"Damn Right Amazon Runs a Fucking Deficit and So Should America"

[Anonymous]

Really interesting perspective on deficits and investments. She's crass, but makes a compelling argument.



https://medium.com/@girlziplocked/why-amazon-isn-t-a-fucking-idiot-and-runs-a-deficit-f9d5734b68ec

[Anonymous]

Hah. Her premise isnt terrible, but Amazon is not a good example. Amazon's Prime program costs them way more money than they get out of it -- the original idea was that it would pay for itself within 5 years, but 5 years came and went and they still lose money with every item with free shipping. They are damaging many other businesses with their free guaranteed shipping, that they can't afford and that other businesses can't afford. Not just shipping costs, all their pricing is too low to be sustainable, for then or their competitors. Not a win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hah. Her premise isnt terrible, but Amazon is not a good example. Amazon's Prime program costs them way more money than they get out of it -- the original idea was that it would pay for itself within 5 years, but 5 years came and went and they still lose money with every item with free shipping. They are damaging many other businesses with their free guaranteed shipping, that they can't afford and that other businesses can't afford. Not just shipping costs, all their pricing is too low to be sustainable, for then or their competitors. Not a win.

So America should stop trying to be great because it might make some other countries not feel as great? That's all I get from your example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hah. Her premise isnt terrible, but Amazon is not a good example. Amazon's Prime program costs them way more money than they get out of it -- the original idea was that it would pay for itself within 5 years, but 5 years came and went and they still lose money with every item with free shipping. They are damaging many other businesses with their free guaranteed shipping, that they can't afford and that other businesses can't afford. Not just shipping costs, all their pricing is too low to be sustainable, for then or their competitors. Not a win.

So America should stop trying to be great because it might make some other countries not feel as great? That's all I get from your example.

It's not my example, it's the author's example. Amazon's business model has been to run everything as a loss leader until they can raise their prices and recoup their losses, but that hasn't happened yet. They have diversified, so they are able to stay afloat, even by running huge deficits. I personally disapprove of their business practices, but more to the point, I don't think they should be emulated by a country. Amazon, IMO, is a bad example.

[Anonymous]

Amazon could flip a switch tomorrow and start making massive profits. Not so for the U.S. government. Further, Amazon is making what it believes to be productive investments; most of the function of the U.S. government is redistribution of money. Vanishingly little of government spending can be characterized as productive investment. It's really a terrible analogy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Amazon could flip a switch tomorrow and start making massive profits. Not so for the U.S. government. Further, Amazon is making what it believes to be productive investments; most of the function of the U.S. government is redistribution of money. Vanishingly little of government spending can be characterized as productive investment. It's really a terrible analogy.

What? Government R&D money to universities, government-run research labs, and private corporations have funded - and will continue to fund - our greatest technological and productivity breakthroughs.

Examples: GPS, internet, personal computing, materials sciences, microprocessors, etc.

The fact of the matter is that government-organized research and infrastructure is still the most efficient means for pushing forward our economy. Ever tech company today is reaping the dividends of U.S. government investment. That seed has sprouted into a veritable forest. Hell, the technology used in these new private sector space companies is OLD - it was developed by NASA engineers (in conjuction with private sector engineers - GE, HP, etc) decades ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazon could flip a switch tomorrow and start making massive profits. Not so for the U.S. government. Further, Amazon is making what it believes to be productive investments; most of the function of the U.S. government is redistribution of money. Vanishingly little of government spending can be characterized as productive investment. It's really a terrible analogy.

What? Government R&D money to universities, government-run research labs, and private corporations have funded - and will continue to fund - our greatest technological and productivity breakthroughs.

Examples: GPS, internet, personal computing, materials sciences, microprocessors, etc.

The fact of the matter is that government-organized research and infrastructure is still the most efficient means for pushing forward our economy. Ever tech company today is reaping the dividends of U.S. government investment. That seed has sprouted into a veritable forest. Hell, the technology used in these new private sector space companies is OLD - it was developed by NASA engineers (in conjuction with private sector engineers - GE, HP, etc) decades ago.

And what percentage of the federal budget do you think goes to such endeavors?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazon could flip a switch tomorrow and start making massive profits. Not so for the U.S. government. Further, Amazon is making what it believes to be productive investments; most of the function of the U.S. government is redistribution of money. Vanishingly little of government spending can be characterized as productive investment. It's really a terrible analogy.

