Is Amazon Lowering The Global Rate of Inflation? (businessinsider.com) 146
An anonymous reader quotes Business Insider:
Another investment bank analyst has signed on to the idea that the internet is holding down the rate of inflation. Bilal Hafeez, the global head of G10 FX strategy and head of EMEA research at Nomura, published two notes last month on whether the value of the dollar was being held down by Amazon and its ilk. In one note he called it "the Amazonization of inflation"... [O]nline commerce typified by Amazon is making the supply and distribution of goods so cheap that "Amazonisation" itself is now a deflationary force at a macro level, Hafeez argues. He writes: "While globalisation was the meme of the 2000s, this decade's has to be the 'Amazonisation' of commerce. Given the bulk of the cost of goods is distribution costs, Amazon's unique distribution model and widening range of products could impart a new disinflationary impulse on goods prices."
This idea is becoming more popular among analysts as the months roll by. Back in September 2016, we told you about the "Spotify problem," in an interview with HSBC's James Pomeroy. His theory is that the internet allows consumers to shop around and compare prices incredibly easily. It also substitutes cheap digital goods over more expensive physical ones. For instance, people stop paying £20 every month for a CD when they start paying £10 a month for endless music from Spotify. The result is that businesses are aggressively driving down their own prices because consumers simply won't go to the ones that charge more, and are no longer trapped into shopping in their own neighbourhoods. Sweden is so advanced as a digital economy that it may be importing its own deflation via digital shopping, Pomeroy argued.
This idea is becoming more popular among analysts as the months roll by. Back in September 2016, we told you about the "Spotify problem," in an interview with HSBC's James Pomeroy. His theory is that the internet allows consumers to shop around and compare prices incredibly easily. It also substitutes cheap digital goods over more expensive physical ones. For instance, people stop paying £20 every month for a CD when they start paying £10 a month for endless music from Spotify. The result is that businesses are aggressively driving down their own prices because consumers simply won't go to the ones that charge more, and are no longer trapped into shopping in their own neighbourhoods. Sweden is so advanced as a digital economy that it may be importing its own deflation via digital shopping, Pomeroy argued.
Is This the Forbes Web Site? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Economists are nerds too....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems wrong to call someone in such an unscientific and highly politicized field a nerd.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The PC put most mainframers out of work.
Not really. Despite the PC, the number of AS/400 and other "mainframes" continued to grow for years, and are still common today, especially at financial institutions.
Go to any job site, and type in "AS400". There are still plenty of opportunities available.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's like those last minute ticket websites. In the past, if you wanted a restaurant or a hotel room for a conference at the last minute, you could only phone round so many hotels. You might have a search strategy based on the distance from the venue or being close to a train line, but you had to take what was available and they would jack up the rates if they knew you were going for the conference rather than a holiday. With the website, you have the whole range of all hotels searched instantly and anonymo
Re: (Score:2)
That's one of the nastiest things I've ever read on slashdot. No, I'm not new here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on what factors you use (Score:4, Insightful)
It all depends on what factors you use to calculate inflation.
For merchandise possible to purchase via Amazon, Ebay or other similar large scale web source then it's holding down inflation since prices are severely pushed down. But for other merchandise like food and similar that don't do well on Amazon and Ebay then inflation can be quite different.
Re:Depends on what factors you use (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not really reduced inflation as much as it is removal of the parasitic layers between seller and end user.
Re:Depends on what factors you use (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not really reduced inflation as much as it is removal of the parasitic layers between seller and end user.
It is reduced inflation BECAUSE OF the removal of the parasitic layers between seller and end user.
Re: (Score:3)
It's increased efficiency, which produces downward pressure on prices that counters the normal upward inflationary pressure. But like all efficiency gains, it's limited.
I assume "amazonification" is just a buzzword. I expect the real improvements are in the logistics algorithms the entire industry uses.
Re: (Score:2)
It's increased efficiency, which produces downward pressure on prices that counters the normal upward inflationary pressure. But like all efficiency gains, it's limited.
