Amazon 'Destroyed the Retail Industry Across the US' Says Treasury Secretary Mnuchin (theverge.com) 271
U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said that Amazon "destroyed the retail industry across the United States" and that it's appropriate for the attorney general to investigate the company alongside other tech giants in the sweeping antitrust review that the Justice Department announced yesterday. "There's no question they've limited competition," Mnuchin told CNBC's Squawk Box. From the report: Mnuchin said that "although there's certain benefits" to Amazon's success, the company has "really hurt small businesses" in the process. "I think it's absolutely right that the attorney general is looking into these issues," he said this morning. The Justice Department said yesterday that it would begin a review into whether major online platforms have "reduced competition, stifled innovation, or otherwise harmed consumers." While Amazon was not mentioned by name, the assumption is that the DOJ will be looking at it alongside other tech giants, like Facebook and Google, that also vastly dominate their fields.
Amazon responded to Mnuchin's remarks with a comment saying that its platform helps small businesses and that physical stores still dominate retail sales. "Small and medium-sized businesses are thriving with Amazon," a spokesperson said. They said that Amazon represents "less than 4 percent of U.S. retail," and that 90 percent of retail sales "still occur in brick-and-mortar stores according to the U.S. Census Bureau."
Amazon responded to Mnuchin's remarks with a comment saying that its platform helps small businesses and that physical stores still dominate retail sales. "Small and medium-sized businesses are thriving with Amazon," a spokesperson said. They said that Amazon represents "less than 4 percent of U.S. retail," and that 90 percent of retail sales "still occur in brick-and-mortar stores according to the U.S. Census Bureau."
Translation: (Score:3, Insightful)
Amazon needs to start booking Trump tower rooms immediately. And yeah, a dozen isn't going to do it. We're talking full floor rentals for 6 to 12 months if you fuckers want to get away with destroying american stores!
Re: (Score:2)
It wouldn't work. Bezos owns the WaPost and they have a nasty habit of reporting the truth about the alleged Administration. Bezos is now permanently on Trump's Shitlist. He'll carry that grudge to his grave like he does all the others. His epitaph on his gravestone will be "Oh yeah, well, you are a dumbo loser". He's that way with words.
Re: Drumpf (Score:3, Insightful)
So it's once again confirmed Trump can/will be charged for obstruction of justice when he leaves office. the only reason he currently is not being indicted is because he is president.
Confirmed that Russians manipulated the 2016 election because they knew they could weaponize Trump as an American destabilization tactic.
This means Americans who voted Trump unwittingly supported what was and is essentially a Russian act of war on the US during the campaign of 2016.
It would be prudent for Republican voters to s
Re: (Score:2)
The SJWs bank up modpoints with sleeper accounts. You must be new here.
You do realise moderations on this site are basically meaningless?
amazon? (Score:5, Insightful)
he mispronounced Walmart
Re: (Score:2)
he mispronounced Walmart
+10 insightful, -5 obvious, net score 5.
Re:amazon? (Score:5, Insightful)
Translation: Mnuchin is not intelligent.
Railroads destroyed the horse industry.
TV was not good for newspapers and radio.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Any chance you can link that Pew Research survey/study without too much effort on your part? It sounds very interesting and I'd like to read it in full.
Re: (Score:2)
They're probably not constraining radio to a definition where the signal is broadcast (AM/FM, satellite radio) but also including on demand services like Spotify or podcasts.
They may also be surveying approximate radio density in types of workplaces and extrapolating out a 1->many relationship there even if some of the people who are able to hear radio didn't willfully tune in or are listening.
Re: (Score:2)
How many of them only tune in while driving? I guess radio will be killed by self-driving cars.
Television cut deeply... Stop the internet? (Score:2)
Parent comment: "It was the internet that killed (or is killing) newspapers." Will Treasury Secretary Mnuchin suggest stopping the Internet? Ha!
Hearing Profiles Treasury Secretary Mnuchin as Dark Villain to Rule of Law. [wallstreetonparade.com]
Quote from that story: "A number of Democratic members of the Committee intensely questioned Mnuchin on his myriad deregulatory efforts that have harmed the average American and have
Re: (Score:2)
we don't have a CEO that needs billions.
