Will the pandemic cause major shakeup of capitalist economies?

[studiot]

10 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Why would you think I was offended?

 

I can't seem to see a response/discussion to my answer to your thread question.

 

10 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Bet you a shilling your government subsidizes the water companies in addition to what they get from consumers. Usually it's for R&D, future technologies, better methods and practices, whatever. The US often lets the private companies only do the really profitable work, and it keeps the low-profit parts publicly funded. Our private prisons don't have to house certain inmates if they prove cost-ineffective.

I'll take your shilling.

The most unfortunate water privitisation is about the only one the Uk government does not subsidise.

Perhaps it is because they stole the resources in the first place, these were not the government's to sell off.

Edited July 26, 2021 by studiot

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

I'll take your shilling.

The most unfortunate water privitisation is about the only one the Uk government does not subsidise.

Perhaps it is because they stole the resources in the first place, these were not the government's to sell off.

So there are no areas in England or Wales that pose a distribution problem for private providers? Places where getting water to people costs more, but the residents overall can't afford private schemes?

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

I can't seem to see a response/discussion to my answer to your thread question.

That's because I didn't think one was required. I took it to mean you don't think his present situation will have any significant affect on how the world economy is organized. That's a valid position  and quite possibly correct, and it didn't seem to invite discussion. 

I did respond, if not directly, by pointing out that major changes had taken place in previous civilizations. In retrospect, historians can identify the events that led to a collapse, but the people - particularly the political leadership of the time, didn't see it coming.

I woud be happy to elaborate, argue, look for examples and discuss in detail, if you were so inclined.

[studiot]

11 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

So there are no areas in England or Wales that pose a distribution problem for private providers? Places where getting water to people costs more, but the residents overall can't afford private schemes?

 

I don't follow the question.

 

7 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I woud be happy to elaborate, argue, look for examples and discuss in detail, if you were so inclined.

Yes, I offered two examples suggesing that little, if anything, will change.

The fictional example is interesting because, although obviously contrived, it doe (IMHO) accurately mirror the behaviour of real people.

Essentially it involved the discovery/gift to humanity of a self powered matter replicator and the subsequent temporary upheavals as manufacturing collapsed.

But the punchline came about when one enterprising individual set up a business offering the service of operating a replicator for others.

After all if you are rich enough you don't drive your own car do you ?

[Peterkin]

28 minutes ago, studiot said:

Yes, I offered two examples suggesing that little, if anything, will change.

The pithy French saying is perfectly self-contained and doesn't invite discussion. It also, IMO, quite untrue as a description of societal conditions, though probably true of human nature.

28 minutes ago, studiot said:

The fictional example is interesting because, although obviously contrived, it doe (IMHO) accurately mirror the behaviour of real people.

I had not read it. I thought the point was in the title.

 

28 minutes ago, studiot said:

But the punchline came about when one enterprising individual set up a business offering the service of operating a replicator for others.

So, like, seven people in the world have jobs again? Until the rich people's money runs out or becomes worthless .... um, why hasn't it already? Why does this enterprising fellow, or anyone, even want a job?  I can't respond adequately unless I read the story to see what makes it plausible.

I notice a further incongruency with the present situation: in the story, something new and positive was added, while bifurcations in history tend to be marked by the loss of or threat to something vital, which altered the hominids' circumstances so that he had to adapt or relocate. That negative change sometimes comes suddenly, as a flood, or in increments, like the troubles that beset the Roma Empire during its long decline.

Edited July 26, 2021 by Peterkin
afterthought

[Phi for All]

40 minutes ago, studiot said:

I don't follow the question.

I'm not willing to give up my shilling.

In the US, when private providers take over public utilities, they often get subsidized for unprofitable circumstances. An ongoing argument with the TVA (government owned power provider) is that it should be sold to private interests, AND because the Tennessee Valley is a difficult area physically to reach with power lines, in order to continue to provide affordable service to the residents, those private interests want government subsidies as well to offset their added costs. So my bet is that somewhere along the line, some of your England & Wales water providers are getting some extra taxpayer funding because some folks are harder to reach but can't afford the added costs.

[Peterkin]

20 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I'm not willing to give up my shilling.

Yes, don't be in any hurry.