Bingo, and it is only temporary. And importantly, those middlemen aren't "parasitic" as people say here; they do actually serve a very useful and very important purpose, which is why people pay them. To say otherwise is to have no clue how supply chain management works. Amazon is able to do away with intermediary companies and in-source their supply chain management instead, which is why they can lower the costs. On the down side, the barrier to entry into the retail business has been dramatically increased
The classic monopoly approach (Score:2, Troll)
Amazon is using the classic monopolist approach: sell at unbeatably low prices until you drive the competition out of business. At that point, with no competition you can raise your prices to whatever you like, and, with no competition, people have to pay.
1 ...
...
2
3. Profit!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The classic monopoly approach (Score:5, Informative)
1. Walmart isn't always the cheapest.
2. There are things that Walmart just plain doesn't sell. At least, not at their retail stores.
If you're buying something like an XBox One bundle, the console you'll get at Walmart is no different from the console you'll get from anyone else, so there's no reason to favor or avoid Walmart if you're buying one.
If you want a Denon or Yamaha home theater amp, you aren't going to be getting it from your local Walmart store AT ANY PRICE, because Walmart doesn't stock expensive niche items in retail stores at all, and is rarely price-competitive with Amazon when they have them online.
Likewise, the products sold at Walmart aren't necessarily identical in quality to seemingly-identical products sold elsewhere. For example, a TV manufacturer might have a model -- let's call it the "QZX65Y" -- that everyone at avsforum.com worships, and has 99% 5-star reviews everywhere from people who think it's the greatest TV, ever. That TV might wholesale for $520, and sell for $599 at stores like Best Buy. Now, let's scrutinize its seemingly-identical cousin, the "QZX65Y3" (sold only by Walmart). See, Walmart balked at the $520 wholesale price, and threatened to walk unless the manufacturer sold it to them for $507. But Walmart doesn't really care if their model is literally 100% identical, as long as it has the same advertised specs. So, the manufacturer grudgingly agrees to Walmart's lower wholesale price, then manufactures Walmart's run of TVs using cheaper, lower-binned backlight LEDs, and gives it a slightly different model number to avoid harming all the 5-star reviews the "real" model has gotten. Then Walmart advertises it for $589. On paper, the two look the same -- especially to a clueless consumer who doesn't even know what to look for. But if you put the two models side by side displaying uniform 50% gray, the "good" model might display a field of relatively consistent gray, while the "Walmart" model might have patches with a blue or yellow twinge, or slightly different brightness (because low-binned LEDs aren't guaranteed to be as consistent as high-binned LEDs).
Sadly, the same kind of "quality fade" can happen if, a year later, you go to some regional electronics chain (like Brandsmart in Florida) who sells mostly "last year's models, at rock-bottom prices". For the last manufacturing run or two of a given model, the manufacturer might just switch to low-binned LEDs so they can reduce the wholesale price and scrape up a few more buyers. The "good" stores won't buy the cost-reduced models anyway (they're waiting for next year's models), and by that point the manufacturer has piled up enough 5-star reviews for ANYONE who bitches about getting a late-version model with inferior low-binned LEDs to look like a wacky outlier. Companies like Linksys and Netgear do this so often, they've practically turned quality-fade into a performance art.
It happens. All the time. Every single manufacturer with models specific to Walmart does this. And it's not just TVs... a Lawn Boy or Toro lawnmower from Walmart might LOOK like the lawnmowers sold by more expensive stores, but if you scrutinize the model numbers, you'll see that they differ slightly. And if you tore down two seemingly-identical models (with slightly different model numbers) side by side, you'll find at least a few insidious differences, GUARANTEED. Maybe it's something as simple as polishing off the injection-molding burrs from the starter handle on the "good" model, while leaving them on the "Walmart" model. Or using stainless-steel screws on the "good" model, and cheaper galvanized screws on the "Walmart" model. Regardless, the differences are real, and they're there if you look hard enough for them.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon is using the classic monopolist approach
Amazon is nowhere close to a monopoly, and predatory pricing [wikipedia.org] only works when there are high barriers to entry. Online retailing has very few barriers to entry. Anyone can slap together a website and start selling stuff. The barriers are going down rather than up, as we move toward more secure online payments.