Bezo's net worth is not based on money he is siphoning out of the company. It is based on Amazon's stock price and his large stake in the company. What you are competing against is Amazon's 4.97% net profit margin. Although if you are in retail you are competing against a near 0% profit margin if not an actual loss, since most of Amazon's profit is arguably coming from AWS.
If you need a higher profit margin than that to stay in business, as most businesses do, that is where the challenge comes in.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, he's just ranting against The Bezos Blog...
Re:amazon? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nah, he's just ranting against The Bezos Blog...
The Washington Post? Trump has a problem with the Post as well as all media outlets that report anything critical of him - you know, the truth.
And since Bezos owns it, Trump has a personal problem with him. See, Trump is a narcissistic petty authoritarian demagogue that is abusing the office that he holds for personal gain and personal vendettas.
Just the fact that millions of dollars are being billed to the US Treasury to be paid to Trump properties is one of the most corrupt things I have ever seen a US President do. It's something that a dictator in some banana republic would pull. And the fact that the Republicans and conservatives are saying nothing about it shows their hypocrisy and complete lack of character and moral fiber.
Trump is a liar, con artists, fraud, criminal and a traitor to this country.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Washington Post? Trump has a problem with the Post as well as all media outlets that report anything critical of him - you know, the truth.
Some of it is the truth, but not all of it. Remember the koi pond? The "their rapists" comment taken out of context? The "some of them are fine people" quote taken so far out of context so as to be literally putting words in his mouth? You can't really blame the guy for disliking them.
I've been saying this since he started to look like a semi-serious candidate: he already says enough dumb stuff. People in the media aren't doing themselves any favors when they embellish on it. All of those times they gros
Re: amazon? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:amazon? (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh? He definitely called Mexicans rapists, and he repeated it over and over at his rallies as a talking point for why we need the wall.
The man has given you a metric assload of valid, damning criticisms. Why do you feel the need to stoop to this sort of lame ass deceptions?
Trump also bragged about the Mexicans that liked him. And guess what, more Latinos voted for Trump than voted for Romney. It is painfully obvious to everyone that he is not referring to literally all Mexicans. Is he racist? Probably. Is he sexist? Probably. But when my family (living in a swing state) got fliers in the mail saying that he "called women pigs and dogs", they laughed and tossed them in the trash and three females I'm related to when on to vote for Trump. (All three having previously voted for Obama twice.) Because the attacks on him looked so god damned stupid, disingenuous and deceptive. Obviously he was not saying that all women were pigs and dogs, obviously. If he called Rosie O'Donnell a pig, that is not a slur against all women. That's just a slur against Rosie O'Donnell. They looked stupid and weak and hell trying to twist around his words like that. News flash: YOU DON'T NEED TO SPEND THE EFFORT TO TWIST TRUMP'S WORDS AROUND. HE GIVES YOU PLENTY OF MATERIAL TO WORK WITH AS-IS. I haven't been following politics so much in the past couple years, but I'm sure he said that Mexican rapists are coming over the border. I'm also pretty sure he *didn't* claim that all Mexicans were rapists, given the context and disclaimers I've seen. And hey, as a matter of factual accuracy, what is the prevalence of rape in northern Mexico vs. the USA? (And of course that's a function of poverty, not race, but as fear-mongering and potentially dog-whistling as it may be, it's not necessarily a total irrelevancy for everyone.)
If you want to complain about racist dog-whistles, complain about racist dog-whistles. Don't distort the man's words. Don't give him an ounce of credibility for when he claims that people are lying about him. I can't believe it's three years later and people still haven't figured this out. This is the one president we've had for which the truth should be more than enough.
Re:amazon? (Score:5, Interesting)
The "their rapists" comment taken out of context?
What context? The context of defending Trump against all criticism? I can't say I've read a Washington Post article (they are pay walled). I've only watched the complete videos of his speeches, and complete recordings from some of his rallies (for the lulz because let's face it at the time no one thought anyone would be stupid enough to vote for this racist arsehole).
