Amazon Watch Thread

[NoXion]

Fuck me. So if you had your own way, most large firms would in essence be shut down with their assets liquidated.

Because most workers INCLUDING ME would simply vote for a quick buck by being paid for liquidised assets, then fuck off to another job.

That doesn't speak too well of the large firms, now does it? That the people actually working at the coalface would rather sell it off and do something else?

If the people working there think it isn't worth salvaging, then oh well.

You're conflating a top down generalisation with individuals taking decisions.

No one is suggesting that someone who is under medical supervision, taking prescribed medicines, should suddenly stop taking those medicines just because "I said so" (when I didn't).

Individuals make decisions against the backdrop of general conditions. If the general conditions are shit, then it's more likely they will be just looking out for them and theirs instead of acting with integrity.

You implied that significant numbers of people taking insulin should be on a keto diet instead. Since you're not a dietician or a endrocrinologist, and neither have you cited any to support your claim, you have no basis whatsoever for making it.

 

[StakerOne]

That doesn't speak too well of the large firms, now does it? That the people actually working at the coalface would rather sell it off and do something else?

If the people working there think it isn't worth salvaging, then oh well.

If you dangle a carrot large enough in front of people, that's what they will do.

Governments can screw up centralised capitalism, but they won't be able to screw up decentralised capitalism.

So if you put 10x my wages in front of me, I would simply invest it into decentralised capitalism and move on.

 

[StakerOne]

Individuals make decisions against the backdrop of general conditions. If the general conditions are shit, then it's more likely they will be just looking out for them and theirs instead of acting with integrity.

You implied that significant numbers of people taking insulin should be on a keto diet instead. Since you're not a dietician or a endrocrinologist, and neither have you cited any to support your claim, you have no basis whatsoever for making it.

That's NOT the same as giving medical advice to an individual.

 

[NoXion]

If you dangle a carrot large enough in front of people, that's what they will do.

Governments can screw up centralised capitalism, but they won't be able to screw up decentralised capitalism.

So if you put 10x my wages in front of me, I would simply invest it into decentralised capitalism and move on.

Sounds like a great way to re-distribute wealth to me. I'm generally of the opinion that the world needs more carrots and fewer sticks. If some workers would rather take the money and do something else with it, then that's still going to be of more benefit than letting some billionaire piece of shit hoard it.

Decentralised capitalism can screw things up plenty without government help. You don't need some central authority telling people to cut corners and rip people off, when the profit motive will do that by itself just fine.

 

[StakerOne]

i don't think they would vote like that tbh. have you a couple of examples of where people have done this: i think you're speaking out of your arse again

Well fortunately, the people haven't voted for corporates like Amazon to be broken up and given to the workers as some form of "democratic control", so no I can't give you an example.

Have you ever heard of the saying "Never let your principles get in the way of doing the right thing." - I'm not defending such thinking but people always seriously weigh up what is the right thing to do and what is the best thing to do in their interests AND their family's interests.

If you put me in that situation, I'm going to seriously consider voting to sell the assets in order to re-invest the money elsewhere, if I believe that will bring me in more money than leaving it where it is.

 

[NoXion]

That's NOT the same as giving medical advice to an individual.

You made the claim that T2 diabetics would be better off on keto than taking insulin. You haven't supported this claim with anything but your word.

 

[StakerOne]

Sounds like a great way to re-distribute wealth to me. I'm generally of the opinion that the world needs more carrots and fewer sticks. If some workers would rather take the money and do something else with it, then that's still going to be of more benefit than letting some billionaire piece of shit hoard it.

Decentralised capitalism can screw things up plenty without government help. You don't need some central authority telling people to cut corners and rip people off, when the profit motive will do that by itself just fine.

At least you know the corners have been cut, with proof that it had been.

Can't say the same for centralised capitalism.

Centralised capitalism power allows for secrecy and plausable denial.

Decentralised capitalism (when done right) can have built logic that allows people to prove they've done things right.

 

[Pickman's model]

Well fortunately, the people haven't voted for corporates like Amazon to be broken up and given to the workers as some form of "democratic control", so no I can't give you an example.

Have you ever heard of the saying "Never let your principles get in the way of doing the right thing." - I'm not defending such thinking but people always seriously weigh up what is the right thing to do and what is the best thing to do in their interests AND their family's interests.

