FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
A day in the warehouse at Amazon

A day in the warehouse at Amazon

(3:36) Amazon bought Kiva Systems Inc. (a maker of warehouse robots) in 2012. Founder of Kiva Mick Mounts runs through a day in the life of a Kiva robot stationed in an Amazon warehouse.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1692 days ago)
Did somebody say corporations are job creators?
ReplyVote up (79)down (101)
Original comment
Did somebody say corporations are job creators?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1691 days ago)
yes they are robot repair men at a guess
Original comment
yes they are robot repair men at a guess
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1691 days ago)
Amazon employs almost 20,000 employees. So yes, they do create jobs. LINK
ReplyVote up (101)down (88)
Original comment
Amazon employs almost 20,000 employees. So yes, they do create jobs. LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1691 days ago)
I'm not sure it's that simple. If Amazon was many small businesses, more people would be employed, paying taxes, reducing the welfare bill, spending more, and providing the foundation for a healthy economy. Sure our books would be more expensive and less convenient, but wouldn't that be better than what we have now - huge corporations hell-bent on profit at whatever cost, so that they can invest in more robots for even more profit. Amazon only employs people if it is more cost effective than a robot, and robots are getting better by the day.
ReplyVote up (141)down (80)
Original comment
I'm not sure it's that simple. If Amazon was many small businesses, more people would be employed, paying taxes, reducing the welfare bill, spending more, and providing the foundation for a healthy economy. Sure our books would be more expensive and less convenient, but wouldn't that be better than what we have now - huge corporations hell-bent on profit at whatever cost, so that they can invest in more robots for even more profit. Amazon only employs people if it is more cost effective than a robot, and robots are getting better by the day.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1691 days ago)
and there is the possibility that Amazon is destroying jobs in the rest of the retail sector LINK
ReplyVote up (97)down (101)
Original comment
and there is the possibility that Amazon is destroying jobs in the rest of the retail sector LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1691 days ago)
I would agree with this to a point but that's because of consumerism. The consumer makes a choice where they want to do business. What is more important to the customer? Supporting their local retail establishment by paying twice the price for a product or supporting an internet company and saving tons of money in the process? The consumer makes the choices in this economy as to which companies make it and which ones fold. Walmart did something similar by reducing prices by not having tons of sales people doing high pressure sales on each consumer. The customer has spoken with their wallet that they prefer lower prices than higher prices with more customer service.
ReplyVote up (73)down (147)
Original comment
I would agree with this to a point but that's because of consumerism. The consumer makes a choice where they want to do business. What is more important to the customer? Supporting their local retail establishment by paying twice the price for a product or supporting an internet company and saving tons of money in the process? The consumer makes the choices in this economy as to which companies make it and which ones fold. Walmart did something similar by reducing prices by not having tons of sales people doing high pressure sales on each consumer. The customer has spoken with their wallet that they prefer lower prices than higher prices with more customer service.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1690 days ago)
I would agree with this to a point but that's because of this LINK
ReplyVote up (138)down (119)
Original comment
I would agree with this to a point but that's because of this LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1690 days ago)
The idea that consumers choose which companies survive, may be true if the industry is made up of many small businesses all competing with each other. But once huge corporations enter the field, what consumers think or do makes little difference.
ReplyVote up (101)down (86)
Original comment
The idea that consumers choose which companies survive, may be true if the industry is made up of many small businesses all competing with each other. But once huge corporations enter the field, what consumers think or do makes little difference.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1690 days ago)
Do you believe it to be the size of the company that customers care about or the price versus service factor? If a large company can offer good service for a low price, doesn't it make sense for the consumer to use the large company? Why would anyone in their right mind purposely pay more for substandard service just to support a local brick and motar store? I will pay more to get something locally if the price is just a couple percentages higher but there is a limit to the extra that I will pay to support the local economy.
ReplyVote up (91)down (619)
Original comment
Do you believe it to be the size of the company that customers care about or the price versus service factor? If a large company can offer good service for a low price, doesn't it make sense for the consumer to use the large company? Why would anyone in their right mind purposely pay more for substandard service just to support a local brick and motar store? I will pay more to get something locally if the price is just a couple percentages higher but there is a limit to the extra that I will pay to support the local economy.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1690 days ago)
I don't think the average consumer cares about company size, as you say, they are weighing up prices. But when companies pass a certain size, the nature of competition changes. For example, when Starbucks sets up shop next to a local cafe, they immediately split the market. Starbucks can run at a loss indefinitely because they are supported by big daddy. The local cafe can't, so it goes bust and Starbucks claim their clients. That's not a consumer led bankruptcy. Another example: When you walk into a supermarket and see the array of choice, that's not a choice born out of competition between different brands trying to better their products to win your custom. Take soap powders in the UK - Only 2 companies own most of the brands - they are Proctor & Gamble and Unilever. Each brand is perfectly marketed to appeal to a particular segment of the market, and between them they have all bases covered, making it very difficult for new competition to come in. They give you the illusion of choice, but it's actually a clever way to siphon money from the pockets of everyone in every age/income/gender bracket. You can't expect the average consumer to consider these things when they go shopping. Even you, who's interested in politics and economics, make your buying choices on the most basic level, price.