Consider it lucky if the WP takes things out of context. The context is far worse than the soundbite.
Re:amazon? (Score:4, Interesting)
For example: when Trump says "I don't see any reason why it would be Russia", we expect media to await outcry, and run it through the inversion context if it hits a certain threshhold.
Taking his comments out of this inverted context is unfair, because he wouldn't realize how poorly his comments would be received until after the fact.
Also, sometimes he's just joking, or confused. Bottom line... if it sounded bad he didn't mean it, unless you agreed with it, in which case he did.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand your side though, I'm sure if I grew up in a red state that would not be considered racist at all.
We need to find some common ground. Constantly attacking the rival party is not a president's job.
Re:amazon? (Score:5, Insightful)
he mispronounced Walmart
Indeed. Walmart has more than twice Amazon's market share.
Yet neither is even close to being a monopoly.
They haven't "destroyed competition", they have destroyed inefficient businesses by creating competition.
Very disappointing to see a Republican administration get into the business of "picking winners". Their support for free enterprise was one of the few reasons left for sensible people to vote for them.
Re: (Score:3)
Any evolution in retail sales tends to lean toward the extinction of the previous rendition. Mom and Pop stores (Main Street): meet the chain stores with their massive buying power and low margins. Brick and mortar chains: meet these online behemoths with little local footprint, ultra low operating costs, and even smaller margins.
Nothing in life is fair. Why in the world would we expect the markets to be?
Re: (Score:2)
Yet mom and pop stores (artisan, custom work) are thriving across the country through platforms like Etsy. I can't even count the number of new restaurants and microbreweries that sprung up in the last decade around here, some starting to form small chains and some breweries now selling in grocery stores across the state and even places like Walmart.
There has been a massive uptick in the last 2 years in small business investments across the country, mom and pop stores have been replaced for a reason and wit
Re: (Score:2)
Yet neither is even close to being a monopoly.
Please define your target market before using that word. Companies are not natural monopolies. They have monopolies in an area.
And Amazon most definitely has a monopoly in *online* sales in the USA.
Capitalism (Score:3)
It's almost like the GOP doesn't support capitalism ......
Quick, let's investigate Bain Capital and Staples. I am sure that lots of small retailers went out of business because of the rise of Staples.
Isn't that the goal of business in a free market? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Isn't that the goal of business in a free marke (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, but who is closer to having the monopoly?
Amazon annual revenue: 232.9 billion USD
Walmart annual revenue: 514.4 billion USD
Re:Isn't that the goal of business in a free marke (Score:4, Informative)
Right, but who is closer to having the monopoly?
Amazon annual revenue: 232.9 billion USD
Walmart annual revenue: 514.4 billion USD
Amazon. It controls >50% of all e-commerce.
Walmart had a huge impact in the locations it built stores in (specifically, under-served cities and towns) and put a lot of smaller shops out of business there, but it's far from 50% penetration on all trips nationally.
If Walmart ever became BnL from Wall-E, then it would probably be a monopoly. But raw sales alone != monopoly.
Re: (Score:3)
Raw revenue of course has nothing to do with monopoly power. It's about percentage control of the relevant market.
Re: (Score:3)
If the topic of the investigation is putting retail stores out of business, why would we not count everyone involved in that, both retail and online? And when we count both markets, walmart has twice the market share that amazon does.
Re: (Score:3)
If the topic of the investigation is putting retail stores out of business
It almost certainly isn't that broad of a question, because then there would be no basis for finding that Amazon has sufficient market power to be deemed a monopolist (which isn't measured strictly by market share, but looking at historic antitrust decisions it probably takes at least 40-50% of the market plus some other factors). U.S. retail sales last year were a bit over $5 trillion [statista.com], so Amazon's share of that would be about 5%. The DOJ wouldn't even bother opening up an inquiry on that basis, and in fa
Re: (Score:2)
Right, but who is closer to having the monopoly?
Amazon annual revenue: 232.9 billion USD
Walmart annual revenue: 514.4 billion USD
Just by using the words monopoly and combining it with a figure of revenue shows that you don't know what a monopoly is.
