HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
If I had $250 million in disposable income, I'm not sure I would buy the Washington Post, but to each his own. 
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Amazon's CEO To Buy Washington Post For $250M
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
D
Deleted member 204526
Guest
Bezos backs an internet sales tax. No doubt he'll use his new rag to push for that and whatever other political positions he might have.
If I had $250 million in disposable income, I'm not sure I would buy the Washington Post, but to each his own.
I think he's got billions of disposable cash (not sure how much he makes annually).
I think you're under the mistaken impression that we don't owe sales tax on every purchase we make on the internet. With the exception of a few states that have no sales tax, you owe sales tax on each purchase. Just because virtually nobody pays doesn't alter that fact.
D
Deleted member 204526
Guest
I'm well aware of that fact.
Off topic:
We owe this tax why exactly? Because some douche bags in a white building somewhere at some time said we do? What does something made in China that I buy online require me to pay the government anything? They'd have more than enough money if they spent in more wisely from all the other taxes they get. I'm sick of funding death and murderers. I'll pay as little tax as I can until this fucked up shit that is the government gets back on track and stops acting like psychopaths.
On topic:
More money is why. Perhaps it's to push his own agenda but I'm pretty sure the WP makes a pretty penny. Who knows though, he might be buying it so that he can have honest reporters and stories...it is possible for a CEO of a major corporation to have a heart and logical mind...right?
We owe this tax why exactly? Because some douche bags in a white building somewhere at some time said we do? What does something made in China that I buy online require me to pay the government anything? They'd have more than enough money if they spent in more wisely from all the other taxes they get. I'm sick of funding death and murderers. I'll pay as little tax as I can until this fucked up shit that is the government gets back on track and stops acting like psychopaths.
On topic:
More money is why. Perhaps it's to push his own agenda but I'm pretty sure the WP makes a pretty penny. Who knows though, he might be buying it so that he can have honest reporters and stories...it is possible for a CEO of a major corporation to have a heart and logical mind...right?
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
I am not sure how one newspaper will help him destroy the competition, but even if it did, there is nothing wrong with that ... Amazon is the best ebook provider and audiobook provider on the market today ... I would have no problem if they destroyed the other inferior competitors in that market ...
that said, unless Apples decides to drop out of the market in spite (highly unlikely) I see the ebook market eventually settling down into a three company race (Google, Amazon, Apple) ... Apple does remain much stronger in the eMagazine and comic market though ... I think Amazon would have been better served buying Zinio and one or two of the big comic distributors (comixology maybe)
propaganda is a very powerfull tool, and having an entire newspaper at your every thought is even more powerful for a company.
Amazon is good for purchasing items now, but if they drive out the competition like Android, Apple, MS, and all other cloud service providers what happens then? They control the entire market, which is bad.
As much as I an not an apple fan, them being in the market is a good thing.
I don't think he even needs to consider Apple much of a threat, to be honest. Unless I'm misunderstanding the Justice Department's decision in the price fixing scandal, isn't Apple being forced to sever business ties with several of the largest publishing outfits? That would hurt their ability to complete against Amazon far more than anything Jeff Bezos could do with the Washington Post.
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
I am not sure why everyone is so frightened of monopolies ... Intel and Microsoft had defacto monopolies for years and it didn't hurt the computer market ... Google has had a monopoly on web search for ages and people love them (and they are well on their way to establishing a mobile monopoly with Android) ... a good company with a monopoly is not a bad thing and I think Amazon is a good company and well deserving of a monopoly (if they can grab one)
I am not sure why everyone is so frightened of monopolies ... Intel and Microsoft had defacto monopolies for years and it didn't hurt the computer market ... Google has had a monopoly on web search for ages and people love them (and they are well on their way to establishing a mobile monopoly with Android) ... a good company with a monopoly is not a bad thing and I think Amazon is a good company and well deserving of a monopoly (if they can grab one)
The key phrase is "good company" some would argue that Google used to be decent but have gone bad with all the data collections and tracking etc.
What happens when a monopoly was good and becomes bad? It can't be fixed overnight because chances are they will have to power to severely deter the competition.
Look at MS, they have tons of resources and their mobile platform is considered a failure to many. Even though when you look at it objectively, their mobile OS is pretty good. They just lack 3rd party support and app depth. Which is pretty much a problem because MS let Apple/Google take over the market and now they have to trudge up-hill which is more difficult then people ever admit (They unusually make it sound so easy when talking of the virtues of a capitalistic market, when in reality large market share differences are difficult to overcome.).