ReplyVote up (239)down (77)
Original comment
I don't think the average consumer cares about company size, as you say, they are weighing up prices. But when companies pass a certain size, the nature of competition changes. For example, when Starbucks sets up shop next to a local cafe, they immediately split the market. Starbucks can run at a loss indefinitely because they are supported by big daddy. The local cafe can't, so it goes bust and Starbucks claim their clients. That's not a consumer led bankruptcy. Another example: When you walk into a supermarket and see the array of choice, that's not a choice born out of competition between different brands trying to better their products to win your custom. Take soap powders in the UK - Only 2 companies own most of the brands - they are Proctor & Gamble and Unilever. Each brand is perfectly marketed to appeal to a particular segment of the market, and between them they have all bases covered, making it very difficult for new competition to come in. They give you the illusion of choice, but it's actually a clever way to siphon money from the pockets of everyone in every age/income/gender bracket. You can't expect the average consumer to consider these things when they go shopping. Even you, who's interested in politics and economics, make your buying choices on the most basic level, price.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1690 days ago)
Your Starbucks example doesn't help your case. You can have an equally large company right next door like Dunkin Donuts and you will have people going to both companies. Some will be willing to pay the outrageous Starbucks prices because they claim the product tastes better and some will go to Dunkin Donuts because of the cheaper prices. Your soap example is another good one. If you only have two companies that make all the soap products, it may be due to several reasons but the main one is probably due to it not being profitable enough for another company to enter that market sector. If it was profitable, you would have companies like Google, BP, and Oracle venturing into the soap market. The fact that no other companies want to manufacture soap is very telling about the potential money to be made.
ReplyVote up (108)down (111)
Original comment
Your Starbucks example doesn't help your case. You can have an equally large company right next door like Dunkin Donuts and you will have people going to both companies. Some will be willing to pay the outrageous Starbucks prices because they claim the product tastes better and some will go to Dunkin Donuts because of the cheaper prices. Your soap example is another good one. If you only have two companies that make all the soap products, it may be due to several reasons but the main one is probably due to it not being profitable enough for another company to enter that market sector. If it was profitable, you would have companies like Google, BP, and Oracle venturing into the soap market. The fact that no other companies want to manufacture soap is very telling about the potential money to be made.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1690 days ago)
The Starbucks example shows how it is not consumers who ousted the local cafe, but corporate muscle. When Starbucks set up next to a local cafe, people don't suddenly start drinking more coffee. Some will remain with the local cafe, some will go to Starbucks. The local cafe cannot afford to lose customers so they shut down. Starbucks just has to run that cafe at a loss and wait. Nothing to do with quality of service or prices. It's not a level playing field. When companies get above a certain size, corporate muscle comes into play which is a huge advantage against smaller companies. The reason there are only 2 main soap companies, but many brands (Daz, Persil, Arial, Bold… the list goes on and on), is not because consumers are demanding loads of choice, it is precisely to keep out new competition. As a new brand, it is very difficult to stand out on a shelf of 30 other brands. The consumer has no "political" power because whether he chooses Daz or Persil, chances are it's the same company that profits.