Re: (Score:2)
All without having one store open.
Amazon has opened several physical stores.
AMAZON PHYSICAL STORES LOCATIONS [amazon.com]
There's also all their Whole Foods stores.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Isn't that the goal of business in a free marke (Score:5, Insightful)
In a perfect world where every factor was even, a free market might work. In the real world, free market only works at small scales. It works between the corner stores and the like, but it's literally(not figuratively) impossible for the local store to be actual competition for Walmart or Amazon.
Re: (Score:3)
Free markets work if there is regulation to maintain that freedom.
Re: (Score:3)
Unregulated free markets are exactly how you get Monopolies. As long as you're a big enough company you can afford to take a loss on sales until you run your competition into the ground, and then raise prices again.
Turns out that's an appealing theory which actually doesn't work, sort of like Luminiforus Aether. There's a proof it always will fail but I'm not an economist so I won't try to present the details. The gist of it is you can show with supply and demand analysis that the attempted monopoly always loses more money than any of the competitors do. And if there aren't (legal) barriers to entry, the competitors pop right back up the moment the attempted monopoly raises prices.
Bottom line is, no one has ever actua
Re: (Score:3)
which would exist for short periods of time since it becomes very profitable for competition enter
So in your world, that monopolist just sits there and does nothing when a competitor shows up?
The giant flaw in the thinking of free market fundamentalists like yourself is you can't seem to think through the entire scenario. You stop at a point that looks good for your beliefs, and declare that the end state. You also never apply your theory to our actual history, probably because it doesn't work all that well.
So here's what really happens:
1) Local monopoly develops
2) Local monopoly exploits the monopoly
Re: (Score:2)
There are a lot of folks saying free-markets lead to monopolies when a Monopoly is Anti-Free Market by it's very own nature.
No. You don't understand what a free market is. What you are describing is called in economic terms a "perfect market". A free market is a perfect market only at start. This is its most unstable condition. Free markets will tend towards consolidation and bankruptcies where the only stable end point is a single point monopoly in that market.
Free market: A market with no government regulations at all.
Perfect market: A market with a level playing field for all.
Re: (Score:3)
Free markets do not mean unregulated. people confuse that all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because the word "free" is usually left open to people's interpretation, and there is a range of plausible definitions.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if they'll also be investigating Wal-Mart?
Re:Isn't that the goal of business in a free marke (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Waiting 2 days for items is fine for the majority of needs; however, there are cases where you need something quickly. An extreme example being a hurricane headed your way and you need supplies. A more simple example being a project that your child forgot about and is due tomorrow. When those cases come up and all the retail stores have gone under, then you are just plain screwed. Buying from Amazon is fine, but we also need to support local businesses enough so that they can stay in business and be ava
Re: (Score:2)
An extreme example being a hurricane headed your way and you need supplies
Or Amazon could provide a 'emergency supply' program, where they keep a special section of emergency supplies ready to be shipped to a high risk area. That's probably more efficient than everybody rushing to the store in their own cars.
Re: (Score:2)
The retail industry that is being destroyed did not exist as such 100 years ago
Can you clarify what you mean? The retailers being destroyed, especially the little mom & pop stores, seem very much like what there was 100 years ago. If you are referring to how most stores are chains now, even 100 years ago there were chain stores like Woolworth (and stores like Sears filled the role of "online" retailer)
Re: (Score:3)
As long as your business succeeds by being better and more efficient, then there is nothing wrong with it.
Not always true, I'm afraid. Perhaps in this case it is, but consider the Meditations on Moloch [slatestarcodex.com], sections 4 and 5, regarding the Malthusian Trap and Capitalism.
Greater efficiency will always mean something is lost. Sometimes we do not, in retrospect, want to lose it. Sometimes we don't even recognize it was lost until it is too late.
Take these thoughts with a grain of salt, for I can offer no proper examples of things lost.