Re: (Score:3)
Think of someone picking onions. You could pick 1,000kg/hr. If you paid someone $100/hr to pick onions, that would only be adding 10 cents/kg. A person goes into the store to buy some onions, changing the price by 25cents/kg is not going to alter anyone's purchase plane.
Re: (Score:2)
If adding $0.25/kg wouldn't make a difference in anyone's purchases then why isn't it already that high?
The answer, by the way, is yes, it does. Maybe not you, maybe not anyone you know, maybe not even a statistically significant number of people -- but still a nonzero number of people, and enough for the price to be set accordingly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe deflation is occurring because businesses that Amazon.com is competing with are filing for bankruptcy protection or defaulting on loans because they're losing business to Amazon.
Loan defaults and bankruptcy makes "money" disappear and that is deflation.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Depends on what factors you use (Score:4, Interesting)
>Is Amazon Lowering The Global Rate of Inflation?
No, but Alibaba does. Amazon is all but a bug splat in comparison to Alibaba. The analyst who wrote the article does not see the elephant in the room.
While Alibaba is already really big with small importers in US, it is even bigger in developing countries.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd risk saying neither do.
Amazon does not operate even remotely of what you could call "worldwide". They are only big in Europe and the US, that's hardly enough to cause a "global deflation" rate.
Alibaba, are you talking about the "wholesale" alibaba that doesn't compete on the same market as Amazon, or are you talking about Aliexpress which sells little irrelevant things?
You see, online shopping needs a credit card. That's the default. The de facto standard. But that's not something everyone has. Just a f
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like the biggest hurdle for Amazon in other countries is that most other countries' parcel delivery systems are a total gamble as to whether or not your package (pick two):
A) arrives within one month
B) arrives without damage (physical drop/crush or water)
C) arrives at all
If amazon manages to figure out air delivery between warehouses (currently they're chartering two jets full time) and delivery services (they have their own fans/delivery employees in 5+ major cities in th
Re: (Score:2)
Doubt it. That's true only for international shipping. Most countries have a relatively developed post system that can deliver parcels. Especially to urban areas, where internet access is available. Sure, packages t
Re: Depends on what factors you use (Score:2)
Alibaba group as a whole, other than aliexpress, and wholesale, they have a dozen mammoth sized Chinese language marketplaces + Lazada + other wholesale marketplaces and on and on
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Remember kids, there is no inflation (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Different people have different priorities and perspectives, of course.
I enjoy cooking. Additionally, it's not like my non-cooking hours are filled to the brim with productive activities - I mean, here I am, posting on Slashdot for goodness sake! So "spending time" to do something like cooking is often a better use of resources than spending money to eat out, from my perspective.
And, when our family goes out to eat, it's considered a treat rather than a time-savings.
Re:Remember kids, there is no inflation (Score:5, Interesting)
I save time by cooking at home. If I were to eat out every meal, I'd be wasting a ton of time fighting through traffic and waiting in lines, three times a day. I'd also be getting sick because those restaurants are never perfect at hygiene. I've never had food poisoning from a meal I prepared at home, but when I eat out, it's a bit like rolling dice.
With a garden in my backyard, a lot of my food doesn't even need to be cooked -- cooking is a crutch for people eating tough store bought foods that aren't young, fresh, and tender like what I get out of my garden. Plus, I don't have to wait in any lines to "check out" from my garden "grocery store."