ReplyVote up (112)down (78)
Original comment
The Starbucks example shows how it is not consumers who ousted the local cafe, but corporate muscle. When Starbucks set up next to a local cafe, people don't suddenly start drinking more coffee. Some will remain with the local cafe, some will go to Starbucks. The local cafe cannot afford to lose customers so they shut down. Starbucks just has to run that cafe at a loss and wait. Nothing to do with quality of service or prices. It's not a level playing field. When companies get above a certain size, corporate muscle comes into play which is a huge advantage against smaller companies. The reason there are only 2 main soap companies, but many brands (Daz, Persil, Arial, Bold… the list goes on and on), is not because consumers are demanding loads of choice, it is precisely to keep out new competition. As a new brand, it is very difficult to stand out on a shelf of 30 other brands. The consumer has no "political" power because whether he chooses Daz or Persil, chances are it's the same company that profits.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1690 days ago)
You make it sound like companies create the exact same product under different brands to be sold in the same stores to clutter up the shelves. I don't think that's accurate. Toyota, for example, creates Scion, Toyota, and Lexus. This is not to have a dealership have the same car under different names to prevent competition as much as it is to offer entry level cars for college students (Scion) and then have them later stay in the Toyota family of cars when they get older (Toyota). Then, when they are ready to enter the luxury vehicle market, they offer the Lexus. Also regarding the soap company, another major reason they could have multiple brand names is due to mergers and buyouts. They could have bought another company's brand and, for brand loyalty, keep both brands. When Google bought Youtube, they kept the Youtube name instead of calling it Google Video. Even a company like Coke creates "Diet Coke" and "Coke Zero" as two separate products but I looked at the ingredients and did a taste test and could not find any difference between the two. There are valid marketing reasons for doing this and I doubt they are doing it for the purpose of keeping competition out of the market. Pepsi has a strong foothold in the market so whatever Coke is doing to prevent them from getting in is not working. From what I'm told from my friends in the Super Market field, these large companies pay for shelf space in the stores. So if they want their product to be in the store under multiple brands, they will pay extra for that privilege. If a new company comes along and offers more money for a better shelf placement (at eye level for example), the Super Market will stock that new product.
ReplyVote up (115)down (114)
Original comment
You make it sound like companies create the exact same product under different brands to be sold in the same stores to clutter up the shelves. I don't think that's accurate. Toyota, for example, creates Scion, Toyota, and Lexus. This is not to have a dealership have the same car under different names to prevent competition as much as it is to offer entry level cars for college students (Scion) and then have them later stay in the Toyota family of cars when they get older (Toyota). Then, when they are ready to enter the luxury vehicle market, they offer the Lexus. Also regarding the soap company, another major reason they could have multiple brand names is due to mergers and buyouts. They could have bought another company's brand and, for brand loyalty, keep both brands. When Google bought Youtube, they kept the Youtube name instead of calling it Google Video. Even a company like Coke creates "Diet Coke" and "Coke Zero" as two separate products but I looked at the ingredients and did a taste test and could not find any difference between the two. There are valid marketing reasons for doing this and I doubt they are doing it for the purpose of keeping competition out of the market. Pepsi has a strong foothold in the market so whatever Coke is doing to prevent them from getting in is not working. From what I'm told from my friends in the Super Market field, these large companies pay for shelf space in the stores. So if they want their product to be in the store under multiple brands, they will pay extra for that privilege. If a new company comes along and offers more money for a better shelf placement (at eye level for example), the Super Market will stock that new product.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1688 days ago)
I didn't say companies create brands to clutter up shelves. They create (or acquire) brands to keep out competition and, to get back to the original point, make it more difficult for customers to vote with their wallet. If you imagine that rather than 2 huge corporations, the was only one with 50 brands of soap - the customer has a huge choice of soaps covering every preference, but boycotting is pointless unless you give up washing. Boycotting Nestle is difficult - they have almost 8,000 brands. How many can you name without resorting to Google? Of course there are many different reasons why companies acquire other companies. Amazon bought Kiva for their technology. Google bought YT because they couldn't make Google Video better. I guess it's when corporations or industries effectively become monopolies, then it doesn't matter what the customer thinks because they can't vote with their wallets. That's why a world of many smaller businesses rather than a few huge corporations, would be more democratic.
Original comment
I didn't say companies create brands to clutter up shelves. They create (or acquire) brands to keep out competition and, to get back to the original point, make it more difficult for customers to vote with their wallet. If you imagine that rather than 2 huge corporations, the was only one with 50 brands of soap - the customer has a huge choice of soaps covering every preference, but boycotting is pointless unless you give up washing. Boycotting Nestle is difficult - they have almost 8,000 brands. How many can you name without resorting to Google? Of course there are many different reasons why companies acquire other companies. Amazon bought Kiva for their technology. Google bought YT because they couldn't make Google Video better. I guess it's when corporations or industries effectively become monopolies, then it doesn't matter what the customer thinks because they can't vote with their wallets. That's why a world of many smaller businesses rather than a few huge corporations, would be more democratic.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1688 days ago)
""a world full of smaller businesses rather than a few huge corporations would be much more democratic. "" what you said is utopic. In a Capitalist democratic society there will always be at least one man (understatement) who will want to accumulate wealth and power. A monopoly or oligopoly are the only logical outcomes. So what mechanisms need to be set in place to prevent such a thing to happen, assuming that corporations are bad? if these mechanisms are set in place, will the society continue to be defined by capitalism and democracy?