The newly created, privately owned, water and sewerage companies (WSCs) paid £7.6 billion for the regional water authorities. At the same time, the government assumed responsibility for the sector's total debts amounting to £5 billion and granted the WSCs a further £1.5 billion—a so-called "green dowry"—of public funds.

It's only wiki, but checkable by interested parties. Coming and going, the corporations get a sweetheart deal from a conservative government; coming and going, citizens get.... the usual. How the Ontario government gets around its subsidy to private electricity providers is through allowing them to pass their debt on to the consumer (of course there isn't a competing provider you can switch to!) plus a "delivery" charge (i.e. use of the infrastructure we paid for when it was a public utility and that we continue to pay for in their debt retirement item on the monthly bill)  and then, if the electric bills are too heavy for low-income consumers, the government sends them  a semiannual  pittance to offset the cost. The private provider risks nothing. 

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Yes, don't be in any hurry.

The newly created, privately owned, water and sewerage companies (WSCs) paid £7.6 billion for the regional water authorities. At the same time, the government assumed responsibility for the sector's total debts amounting to £5 billion and granted the WSCs a further £1.5 billion—a so-called "green dowry"—of public funds.

It's only wiki, but checkable by interested parties. Coming and going, the corporations get a sweetheart deal from a conservative government; coming and going, citizens get.... the usual. How the Ontario government gets around its subsidy to private electricity providers is through allowing them to pass their debt on to the consumer (of course there isn't a competing provider you can switch to!) plus a "delivery" charge (i.e. use of the infrastructure we paid for when it was a public utility and that we continue to pay for in their debt retirement item on the monthly bill)  and then, if the electric bills are too heavy for low-income consumers, the government sends them  a semiannual  pittance to offset the cost. The private provider risks nothing. 

Yes all the original privatisations were at bargain basement prices, some even below the usual stock value depression that is caused by suddenly dumping all that stock on the market.
So at that time the government of that day was effectively giving away public money.

Nevertheless those who bought the stock still had to stump up the price of the shares  - you say £7.6 bn for the water companies, some of which were public 'boards', some of which were private companies - and I see no reason to dispute that.

That is what happened with all the privitisations.

I also agree that later government subsidies in one form or another have been provided to most of the other privatisations, with perhaps only in a small way to the gas industry.
Rail, telecom, electricity, the post office, receive large subsidies which totally mitigate any gains from selling the family silver.

But to understand what is happening in the water industry you need to go a lot further back in history.
And , no, the industry has not received a penny in direct or indirect subsidies since privitisation.
This is because of the excessive profits have come from the captive 'regulator' allowing above inflation average price rises in almost every year since privatisation.
There is no such thing as a free market in our water industry.
The truly staggering increase in my annual water charges of £120 in  1987 to £1002 in 2021 gives witness to this.
 

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

I'm not willing to give up my shilling.

In the US, when private providers take over public utilities, they often get subsidized for unprofitable circumstances. An ongoing argument with the TVA (government owned power provider) is that it should be sold to private interests, AND because the Tennessee Valley is a difficult area physically to reach with power lines, in order to continue to provide affordable service to the residents, those private interests want government subsidies as well to offset their added costs. So my bet is that somewhere along the line, some of your England & Wales water providers are getting some extra taxpayer funding because some folks are harder to reach but can't afford the added costs.

 

I understand what you say and those circumstances and subsidies certainly apply to the other utilities I mentioned.

However in relation to water and sewage services, they do not.
 

Simply because everybody who historically needs to be connected is already connected.
And part of the responsibility and business of the water suppliers is to maintain the existing network.
So only new developments require new connections and perhaps additional sources of supply and/or disposal.
All such additions to the network is paid for by the eventual consumer (purchaser) of the new property, by way of the developer.
Neither public money nor water company money is expended.

I refer you to my statement to  Peterkin that we need to look back over the history and note that whilst overall it has achieved a clean and pretty reliable water supply, there have been many rogues cutting corners and ducking their responsibilities, to line their own pockets, along the way.

The other point I have made is that in the case of the other utilities, they were largely government owned.
In the particular case of the water industry they were not.
Which is why I said that the government sold off assets which were not theirs to sell.

