, it may well indicate that regulations in general are not an effective solution.

I would have answered his question but I think politics are not allowed here.
Though can I recommend comparing gas prices from 2008 till now.
Home grown oil is cheaper.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by darryl

As above, it may well indicate that regulations in general are not an effective solution.

In the global corporate environment we're discussing, regulation will more often than not turn one problem into another.

And as to the 2008 economic meltdown, it wasn't really the result of regulatory failure. It was an unavoidable result of regulatory "success".
Look it up.

Detailing it and naming names would get too political but the regulations achieved exactly what they set out to do. But, thanks to the law of unintended consequences, the way it was achieved caused the sub-prime crisis. Dozens of similar examples abound. Most major social and political issues in the US are the result of "solving" previous versions of the same problem.

Much like the way the Agency conspiracy of 2010 "solved" the problem of Amazon occasionally undercutting smaller retailers by killing the smaller retailers.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

In the global corporate environment we're discussing, regulation will more often than not turn one problem into another.

And as to the 2008 economic meltdown, it wasn't really the result of regulatory failure. It was an unavoidable result of regulatory "success".
Look it up.

Detailing it and naming names would get too political but the regulations achieved exactly what they set out to do. But, thanks to the law of unintended consequences, the way it was achieved caused the sub-prime crisis. Dozens of similar examples abound. Most major social and political issues in the US are the result of "solving" previous versions of the same problem.

Much like the way the Agency conspiracy of 2010 "solved" the problem of Amazon occasionally undercutting smaller retailers by killing the smaller retailers.

I hear what you are saying. But I think it depends on what you regard as a success or a solution. To me, even if a regulatory measure "solves" the problem it was intended to, it is still a failure if the wider consequences, seen or unforeseen, make the victory a pyrrhic one. It is actually only a matter of semantics. It doesn't make much difference if we regard the financial crisis as caused by a failure of regulation (my wording) or unintended consequences of regulation which was successful in achieving its own narrower aims.

I would also observe that I am often amazed by the rush of governments and bureaucrats to implement regulations which have been a disastrous failure (or a success with unintended consequences) in other jurisdictions..

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by darryl

I hear what you are saying. But I think it depends on what you regard as a success or a solution. To me, even if a regulatory measure "solves" the problem it was intended to, it is still a failure if the wider consequences, seen or unforeseen, make the victory a pyrrhic one. It is actually only a matter of semantics. It doesn't make much difference if we regard the financial crisis as caused by a failure of regulation (my wording) or unintended consequences of regulation which was successful in achieving its own narrower aims.

I would also observe that I am often amazed by the rush of governments and bureaucrats to implement regulations which have been a disastrous failure (or a success with unintended consequences) in other jurisdictions..

We're pretty much on the same page.

That's why I'm not impressed by hopeful appeals to government, whether by regulation or lawsuit.
Especially by marketplace losers. If they lost in the marketplace it is because consumer interests do not align with them and no attempt to use government to change the rules is going to make winners of them.

It did nothing for Netscape and *they* got what they wanted.
More often than not losers don't get even that.
(Like the B&M crowd pining for a national internet tax. Politicians take their money, talk a lot of talk, but in the end nothing happens.)

As for the transportability of "solutions", I agree. I am also amazed at the number of people who think that what works in a culturally homogeneous city-sized country must automatically be applicable to a multi-ethnic multicultural, continental state.

History matters. Size matters.
Whether it be for nations or corporations.
Because in the end it is always human nature that prevails, not high-falluting ideals or principles.

When in doubt, I always bet on Murphy.

[SteveEisenberg]

Re the possible impact of regulations:

Here's a concrete example to think about that actually has to do with eBooks:

http://www.osiander.de/ebook/

OSIANDER.de - Bücher seit 1596

There are two plausible-to-me reasons why Osiander, reputedly the world's oldest bookstore, is still alive 419 years later, while Fictionwise only lasted twelve years.

One is Germany's regulations regarding book price competition. Another is that Barnes & Noble never purchased Osiander.