Servers, Multiple

[Kellemora]

I think technically, the conglomeration known as Amazon is actually a few dozen separate businesses, and Amazon is more like the parent company who handles all the accounting for their subsidiaries.
I know from having books on Amazon, they are handled by a Amazon subsidiary company, and that is who our royalty checks come from. They have a different bank code for the deposits to my account, than lets say when I get other money from Amazon for something else like a bonus refund, etc.

[yogi]

Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational technology company focusing on e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.

I'm pretty sure they had to break things up to get around monopoly and antitrust laws. It's like Facebook being owned by Meta Platforms. One guy is running it all, but legally it's split into many pieces. My original comment that Jeff Bezos will be giving away all his assets is still valid, if what I read was true. Bezos can leave the company today, just like Gates left Microsoft, and Amazon will flourish as well as ever. The cash that Bezos would take with him is his do to with as he pleases.

[Kellemora]

Once a company crosses a certain size, very often the actual original owner no longer has much of any idea of what is going on there anymore. As the company grew, folks were hired to handle certain aspects of the business, and as long as the bottom line kept going up, they kept their jobs.

Heck, my uncle who owned a box company is an example of that. When he started the company, and alter bought out another company to expand, he reached a point where managers were handling the day to day operations, and they in turn taught the workers how to use the new machines. My uncle when taking me on a tour said, he don't even know how to turn on those new machines, but less how to use them.
Got something similar as an answer from one of the top dawgs at Vess soda company. He simply said, the way things are done today, if he had to start over, he wouldn't have the foggiest idea of how to get this type of business up and running from scratch.

[yogi]

I agree wholeheartedly about owners losing touch with operations when a business exceeds a certain size. There simply are too many details for a single person to absorb. That may or may not be a problem depending on what the founder had in mind for his dream company. Then there are cases such as the current fiasco with Elon Musk and Twitter. Musk obviously is an accomplished businessman with far reaching insights. He knows nothing about coding and social media, however. Putting a guy like that at the helm not only hurts the company but also casts aspersions upon the guy with power but no knowledge. It's one thing for a company to outgrow the founder's expectations, and quite another for an outsider to step in dumb as a rock and try to make things better.

[Kellemora]

I saw that when Chrysler went bankrupt and the government bailed them out and stuck Iacocca in there.
Personally, I think they should have just let it go completely bankrupt, and the government should have kept their mitts off.

You do know Musk hired back a few of those he fired, hi hi

[yogi]

I think true capitalism would work as you described the ideal outcome for Chrysler. There should be no outside intervention on the part of the government (with rare exception such as for public utilities), and all businesses should succeed or fail on their own merit. This attrition would cull out the inefficient and least creative businesses that are only a drag on the economy. Only the biggest and the best would be left to be competition free and have their own way with their captured markets. While they are at it, all laws regarding monopoly should be revoked as well. Great idea.

Twitter, and Musk at the helm, is still there as I write this. It remains to be seen for how long.

[Kellemora]

Hmm, I personally believe we NEED competition in the marketplace. A monopoly allows them to charge whatever they want and there would be little to anything you could do about it.

We already have many businesses that appear to be independent businesses, but are actually under the umbrella of a mega-business. Look at all of your food products that are technically owned by ConAgra as the parent company over them.
ConAgra is one of the reasons you cannot buy Chun King in some areas and only Chef Boy R De.
I hate Chef Boy R De, but always loved Chun King, so much so, I used to order from a company in California to ship to me from time to time. And many of the processing plants for canned goods, even though different names are on the cans, are now all the same product, sometimes with some minor modification to make each slightly different.
I learned that when one of my late wife's cousins worked at the Pizza making place just down from the JCCA.
They made and packaged over 30 different frozen pizza brands, and there was very little difference between them, but there was a minor difference with each though. Usually how much of each topping ingredient was used on each brand. And the tomato sauces all varied by a minor difference also, even though almost all of the were Hunts sauces with something else added to each for each brand.

A lot of businesses work that way also. Namely Appliances, which are a good example.

