Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
For investors to win someone else has to lose.
Amazon Watch Thread
- Thread starter Marty1
- Start date
What's your view on Amazon Web Services?
Because that's where most of the profits are coming from.
AWS: Powering the Internet and Amazon’s Profits
Should AWS be broken up? Do we have countless stories of exploitation from system engineers, most of which are probably just contractors?
Should we endlessly naval gaze over an industry ripe for disruption from decentralisation?
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
He's in cloud cuckoo land
Really? Without investors there's no capital to play with in the first place.
Amazon is the topic, not me. Stay on topic.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
You're the only person here suggesting breaking it up.
cupid_stunt
Chief seagull hater & farmerbarleymow's nemesis.
Is that hosted by Amazon Web Services?
I'll entertain your pedantry.
Do you suggest that Amazon AWS be put in the hands of it's workers?
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
People don't just throw around big sums of money for the kind of bland reason you state. All floated companies need capital, that's why they get floated in the first place. There has to be a reason for Company A instead of Company B. It might be because the investor is convinced of the expectation of a return. Or might be because the investor really wants to try and bring a particular product and/or service to market. They're not doing it out of a sense of duty.
So what? They'd be working for someone else instead, because they have to work if they want to keep paying their bills. That's the reality of life under capitalism for most people.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Fuck Amazon.
I don't want to "destroy the competition", because I'm not looking to have Amazon replaced with something else in the capitalist market. I want to abolish capitalism and democratise the means of production. That way people wouldn't have to rely on the trickle of wealth dribbled their way by the stock market in order not to live their golden years in total penury.
Your question pre-supposes that infrastructural development requires borrowing in the first place. If the means of production are controlled democratically, then resources can directed as needed without having to "borrow" anything.
That's what I've said about fucking 8 times already.
Now can you answer this simple fucking question before I put you on ignore for being a moaning red with no answers for fucking anything.
Where can a company expect to raise serious captial if not from people buying shares as part of a public listing, in your world of rainbows and unicorns?
Absolute complete fucking horseshite obsucated by the fact you haven't even explained what your verson of "controlled democratically" even means.
If you are talking about inter-industry resources, then none of that can be done in an efficent and non-corrupt way, without implementing some kind of blockchain technology, to ensure resources aren't stolen from point A to point B.
Beacause the reality is, as ever tried before, in communism, whistleblowers are simply lined up against the wall and shot as "traitors to workers" or some other trumped up charges.
If the workers in my company wants to expand the company, what if it's not in Chairperson's NoXion's fucking interests?
Yeah but fucking no. All that happens under your shitty political dogma, is millions starve because the workers don't end up in control of the means of production.
Who else did the money go to for it to dribble back?
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
Mate, I'm one of the very few people on this forum who chooses to actively engage with your posts. If you start putting folks here on ignore, then you're going to end up pretty lonely.
You're literally asking how capital would be raised in a non-capitalist economy. You might as well ask how a tyrant can run a country democratically.
Why do I need to explain the details of the decision-making process when I'm using the terms in their conventional sense? You know what "control" and "democracy" mean, yes?
Maybe, maybe not. That's for the founders of the new society to determine.
Aw cute, you're back on the Soviet re-enactment again. Did you bring your peaked Commissar's cap and badge? My liberty cap is at the dry cleaners.
Into the net worth of rich fucks like Bezos, according to you.
Serge Forward
Just enjoyin' my coffee.
Oh for fuck sake, it's that Stalker cunt sitting all over another thread.
cupid_stunt
Chief seagull hater & farmerbarleymow's nemesis.
Serge Forward
Just enjoyin' my coffee.
Aye, it might be a laff winding up the troll, but it just makes every thread he's on unreadable and nauseating. If I wanted to read his kind of shit, I'd be on that Twitter bollocks.
I'm not asking just that.
You would at least conceed that capital is raised so a company can use that money to invest in it's own infrastructure so it can innovate.
I'm asking for a viable alternative, because I'm genuinely open minded.
To understand you better.
Warehouse A makes shoes.
Warehouse B makes computers.
Who exactly owns warehouse A?
Who exactly owns warehouse B?
I know this it a boring and tedious, but my fear is that if we aren't asking people to put their money where their mouth is, who do we blame if it becomes obvious that resources being diverted aren't for anyone's good, other than the corrupt?
Where's all the safeguards in all of this? What's the dynamics of it all?
I'm not a troll. Seriously I'm not.
I'm quite open minded about workers collectives, but there are reasons why they haven't scaled and it would be quite nice to overcome those reasons.
Serge Forward
Just enjoyin' my coffee.
Just fuck off.
Because rules must come from the top down, not from the bottom up?
Your mask is slipping my cute little tyrant in waiting.
Edit to add - you may laugh, but by the "founders", you are reffering to, are those who risked the most in the revolution that seized enought enough power to be rewarded.
cupid_stunt
Chief seagull hater & farmerbarleymow's nemesis.
I suspect you'll be fucked off soon enough.
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
We've got a whole subforum here for that kind of stuff. The other regulars are getting annoyed with the extended derailment of this thread, and out of respect for them I will make this my last response to you on this thread. If you want to continue this elsewhere, perhaps in a thread dedicated to the purpose, then you should know what to do.
Maybe, maybe not. But if I was, it would confirm everything I believe about corrupt centralised power, shutting up people up because what they have to say is just too inconvienient.
That's the thing about communism. Why reason with people, if you don't need to persuade them?
I've fucking brought back to Amazon loads of times, while you banged on about my views on diabetes.
Because Bezos is a shareholder, along with pension firms and countless other individuals.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
It's not pedantry to say you're the only person saying something. I suppose that amazon aws is different from aws
Last edited:
krtek a houby
Anger is Hi-NRG
What does "woke" mean and why do you keep using it?
For goodness sake. You know full true well if I just said AWS, a lot of people wouldn't know we're talking about an Amazon product.
Amazon Web Sevices.
Happy now?
Similar threads