Next, I learned about composting my food wastes, which REALLY improves the cleanup efforts of stuff that used to take forever to cleanup manually. It is SO much easier to take my dirty cutting board outside and hose it off at high pressure over the woodchip compost pile than scrubbing it indoors where anything splashing ends up creating potential cross-contamination and more cleanup work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right for example
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jamie... [amazon.co.uk]
You can get to and from the restaurant in 15 minutes then? Realistically for the vast majority of people this is not the case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ignore the steadily rising cost of housing
Per square foot, housing is about the same as it was in 1980 in comparison to median wages. The main reason why housing is more expensive is that houses today are bigger.
The reason you hear a lot about high housing prices is that most journalists live in NYC, DC, SF, or LA, and those are all expensive housing markets. But they are outliers, not the norm.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This is part of the problem with the way inflation is measured. The fact that housing isn't inflating on a square-foot basis is irrelevant. Consumers are price-takers in the market, and if a bigger more expensive house is all the market supplies, then consumers are effectively faced with inflation. Cost per square foot is irrelevant, because you can't go down to the store and just buy the square footage you need.
Another way inflation is poorly measured is this whole business of throwing out certain goods
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
BS. I've done the math more than once. The cost per sq area has increased versus the average wage.
Re:Remember kids, there is no inflation (Score:4, Interesting)
I'll give you an example. My grandfather bought a house with 2.5 years of his income. The same house right now would take me 8 years income to purchase.
Re:Remember kids, there is no inflation (Score:4, Informative)
There are two main reasons why houses are so expensive today: because women don't stay at home anymore, families disposable income nearly doubled, but because you can't easily create more land, house prices nearly doubled from that alone, the rest of the difference in price can be easily be explained by the insanely low interest rates and ease of credit available today. Back when my grandfather bought his house, he couldn't get a bank loan, and had to ask a financier with a lot of cash to give him a loan with a signed and registered contract.
Re: (Score:2)
BS. I've done the math more than once.
Maybe you need a new calculator.
The cost per sq area has increased versus the average wage.
No it hasn't. [aei.org].
low inflation != low value of a dollar (Score:1)
TFS: the idea that the internet is holding down the rate of inflation. Bilal Hafeez, ... published two notes ... on whether the value of the dollar was being held down.
Confused dog is confused. Holding down the rate of inflation implies keeping the value of the dollar up.
Re: (Score:2)
The value of a dollar is what you can get for it. If you can't get as much for a dollar these days, it's inflation. If distribution systems become more efficient, or you can get better information about costs, you can get more for a dollar rather than less.
No (Score:5, Interesting)
Science and technology are lowering it. We are slowly going to have to face the fact that our economic and social models are obsolete. We will have to accept that not everyone needs to work and we are in an ocean of abundance, but forcing each other to operate as if it's the Bronze Age.
As usual, it's not the countless scientists and engineers that designed and built the machinery that allows this abundance, instead, we focus on one person who had nothing to do with it, and he gets all the credit.
Re: (Score:2)
As usual, it's not the countless scientists and engineers that designed and built the machinery that allows this abundance, instead, we focus on one person who had nothing to do with it, and he gets all the credit.
Science and technology are not a product of the ultra-wealthy and we need to shed the collective delusion that being wealthy is somehow correlated with generalized intelligence or an interest in progress. Technology, especially as a tool for saving labor, is most useful for those who can least afford labor and has done way more for improving the lives of commoners than the wealthy.
Their interest in it, nerdy exceptions like Musk aside, is focused on improving the productivity of their profit generating mach
Patents are obsolete. [Re:No] (Score:1)
Inventions happen whether there are wealthy patrons or not. Most inventions are not from "big labs", but rather either serendipity, or some technician trying to solve a specific problem for a specific product. I bet there would be more innovation if we didn't have a patent system. Smaller co's would be able to mix and match existing ideas without paying an arm and leg in royalties to conglomerates.
Re: is digital cheaper? where's the TCO study? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Very few people bought music on tape and kept it forever. They replaced their tapes with CDs, then their CDs with something else. So theoretically a CD would last a long time, but in actual use it doesn't. Also, very few people buy an iPod Touch (or an iPad?!) to listen to streaming music. They listen on some device they already own or are buying for another purpose, like a smartphone.