Re:Isn't that the goal of business in a free marke (Score:5, Informative)
Amazon's retail arm is funded with AWS profits, and that supports the cost structure other retailers can't replicate or compete with. That's what economists call "dumping". This is often used in foreign trade (especially e.g. steel/aluminum) to drive local competitors out of business: sell at a loss, at a price the competitor can't sustain. Competitor goes belly up. You get to dictate pricing.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon's retail arm is funded with AWS profits, and that supports the cost structure other retailers can't replicate or compete with. That's what economists call "dumping".
What? Dumping is selling stuff at a loss in order to drive competitors out of business. If Amazon didn't sell AWS capacity to others, they would be operating a smaller version of the same thing at a "loss" as an expense.
Re:Isn't that the goal of business in a free marke (Score:5, Informative)
232.9 billion USD 2018 Image result for amazon revenue People also search for Walmart Walmart 514.4 billion USD (2019) Microsoft Corporation Microsoft Corporation 125.8 billion USD (2019) Apple Apple 258.5 billion USD (March 31, 2019)
AWS revenue was US$25.6 Billion in 2018... it was so profitable it enabled the rest of the company to generate 9+ times its own revenue in a profitable fashion? I post here in absolute, genuine awe.
Re:Isn't that the goal of business in a free marke (Score:4, Informative)
AWS revenue was US$25.6 Billion in 2018... it was so profitable it enabled the rest of the company to generate 9+ times its own revenue in a profitable fashion? I post here in absolute, genuine awe.
Amazon's net profit for 2018 was $10 billion [statista.com]. The most recent numbers I can find show a net profit margin of about 25% [zdnet.com] for AWS, so about $6.5B or 2/3 of Amazon's overall profit for 2018.
That suggests the retail arm on its own is netting about 1.5% -- about half of Wal-Mart's 3% [investopedia.com] and probably not a sustainable model from a shareholder's standpoint.
Not any more - AWS funds everything (Score:2, Insightful)
Amazon started breaking out AWS earnings in 2015:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/amazon-breaks-out-cloud-results-for-first-time-on-q1-earnings-report/
AWS is a cash cow that funds everything that Amazon does. Using market dominance to hurt competitors in another unrelated market is the very definition of an abusive monopoly.
Anti-Trust law was created specifically to combat this sort of behavior - long before the Internet or Amazon was a thing.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure you are understanding this right. First, AWS is only half of Amazon's net income. But the thing there is...you don't grow your business with your net income. You grow your business by reinvesting a portion of your revenue, and that portion reinvested gets deducted from your net income. And on that note, the revenue from AWS is minuscule compared to revenue from ecommerce operations (even after you deduct cost of goods sold)
Re: (Score:2)
Just for full disclosure, I grew up shopping at Kmart and Sears. Kmart because it ws dirt cheap, the keyword being dirt, Sears because it was actually an excellent retailer with excellent products. That said, I have not really shopped at eith
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Mnuchin ought to know how its done. He was on the board of directors at KMart when Sears folded. He was sued for asset stripping. He also bought, through one of his hedge funds, IndyMac after the financial crisis, changed the name, and then that organization went after homeowners in dodgy foreclosure cases. He fits right in with the alleged Administration given how Trump loved to stiff contractors who were stupid enough to do work for him.
That they did (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not even up for debate. Bankrolling retail with AWS profits needs to be looked at. OTOH I also have very little sympathy for the "retail industry". They dragged their feet until the last moment with online commerce, and some still continue to do so. Until that changes, they deserve to be "destroyed" by Amazon.
Mnuchin is full of shit (Score:4, Insightful)
Easily debunked, as it's easy to point out that 90% of retail sales in the US are by 'brick and mortar' storefronts.
Just another loser in a long chain of incompetent grifters from the Trump admin.
Nevermind the implications of one of the obvious falsehoods regularly flowing from what is supposed to be one of the top posts from the most powerful nation on the earth.
FFS if you're going just lie, at least butter us up a little.
Capitalism bad? (Score:2)
Or just when his cabal does not like the people doing it?
Re: (Score:2)
RIght, this is all because The Washington Post hates Trump...and Jeff Bezos owns both Amazon and the Post. The Trumpkins can't go after the Post, so Here We Are.
