/biz/ - Business & Finance

not my problem

>>55891982
>should
you are clueless and will never make it

>>55891982
>Tax brakes
Anon I...

>>55892009
>A delivery service based on inputting requests on the internet

Yeah, the man is an Einstein/Newton/Tesla rolled into one. A visionary beyond human comprehension

>>55891982
>Tax brakes and paid zero taxes until they finally turned a profit

Duh, corporations only pay taxes off their profits, that's worlwide, and it's a fantastic thing.

>>55892019
Phone posting, no time for spell check and fixing mistakes anon

>>55892042

This lol

Let's say I start a business. The first year things are a bit rough and it loses $50k. Things are picking up the second year, but I still am about $20k in the hole. By the third year we're doing well and I turn a modest $5k profit. Fourth year things are really doing well and I make $50k.

So I should pay taxes on $50k in profits because I made $50k this last year right? But wait, looking at my business's P&L over longer than just a single tax season, I'm still negative $15k. My business hasn't actually made money again if you look at it for a period longer than just the last year.

I would be able to carry the losses from previous years forward and use them to offset profits in future tax returns (up to a point, the link is 14 years or something like that I thought). This is a perfectly legal and accepted accounting and tax practice. It's also perfectly fair, because it ensures you are accurately taxed for your business's actual profits and losses.

Amazon wasn't profitable for like the first 15 years they existed, because Bezos focused on reinvesting money back into the business and growing market share over paying dividends to shareholders. And that gamble paid off handsomely for him. If it was so obvious, how did he success at this while others didn't?

>>55892124
Amazon web services are his bread and butter and have been since their inception because of a ton of government contracts and subsidies. Not to mention he pays his factory workers and others nothing and then the tax payer pay for their food stamps and Medicaid. He didn’t succeed, he got major help and handouts for an obvious idea where his greed was rewarded. It’s the government and lobbyists picking the “winner.” Many such cases.

>>55892173
i can tell you're an autistic retard. you probably think going to college is mostly about getting a degree and not where you're supposed to make connections. you will never make it

>>55892198
>ad hominem attack

I guess I win the argument? Lol, seething scammers will seeth

>>55891982
just accept that jews own the economy and government, he WILL be rich because he's a jew end of story

>>55892173

For starters, any government contracts AWS won is because they were competing against other cloud services and were able to provide the best service at the lowest price. So I'm failing to see how this is a bad thing if Amazon and AWS is saving tax payers money by being better than their competitors.

I'm also failing to see how government contracts prop them up. The US government is just one of many, many of AWS customers. Sure they're a big one, but they'd be fine without those contracts too. It wasn't until more recently after AWS already blew up that they started winning these contracts. In typical fashion, the government is slow to adopt new technology and started the switch to cloud computing after much of the private sector did.

And why give out welfare and then complain when people use it lmao. Amazon pays well above minimum wage, but if you still don't think they pay enough, get rid of the welfare and let the market sort it out. Iron law of wages and whatnot. Amazon will be forced to pay more lest their workforce starve and die, then they have no employees to put the products in boxes and deliver them to customers and their business collapses.

>>55891982
Cool it with the antishabbos goyism

>>55892266
>AWS won is because they were competing against other cloud services

All hand picked winners with a history of government intervention and help to stabilize their “too big to fail” status

>Sure they're a big one, but they'd be fine without those contracts too.

LOL, No - see chart. Amazon would and should have long been split up, but because of hand outs and lobbyists, have will them into the position they’re currently in. These assholes had a 20 YEAR runway. 20 YEARS. Seems like a sound investment to me for a potential investor, lol

>Amazon pays well above minimum wage, but if you still don't think they pay enough, get rid of the welfare and let the market sort it out. Iron law of wages and whatnot.

Anon, I don’t know what to say except, Amazon shouldn’t exist in its current form. It should never have become this big. It’s a loser that failed up. No other company would have survived this long and it demoralizes at best and destroys at worst the principles of capitalism in the US

>>55892359
>Anon, I don’t know what to say except, Amazon shouldn’t exist in its current form.

The hundreds of millions of consumers who choose to shop at Amazon would seem to disagree with you. And they will continue to do business with Amazon as long as they maintain their lead over competitors in online retail, cloud hosting, etc. It's also pretty arrogant of you to assume you know better than all those people who willingly trade their dollars for products and services that Amazon provides, who are you to tell them they shouldn't be allowed to shop at Amazon as it exists currently? It's not like this is a high start up cost industry either, there are literally thousands of other online retailers out there besides Amazon and consumers have ample choice. The vast majority choose to shop at Amazon because it's among the best, or if not the best.

And I'm for real about the welfare. Either get rid of it, or stop whining when people use it as intended.