How are you certain? If there was more competition in the 80s and 90s maybe things would have been different now. Maybe even faster CPUs and better OSes.
LeninGHOLA
Vladimir Hayt
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 18,416
Bezos isn't a liberal, but that was a fun fantasy for a minute.
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2000
- Messages
- 6,254
really? He's been somewhat silent but has those leanings.. crony capitalism then?
LeninGHOLA
Vladimir Hayt
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 18,416
Just a regular capitalist/libertarian.
Outamyhead
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2008
- Messages
- 4,263
Enough to go around retrieving history from the ocean floor a few times a year.
Wrecked Em
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2004
- Messages
- 8,169
Don't forget that they want you to pay this tax with money that you've already paid taxes on.
chameleoneel
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2005
- Messages
- 7,591
I am not sure why everyone is so frightened of monopolies ... Intel and Microsoft had defacto monopolies for years and it didn't hurt the computer market ... Google has had a monopoly on web search for ages and people love them (and they are well on their way to establishing a mobile monopoly with Android) ... a good company with a monopoly is not a bad thing and I think Amazon is a good company and well deserving of a monopoly (if they can grab one)
Except when Intel got caught red handed doing back door deals, some of them specifically to prevent AMD from succeeding...
Somebody has a short memory about chip prices and rate of CPU improvement before AMD showed up.
grrrr.... wrong quote, no edit button. Point if obvious though.
You pay the tax because the purchase uses publicly owned resources to
a. Get the product to you by means of air estate, roads, rivers that are maintained by the government.
b. Maintain confidence in the economy and shipping protocols through safety inspections, regulation upholding.
I agree that spending of tax dollars could be done with more due diligence, but taxes must be collected.
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
I worked for Intel back then so I am a little biased about those chip prices ... however, it is not the monopoly that is illegal, only the abuse of the monopoly ... most users on this board wouldn't mind a Samsung monopoly on Android phones (and there is a large crowd that would have loved an AMD monopoly in the Athlon days) and the Google monopoly doesn't cause problems ... Amazon was first to the ebook market so they deserve their monopoly and should get there ... as long as they don't abuse the monopoly then there is no issue with it ... I like Amazon and would like to see them expand their position in eMagazines, eComics, and video ... monopolies are good for business and appropriate from a Darwinian standpoint (only the strongest companies should be allowed to survive)
Isn't tax for that shit already coming out of my paycheck? The ~20% they steal from me is already enough. I don't need them to tax me on money that's already been taxed. That's, to put it lightly, fucking retarded.
You can try and justify however you'd like, it's still robbery and it's still obviously wrong. Need I remind you we are $16,000,000,000,000 in debt and counting. Fuck The Man. I can't even imagine what this country would be like if that money had gone to actual useful and constructive stuff.
The government is getting as LITTLE tax from me as possible if I have anything to do with it.
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
You're combining three different governments together ... the tax on merchandise is a state or local government tax ... certainly your arguments about how much of the taxes should go to them INSTEAD of the federal is valid ... but sales taxes go exclusively to your local and state government which (in theory) are supposed to provide you the best services (since they are closest to you) ... the federal government has no claim on sales tax and hopefully would be voted out of office if they ever tried to grab that pool of money (which helps build roads, schools, stadiums, electrical infrastructure, plumbing, and other local things that the federal government doesn't supply)
Parmenides
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,578
I am not sure why everyone is so frightened of monopolies ... Intel and Microsoft had defacto monopolies for years and it didn't hurt the computer market ... Google has had a monopoly on web search for ages and people love them (and they are well on their way to establishing a mobile monopoly with Android) ... a good company with a monopoly is not a bad thing and I think Amazon is a good company and well deserving of a monopoly (if they can grab one)
not "defacto monopolies". Monopoly means customers have no choice.
In the case of Google, they have been dominant with no close second but there was always a viable #2. And they stay #1 because they didn't get lazy with what they produced because there was always stayed beyond the reach of #2 and #3. That doesn't sound like a monopoly.
And then there is Microsoft Windows, Linux and Mac were always viable choices, they just didn't have market share. Again Microsoft made sure they didn't slack off and let another OS catch up, until now. But even then they didn't have the luxury of being able to completely piss off customers. Monopolies can get away with infuriating product.