Wrong target. (Score:5, Insightful)
Malls started the destruction, Walmart was the actual nuke, Amazon's just roasting marshmallows on the embers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wrong target. (Score:4, Insightful)
Amazon killed the big-box chain bookstores like Barnes & Nobles and Borders. BFD. Barnes & Nobles and Borders, in turn, are the ones that killed all of the small and/or independent book stores. Amazon did nothing untoward here. They just beat the big chains at their own game. That sound you hear? That's the world's smallest violin.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon killed the big-box chain bookstores like Barnes & Nobles and Borders. BFD. Barnes & Nobles and Borders, in turn, are the ones that killed all of the small and/or independent book stores.
Yep. A million times yep..
Re: (Score:2)
Dick-pic Bezos? Do you know ow much money he has? It's enough that he s literally beyond embarrassment. Any image that would ruin the reputation of any ordinary person is quickly obliterated by the atomic fireball glare of his wealth.
He could crush the National Enquirer like a bug. He could easily buy the largest supermarket chains the Enquirer is distributed in and ban them from the checkout lines for example; that wouldn't be a financial stretch at all for him. But it's not worth his time, which is wor
So break'em up (Score:2)
then.
The people, not amazon. (Score:4, Insightful)
Amazon didn't destroy anything. They provided a service that people wanted: cheap stuff. People prefer cheap over an expensive brick & mortar store with really lousy customer service.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon has expensive and quality stuff too.
I can buy things from mom and pop shop on the other side of the world, not sure they're destroying retail even. They're changing it.
Re: (Score:2)
And it's worth noting that the B&M retail stores that actually invest in good customer service, such as Nordstrom, Barneys, Apple retail, and the like, are doing just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
A little late, Mnuchin (Score:3)
...it was WalMart in the 90's/00's that destroyed retail and the last vestiges of American manufacturing.
Wait, shouldn't we be blaming the Millennials? (Score:5, Informative)
Seriously, Amazon didn't help, but there's two major things that destroyed retail. First, lower wages. Speaking of Millennials they make20% less [usatoday.com] than the boomers did at the same stage in life (accounting for education). Less money to spend means less people buying.
Next, you've got Bain Capital style vulture capital buyouts. K Bee Toys, Toys R US, Mervyns, Yellow Front, Sears. The list goes on and on. Billionaires buy out a company, gut it for the pension fund, run it into the ground and then leave the tax payer holding the bag. Mervyns especially pisses me off. They survived multiple recessions because they owned their own stores and so they didn't get raped by rent seeking bastards only to have a venture capitalist notice all that juice land and buy them off in a leveraged buyout. If you don't know, a "leveraged" buyout is when you buy a company using the company's own assets to pay for your purchase. It shouldn't be legal, since it's painfully obvious that if you buy something you can't afford using the thing you are buying as collateral you're gonna sell that thing for scrap.
So yeah, Amazon isn't helping, but it's far from the main reason retail's going tits up.
Re: (Score:2)
What USA Today fails to point out is that most boomers were out of the house at 18 either learned a trade or finished college in four years. Millenials are living in their parents basements until they are nearly 30 and thanks to greedy colleges, it's taking more than 4 years to complete a degree. You can't start a race late and then complain that those who started earlier are ahead of you.
Outside of a sled lot (Score:5, Interesting)
That's basically what vulture capitalists do. They're allowed to do this because the people loaning them the money know damn well what the score is. They know the buyer has no intention of running the company and is just going to take everything and run. They're expecting to get their cut of the blood money.
The Big Box retail industry destroyed itself (Score:5, Interesting)
There was a time when I recall my parents going to retail stores and getting sound advice from someone whom they trusted. A person earning a real living who actually cared about what they were selling. They could do things like tell you the difference between VCRs and show you how to use them. Then the big box stores (still retail) rolled in. They absolutely smashed the small, local stores with low prices and that was about all they offered. They staffed with minimum wage employees who knew next to nothing about the products and cared about nothing but meeting quotas. Want to know the difference between 501 jeans and 550 jeans? Be prepared for a blank look. Generally, customers were happy doing their own research and getting the lower prices, but they still had the awful experience of 1) People pushing unnecessary, overpriced warrantees 2) Getting to and from the stores, parking, and dealing with crowds 3) Transporting goods home (a real issue if you live in the city, don't have a car, and want a new television) 4) Shopping hours that take up good portions of the day when you'd rather be doing almost anything else other than shopping.