ReplyVote up (128)down (131)
Original comment
""a world full of smaller businesses rather than a few huge corporations would be much more democratic. "" what you said is utopic. In a Capitalist democratic society there will always be at least one man (understatement) who will want to accumulate wealth and power. A monopoly or oligopoly are the only logical outcomes. So what mechanisms need to be set in place to prevent such a thing to happen, assuming that corporations are bad? if these mechanisms are set in place, will the society continue to be defined by capitalism and democracy?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1688 days ago)
You need to understand the basics of economics to understand that many small companies is not as efficient as a few large ones. A limited example, each small company would be responsible for having their own payroll department, marketing department, buyer, warehouse, etc. These cost savings allow companies to reduce prices. If you have a bunch of small companies competing, that may seem nice for consumers but it actually makes prices higher unless the companies are big enough to buy their products from the manufacturers at quantity discounts -- like Walmart and Target can. In the USA, we have two big companies called Home Depot and Lowes. They both sell basically the same things. If you want to support smaller businesses, you can by going to Ace Hardware. Be prepared to pay more at Ace Hardware. Both Lowes and Home Depot will take each other's coupons and will even price match. One time I wanted to buy some fertilizer from Home Depot but it was a couple dollars more than Walmart. The cashier called Walmart to verify the price I told them and they matched it. It saved me a trip and a couple bucks. This is how big businesses compete.
ReplyVote up (133)down (106)
Original comment
You need to understand the basics of economics to understand that many small companies is not as efficient as a few large ones. A limited example, each small company would be responsible for having their own payroll department, marketing department, buyer, warehouse, etc. These cost savings allow companies to reduce prices. If you have a bunch of small companies competing, that may seem nice for consumers but it actually makes prices higher unless the companies are big enough to buy their products from the manufacturers at quantity discounts -- like Walmart and Target can. In the USA, we have two big companies called Home Depot and Lowes. They both sell basically the same things. If you want to support smaller businesses, you can by going to Ace Hardware. Be prepared to pay more at Ace Hardware. Both Lowes and Home Depot will take each other's coupons and will even price match. One time I wanted to buy some fertilizer from Home Depot but it was a couple dollars more than Walmart. The cashier called Walmart to verify the price I told them and they matched it. It saved me a trip and a couple bucks. This is how big businesses compete.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1687 days ago)
agreed! but how does a big business get to be so big? as i mentioned earlier , i would like to hear your thoughts on it, and walter's thoughts as well. Once it gets big, what will keep it from forming a cartel with the competition?
ReplyVote up (63)down (104)
Original comment
agreed! but how does a big business get to be so big? as i mentioned earlier , i would like to hear your thoughts on it, and walter's thoughts as well. Once it gets big, what will keep it from forming a cartel with the competition?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1687 days ago)
Companies can get bigger by mergers or buyouts. If the companies get too big, then the government makes decisions if the merger can allow for sufficient competition before allowing the merger. Cartels are illegal in the USA and in many other countries. OPEC is a cartel but the USA is not part of that Cartel.
ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment
Companies can get bigger by mergers or buyouts. If the companies get too big, then the government makes decisions if the merger can allow for sufficient competition before allowing the merger. Cartels are illegal in the USA and in many other countries. OPEC is a cartel but the USA is not part of that Cartel.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1687 days ago)
just because cartels are illegal doesn't mean they don't exist, the same applies for rape an murder. As the people/stockholders unite in order to be competitive (mergers) they buy other businesses and get bigger (with bank loans) making it possible to offer lower prices; this will happen until there is only one company left, this is the natural, logical result of capitalism, but the government stopped that from happening, because of monopoly are suppose to be bad. It's what happened to John D. Rockefeller and his company Standard Oil, but that only made him the richest man in the world. Just because there are a lot of companies doesn't mean that the shareholders are different. You could have 10 major banks in America and claim that it's not a monopoly, but at the same time the shareholders could be just a few people who hold the majority of stock on all of them. At the end you will have an indirect monopoly (oligopoly) where a handful of people get to decide what all the banks in America will do next (this is just a example, it could apply in any field but i just happened to use banks). So in capitalism, you will only end up with a monopoly or an oligopoly, there is no other way, especially when you consider the fact that politicians need money for elections. Now i think we all agree that monopolies are bad for capitalism and so are oligopolies, so i have return to my previous questions, what mechanisms need to be set in place to prevent such a thing from happening and will that society continue to be defined by the words capitalism and democracy once the mechanisms in question are implemented?