What I don't see, as an answer to the question of this thread, is any probability that the coronavirus pandemic would return us to the circumstances that generated such an effective (water) industry.
This is a great shame as IMHO that social/financial/whatever model had so much to recommend it.

 

Edited July 26, 2021 by studiot

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

What I don't see, as an answer to the question of this thread, is any probability that the coronavirus pandemic would return us to the circumstances that generated such an effective (water) industry.

I don't either. Just an interesting diversion, following an example - one of many - wherein governments have abdicated their responsibility to the public and allowed private greed to prevail. When private greed (capitalism), from causes of its own making (like stock market crash, crunch, slump, contraction, retrenchment or whatever it's called) or an external one (like a viral infection) is in danger, the government is obligated to rescue it, because so much of the society's infrastructure and functioning has been entrusted to private enterprise that the failure of a few big corporations, interconnected as "the financial sector" is, could bring down the whole country's economy and cause wide-spread hardship, impoverishment, privation and death.

The central question, how many of these rescues can any particular government carry out before it's exhausted its assets, capabilities and credibility - and falls or is toppled. 

[Peterkin]

The other interesting factor, at least in Canada, is how a (not particularly adroit) Liberal government, having had to cope first with the long depredations and of the conservative administration it followed, then the (twice as long as initially predicted) pandemic, then the fallout from the pandemic and its dislocations, along with its international commitments, then the severely damaged business sectors and lost revenues, will recover.

One possibility is that it won't: that it will be knocked over a Republican wannabe riding a wave of public grievance he himself has whipped up, accompanied by a phalanx of racist, sexist, climate-change-denying, gun-toting regressed yahoos.  If he gets a majority, that Conservative leader may renege on every promise made to other countries, to the environment, to future generation, immigrants and workers of all kinds. 

What happens after that is unclear - except in it conspicuous ugliness.  

[studiot]

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I don't either. Just an interesting diversion, following an example - one of many - wherein governments have abdicated their responsibility to the public and allowed private greed to prevail. When private greed (capitalism), from causes of its own making (like stock market crash, crunch, slump, contraction, retrenchment or whatever it's called) or an external one (like a viral infection) is in danger, the government is obligated to rescue it, because so much of the society's infrastructure and functioning has been entrusted to private enterprise that the failure of a few big corporations, interconnected as "the financial sector" is, could bring down the whole country's economy and cause wide-spread hardship, impoverishment, privation and death.

The central question, how many of these rescues can any particular government carry out before it's exhausted its assets, capabilities and credibility - and falls or is toppled. 

 

You seem to make capitalism into a dirty word.

I do not see it that way.
Indeed the original growth of the water industry in the Uk is a shining example of how it should be done.

I see nothing intrinsically wrong in capitalism, profit, enterprise, entrepreneurialism and so forth.
They have many success stories to offer society in general.

Greed, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter, which should be guarded against especially when it lead either state or private organisations to disadvantage individuals. Sometimes this disadvantaging has been quite gross.

It is not only greed though, that poses a danger.

I think you put your finger on it in your opening post.

On 7/23/2021 at 3:39 PM, Peterkin said:

But it seems, something has changed. "Nobody wants to work anymore."

Although I would say that there has always been some faction with this idea.
And it was this that led to the downfall of Rome, more than anything else.
When Rome was in its full vigour of youth and early adulthood, the barbarians would never have stood a chance of defeating Rome.
In fact they never did, Rome defeated them at every turn.

But then how do you motivate a worker in a out of date factory screwing the wheel nuts onto a car he knows is rubbish and almost unsellable, due to penny pinching by the management ?

39 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

The other interesting factor, at least in Canada, is how a (not particularly adroit) Liberal government, having had to cope first with the long depredations and of the conservative administration it followed, then the (twice as long as initially predicted) pandemic, then the fallout from the pandemic and its dislocations, along with its international commitments, then the severely damaged business sectors and lost revenues, will recover.

One possibility is that it won't: that it will be knocked over a Republican wannabe riding a wave of public grievance he himself has whipped up, accompanied by a phalanx of racist, sexist, climate-change-denying, gun-toting regressed yahoos.  If he gets a majority, that Conservative leader may renege on every promise made to other countries, to the environment, to future generation, immigrants and workers of all kinds. 

