Discussion
  • Read More
    AnarchyOfTasteHamilton Nolan
    5/28/15 12:44pm

    You work for an on-line news aggregate.

    You are criticizing an on-line retailer aggregate.

    Amazon is to stores, what Gawker is to a newspaper. You should stick to your principles and quit. You know so much about the economy, I’m sure the NYT will pick you up for a weekly column.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Ned FreyAnarchyOfTaste
      5/28/15 1:10pm

      Because you are implicitly criticizing the business of on-line news aggregation, perhaps you should consider quitting the posting on-line comments.

      Perhaps you could write letters to the editor of a news-paper instead.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      AnarchyOfTasteNed Frey
      5/28/15 1:54pm

      Because you are implicitly criticizing the business of on-line news aggregation,

      Where did I do that? In no way could you possibly have read “AnarchyofTaste is criticizing on-line news aggregation” from what I wrote above.

      I happen to love on-line news aggregators. I also love on-line retail aggregators.

      The only thing I’m criticizing here is Hamno’s intellect. Since this is his article, I figured this would be the best place to do it.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Freddie DeBoerHamilton Nolan
    5/28/15 12:38pm

    We’ve got three Amazon Stores here at Purdue— all bizarrely within about a square mile of each other. It seems like they’ve given away their infrastructure advantage: they have physical facilities they have to maintain and a staff of people just hanging around getting paid. Of course, given the contemporary university, I’m guessing Amazon found some way to con Purdue into paying for most of it.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      dothedewFreddie DeBoer
      5/28/15 12:41pm

      Is this for real? Amazon actually does have physical stores?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Freddie DeBoerdothedew
      5/28/15 1:26pm

      Yes. I’ve been inside them several times.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    ObliteratiHamilton Nolan
    5/28/15 12:31pm

    Yeah, but with Amazon I don’t have to wear pants. Just try doing that at Target, I can tell you from experience they are totally not chill about it.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      DocSupremeObliterati
      5/28/15 12:35pm

      With Amazon I also don’t have to be hassled for 5 minutes as I’m trying to check out by the cashier trying desperately to get me to sign up for the store credit card or trying to get me to buy insurance for a $30 game controller. Fuck retail stores.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      dothedewObliterati
      5/28/15 12:41pm

      I think Walmart is ok with it though.

      And if not, there is always Kmart. They won’t turn anyone away.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    tito_swinefluHamilton Nolan
    5/28/15 12:42pm

    Carbon tax now! Seriously. The reason this economic model is possible is because it’s so freaking cheap to burn fossil fuels to get things places. It makes economic sense to catch fish on the west coast of the US, fly it to China to be processed, then fly it back to serve in California restaurants. As long as the governments of the world hand out welfare to oil companies and other players in this scheme, this is what will continue to happen.

    If the real cost of delivery in carbon was added to our bill, this economic model would stop immediately.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      MWarnerMtito_swineflu
      5/28/15 12:50pm

      I don’t think you understand the logistics of transport. One delivery truck dropping off a hundred packages on the same neighbohood route emits less carbon than those hundred people individually driving their personal vehicles to the different stores needed to obtain the same items. Amazon’s business model is reducing our carbon footprint, not increasing it.

      And nobody “flies” fish from America to China and back. That shit is all done in bulk by cargo ship, which is by far the most energy-efficient method of transport in existence.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      eelskinbootstito_swineflu
      5/28/15 1:07pm

      Online shopping seems to have a smaller carbon footprint than the model that includes the retail middleman, though it’s difficult to compare the two models because there are a lot of variables. The distance to the store and the method of transportation to and from the store is a big factor. This analysis of a book purchase found that the retail-store model used more energy, but changing some of the variables could change that result. Other studies, like the one cited in this article, have found online shopping uses significantly less energy. Neither of these analyses was a peer-reviewed study, so I’m not suggesting their conclusions are definitive, but I don’t think it’s a given that purchasing from a brick-and-mortar store has a smaller carbon footprint than purchasing from an online seller.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    cuntybawsHamilton Nolan
    5/28/15 12:23pm

    it’s not hard to imagine a day when online retailers open “stores” where members can browse, purchase and walk out with items in only seconds. The internet is truly amazing.

    HamNo, I adore you and uneasily support your plans for revolution, but dear boy, you will never, I fear, understand the huge unwillingness of the American public to walk anywhere.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      PostedByGhosts-cuntybaws
      5/28/15 12:27pm

      “,it’s not hard to imagine a day when online retailers open “stores” where members can browse, purchase and walk out with items in only seconds”

      All fat people in America just said...

      ....”Fuck what you think”

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      FridayFridaycuntybaws
      5/28/15 12:36pm

      Walking is for dogs

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    ArkHamilton Nolan
    5/28/15 12:54pm

    Does this mean retail will be the scene of the next jobs holocaust?

    Or maybe they’ll all just be reassigned to Amazon warehouses where it’s 110 degrees and your scanner tool delivers an electric shock when you drop below 120 picked items per hour...

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Dan SeitzArk
      5/28/15 1:53pm

      Nah. Retail is just shifting a bit. In the future it’s going to be stores moving day-to-day goods like CVS or very specific types of retailers selling stuff you need to see/try on in person.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    2DollarzHamilton Nolan
    5/28/15 1:22pm

    Yeah but can you get this at these “stores” that you speak of? No, no you cannot.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Taint NuttinHamilton Nolan
      5/28/15 1:53pm

      And when it gets so our only options are Amazon or Wal-Target, it will definitely be all the people who turned their backs on small businesses who start wistfully reminiscing the loudest. I get it at the day job already. People want so badly to pat themselves on the back for shopping at a small independent store, until it entails paying a nickel more. Then they look at me wide-eyed and note that it’s slightly cheaper at Home Depot, like we’re supposed to fix that so they have it both ways and we can starve. I look at them slack-jawed and note that they are fucking idiots.

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        Executor ElassusHamilton Nolan
        5/28/15 12:26pm

        when we have stores entirely run by robots, maybe. I look forward to the day when robots make everything, and everybody can buy it because production is taxed and redistributed as a guaranteed minimum income, and we can use all our newfound leisure to do something meaningful with ourselves besides making widgets.

        Reply
        <
        • Read More
          LordBurleighHamilton Nolan
          5/28/15 12:23pm

          Look into Argos for the ultimate fusion of both retail approaches.

          Reply
          <