ReplyVote up (102)down (118)
Original comment
just because cartels are illegal doesn't mean they don't exist, the same applies for rape an murder. As the people/stockholders unite in order to be competitive (mergers) they buy other businesses and get bigger (with bank loans) making it possible to offer lower prices; this will happen until there is only one company left, this is the natural, logical result of capitalism, but the government stopped that from happening, because of monopoly are suppose to be bad. It's what happened to John D. Rockefeller and his company Standard Oil, but that only made him the richest man in the world. Just because there are a lot of companies doesn't mean that the shareholders are different. You could have 10 major banks in America and claim that it's not a monopoly, but at the same time the shareholders could be just a few people who hold the majority of stock on all of them. At the end you will have an indirect monopoly (oligopoly) where a handful of people get to decide what all the banks in America will do next (this is just a example, it could apply in any field but i just happened to use banks). So in capitalism, you will only end up with a monopoly or an oligopoly, there is no other way, especially when you consider the fact that politicians need money for elections. Now i think we all agree that monopolies are bad for capitalism and so are oligopolies, so i have return to my previous questions, what mechanisms need to be set in place to prevent such a thing from happening and will that society continue to be defined by the words capitalism and democracy once the mechanisms in question are implemented?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1687 days ago)
i need to start to reviewing long comments before posting... sorry for the grammar
Original comment
i need to start to reviewing long comments before posting... sorry for the grammar
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1687 days ago)
By reading your latest comment, you don't understand how corporations work. Stock holders do not get involved in the day-to-day business so they cannot fix prices like you're assuming. They are silent partners. Periodically, they may be called upon to take a vote on an issue such as a merger or the election of board members. That is the extent of power a stock holder has. If a stock holder has a majority holding and can appoint themselves as the CEO, then of course that person has more control but I don't know too many companies where that happens. If you know of two companies that are in an illegal cartel, you should help us by presenting your evidence to the Federal Trade Commission and we can put a stop to it. The problem is that you don't have any evidence and are only speculating, right? Regarding what mechanisms are needed to be put in place to prevent monopolies, those are already in place. Like I said in my previous message, large corporate mergers need to seek approval first. Regarding oligopolies, my understanding is that these are really individual companies that are in a cartel to fix prices and those would be illegal in the USA.
ReplyVote up (100)down (105)
Original comment
By reading your latest comment, you don't understand how corporations work. Stock holders do not get involved in the day-to-day business so they cannot fix prices like you're assuming. They are silent partners. Periodically, they may be called upon to take a vote on an issue such as a merger or the election of board members. That is the extent of power a stock holder has. If a stock holder has a majority holding and can appoint themselves as the CEO, then of course that person has more control but I don't know too many companies where that happens. If you know of two companies that are in an illegal cartel, you should help us by presenting your evidence to the Federal Trade Commission and we can put a stop to it. The problem is that you don't have any evidence and are only speculating, right? Regarding what mechanisms are needed to be put in place to prevent monopolies, those are already in place. Like I said in my previous message, large corporate mergers need to seek approval first. Regarding oligopolies, my understanding is that these are really individual companies that are in a cartel to fix prices and those would be illegal in the USA.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1687 days ago)
if the stockholders agree on setting up a meeting every three months more or less to see if the CEO followed the instructions given to him by the stockholders on a previous date, then what you just said about "the need to be involved in the day-to-day activity in order to be able to fix prices" is false. The CEO has his orders, as do the CEO's of the rest of the companies that operate in the same field and are owned by the same stock holders. (source: LINK ). The problem with cartels is that they are almost impossible to prove if Government Spying is illegal, you already know that so i don't know why you're telling me to provide evidence for the existence of cartels ( LINK );it's like you're telling me that a tree that falls in the forest ad no one is there to hear it doesn't make any noise. Oligopolies are a fact of life in any society, and they hold great influence on politics and the media, but i don't understand why you choose to ignore these facts. Is Capitalism still called capitalism when the prices are fixed by giant oligopolies that control the politicians who make and implement the laws of the society in question?
