Hacker News Reader

Comment by dlivingston | Hacker News Reader

I would argue that it's the fault of the consumer, not Amazon. Amazon simply provides a centralized place to 'consume' - it does not (in most cases) manufacture goods, it simply consolidates goods into one place.

Let's flip your argument on its head.

If Amazon only had three customers, would they be enabling wasteful consumerism? If so, why? If so, wouldn't literally every online or offline marketplace be enabling wasteful consumerism?

If not, why? How many customers / year need to visit before they become the monster you claim? Or is it a gradient? If so, then what is their responsibility - to only let a certain threshold of people purchase goods every year, and turn the rest of consumers away?

View on HN

It takes two (or more) to tango. It's everyone's fault.

I think that commenters here are thinking far too narrowly.

If I, as a consumer, have $XXX disposable income, then I am going to spend it on A, B, and C. If Amazon lowers the prices of goods, then I am going to spend it on A, B, C, and D.

If Amazon, as a company, is interested in maximizing profits (which: duh), they are going to do that in one of two ways. Either they increase the cost of goods, leaving them less competitive to Walmart et al., or they increase their profit margins by minimizing other factors in the supply chain / company.

Both groups are behaving exactly as one would predict, and exactly how you or I would behave as consumers or as CEO of Amazon.

To say "it's everyone's fault" is ignoring the intrinsic human nature of consumers and the intrinsic Darwinian survival mechanisms via profit maximization of Amazon.

The working class should not be solely responsible for combating climate change. But at the same time, Amazon (and all corporations) are responsible to their shareholders, i.e. to give them a return on their investment. It's the shareholder/investment class that has power to change how companies operate to benefit the planet, but that could potentially lower profits and give competitors an advantage.

Agreed 100%. Unfortunately, environmental responsibility seems to have no intrinsic value on Wall St, outside of it becoming a part of branding like in the case of Apple.

> If so, then what is their responsibility

Pay taxes. Pay all employees a living wage. End toxic practices and policies. Don't undercut your sellers or engage in price fixing.

That is off-topic, except for your last point, to the discussion of their role of contributing to "wasteful consumerism".

No, it's not off-topic. They drive prices down through ruthless profiteering, by treating the wellbeing of society and employees as zero-cost externalities. They wouldn't be able to offer the prices they do, without the rapacious business practices. And those prices directly contribute to wasteful consumerism.