If you put me in that situation, I'm going to seriously consider voting to sell the assets in order to re-invest the money elsewhere, if I believe that will bring me in more money than leaving it where it is.

you see how you're moving the goalposts from your earlier 'the workers would vote to flog everything off' to 'the people haven't voted for corporates to be broken up and given to the workers'.

you really did fall down the stupid tree and smack your head on every branch

 

[StakerOne]

You made the claim that T2 diabetics would be better off on keto than taking insulin. You haven't supported this claim with anything but your word.

I feel a distburbance in the force where someone is going to start to mischaracterise my views.

Type 2 diabeties can be reversed with a good diet such keto and/or intermittent fasting ....

However, if someone is under medically supervised insulin, then that has to be balanced and managed, otherwise low blood sugar levels could cause problems.

It stands to reason, if someone has had their diabetes reversed, then they won't need insulin.

You can't reverse type 2 diabetes with insulin, you can only manage it.

I have been pre-diabetes and beat it using a keto diet combined with intermittent fasting.

That would involve eating a keto meal just once every other day.

 

[StakerOne]

you see how you're moving the goalposts from your earlier 'the workers would vote to flog everything off' to 'the people haven't voted for corporates to be broken up and given to the workers'.

you really did fall down the stupid tree and smack your head on every branch

You asked me for examples of where workers have voted to flog everything off.

Since they've never had the opportunity to do so, I can't give you examples.

I'd also like to point out, that the "socialisation" of the workplace or whatever you want to call it, isn't the only issue in a general election.

 

[NoXion]

I feel a distburbance in the force where someone is going to start to mischaracterise my views.

You originally said:

Insulin wouldnt be an issue if people got their blood sugars under control by going ketogenic for long enough to be fat adapted.

You can see that's quite a sweeping statement, made with no qualifications or caveats, and with nothing cited in support of it.

As for your personal experiences with keto meals and intermittent fasting, that's great as long as it works for you. But other people are going to have different needs and limitations that may well mean that what works for you won't work for them.

 

[StakerOne]

You originally said:



You can see that's quite a sweeping statement, made with no qualifications or caveats, and with nothing cited in support of it.

As for your personal experiences with keto meals and intermittent fasting, that's great as long as it works for you. But other people are going to have different needs and limitations that may well mean that what works for you won't work for them.

But still true never-the-less.

EDIT TO ADD: You're doing it again, conflating what I said about a general situaion, with the needs of individuals. That's not fair and I think you know that.

 

[NoXion]

But still true never-the-less.

EDIT TO ADD: You're doing it again, conflating what I said about a general situaion, with the needs of individuals. That's not fair and I think you know that.

True for you. The general situation is that medicine is a highly individualised science due to the complexity of the human organism as an individual, as well as that of the contexts within which it is found.

 

[cupid_stunt]

StakerOne, you have made about 30 posts on this thread in a little over 5 hours, I've seen you do similar on at least three other threads recently.

I think you need to get therapy for your obsessive disorder.

 

[StakerOne]

That doesn't speak too well of the large firms, now does it? That the people actually working at the coalface would rather sell it off and do something else?

If the people working there think it isn't worth salvaging, then oh well.

at the very least it should be run democratically by the workers as a collective

OK. Let's try this one again.

Let's assume that the workers didn't vote to flog the whole lot off and the workers took it on as a going concern.

Here's some honest questions.

1) Who is an Amazon worker? Does it include bosses?
2) What are the bosses entitled to? (By bosses, I mean anyone in management).
3) To what extend our unions involved?
4) How is it all protected from any future hostile government?
5)

A) Amazon became so big because it innovated. The capital required to innovate only came when Bezos floated the company pubically. That kind of money could have only come from it being listed. No one would have bought the shares without the expectation of profits.

B) Even with banks, even if the banks had put the money up, they would have wanted to see profits.

So my 5th question really is. Another reason why a company like Amazon has to make profits, is to repay loans for capital that was needed to innovate.

With "Workers democratisation" - how can that model be replicated and if it isn't to be replicated, then how would innovation be achieved?

Because the public absolutely loves a good bargain on Amazon, delivered to their door, normally within 24 hours.

 

[StakerOne]

True for you. The general situation is that medicine is a highly individualised science due to the complexity of the human organism as an individual, as well as that of the contexts within which it is found.

But my statement concerning the general population concerning type 2 diabetes is still correct.