ReplyVote up (101)down (63)
Original comment
if the stockholders agree on setting up a meeting every three months more or less to see if the CEO followed the instructions given to him by the stockholders on a previous date, then what you just said about "the need to be involved in the day-to-day activity in order to be able to fix prices" is false. The CEO has his orders, as do the CEO's of the rest of the companies that operate in the same field and are owned by the same stock holders. (source: LINK ). The problem with cartels is that they are almost impossible to prove if Government Spying is illegal, you already know that so i don't know why you're telling me to provide evidence for the existence of cartels ( LINK );it's like you're telling me that a tree that falls in the forest ad no one is there to hear it doesn't make any noise. Oligopolies are a fact of life in any society, and they hold great influence on politics and the media, but i don't understand why you choose to ignore these facts. Is Capitalism still called capitalism when the prices are fixed by giant oligopolies that control the politicians who make and implement the laws of the society in question?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1687 days ago)
I still have doubt that you read everything you link. Your first link says exactly what I had been saying. It says, "Stockholders generally do not control day-to-day business decisions or management decisions, but they can influence business management indirectly through an executive board." That means that the board of directors select the CEO and that the shareholders do not tell the CEO what to do. If a shareholder is not happy with the performance of the CEO, they can contact one of the board members and the board members may have the power to fire the CEO. Regarding your cartel speculation, again you were just trying to put down capitalism without any proof of wrong doing. Your link to a wikipedia page defining cartel is no proof that we have any illegal cartels in the USA. Regarding your use of the term capitalism, I think I would like to change my opinion on what to call our economic situation. Instead of calling it capitalism, from now on I will refer to the USA as consumerism. That's the type of economy we have.
ReplyVote up (101)down (51)
Original comment
I still have doubt that you read everything you link. Your first link says exactly what I had been saying. It says, "Stockholders generally do not control day-to-day business decisions or management decisions, but they can influence business management indirectly through an executive board." That means that the board of directors select the CEO and that the shareholders do not tell the CEO what to do. If a shareholder is not happy with the performance of the CEO, they can contact one of the board members and the board members may have the power to fire the CEO. Regarding your cartel speculation, again you were just trying to put down capitalism without any proof of wrong doing. Your link to a wikipedia page defining cartel is no proof that we have any illegal cartels in the USA. Regarding your use of the term capitalism, I think I would like to change my opinion on what to call our economic situation. Instead of calling it capitalism, from now on I will refer to the USA as consumerism. That's the type of economy we have.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1687 days ago)
stock holders most definitely control the decisions taken by the CEO and board members. The board members are just the representatives of the stock holders and they will do as they are told and so will the CEO. As for proof of cartels... what can i say, i can't prove they exist, i guess they are just a hypothetical concept after all, right? As for the society you live in: would you prefer to live in a capitalist society or in a consumerist society? (seeing that social democracy is out of the question)
Original comment
stock holders most definitely control the decisions taken by the CEO and board members. The board members are just the representatives of the stock holders and they will do as they are told and so will the CEO. As for proof of cartels... what can i say, i can't prove they exist, i guess they are just a hypothetical concept after all, right? As for the society you live in: would you prefer to live in a capitalist society or in a consumerist society? (seeing that social democracy is out of the question)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1687 days ago)
I want to live in a consumerism economy and that's what we have today. My money supports companies that have the closest model to what I like in the company. That could either be price, quality of service, or convenience of locations. If I cared about other things such as if they support a particular agenda like gay rights (Chick-fil-A for example), then I can either boycott them or spend more money with them. These are all the consumer's choice.
Original comment
I want to live in a consumerism economy and that's what we have today. My money supports companies that have the closest model to what I like in the company. That could either be price, quality of service, or convenience of locations. If I cared about other things such as if they support a particular agenda like gay rights (Chick-fil-A for example), then I can either boycott them or spend more money with them. These are all the consumer's choice.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1687 days ago)
thanks! noted!
Original comment
thanks! noted!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1687 days ago)
I've always made a distinction between capitalism and corporatism, and it is monopolies that are the point when capitalism becomes corporatism.
ReplyVote up (101)down (55)
Original comment
I've always made a distinction between capitalism and corporatism, and it is monopolies that are the point when capitalism becomes corporatism.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1687 days ago)
OK Walter, now tell me what mechanisms need to be set in place to prevent capitalism from turning into corporatism aka consumerism ? once they are in place, will capitalism still be called capitalism? will the society in which we live in still be called democratic?
ReplyVote up (48)down (101)
Original comment
OK Walter, now tell me what mechanisms need to be set in place to prevent capitalism from turning into corporatism aka consumerism ? once they are in place, will capitalism still be called capitalism? will the society in which we live in still be called democratic?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1687 days ago)
You are mixing an economic model and a political ideology.
ReplyVote up (102)down (53)
Original comment
You are mixing an economic model and a political ideology.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1687 days ago)
please elaborate since i don't understand your statement.