The impact on the economy is what the average person does, not what some nerd on Slashdot points out is technically poss
The inflation is in housing... (Score:2)
... the banks can used borrowed money to help you drive the price out of your reach. All that money saved on amazon is soaked up by interest payments on your house.
Then the market crashes, the banks get the houses, and hold them off the market until the next crop of suckers is ready to pay too much for fear of being left out.
Rinse, repeat.
That's not what's driving houses out of your reach (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:That's not what's driving houses out of your re (Score:5, Interesting)
Hello, baby boomer here...
I wish I could criticize your post beyond being a bit exaggerated...
There are huge numbers of boom-generation people hanging on to what remains of their work lives and careers by the last millimeter of their fingernails. Add to that the fact that there's no such thing as a "savings account" any more: The only way to not fall behind inflation (see paragraph below) is to "invest" in equity, bond and/or international markets. Those markets are gyrating madly and some who needed to see a bit of safety for their 10 year money bought into the real estate market. They hope to put their hard-earned savings into a material investment vehicle they could see (and not evaporate suddenly), that should at least keep up with inflation. Some of them bought into the explosive adjustable rate mortgages, having been lied to by the fuckheads selling those (IMHO) fraudulent loans. My wife and I bought a house (using our 30+ years of savings) for that reason, though we would never get sucked into such a sick excuse for a loan.
Now about inflation: I think I agree that easily shippable goods have experienced reduction of inflation due to the Amazons of the world. But let's not be confused about "inflation". My wife and I have experienced increases in the costs of stuff we cannot do without far far in excess of "inflation". These things are things that cannot be shipped from countries engaged in "the race to the bottom": Medical insurance, taxes (property, sales, etc.), communication (I am a developer, my wife is a psychologist. There is no business without it.) We are grateful that another source of monstrous and damaging inflation, education (also local and increasingly profit driven) is not killing us financially as it is so many others.
My observation is that inflation has developed a bimodal distribution: services that can only be acquired locally have a high inflation rate, while goods or services that can be globalized have a low inflation rate.
Bottom line: Some unwise boomers didn't save and may have taken advantage of the bullshit loans, which contributed to the meltdown; I suppose the temptation of a McMansion might be part of it. I pin blame for the meltdown on the lying thieving bankster fuck heads (if I believed in Hell, they belong there, they knew exactly what they were doing to their mark^H^H^H^Hcustomers). There are also "wise" boomers that have savings who are getting fucked over by the lack of any investment vehicles that can be trusted in less than 20 year time horizon.
You're kind of missing my point (Score:2)
I suppose there's a case to be made that the Boomers allowed the deregulation that made that kind of pension raiding possible, but well, there was just a Nobel prize given out for why people make bad decisions. For esoteric financial regulations it can be surprisingly hard to keep them intact, especially when you have multi-mi
Ignoring something rather important... (Score:4, Interesting)
For instance, people stop paying £20 every month for a CD when they start paying £10 a month for endless music from Spotify.
This assumes that people generally buy music monthly, and that the music costs a certain amount. It also assumes that the same selection is available on Spotify as in the record store.
When I buy music on a physical format, almost exclusively CD, it's almost always used. If it's not used it's because it's a new release and is not available used, and if my interests are not top-40 or top-100 then it's probably not available on Spotify either.
I'm going to hazard a guess that Spotify isn't displacing as much physical media or purchased media files as it is listeners of satellite radio and FM radio, where listeners got tired of excessive numbers of ads or of not getting enough of the music that they want, or of paying for stations that they don't listen to.