What? Government R&D money to universities, government-run research labs, and private corporations have funded - and will continue to fund - our greatest technological and productivity breakthroughs.

Examples: GPS, internet, personal computing, materials sciences, microprocessors, etc.

The fact of the matter is that government-organized research and infrastructure is still the most efficient means for pushing forward our economy. Ever tech company today is reaping the dividends of U.S. government investment. That seed has sprouted into a veritable forest. Hell, the technology used in these new private sector space companies is OLD - it was developed by NASA engineers (in conjuction with private sector engineers - GE, HP, etc) decades ago.

And what percentage of the federal budget do you think goes to such endeavors?

Not enough and those research dollars are declining. Hence why I agree with the kernal of truth put forth by the author of that article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hah. Her premise isnt terrible, but Amazon is not a good example. Amazon's Prime program costs them way more money than they get out of it -- the original idea was that it would pay for itself within 5 years, but 5 years came and went and they still lose money with every item with free shipping. They are damaging many other businesses with their free guaranteed shipping, that they can't afford and that other businesses can't afford. Not just shipping costs, all their pricing is too low to be sustainable, for then or their competitors. Not a win.

So America should stop trying to be great because it might make some other countries not feel as great? That's all I get from your example.

That's what you took from PP's example?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazon could flip a switch tomorrow and start making massive profits. Not so for the U.S. government. Further, Amazon is making what it believes to be productive investments; most of the function of the U.S. government is redistribution of money. Vanishingly little of government spending can be characterized as productive investment. It's really a terrible analogy.

What? Government R&D money to universities, government-run research labs, and private corporations have funded - and will continue to fund - our greatest technological and productivity breakthroughs.

Examples: GPS, internet, personal computing, materials sciences, microprocessors, etc.

The fact of the matter is that government-organized research and infrastructure is still the most efficient means for pushing forward our economy. Ever tech company today is reaping the dividends of U.S. government investment. That seed has sprouted into a veritable forest. Hell, the technology used in these new private sector space companies is OLD - it was developed by NASA engineers (in conjuction with private sector engineers - GE, HP, etc) decades ago.

And what percentage of the federal budget do you think goes to such endeavors?

Not enough and those research dollars are declining. Hence why I agree with the kernal of truth put forth by the author of that article.

But that's my point. We could easily do all of that and more without a deficit. Those expenditures are immaterial to the financial position of this country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Really interesting perspective on deficits and investments. She's crass, but makes a compelling argument.



https://medium.com/@girlziplocked/why-amazon-isn-t-a-fucking-idiot-and-runs-a-deficit-f9d5734b68ec

But what's with the F-bomb?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazon could flip a switch tomorrow and start making massive profits. Not so for the U.S. government. Further, Amazon is making what it believes to be productive investments; most of the function of the U.S. government is redistribution of money. Vanishingly little of government spending can be characterized as productive investment. It's really a terrible analogy.

What? Government R&D money to universities, government-run research labs, and private corporations have funded - and will continue to fund - our greatest technological and productivity breakthroughs.

Examples: GPS, internet, personal computing, materials sciences, microprocessors, etc.

The fact of the matter is that government-organized research and infrastructure is still the most efficient means for pushing forward our economy. Ever tech company today is reaping the dividends of U.S. government investment. That seed has sprouted into a veritable forest. Hell, the technology used in these new private sector space companies is OLD - it was developed by NASA engineers (in conjuction with private sector engineers - GE, HP, etc) decades ago.

And what percentage of the federal budget do you think goes to such endeavors?

He means the one that educates graduate students from China.

[Anonymous]

Debts are not a problem, per se. Deficits are not a problem, per se.

Here is one person's perspective, and they're short easy reads:

http://robertreich.org/post/49186529038

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/reinhart-and-rogoff_b_3179760.html

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/austerity_101_the_three_reasons_republican_deficit_hawks_are_wrong_video_20

http://robertreich.org/post/36001609487

[Anonymous]

Holly Wood
Documentarian of the absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Really interesting perspective on deficits and investments. She's crass, but makes a compelling argument.



https://medium.com/@girlziplocked/why-amazon-isn-t-a-fucking-idiot-and-runs-a-deficit-f9d5734b68ec

That's clueless. Ask Greece or Argentina, for a more relevant analogy. Countries are not companies.