ReplyVote up (48)down (110)
Original comment
please elaborate since i don't understand your statement.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1687 days ago)
To clarify, some political ideologies are democracy, representative republic, monarchy, dictatorship. Economic models are communism, capitalism, socialism, anarchism, conservatism, environmentalism, feminism, liberalism, nationalism, religious fundamentalism. So when you talk about capitalism and then ask "will the society in which we live in still be called democratic," that makes no sense because they are mutually exclusive. Let me know if you need more clarification.
Original comment
To clarify, some political ideologies are democracy, representative republic, monarchy, dictatorship. Economic models are communism, capitalism, socialism, anarchism, conservatism, environmentalism, feminism, liberalism, nationalism, religious fundamentalism. So when you talk about capitalism and then ask "will the society in which we live in still be called democratic," that makes no sense because they are mutually exclusive. Let me know if you need more clarification.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1687 days ago)
i disagree. i wanted to know if the mechanisms that will be implemented to prevent capitalism from turning into corporatism aka consumerism will have to be so radical as to change the nature of society, turning it from a democracy to a dictatorship, etc. since democracy and capitalism go hand in hand in most cases. I still think that in a democracy where people need money to get elected, big business will eventually come to control the political aspect of the society. Political ideology and economic models go hand in hand capitalism and democracy, communism and dictatorship, fascism and oligarchy (derived from oligopoly). i would have a hard time imagining a communist democracy.
ReplyVote up (105)down (51)
Original comment
i disagree. i wanted to know if the mechanisms that will be implemented to prevent capitalism from turning into corporatism aka consumerism will have to be so radical as to change the nature of society, turning it from a democracy to a dictatorship, etc. since democracy and capitalism go hand in hand in most cases. I still think that in a democracy where people need money to get elected, big business will eventually come to control the political aspect of the society. Political ideology and economic models go hand in hand capitalism and democracy, communism and dictatorship, fascism and oligarchy (derived from oligopoly). i would have a hard time imagining a communist democracy.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1687 days ago)
That is difficult. I think there's no point in changing rules and regulations when corporations and government are so intertwined. Like the separation of church and state, we need the separation of corporations and state, so that the state can regulate effectively. Then it's a matter of getting the level of regulation that results in a society that works well for most of the people. Isn't that how it's supposed to work?
ReplyVote up (54)down (104)
Original comment
That is difficult. I think there's no point in changing rules and regulations when corporations and government are so intertwined. Like the separation of church and state, we need the separation of corporations and state, so that the state can regulate effectively. Then it's a matter of getting the level of regulation that results in a society that works well for most of the people. Isn't that how it's supposed to work?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1687 days ago)
""we need the separation of corporations and state, so that the state can regulate effectively."" what are the mechanism that need to be set in place to achieve that? what are the measures that need to be taken, seeing that in a democracy politicians need money to get elected? will it still be a democracy when we're done?
Original comment
""we need the separation of corporations and state, so that the state can regulate effectively."" what are the mechanism that need to be set in place to achieve that? what are the measures that need to be taken, seeing that in a democracy politicians need money to get elected? will it still be a democracy when we're done?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1687 days ago)
I would say the first thing is to fund political parties from tax and limit the amount each can spend on electioneering. Then, those working for a regulatory department should not be allowed to work for or receive any money from that industry during or after they leave politics. So someone working in the FDA would not be able to work for or receive money from Monsanto after they leave politics. Those 2 measures would be a good start.
Original comment
I would say the first thing is to fund political parties from tax and limit the amount each can spend on electioneering. Then, those working for a regulatory department should not be allowed to work for or receive any money from that industry during or after they leave politics. So someone working in the FDA would not be able to work for or receive money from Monsanto after they leave politics. Those 2 measures would be a good start.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1687 days ago)
ok, so at this point, it's all down to the text of the laws that will implement those 2 measures. If these laws are drafted correctly, they will not pass any parliament because of lobby and corruption. If these laws are drafted with loopholes in them you are back to square one. So how can you get the correctly drafted laws to be adopted by the lawmakers?
ReplyVote up (101)down (64)
Original comment
ok, so at this point, it's all down to the text of the laws that will implement those 2 measures. If these laws are drafted correctly, they will not pass any parliament because of lobby and corruption. If these laws are drafted with loopholes in them you are back to square one. So how can you get the correctly drafted laws to be adopted by the lawmakers?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1687 days ago)
I think public opinion does count. We've had/have the Arab Spring, Greece, Bulgaria, Turkey, Brazil and many other pockets of unrest globally that have forced change. Occupy hasn't disappeared but is simmering. Cameron/Osborne are talking about jailing bankers, tax havens and the spirit of tax avoidance. The average age of Bill O'Reilly's viewer is in their 70s. Younger people are increasingly better educated, have the ability to mobilise with social networks, increasingly avoid mainstream media, and, as you mentioned elsewhere, care about the environment, organic food and cancer. What we do know is that nothing ever stays the same for very long, and that climate change will force change. I think it's a matter of whether change is directed by corporate greed or public opinion. I put my money in public opinion winning out in the long term because there's only one thing that trumps money, that is survival.
