Check your privileges

[Traitorfish]

And then they'll get another communist dictator to rule over them. Nice one, workers.

Do dictators not have necks, and the people lamp-posts?

 

[rah]

Perhaps. States really do need to do a better job of collecting sales tax on Amazon purchases and the like. But we will have to cope with the automated retail future sooner or later anyways.

At least Illinois finally figured it out. I'll admit that I liked it better when they didn't but it's about time.

 

[metalhead]

I suppose. I do find it hilarious that the federals are just getting around to laying the groundwork that would make states inhibiting the legality of automated vehicles on their roads illegal. Oh wait, that isn't hilarious and it isn't inevitable, it's something being intentionally done.

It's dormant commerce clause territory. Only now it's AI instead of mud flaps.

 

[Zelig]

Perhaps. States really do need to do a better job of collecting sales tax on Amazon purchases and the like. But we will have to cope with the automated retail future sooner or later anyways.

Amazon's raison d'être isn't really automation (automation naturally happens with smart employees), it's integration, with the goal of getting them a cut of all economic activity.

Amazon's New Customer

 

[metalhead]

I find it more akin to a slow-motion drug deal. They've been losing money for years undercutting the brick-and-mortar competition getting us all hooked, until the competition disappears and they become a de facto monopoly.

 

[Zelig]

Amazon isn't losing money in any meaningful way. They're essentially operating at break-even while funding massive investment into new markets.

Brick-and-mortar are a small, unimportant (to ) sliver of Amazon's competitors.

They haven't shown any indication of raising prices in markets where they already are the de facto monopolist.

 

[Berzerker]

I use amazon for quality stuff I cant get around here

 

[Farm Boy]

It's dormant commerce clause territory. Only now it's AI instead of mud flaps.

Oh posh. The decision is continuous and ongoing and for always the same reasons. It's dormant commerce clause territory because that's the wind, not because it's etched in stone. I could compromise as hard as windcarved, if you want.

 

[Hygro]

*sigh* And then it takes money from the same poor people when inflation kicks.

Ok, replace "raise taxes" with "borrow more money". You can't just keep borrowing money forever, eventually it will collapse.

So you think we can just borrow as much money as we want and there will be no consequences? It's amazing to me that you don't see a problem here.

We're not "borrowing money", we're printing dollars and then printing bonds and the selling the bonds for slightly less than the amount of dollars we print (interest is generally done by upfront discount eager than future payments), which are worth exactly their money value, ergo it's always accounting-profitable for institutions to trade in US debt.

Would you rather have a million dollars cash, of which it earns no interest and only 250k is federally insured, or would you rather own a million dollars in bonds, which earns interest and is completely federally insured?

 

[Zelig]

I think money is too fungible for people to easily grok the effects of UBI.

 

[Hygro]

I think the question is:

Is it more efficient to have a class of people free from work obligations have more time to make the best of themselves in a broader context than their bottom-end labor market than it is to rope those people into producing low quality (i.e. junk) with their time?

When the answer is financially yes, that's when we should provide UBI.

In different terms, having a class/ladder of full time ("professional") consumers is more valuable than having them be bad consumers, picking the wrong winners, fighting for the bottom rungs of jobs that produce what smarter consumers would always avoid.

 

[metalhead]

Amazon isn't losing money in any meaningful way. They're essentially operating at break-even while funding massive investment into new markets.

Brick-and-mortar are a small, unimportant (to ) sliver of Amazon's competitors.

They haven't shown any indication of raising prices in markets where they already are the de facto monopolist.

They aren't proftable either, and their current business is unlikely to become profitable any time soon. But that's the whole point - they aren't trying to be profitable, not yet. They are grabbing market share. The interesting thing to me is that it hasn't been established when they think they can turn the corner to profitability. Or IF they can.

I think big box stores are absolutely Amazon's competition. Amazon is basically the next iteration of the big box store. A huge part of what they are trying to do is to replace the need or desire for people to travel to actual stores to buy things. Whether they are "competitors" in terms of angling for the same pool of consumer dollars is kind of beside the point - Amazon is gearing their business towards replacing brick-and-mortar completely.

Oh posh. The decision is continuous and ongoing and for always the same reasons. It's dormant commerce clause territory because that's the wind, not because it's etched in stone. I could compromise as hard as windcarved, if you want.

Well, to be fair the mud flap logic makes sense, apart from what the constitution says. A patchwork of laws regarding self-driving trucks is not practicable, any more than 50 different mud flap regulations are. All that does is give all of the power to the state whose regulations one can follow that also follows all of the others. Or force stops at every border to switch out flaps. I guess that would be a boon to border rest-stop diners, but probably not particularly beneficial to the rest of us.

 

[Farm Boy]

All that does is give all of the power to the state whose regulations one can follow that also follows all of the others.

As if that's particularly novel. Just that one could, and so now generally is, decreeing this particular inappropriate.

I do agree that the goal would seem to be maximum cheap stuff. People will happily sluff off the tax of transportation basis to the degree they can.

 

[Zelig]

They aren't proftable either, and their current business is unlikely to become profitable any time soon. But that's the whole point - they aren't trying to be profitable, not yet. They are grabbing market share. The interesting thing to me is that it hasn't been established when they think they can turn the corner to profitability. Or IF they can.

I think big box stores are absolutely Amazon's competition. Amazon is basically the next iteration of the big box store. A huge part of what they are trying to do is to replace the need or desire for people to travel to actual stores to buy things. Whether they are "competitors" in terms of angling for the same pool of consumer dollars is kind of beside the point - Amazon is gearing their business towards replacing brick-and-mortar completely.

You should read the blog post I linked.

 

[Zkribbler]

We're not "borrowing money", we're printing dollars and then printing bonds and the selling the bonds for slightly less than the amount of dollars we print (interest is generally done by upfront discount eager than future payments), which are worth exactly their money value, ergo it's always accounting-profitable for institutions to trade in US debt.

Would you rather have a million dollars cash, of which it earns no interest and only 250k is federally insured, or would you rather own a million dollars in bonds, which earns interest and is completely federally insured?

What is a 'Bond'
A bond is a debt investment in which an investor loans money to an entity (typically corporate or governmental) which borrows the funds for a defined period of time at a variable or fixed interest rate. Bonds are used by companies, municipalities, states and sovereign governments to raise money and finance a variety of projects and activities. Owners of bonds are debtholders, or creditors, of the issuer.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bond.asp
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bond.asp

civver_764 said: ↑
. You can't just keep borrowing money forever, eventually it will collapse.

So you think we can just borrow as much money as we want and there will be no consequences? It's amazing to me that you don't see a problem here.

Sure you can.

If your borrowing rate is 3% and your return on investment is 6%, from where comes the collapse?

 

[Lexicus]

What is a 'Bond'
A bond is a debt investment in which an investor loans money to an entity (typically corporate or governmental) which borrows the funds for a defined period of time at a variable or fixed interest rate. Bonds are used by companies, municipalities, states and sovereign governments to raise money and finance a variety of projects and activities. Owners of bonds are debtholders, or creditors, of the issuer.

This is too basic. Hygro's description of US bond system was accurate - the federal government doesn't really "borrow" money, though I will accept that framing because it's accurate for some purposes. When the federal government issues bonds it's getting 'credit' that it already spent into the economy - the savings that 'finance' deficit spending are, in fact, spent into existence by the government before they are used to 'finance' the government's spending.