What happens after that is unclear - except in it conspicuous ugliness.  

I have never like the party system.

I much prefer the pre party system they had in the original preparliamentary assembly, called the witan or wotan, depending upon how you want to spell it.

In conclusion in my opinion it is not capitalism that is the problem, it is moneterism and monetisation, which are visibly failed doctrines.

 

Edited July 26, 2021 by studiot

[Phi for All]

26 minutes ago, studiot said:

You seem to make capitalism into a dirty word.

I do not see it that way.
Indeed the original growth of the water industry in the Uk is a shining example of how it should be done.

I see nothing intrinsically wrong in capitalism, profit, enterprise, entrepreneurialism and so forth.
They have many success stories to offer society in general.

I think it becomes very dirty when misapplied, like most things. There's nothing wrong with reasonable ownership, whether private, public, or state.

I don't approve mixing the funding between them. If an enterprise is private, it shouldn't be getting public or state funding without an extremely good reason. Public programs should be as self-sufficient as possible, and not rely on private interests to accomplish their goals. 

My country was woefully underprepared for the pandemic. Part of the reason why We the People had no stockpile of PPE was because of how much We pay for things like roads. In Germany, when they put asphalt down on the Autobahn, they close that section off for 90 days to let the asphalt cure, so they don't have to fix it again for 10 years (it was that way here, when I was young). In the US today, the road crews are mostly private now, even in major cities, and we drive on the asphalt the day it's put down, which means it will need resurfacing in 2 years. 

Post-pandemic, I'd love to see People pick a few very important things (water, roads, education, healthcare, energy, internet, ?, ?) and nationalize them, transfer ownership to the People, and then work very hard to keep them free from private influences. I'd like to actually see capitalism thrive in a true free market, without subsidies and monopolistic practices. I think we've allowed too many capitalists to convince us to run non-profits and public institutions like businesses, to the detriment of all. Business is necessary, but it's not always the right tool or process for the job.

[SergUpstart]

Judging by how the S&P500 has been artificially dragged up since 2009, there will be serious shocks. The only question is when. Most likely, there will be a change of the leader of the capitalist economy from the United States to China.

[studiot]

28 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

There's nothing wrong with reasonable ownership, whether private, public, or state.

I am not sure what you mean by dividing ownership into these thre categories ?

28 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I think it becomes very dirty when misapplied, like most things.

Yes that is a point I was amkeing.

28 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I don't approve mixing the funding between them. If an enterprise is private, it shouldn't be getting public or state funding without an extremely good reason. Public programs should be as self-sufficient as possible, and not rely on private interests to accomplish their goals. 

Hard and fast rules like this are liable to lead to difficulties and many mean minded people use them to bash 'the other side'.

28 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Part of the reason why We the People had no stockpile of PPE was because of how much We pay for things like roads.

How much or how little ?

28 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

In Germany, when they put asphalt down on the Autobahn, they close that section off for 90 days to let the asphalt cure, so they don't have to fix it again for 10 years (it was that way here, when I was young). In the US today, the road crews are mostly private now, even in major cities, and we drive on the asphalt the day it's put down, which means it will need resurfacing in 2 years. 

I have never heard of this, so I will ask my friends in Germany if they know anything of this.

It is certainly nothing like British practice. British Standard asphalt is structurally driveable as soon as it is laid, but too hot for rubber tyres.
The first vehicles on it are water cooled rollers.
Perhaps you have misunderstood matters ?
As far as I know most german major highways have a concrete pavement (UK curing standard would be about 14 days but I have fixed damaged runways at Heathrow overnight with specially designed concrete)

However I do agree that service life is all to often far less than the design life of many things and that unscrupulous businesses exploit this.
But then, didn't America invent the throw-away culture ?

28 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Business is necessary, but it's not always the right tool or process for the job.

I agree 100% with this.

28 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Post-pandemic, I'd love to see People pick a few very important things (water, roads, education, healthcare, energy, internet, ?, ?) and nationalize them, transfer ownership to the People, and then work very hard to keep them free from private influences. I'd like to actually see capitalism thrive in a true free market, without subsidies and monopolistic practices. I think we've allowed too many capitalists to convince us to run non-profits and public institutions like businesses, to the detriment of all.