Then, along comes Amazon and eliminates items 1-4 while simultaneously offering reasonable pricing. Now the big retailers have absolutely nothing to offer to get you back in their store. Crappy service, shoddy stock, pushy sales folk, and a complete and total lack of product knowledge isn't going to do it.
Here's the thing though, anecdotally, I've noticed that, with the fall of the big box retailers, retailers that offer real value are starting to pop back up. The fall of Toys R Us has pushed a resurgence in local toy stores where the the product has been carefully curated and the staff understands and can demonstrate all of the products. Little computer stores are starting to pop back up with staffs far more friendly and competent than Circuit City. There are book stores, cooking stores, butcher shops, coffee roasters, bakeries, farmers markets...all in greater numbers than 10 years ago (at least around these parts). These are never the cheapest option, but people go there because they get real value out of the interactions. Amazon is having minimal impact on these retailers.
I buy lots of big box and generic stuff from Amazon and say good riddance to the big box giants. Meanwhile, I'm happy to make the trip to a local joint for smiles, expertise, and ambiance.
These investigations aren't about "small business" they're about making sure that our corrupt politicians are taking care of their friends who are CEO's or investors involved in the big box debacle. Meanwhile, a few poorly regulated US Banks control an outrageous amount of the nation's capital. Where's the outcry on that front?
Re: (Score:2)
49?
Assuming base 10, of course...
I suggest these purchases, Mr. Mnuchin (Score:3)
When you looking for buggy whips and there isn't a retailer in your neighborhood:
https://www.amazon.com/stores/... [amazon.com]
Blame Private Equity before you blame Amazon (Score:5, Insightful)
Has Amazon contributed to the death of small retail? Yes, but no more than Wal-Mart and other big box stores.
The real death of retail has been caused by private equity firms pursuing leveraged buyouts of retail operations, hollowing the retail operations out, loading them with debt, and draining them dry until they are forced into bankruptcy. 10 out of the 14 largest retail chain bankruptcies since 2012 were at private equity-acquired chains.
Toys “R” Us, Sears and Kmart... They were profitable businesses loaded down with debt by their private equity owners.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-24/private-equity-has-killed-600-000-u-s-retail-jobs-study-says
Re:Blame Private Equity before you blame Amazon (Score:4, Interesting)
And as for why Mnuchin would never blame private equity: 'Mnuchin was a member of Sears Holdings’s board of directors from 2005 until December 2016, and before that was on Kmart's board of directors.[5] After Sears went bankrupt, the company that formerly owned it sued Mnuchin and ex-CEO Edward Lampert for "asset stripping" during their tenure.'
Pretty sure Walmart beat them to it (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the reasons I buy from Amazon is it seems that no matter what I need, none of my local stores seem to carry it.
Case in point, I've been to Fry's Electronics several times over the past few months and at no point was I ever able to find what I was looking for. Many of their shelves are empty and it's reached the point I no longer even bother to make the drive to go check if $item is even there. A few clicks from Amazon and it's on my doorstep in 1-2 days.
The last item I went out locally looking for was a simple 128GB Micro SD card ( Class 3 ).
Fry's didn't have it.
Best Buy didn't have it.
Walmart didn't have it.
Target didn't have it.
So . . . . if the local retailers aren't carrying the items I'm looking to buy, is it Amazons fault that I end up buying from them ?
When is Disruptive innovation Good (Score:2)
So when is disruptive innovation good? I feel that it has become all too convenient to choose when it is socially acceptable and when it is the worst thing ever.
It seems like we think that when it comes out as new shiny thing that looks like Davey v. Goliath that is a good thing. But when Davey becomes the new Goliath, that is bad.
Sky reportedly blue (Score:2)
Putting the sad Amazon fanboys posting here aside, this is so fucking obvious it's clearly not supposed to be news. So what's he going to do about it? I actually happen to know this: nothing at all. Bezo the Clown has more money than Trump and can simply buy his way out of anything.