It's often commented that 80-90% of one's business comes from 10-20% of one's customers, the die-hard, repeat customers. Based on my own observations, with music this seems to hold true. Sales to the very occasional buyer of an album are not insignificant, but they're not as important as sales to those who feel that they are connoisseurs and make regular purchases. Those in the latter group are probably going to still buy, it's the casual buyers that will be lost to services.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty much in-line with my observation. Album-sales didn't really lose you to anything else because you didn't really buy albums to begin with.
Did Spotify replace regular broadcast radio for you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't new (Score:2)
Walmart has been having the same effect (one of many) since the mid 90s.
Why name this after Amazon?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell are you smoking?
Walmart is global. They're everywhere. They are HUGE in China.
Outside US, Amazon is tiny. In Asia they are just irrelevant.
You see, son, you think only USA and Europe matter. But you're wrong. Set foot in Asia and see where the future is.
Low inflation is bogus; only electronics dropping (Score:5, Interesting)
* Transit fares have gone up continuously; e.g. https://globalnews.ca/news/235... [globalnews.ca] And pennies have been withdrawn from circulation in Canada
*A new 1974 Ford Maverick, V8, automatic transmission cost under $4,000 in Canada, and probably around $3,000 US. Try getting a 2018 Ford Focus for under $20,000 today.
* Food prices have kept rising continuously
* Rents and housing getting unaffordable here in Toronto
* Cable bills keep shooting upwards, which is why "cord-cutting" is now a thing
* A new 50 inch plasma TV was $3,500 in 2007 dollars. Today a 50 inch LED TV can be had for $300
* A basic IBM PC with 640 KILObytes of ram, 10 MEGAbyte disk drive, and 320x200 siaplay CRT came in at around $5,000 in 1983 dollars. Today's $1,000 machines walk all over it.
Problem... you can't live in a PC or TV; you can't eat a PC or TV; you can't ride to work in a PC or TV. The upper or upper-middle class are better off today (what's left of the middle class, but that's another story).
Meanwhile. a lot of ordinary people, especially those in minimum wage jobs, have extreme difficulty paying for basic necessities. Is there an inflation index for necessities, i.e. food/shelter/clothing and transportation? And by transportation, I mean local stuff. A flight to Hawaii might cost less today, but the average person is more worried about commuting to work, and getting around town.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
amazon is not "significant" outside US...
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile. a lot of ordinary people, especially those in minimum wage jobs, have extreme difficulty paying for basic necessities. Is there an inflation index for necessities, i.e. food/shelter/clothing and transportation?
Sounds like a difficult figure to calculate, but you can look at percentage of spending. The lowest quartile [usda.gov] spend ~35% of their income on food and that's relatively stable. In 1992 [aaa.com] the AAA's driving cost gave a composite index of 38.8 cents/mile for 15k miles, which put into an inflation calculator is 67.9 cents in 2017 dollars while for 2017 [aaa.com] it's 56.6 cents. Basic clothing I didn't really find any great statistics for and is hard to separate from design and fashion clothes but labor costs [bls.gov] have been pretty
Re: (Score:2)
The price rise from $4,000 to $20,000 over 43 years is below 4%/year, and you're getting a somewhat better car. The focus is available in a rage of prices, from $13650 to $36995.
4% a year is not outrageously high, although it is excessive: should be zero.
Re: (Score:2)
The price rise from $4,000 to $20,000
The Ford Maverick ($4000 in 1974) was not an entry level car. It was a high performance car. The Ford Focus ($20,000 now) is an entry level car
To get a real comparison, you would need to determine what 2017 car is the equivalent to the 1974 Maverick. I don't know.
However, according to http://www.usinflationcalculat... [usinflatio...ulator.com] $4000 in 1974 would be almost $20,000 in 2017. I'm sure that whatever the equivalent 1974 car to the 2017 Focus was less than $4000.
Cars [Re:Low inflation is bogus; only electroni (Score:1)
Ford Maverick was a piece of junk, maintenance-wise. Most of today's cars are far more reliable than the 1970's, and thus I'm not sure it's an even compare. But I have noticed that minivan prices seem to either be dropping or staying below inflation for the last 20 years.