>>55891982
>Tax brakes and paid zero taxes until they finally turned a profit
>tax brakes

>>55892429
Bud, it’s a spelling mistake, lmao

You guys have no other arguments,rotflmao

>>55891982
>tax brakes

...

>>55892423
>People use it so it should exist

No really an argument, that sounds like communism. Just because Amazon was able to overreach and put countless others out of business because of insider and government connections doesn’t mean it should exist. People use it becuase it’s there, and it’s there because of borderline fraud. The trick to capitalism, you see, is to turn a profit so that you can pay employees and make investments in the growth of your company, eventually achieving market saturation if you are that lucky. That’s the natural growth cycle of a business, not this scammy, cooked book, insider connection nonsense. The system needs fixing, big time

>>55892443
>You guys have no other arguments,rotflmao
what arguments do you want to hear? You just want to ignore that Jeff is the 0.01 level IQ genius autistic workaholic who had the foresight and luck from the beginning to usher in a new age of commerce using technology to create genuine value in ways that was never possible? That he was never the ivory tower jewish rich guy smoking cigars that you were led to believe? That he's actually a perfect example of the american dream, an autistic white man with perseverance and passion for inventiveness. Yet he's constantly demonized and attacked by media and libtards as some preventative psyop incase he runs for political office? Take a gander at his life story he's a fucking brillant dude and holding a small amount of Amazon while growing it into one of the most large and important companies in the entire world. That's not "Greedy". He's not a useless fucking parasite like Zuckerberg, Soros, warren buffet, zuckerberg. He should be respected and praised not constantly attacked, yet you fell for the psyop congrats

>b ut bu bu you're a boot licker!!

watch this if you haven't already
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWRbTnE1PEM

>>55892124
>Amazon wasn't profitable for like the first 15 years they existed, because Bezos focused on reinvesting money back into the business and growing market share over paying dividends to shareholders. And that gamble paid off handsomely for him.
Yup. People forget he delayed gratification for a decade-plus to build Amazon into what it is today. Unlike everyone else.

If he's the only one doing it, then it can be classified as genius.

>>55892501
I’m not a particular fan of any of them (the billionaires you listed). But I don’t have time break down the why for each of them. You like Bezos, got it. I think he’s mostly a parasite that had one good idea and perverted a potential competitive
commercial space for other companies through handouts and insider dealings.

>>55892535
He paid himself handsomely from the start. The guys been a billionaire for 10+ years. He just delayed paying taxes and paying his employees because cronyism let him. He reinvested becuase he knew the fix was in

Alex Jones said he is a state asset and had all amazon prime deliveries funded by the state as the business wouldn’t be viable. He certainly acts like a state asset.

>gets items shipped to his door the same day he orders it
>YEFF BYEZOS GOT DA TU MUT MOONEY MAN.

Fucking ungrateful pampered first worlder. What do you think Congolese cobalt miners peeling away rocks with their bare fingertips thing about you commuting to your office job in your 50k car and bitching that your life is hard?? Fuck yourself

>>55892562
Yeah because Alex doesn’t understand baking shipping into the cost of goods. We order $1 items and pay $10 and are happy that shipping is free… nah you just paid $9 dumb nigger

>>55892585
>The world is unfair

Yea I know. Fixing the top of the food chain is the first step to making a better world for everyone. I agree workers around the world should be protected and paid properly

>>55892535

The funniest part too is now after Amazon you see investors jump on every unprofitable tech stock in the hopes that it will be the next Amazon.

>>55892489

Who did they put out of business lmao. I bought a computer case from NewEgg recently because their price was better than Amazon, I've bought from literally dozens of other retailers online over the last year. Like I said this isn't some kind of high startup cost industry like advanced silicon lithography where I can kind of understand that arguments for Intel being a monopoly, just as an example. This is online retail, anyone could start a storefront out of their garage with next to no money and try to take market share away from Amazon. The reason that Amazon sits at the top is because they're the best. Nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head, consumers give them money because they offer good (but not even always the lowest) prices and are very convenient and easy to do business with.

>>55891982
>He built the prototype for an obvious service that should exist when the internet boomed
if it was so obvious then why didn't you buy Amazon stock under $15?

>>55892124
His grandfather was an incredibly capable man with fantastic connections, who helped him get his government contracts, and basically raised him to become a big government contractor.

But if he was a dumbfuck, he wouldn't have made anything of those advantages. And we'd have 4-5 big global companies doing amazon-like services today.

>>55892712
>The reason that Amazon sits at the top is because they're the best.

…but they shouldn’t exist anon, that’s the whole point. They weathered the startup storm by getting into a government underground bunker

>>55892736
Lol, we’re not talking about me, but nice try. What’s in your portfolio anon?

>>55892712
>This is online retail, anyone could start a storefront out of their garage with next to no money and try to take market share away from Amazon.