[yogi]

Small business and many medium sized businesses cannot compete with the likes of ConAgra, General Motors, and Ford.
Chrysler was the smallest of the big three automobile manufacturers and for whatever reasons they were failing.
The choices were to let them fail or to help them out.
Objecting to helping them out, or at a minimum objecting to who was put in charge of the surviving company, is a valid policy choice.
However, if Chrysler was not bailed out, they would not be in existence and their competition would have been eliminated.
You can't have both a hands off policy and competition in an economy such as ours.
If you choose the monopoly option, then it's pointless to have laws regulating them.

[Kellemora]

You have no idea how many auto companies (manufacturers) have come and gone, and or bought out by those who were growing in leaps and bounds.
Ford and Chevy both made great reliable cars, can't say the same for Chrysler's brands.
I'm sure another company would have arose to fill in the missing third conglomerate, had they let Chrysler go bankrupt.
Technically, the government had no business shoring up a failing private company, especially while they let all the others fail when a little help would have helped them get over the small hurdles they faced.

[yogi]

The federal government has a responsibility to protect the interests of the greater whole. That is to say, anything that would affect all the states of the union falls under the jurisdiction and responsibility of the federal government. You know, that is the definition of a federation. Chrysler was bailed out precisely because it was not one of those small custom car operations. It was a huge business employing thousands of workers and contributing billions of dollars to the economy in general. By comparison to GM and Ford, Chrysler was small potatoes but they were still large enough to have an impact on all the states and their economies. In principle the federal government had a right and a responsibility to preserve the Chrysler company, but in practice, as you no doubt can point out, there might be greater priorities. At the time it seemed like the right thing to do for the benefit of the general population.

[Kellemora]

Why didn't the government help AMC, who made some great cars. They were almost as huge as Chrysler at that time.
They could have also helped Gruman and a few others. Most of USPS fleet were Gruman, built to last, and most are still in use today. And what about all the military vehicles manufacturers, seems they would have helped them out too.

I often wonder why they chose to help Chrysler who's cars and brands were usually inferior to the other companies.

[yogi]

I often wonder why they chose to help Chrysler who's cars and brands were usually inferior to the other companies.

The criteria for giving subsidies to major corporations does not include biased opinions regarding their product. It's mostly an economic decision that evaluates the impact upon the entire country and international trade. Many foreign countries, notably China and Japan, subsidize their industries so that they can be competitive in the global market. That's one of the factors considered in the decision to bail out a company as large as Chrysler. Those other small operations you cite don't fit that criteria, and most didn't request nor need government help.

[Kellemora]

Or could it be because so many poly-TICK-ians had STOCK in Kryzler Korp. and they wanted to protect their investments?

[yogi]

Or could it be because so many poly-TICK-ians had STOCK in Kryzler Korp. and they wanted to protect their investments?

That could be a factor. However, it takes more than a few politicians to float a loan to a sinking corporation.

[Kellemora]

Seems I remember reading somewhere that like 85% of our Senate members held stock in the top three Pharmaceutical Companies, but only about 60% of House members.

Many years ago, something like 75% of all our poly-TICK-ians combined owned stock in IBM, this included local poly-TICK-ians too, from Ward Level on up.

In fact, I think they all have stock in the Blue Chip companies.

[yogi]

Trading equities such as stocks and bonds is quintessential capitalism, the basis of our economic success. I see nothing contrary to our traditions with politicians owning stocks, unless, of course, they take advantage of insider trading. That's a no no. But then, that's a no no for every citizen of this country.

[Kellemora]

Many Poly-TICK-ians are ON the Board of Directors of many large companies. Therefore they KNOW what is going on, and it is probably a loophole that alleviates them of being charged with Insider Trading.

[yogi]

Some of those so called Poly-TICK-ians got nailed recently for insider trading. After that there was an attempt to pass legislation forbidding Poly-TICK-ians from trading in equities while they are in office. The Republicans tanked that idea.

[Kellemora]

Of course they did, that's how almost all the poly-TICK-ians become millionaires while in office.

One question to ask is how did AOC, a poor lowly bartender get into office, couldn't even afford an apartment, and is now a millionaire herself?

[yogi]

It's interesting that you would questionn Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez yet never say a word about Lauren Boebert or Marjorie Taylor Greene. Fine upstanding Republicans those two are. LOL