If amazon is able to dominate the market they must continue to serve good product at a good price. Once they jack up the prices, someone else will take the reigns. So no, amazon isn't even close to taking the monopoly crown. And that's the goal of monopolies... exorbitantly high profit margins.
You just can't undercut the competition so they die in order to hike the prices anymore. You have to get government to help you create a 'defacto monopoly', i.e. local cable providers or patents.
rudy
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
- Messages
- 8,704
There is no viable second google simply owns search. No one uses bing which is the closest competitor.
The monopoly is not about just the market share its the way you abuse it to maliciously kill competition or make sure they can never grow out of the certain percent. MS did this for years, so did intel and now google is stepping into prime time.
I honestly have to laugh and how everyone made such a big deal out of the fact IE was bundled with windows and not something you could uninstall back in the day, the same with how so many things like MS messenger came in and enabled in windows. But no one is making a peep while google systematically does EXACTLY the same shit now. Every android phone forces you to hold a google account, now MS was never able to do that with windows for years because it was anti competitive but its OK for google right? Once google and apple did it, it was finally OK for MS to start doing it. How about issues like I cant even leave a review anymore with out creating a google plus profile, see what they did there? Want to do a whole bunch of things now days? Screw off, get a google plus profile, and oh even google talk / chat is now forcing you into google plus. How about all the phones that auto upload all your shit to google drive and plus?
The is no such thing as a single one thing you cannot do to in the case of a monopoly, the government will whenever they decide it is time go in a screw with you. Nevermind the fact it is their own lack of laws and poorly written ones that create these messes.
Right now Amazon is moving to secure as close to an online monopoly as anyone may ever have. It used to be Amazon fought tooth and nail to stop sales tax, but now that they are the big guy and have effectively eradicated almost all the major competition, oh guess what? They want a sales tax to make life hell on smaller players who cannot afford dedicated accountants for every state. And why do they want this? because they plan to grow into every state now, so they can no longer abuse the sales tax loophole, and god forbid anyone else be able to use the very loophole that helped them climb to the top to compete with them.
Damn near half these monopolies could be fixed if the government simply made a single law, any product supplier must offer the same prices to ANYONE who wants to buy their product and there can never be any EXCLUSIVE deals or kickbacks. Do that and bam, iTunes, Netflix, amazon, and half these other guys lose their competitive edge and power over the suppliers, and at the very same time the suppliers lose their power over smaller players or new innovators. Because everyone is on a level playing field for cost of products and services it comes down to service, and efficiency then.
The monopoly is not about just the market share its the way you abuse it to maliciously kill competition or make sure they can never grow out of the certain percent. MS did this for years, so did intel and now google is stepping into prime time.
I honestly have to laugh and how everyone made such a big deal out of the fact IE was bundled with windows and not something you could uninstall back in the day, the same with how so many things like MS messenger came in and enabled in windows. But no one is making a peep while google systematically does EXACTLY the same shit now. Every android phone forces you to hold a google account, now MS was never able to do that with windows for years because it was anti competitive but its OK for google right? Once google and apple did it, it was finally OK for MS to start doing it. How about issues like I cant even leave a review anymore with out creating a google plus profile, see what they did there? Want to do a whole bunch of things now days? Screw off, get a google plus profile, and oh even google talk / chat is now forcing you into google plus. How about all the phones that auto upload all your shit to google drive and plus?
The is no such thing as a single one thing you cannot do to in the case of a monopoly, the government will whenever they decide it is time go in a screw with you. Nevermind the fact it is their own lack of laws and poorly written ones that create these messes.
Right now Amazon is moving to secure as close to an online monopoly as anyone may ever have. It used to be Amazon fought tooth and nail to stop sales tax, but now that they are the big guy and have effectively eradicated almost all the major competition, oh guess what? They want a sales tax to make life hell on smaller players who cannot afford dedicated accountants for every state. And why do they want this? because they plan to grow into every state now, so they can no longer abuse the sales tax loophole, and god forbid anyone else be able to use the very loophole that helped them climb to the top to compete with them.
Damn near half these monopolies could be fixed if the government simply made a single law, any product supplier must offer the same prices to ANYONE who wants to buy their product and there can never be any EXCLUSIVE deals or kickbacks. Do that and bam, iTunes, Netflix, amazon, and half these other guys lose their competitive edge and power over the suppliers, and at the very same time the suppliers lose their power over smaller players or new innovators. Because everyone is on a level playing field for cost of products and services it comes down to service, and efficiency then.