Lol, you know better than that. Let me compete with a multi billion dollar company NOW. Hahaha scammers

>>55891982
Now you are getting it. We are the corporate states of America and our supply chains are just private companies by and large for exploitation.

That's America.
Trumps tax cuts made it even worse.
Both sides are so easy on the corporations. They and the people running them don't pay shit in taxes while their workers are on food stamps that we the tax payers pay for.
e.g. 40.2% of Coca-Cola's U.S. revenue comes from food stamps
Walmart, McDonald's among largest employers of SNAP, Medicaid recipients

>>55892826
Where’s our modern day trust buster anon. Break up and put these losers out of business.

>>55892771
>They weathered the startup storm by getting into a government underground bunker

This is Amazon we're talking about, not SpaceX or Tesla. You're just flat out wrong anon. Government only started giving Amazon and AWS contracts and money after they were already massively successful. And the other examples (carryforward losses which is a tax advantage every business and corporation uses, and welfare subsidizing wages, which again Walmart and everyone else benefits from) are just shit. Amazon didn't receive any subsidies or tax benefits that any other business couldn't have and didn't.

Jeff Bezos is a tool of hedge funds that short companies into bankruptcy, while they prop up AMZN's absurd stock price.

>>55893062
>Business that are too big to fail should in a capitalist society

We agree, then. Great. Stop printing away my money to pay for this garbage

Pay 1.5 million employees wages every month. Then you could talk.

>>55893335
>Maybe you shouldn’t have that many employees

>Maybe you shouldn’t be that big of a company

>Because Amazon exists in its current form, it should and it’s a net benefit

K

>>55892552
>The guys been a billionaire for 10+ years
Alot happened before he became a billionaire.
See pic.

>>55893489
I don’t get it. Is there somebody out there going, let’s take the Steve Jobs model of business. Normal people are too stupid to know what they want, so let’s make a business they never asked for, make them pay for it through subsidies and government contracts and then in 20-30 years the world will be better for it, even though the middle class will be totally broke/destroyed because of all these “great” ideas and money printing.

You’re all geniuses and your ideas are incredibly important, lol.

This is “captialism”. ROTFLMAO

>>55891982
He's in bed with hedge funds that kill his competition

>>55893638
found the original pic

hes poorer than he should be, hes been restrained by current era antitrust laws. He'd have been John D Rockefeller 100 years ago

also hating on Bezos or AMZN is a 100% sign of poorfaggot cope

>>55892712
>>Who did they put out of business lmao.
Look up how Amazon crushed Diapers.com. Basically, Amazon undercut the prices on diapers by selling them at a loss and subsidizing it with revenues from other parts of their business. They were able to sustain this for so long that Diapers.com had no choice but to either fold or be bought out by Amazon. So Amazon bought them out, shut them down, and then raised the prices on their diapers again. The end result of this is more monopolization, less competition, and higher prices. It's the exact opposite of what capitalism simps argued we would get from this system.

>>55892712
building an everything app or the everything store undermines the competition who cant build such platform
why do you think amazon and other big tech isbuying so many startups

>>55893690
There are antitrust laws for this very reason. Amazon should be broken up. It's a monopoly, simple as.

>>55893749
What do you think would happen if Amazon were broken up?

>>55891982

>>Amazon employees subsidized by the government

Amazon is owned by the government. It's a state socialist business, like nazi germany.

>>55893690

look at how many companies amazon has bought out in the past 15 years. Literally buying out and shutting down businesses.

2009 Obama internet tax, eBay and Paypal are hit hardest.

Amazon doesn't accept paypal.

You see, the U.S. government and several politicians are the owners of Amazon.

>>55893690
>Look up how Amazon crushed Diapers.com

I did. They bought the parent company of Diapers.com in 2010, and didn't shut down the site until 2017. Seems kind of silly to keep it open for 7 years if the goal is to shut down competitors, no? Generally when businesses do this, they buy the competitor and shut them down immediately. Seems like they shutting down Diapers.com had more to do with it being an unprofitable subsidiary that nobody knew or care about than anything else. You also ignore the other online retailers Amazon has purchased and continues to run, such as Woot and Zappos, presumably because they're profitable. If they wanted to shut down competing sites and drive traffic to Amazon.com, why do these subsidiaries even exist still?

>>55893690
>Basically, Amazon undercut the prices on diapers by selling them at a loss and subsidizing it with revenues from other parts of their business. They were able to sustain this for so long that Diapers.com had no choice but to either fold or be bought out by Amazon. So Amazon bought them out, shut them down, and then raised the prices on their diapers again.

Yeah, that's gonna be a big [citation needed] for me on that one bud. Care to post any proof of predatory pricing by Amazon? You won't, because if it existed that would be a slam dunk anti-trust case that would have already been brought by the DoJ or some faggy Euro government who's always on the lookout for opportunities to fine and take money from big US corporations.