Another thing is, since cars last longer, most "low end" car shoppers buy used. It's value depreciates quickly the first few years. Today's 5 year old car is probably on par or better than the reliability of new cars of the 70's. Therefore,
Correction [Re:Cars [Re:Low inflation is bogus (Score:1)
Correction
Re: "It's value depreciates quickly the first few years" is supposed to go after "a new car is a bad deal..."
A capitalist class shell game (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Return on savings accounts: Abysmally low.
2. Have you seen a decent raise since the 80's? Not me... Not anyone I know. All decent raises happen at the C-level and above.
3. Have you noticed the price of housing, education and heath care are all skyrocketing? These are the essential things everyone needs. Will food be next?
4. What about that trend towards precarious employment (temps, gig work, etc.) have you been affected? Jobs are essential too.
5. All the stuff not required to live decently has not been inflating... (Well maybe except for cable TV, airline fares, and insurance).
6. Have you noticed the hyperbole in politics? This is a distraction to keep everyone from noticing the detrimental changes to society.
7. Have you noticed the government can't get anything done? Me too.
8. Have you noticed a trend to marginalize the rights of ordinary citizens? (Binding Arbitration, Non-compete agreements, Federal preemption)
9. Have you noticed a rise in hate groups, and religious zealotry, as well as attacks gay and transgender people? Hmmmm, this is like Germany in the 1930's.
Something nasty is bound to happen soon.
Re: (Score:2)
A savings account is one way a bank borrows money from its customers. When a bank can borrow huge amounts of money from the Fed at below 1%, why should it go through all the nuisance of dealing with a great many savings accounts and pay substantial interest on those accounts? This is entirely the government's fault.
The rising prices of housing, education, and health care are all the government's fault.
You yourself identify politics/government as a problem in (6), (7), and (8). If a problem is caused by gove
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon increases scale (Score:2)
Anytime the scale is increased and there is a competitor (both Walmart and the "competition" of all brick and mortar versus online are Amazon competitors), prices will be under pressure to stay low and can be kept that way in this case both by reduction in costs (no store fronts in prime locations) and by voluntary reduction in profit margins.
This is nothing new. If you look at what we have today versus 50 years ago from an absolute point of view instead of a relative to others of the same day point of view
Isn't this Capitalism? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
yes, except make-believe credit stolen from people who are rightfully owed it in the first place ...is more like inland piracy on a global basis.
(maxim of law, common law of the land paraphrase "he whose assets are at risk [for a loan] should receive the benefits thereof" www.dict.org "maxim", bouviers law dictionary)
actual capital...means something of substance. "Credit" is when you are short...you come back later and pay with gold (e.g. see clint eastwood preacher movie, i forget the title).
in this case,
Re: (Score:1)
basically, if it was actual capitalism theyd be paying us silver and gold coins...but, they are all bankrupt for over a century (world over).
so, they steal everyones credit, pool it together in "socialist" fashion so it is centrally-managed and they can purposely "inflate" as needed or "deflate" to force "full employment" etc. , and make everyone work for what is already legally and lawfully theirs. they just dont tell anyone that.
so, it is more like "they are all bankrupt, and refuse to pay their debts,
Inflation increasing cost of a basket of goods (Score:2)
It's not Amazon, ir's the removal of labor (Score:2)
What a lot of people aren't seeing is that Amazon is slowly working towards removing all of the overhead involved in distribution of goods. Eventually, Amazon's private air cargo service can pick up a few pallets of Chinese manufactured goods directly from a supplier it practically controls, ship them on their own carrier to their own warehouses, and eventually use their own delivery service to get them to your door. At every step in this process, they've removed overhead and labor form the process. The sup
QE (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
While technically correct, in the shorter term it takes markets a while to adjust. If the costs shrinks faster than the adjustment pace can absorb it, then lower costs can cause deflation or sub-part inflation.
I agree that austerity makes it worse, but we can't do massive government spending be