But rigid boundaries cause dissent and ill will. Far better to educate all fols to act for the general good of all as well as their own comfort.

I think that one needs to work on both sides of the divide to properly appreciate the differences.
I found it a great shock to move from the provider sector to the public sector, with its different emphases

Edited July 26, 2021 by studiot

[Peterkin]

5 hours ago, studiot said:

You seem to make capitalism into a dirty word.

I didn't make it. And I'm not using its as a dirty word, in the sense that capitalists have vilified socialism. But I do think it is a fatally flawed economic system, in that its survival depends on growth. Necessary growth on a finite medium means that when the nutrient runs out, the organism dies. An economic system that must necessarily keep growing on a single planet means that it will die when the planet is consumed. Unlike viruses or some plants, it cannot go dormant or store its seeds until more favourable conditions return. And when a planet's been trashed, they won't, anyway.  It could, in theory, emulate bacteria and slow its own growth when nutrients become scarce, but it doesn't do this voluntarily; the control has to come from outside. From revolution, natural catastrophe or strong government. 

 

5 hours ago, studiot said:

Indeed the original growth of the water industry in the Uk is a shining example of how it should be done.

Can you supply information on that? The earliest I found is this one, which isn't exactly shining on either private service providers or government. She attempts to present a fair view, though her sympathies lie with the water companies.  They and governments seem to have been acting at cross-purposes, each making some good and bad decisions, with the consumer paying the price of their muddles. 

5 hours ago, studiot said:

see nothing intrinsically wrong in capitalism, profit, enterprise, entrepreneurialism and so forth.

Just the one thing: debt. Capitalism runs on the need to take out getting more  than one put in. 

5 hours ago, studiot said:

Greed, on the other hand,

Unfortunately, it's on the same hand, 99% of the time.

Regulated - very tightly regulated, by an un-coercable, incorruptible authority - both hands would be able to survive, alongside the citizenry, considerably longer. But not indefinitely: slow consumption is still all one way, toward depletion and eventual exhaustion of the resource. 

5 hours ago, studiot said:

I think you put your finger on it in your opening post.

On second reading, I'm not quite sure how the two situation between present world economy and the late stages of the Roman Empire are related.

5 hours ago, studiot said:

In conclusion in my opinion it is not capitalism that is the problem, it is moneterism and monetisation, which are visibly failed doctrines

I don't see capitalism could have arisen without money. All its siblings came out of theories about money. I don't see how they can be separated.... without a major shake-up. Which is what I'm asking: Is it time for? (in your opinions.)

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I think it becomes very dirty when misapplied, like most things. There's nothing wrong with reasonable ownership, whether private, public, or state.

Capitalism doesn't run on ownership; it runs on investment. Profit without effort.

 

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Post-pandemic, I'd love to see People pick a few very important things (water, roads, education, healthcare, energy, internet, ?, ?) and nationalize them, transfer ownership to the People, and then work very hard to keep them free from private influences. I'd like to actually see capitalism thrive in a true free market, without subsidies and monopolistic practices. I think we've allowed too many capitalists to convince us to run non-profits and public institutions like businesses, to the detriment of all. Business is necessary, but it's not always the right tool or process for the job.

I've heard a very similar idea articulated very well. The author proposed a split economy: essentials in the public sector, where money has no role; luxuries in the private sector, where voluntary participants can buy, sell, compete and make profit. however, for that to be sustainable, all the natural resources would have to stay in the public sector, which would also regulate land use and waste management.

In the present political climate, anything like is obviously impossible. But a massive increase in nationalization, regulation and taxation might become possible, if things go sour enough. Too bad no change can take place without a whole lot of people and other living things suffering harm that was predictable and avoidable.   

Edited July 27, 2021 by Peterkin
change two words, add one

[TheVat]

Capitalism isn't dirty,  just amoral.   It's a purely economic system in search of a moral compass.  Absent that,  you get predatory capitalism and its stress on maximal worker exploitation,  tumor-like endless growth,  and cynical sneers for anything like ecological sustainability.   And if you go belly-up,  you're supposed to grin bravely and say "well,  that's the free market,  in its Darwinian glory."