ReplyVote up (73)down (101)
Original comment
I think public opinion does count. We've had/have the Arab Spring, Greece, Bulgaria, Turkey, Brazil and many other pockets of unrest globally that have forced change. Occupy hasn't disappeared but is simmering. Cameron/Osborne are talking about jailing bankers, tax havens and the spirit of tax avoidance. The average age of Bill O'Reilly's viewer is in their 70s. Younger people are increasingly better educated, have the ability to mobilise with social networks, increasingly avoid mainstream media, and, as you mentioned elsewhere, care about the environment, organic food and cancer. What we do know is that nothing ever stays the same for very long, and that climate change will force change. I think it's a matter of whether change is directed by corporate greed or public opinion. I put my money in public opinion winning out in the long term because there's only one thing that trumps money, that is survival.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1686 days ago)
let's put our faith in the next generation then :) and hope that the next politicians that are in a position to pass laws, don't get corrupted by the old ones. This is not a viable solution as far as I'm concerned.
Original comment
let's put our faith in the next generation then :) and hope that the next politicians that are in a position to pass laws, don't get corrupted by the old ones. This is not a viable solution as far as I'm concerned.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1686 days ago)
To be honest, much of what I say is probably wishful thinking. Do you have a viable solution?
Original comment
To be honest, much of what I say is probably wishful thinking. Do you have a viable solution?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1686 days ago)
my thinking is: you can't do it in a democratic society, unless (as you said using different words) the shit hit the fan. Egypt has a real chance to make it work because the military is somewhat in charge and they can put the right things in their constitution before the game of corruption restarts. The biggest problem is the electoral System, as long as a candidate is required to gather money for his campaign there will be corruption.A while ago, I also mentioned a system similar to the one they have in Iran, i can elaborate on that if you want, but the point i'm trying to make is: democracy is not the best way for mankind's future.
Original comment
my thinking is: you can't do it in a democratic society, unless (as you said using different words) the shit hit the fan. Egypt has a real chance to make it work because the military is somewhat in charge and they can put the right things in their constitution before the game of corruption restarts. The biggest problem is the electoral System, as long as a candidate is required to gather money for his campaign there will be corruption.A while ago, I also mentioned a system similar to the one they have in Iran, i can elaborate on that if you want, but the point i'm trying to make is: democracy is not the best way for mankind's future.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WellHungarian WellHungarian (1686 days ago)
I am interested in hearing about your system similar to Iran's. But maybe on a different post. Columns are getting too narrow to comfortably follow. I'm sure the opportunity will arise :)
Original comment
I am interested in hearing about your system similar to Iran's. But maybe on a different post. Columns are getting too narrow to comfortably follow. I'm sure the opportunity will arise :)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1686 days ago)
Latest comment: i've written all about it on a previous post a couple of months ago. I can't seem to find it. Perhaps WalterEgo could help us out with that. If we can't find it, be sure i'll reopen the topic on some other boreme post :)
Original comment
Latest comment: i've written all about it on a previous post a couple of months ago. I can't seem to find it. Perhaps WalterEgo could help us out with that. If we can't find it, be sure i'll reopen the topic on some other boreme post :)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1690 days ago)
how did those 2 mega corporations got so big in the first place? i think i know but i want to read what you 2 think about it.
ReplyVote up (53)down (101)
Original comment
how did those 2 mega corporations got so big in the first place? i think i know but i want to read what you 2 think about it.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1690 days ago)
i wish it were so simple
Original comment
i wish it were so simple
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: 0dnalgnec (1689 days ago)
ReplyVote up (109)down (122)
Original comment
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1689 days ago)
Page not found.
ReplyVote up (141)down (72)
Original comment
Page not found.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1691 days ago)
yes
ReplyVote up (89)down (204)
Original comment
yes
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Cover Letter
Cover Letter
Elon Musk on beneficial AI and superintelligence
Elon Musk on beneficial AI and superintelligence
What went wrong with Falcon Heavy's maiden flight?
What went wrong with Falcon Heavy's maiden flight?
Elon Musk talks about Starman's suit
Elon Musk talks about Starman's suit
Elon Musk: You can tell it's real because it looks so fake
Elon Musk: You can tell it's real because it looks so fake