If everyone were on a healthy diet in the first place, we wouldn't even know about type 2 diabetes as no one would have it.

 

[StakerOne]

StakerOne, you have made about 30 posts on this thread in a little over 5 hours, I've seen you do similar on at least three other threads recently.

I think you need to get therapy for your obsessive disorder.

Don't worry, I'm sure one day, you'll either find someone weak enough to control, or you might be tasked with the responsibility. Until then, you can fuck off, I'll do what I want on my day off work!

 

[NoXion]

But my statement concerning the general population concerning type 2 diabetes is still correct.

If everyone were on a healthy diet in the first place, we wouldn't even know about type 2 diabetes as no one would have it.

And if the profit motive didn't encourage capitalists to take the piss, there would be no need for union interventions or pesky regulations against such.

We must deal with the world as we find it, not as we wish it to be.

 

[Pickman's model]

OK. Let's try this one again.

Let's assume that the workers didn't vote to flog the whole lot off and the workers took it on as a going concern.

Here's some honest questions.

1) Who is an Amazon worker? Does it include bosses?
2) What are the bosses entitled to? (By bosses, I mean anyone in management).
3) To what extend our unions involved?
4) How is it all protected from any future hostile government?
5)

A) Amazon became so big because it innovated. The capital required to innovate only came when Bezos floated the company pubically. That kind of money could have only come from it being listed. No one would have bought the shares without the expectation of profits.

B) Even with banks, even if the banks had put the money up, they would have wanted to see profits.

So my 5th question really is. Another reason why a company like Amazon has to make profits, is to repay loans for capital that was needed to innovate.

With "Workers democratisation" - how can that model be replicated and if it isn't to be replicated, then how would innovation be achieved?

Because the public absolutely loves a good bargain on Amazon, delivered to their door, normally within 24 hours.

Tell me more about pubic floatation, that's the most interesting thing you've mentioned on this thread

 

[friedaweed]

Wow. This is proper bizarre.

Such a pleasant thread.

 

[StakerOne]

Tell me more about pubic floatation, that's the most interesting thing you've mentioned on this thread

Ahahaha - twat. So I didn't spot a typo, twice.

Public floatation can be good. It can be bad.

I don't like how in certain cases, especially in the United States, that it's all accessable to certain investors first. In the United States, it's accredited investors are judged by the net worth, which I find disgusting.

From the point of view of the entity that's floating, Amazon for example, it's a great way to raise serious amounts of money that's wanted or needed to invest in the company for innovation.

The public are buying shares. In effect they are taking on risk in the expectation of reward. The reward would be in the form of a higher share price and it could also be from dividends.

A shareholder does in general deserve profits because they've taken on risks. They've put their money on the line, in a leap of faith that the company will return profits, as opposed to going under.

I'm open minded. If you can convince me of a better way of doing things, that allows companies to raise the capital they need to innovate, then I'm all ears.

Remember, it's not just about whether they or can't raise money, it's also about how much.

Bezos needed an awful lot to get off the ground. People had faith in him and took the risk.

Risk has to be rewarded or people will stop taking the risks and if that happens, where's the capital going to come from given that a bank or even the state, wouldn't have the faith that people do.

People want to make money, therefore they use their time to research people like Bezos.

Banks, while they want to make money, who at a bank would be willing to quantify the risk, when all they have is other people's money to risk their own career against?

If you want to replace once system of doing things with the other, the devil is in the detail.

 

[Pickman's model]

Ahahaha - twat. So I didn't spot a typo, twice.

Public floatation can be good. It can be bad.

I don't like how in certain cases, especially in the United States, that it's all accessable to certain investors first. In the United States, it's accredited investors are judged by the net worth, which I find disgusting.

From the point of view of the entity that's floating, Amazon for example, it's a great way to raise serious amounts of money that's wanted or needed to invest in the company for innovation.

The public are buying shares. In effect they are taking on risk in the expectation of reward. The reward would be in the form of a higher share price and it could also be from dividends.

A shareholder does in general deserve profits because they've taken on risks. They've put their money on the line, in a leap of faith that the company will return profits, as opposed to going under.

I'm open minded. If you can convince me of a better way of doing things, that allows companies to raise the capital they need to innovate, then I'm all ears.

Remember, it's not just about whether they or can't raise money, it's also about how much.

Bezos needed an awful lot to get off the ground. People had faith in him and took the risk.