Regulation, then,  is our attempt to impose some moral compass,  and not have a dog-eat-dog free-for-all.  (wow,  so many hyphens)  It's supposed to be a reminder that cooperation is as vital an element of human nature as competition. 

 

[Peterkin]

On the present scale, and with the present resource peaks, competition is unsustainable: it escalates to contention, hostility, confrontation, conflict and culminates in mega-death.  If we have a shot at survival, it's by means of co-operation.  We can resume competing, once the population figures stabilize around a reliable food supply.

[Sensei]

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Just the one thing: debt. Capitalism runs on the need to take out getting more  than one put in. 

Some sources inform that public debt of EU exceeded 100% GDP in Q1 2021:

https://www.google.com/search?q=public+debt+in+europe+2021

The situation is very similar all over the world:

https://www.google.com/search?q=japan+public+debt+to+gdp+ratio

Japan public debt was 235% of GDP in 2019, and 256% in 2020. (Wow!)

Now governments want to increase taxes to get these money back from ordinary people and enterprises (which will pass it on their customers and workers). At the same time they extraordinarily waste them on e.g. war equipment which ends up life on e.g.:

The equipment used in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria will also end up in such a graveyard. All your taxes went on (and now government debt)

Governments are "persuading" financial institutions to lend them money and banks do so. Have no other choice as e.g. rates of interest (which govs control) are the lowest in the history and bonds seem to be the best way to "invest" extra money from their point of view (i.e. more reliable than customer credit or enterprise credit).

Half-good if they are invested in something useful and longterm existing. But there is large amount of groups of interests behind politicians, supporting them to get to senate, parliament etc. (in US it requires 1m+ "investment") which they have to pay the bill later at office. Doing large infrastructural projects there is vast number of ways politicians, their families, their friends and friends of friends, groups of interests, can get rich and get a bit of chunk from a big pie called state budget..

Which department ever asked for less in following year than in previous? Because previous was too big to spend it all? No! They will spend everything to every penny and even exceed (and (ab)use on complete stupidities fearing to decrease year-by-year department's budged). Bottomless pit.

[Peterkin]

34 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Now governments want to increase taxes to get these money back from ordinary people and enterprises

Ordinary people, yes.  Ordinary enterprises, yes if they're still making any money. Mega corporations, which are making money, not so much; very rich people, not at all.

 

37 minutes ago, Sensei said:

At the same time they extraordinarily waste them on e.g. war equipment which ends up life on e.g.:

Oh, hey, all of that equipment is produced by corporations with big, juicy government contracts. By sheer coincidence, they also happen to be major campaign contributors and own a string of lobbyists.

 

40 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Governments are "persuading" financial institutions to lend them money and banks do so. Have no other choice as e.g. rates of interest (which govs control) are the lowest in the history and bonds seem to be the best way to "invest" extra money from their point of view (i.e. more reliable than customer credit or enterprise credit).

Aww, the poor banks! They've collected interest and interest on the interest for years already and are still in profit, when practically everyone else is broke. Do governments have to repay those debts? 

 

58 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Half-good if they are invested in something useful and longterm existing.

What, like their voters' health and education? Not a bad idea!  

[Sensei]

7 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Ordinary people, yes.  Ordinary enterprises, yes if they're still making any money. Mega corporations, which are making money, not so much; very rich people, not at all.

Don't believe in Forbes list and similar billionaire's lists too much. They take into account only what is public available i.e. current stock price.. Debts of the companies are often kept secret to not fear investors.. (regular people often do the same, have apartment and car, with 30y+ credit, but people around them have no idea it is all for credit and are jealous.. actually such person can have negative amount of money, if they would sell everything)

Do you believe Amazon is mega corporation? Right?

They were, quarter by quarter, losing money of investors doing retail selling business.. I have no idea how do they do it with such worldwide public recognition. Normal company, not listed on stock markets, would have to file for bankruptcy a long time ago..

They started earning money after they started AWS (aka "Amazon cloud"). 

I bet ya, if they have to choose business retail vs AWS, they would prefer cloud..

[iNow]

7 hours ago, Sensei said:

I bet ya, if they have to choose business retail vs AWS, they would prefer cloud.

Of course they would, but they don't have to choose. They're doing quite well in both sectors, even though revenue sources / profit margins are clearly biased toward AWS.