Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Victor Lazlo who wrote (119538)	3/6/2001 10:52:51 PM
From: manalagi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Victor: What Amazon is doing is not illegal. , although if a foreign company export its goods to the US below cost, it is called dumping, which is frowned by the US government. As far as your furniture illustration, I do not know how much the "price discrimination law" is enforced. While Glenn mentioned about the companies that went out of business and their employees were laid off due to Bezo tactics of selling a dollar bill for 90c, he did not mention about the billions of dollars that investors lost buying Amazon stock. Each person is responsible for his/her own investment decision: no hand holding nor being comforted by a support group.

To: Victor Lazlo who wrote (119538)	3/7/2001 1:28:56 AM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

They may sell below overall cost but many co's do this to gain advantage. It's not illegal in most cases. You did stae that this is not illegal in most cases. Actually, it is illegal in 42 out of the 50 US states. Wal-Mart had difficult with a variety of states when Wal-Mart offered their Pharmacy products below their cost driving out of business the independant pharmacys. Once they were gon, Wal-Mart would raise their prices. In Wal-Mart's defense, Wal-Mart sold ony a specific product below cost and made up for those losses with the selling of other products at a profit. Wal-Mart was able to self finance their promotion. This is not true with Amazon. And then there's the other approach- there's a big furniture chain in my area that advertises its "underprices" on all their lines. This chain is not selling their product at a loss. this is a marketing approach only with the idea of turning a profit. <i.So amzn is not the only one in this game. Amazon is the only one in their game. They are the only firm that has been able to sell merchandise at retail below cost for five full years. Not just some of their merchandise but all of their merchandise. There has never in US history been a firm that was awarded billions of dollars to sell merchandise below cost for half a decade. Good retailers can remain in business when a firm with which they compete sells below cost for a period of six months or a year. The competitor can only sell below cost for a short period of time to increase their compeitiyive position. We are talking five years here and Amazon still has no possiblity of profits in site. The smaller independants had profits prior to Amazon and now their services are no longer around. It is really sad. What even makes this firm worse, is the insiders have taken billions of dollars out of the company to put in their own pockets.So if Amazon loses three billion dollars over five years from operations (that is the correct figure by the way) and insiders profit billions of dollars from Amazon, some people have lost a great deal of money due to Amazon. The "some people" is the majority actually.