Paying your tax is for little people, isn't it?
THAT'S CAPITALISM, FUCKERS (Score:2)
Per Capita Retail (Score:2)
The U.S. has an order of magnitude more retail space per capita than either the U.K. or continental Europe. Five Reasons The U.K. And Europe Won't Feel America's Retail Pain, And Two Why It Might [forbes.com] Maybe, just maybe, over-development has harmed retail. Just sayin'.
Incredible (Score:2)
He's a moron (Score:2)
Just like the other one, who wants backdoors into everything.
Of course it did (Score:3)
Of course now I simply go to smile.amazon.com, enter a search for what I need - see several options, pick one that I want - pay for it and it shows up at my house 2 days later... Why would I ever want to go to a mall again?
Not completely wrong (Score:3)
It sucks for legacy retail and there's not much they can really do about it, it's really just a newer business model winning out over an older one. While it may not seem fair for those working in the legacy industry, and society at large as modern industries tend to be more labor-efficient, it's really just the market doing it's thing. If it wasn't Amazon that this successful it probably would have been one of their many competitors that didn't make it trough the end of the dot.com boom, a foreign company like JD or the online retail arm of a legacy retailer.
Hell, for big legacy retailers this is pretty much them just not getting on with the times and embracing online retail before the dot.com upstarts cornered the market.
I always buy local when... (Score:3)
I need it now, it's in stock and the price is reasonable, not necessarily the lowest.
Fresh produce, bread, meat, fish, beer, etc are always better local.
I love my local hardware store, electric supply and plumbing supply.
It's the nature of small local businesses to have a small selection. If they don't have what I need, I go online.
For some products, small, local stores make no sense at all. Many years ago, Radio Shack used to sell electronic components. Today, large distributors like Digikey are the only answer.
Some local stores are the best of both worlds. Fastenal has a reasonably good local inventory and a network of daily delivery trucks, operating between branches. They can usually get stuff in one day, with no shipping charge.
I like Amazon, but they are not my first, or only choice.
They especially suck for industrial stuff. I saw some brass fittings on Amazon for $9 each, at McMaster Carr, they were 58 cents.
New Idea? Tell that to George Westinghouse (Score:2)
Who kept pouring in millions of investor dollars on the idea of AC current both before and after Tesla came up with his polyphase equations.
Re: (Score:2)
Reply to: New Idea? Tell that to George Westinghouse
Didn't Tesla give Westinghouse the patents, because as long as Tesla held them no one would invest?
Forgot where I heard that. Could've been TV, could've been youtube, coulda read it online somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Never heard that - just did a quick search and it seems Westinghouse paid Tesla $60k for his patents.
Sources:
- https://dailyoddsandends.wordp... [wordpress.com]
- https://interestingengineering... [interestin...eering.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Huh. Live and learn. To be honest I think it was some kind of Discovery Channel-type show. The kind that can get many things very wrong.
Well done, George, you coulda just robbed him blind. $60k may not seem like much to us now (it's a chunk of change, fer-sure) but back then it was a nice sum!
I wish someone would make a muggle-friendly movie about Nikola. We really wouldn't be here like this without him. You know that, I know that, we know that, but *they* don't.
Re: (Score:2)
but the investments are panning out now, they're making money and projections indicate they will continue to do so. So, Amazon good for investor looking at the long haul...
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon simply purchases the Justice Department.
Nope. You want Gov't help, actual usable help? Buy a senator / congresscritter. Always has been. I wonder how many of our laws, %-wise, were written by industry? I'm willing to bet it's close to 90%... if not damn near 100% anyway.
Pan Am - or rather, its founder Juan Trippe, via a senator (Brewster) who ran the CAA (FAA's predecessor) pretty much tried to railroad TWA out of existence by denying it overseas flights. It failed. Yeah, it's in "The Aviator" but this shit really did happen, and that was
Re: (Score:2)
I wrote an Onion style article about Bill Gates purchasing the DOJ back in 2000...
https://web.archive.org/web/20... [archive.org]