Risk has to be rewarded or people will stop taking the risks and if that happens, where's the capital going to come from given that a bank or even the state, wouldn't have the faith that people do.

People want to make money, therefore they use their time to research people like Bezos.

Banks, while they want to make money, who at a bank would be willing to quantify the risk, when all they have is other people's money to risk their own career against?

If you want to replace once system of doing things with the other, the devil is in the detail.

Where you're going wrong is assuming companies and profits and capitalism are natural. But if risk has to be rewarded why aren't eg people who climb dangerous mountains paid? People who do other dangerous things? Soldiers? Your definition of risk is really strange, any risk bezos ran is now decades in the past yet he's still coining it in and you're in the sidelines going 'good luck to the plucky risk taker' when however you look at it he's nothing of the sort

 

[StakerOne]

Where you're going wrong is assuming companies and profits and capitalism are natural. But if risk has to be rewarded why aren't eg people who climb dangerous mountains paid? People who do other dangerous things? Soldiers? Your definition of risk is really strange, any risk bezos ran is now decades in the past yet he's still coining it in and you're in the sidelines going 'good luck to the plucky risk taker' when however you look at it he's nothing of the sort

Risk has to be rewarded, because if it wasn't there would be no incentive for them to risk the money in the first place

You're the one is all so idelogical over this. I'm not precious about shareholders / investors.

I've told you why they exist. You can critisize all you want. What have you got that is better that would allow a company or workers collective to raise the capital they need to innovate?

 

[NoXion]

Oh no, Jeffy B might not have become a billionaire, what a risk he took.

 

[StakerOne]

Oh no, Jeffy B might not have become a billionaire, what a risk he took.

I haven't mentioned Bezos and his risks. I was focused on shareholders.

There's going to a lot of normal folk out there with pension funds exposed to Amazon and loads of other corporates like it.

You can argue that private pensions are bad, but wish normal people using them to retire, to be set back to square one with the pensions wiped out. That's evil.

 

[StakerOne]

But if risk has to be rewarded why aren't eg people who climb dangerous mountains paid?

Because they're typically middle class twats that are absolutely loaded with money they stole from wealth generators.

 

[NoXion]

I haven't mentioned Bezos and his risks. I was focused on shareholders.

There's going to a lot of normal folk out there with pension funds exposed to Amazon and loads of other corporates like it.

You can argue that private pensions are bad, but wish normal people using them to retire, to be set back to square one with the pensions wiped out. That's evil.

Ah, so it's ordinary people who'd like to retire one day who are bearing the burden of risk so that a select few can become obscenely wealthy. That makes it worse, by the way.

 

[Pickman's model]

Because they're typically middle class twats that are absolutely loaded with money they stole from wealth generators.

And obvs bezos is a horny handed son of toil

 

[StakerOne]

Ah, so it's ordinary people who'd like to retire one day who are bearing the burden of risk so that a select few can become obscenely wealthy. That makes it worse, by the way.

Nope.

If you ask an investor why they are investing, it's typically because the company being floated, needs the capital to build infrastructure to innovate and automate.

Many people who work for Amazon today, would not be working for them, had that company not floated.

You keep trying to (badly) bring focus away to Jeff Bezos, because you know that without the capital being raised, the company could not have been succesful.

I'm open minded enough to know you have a point. Are you open minded enough to know that I also have one?

Workers collectives are no bad thing. But very few have been scaled because they can't rely on the kind of capital investment that comes with a public listing. Instead they have to go cap in hand to people who more risk adverse.

That's a problem? What are your answers? Because if you have no answers, destroying the "competition" isn't going to work because it's an injustice against those people (especially the low wealth ones) who risked what they had on companeis like Amazon.

I'm not an enemy of workers collectives, in fact I'm an allie.

But the answer to companies like Amazon is decentralised workers collectives in the form of DAOs, where the rules dictate that the workers maintain a voting majority, while still allowing for investment from third parties that allows the collective to raise capital to innovate and disrupte traditional markets, thus (hopefully) attracting even more liquidity from people selling their Amazon shares, jumping ship.

Decentralised blockchains. Where everyone can have their cake and eat it. Workers. Investors. Borrowers. Lenders. The lot.

 

[cupid_stunt]

Decentralised blockchains. Where everyone can have their cake and eat it. Workers. Investors. Borrowers. Lenders. The lot.