this post was submitted on 15 May 2026
72 points (100.0% liked)
Slop.
855 readers
427 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
amazon will preship goods based on aggregate wishlists, and ai will price items exclusively for your paygrade, but you, dear consumer, will always think it's something that happened by vibes.
i do think final goods is whatever for central planning, more trouble than worth, basic commodities however are a must
They are already largely centrally planned, too! Supply and transport contracts are done often for five years at a time or similar times for long lead time products (like commodities or raw materials, which often require processing and transportation across the world). But call it a five year plan and it suddenly is impossible.
You've just made me wonder, does Bezos have a horrible relationship with Trump? He's got the largest and most well organised delivery company in the world with some genuinely incredible infrastructure. He seems kinda left out though? Not in China and I rarely see him involved in anything the current gov is doing.
Not only that but he's running the infrastructure that runs most of the internet too.
I think he chose to keep himself out of the spotlight. Bunch of Amazon money thrown to the Trump admin though, and some Amazon people in key positions, mostly labor related.
Also as you mentioned, he doesn't really have a lot to win by being friends with Trump, and rather he has a lot to lose by falling out of favor with him (as other billionaires have already). If anything it's pretty smart he keeps a cordial distance from him.
He does come off as one of the smart billionaires but some of these dudes from like Goldman Sachs and Blackrock that went to China with him are not dummies either. It just feels like his absence from practically everything is kinda obvious when you think about it a little. He's really stepped into the background.
It might be a mix of prudence and conceit. He obviously considers himself above everyone else, and that includes Trump, so he doesn't feel he needs to grovel or kiss the ring the way that others do.
It's also that a lot of his empire is based on the last bit of the American economy that's not just people exchanging money back and forth, or some sort of scam. He actually owns and builds infrastructure, and provides necessary services. What could he win by getting closer to Trump that he already doesn't have? He exploits his employees to insane levels, essentially has a monopoly on online shopping and web services, he seems to have a pretty secure position with little room to grow. And the government has largely left Amazon alone even when people have complained.
Idk about the people who went to China with Trump, but if they're bigwigs at investment banking firms, I'm sure there's a bunch of regulations and compliance stuff that he could help them get rid of, so it tracks that otherwise sensible people are now donning the red cap.
This was not a normal visit to China. The real ruling class wants something serious and they all showed up.
I think they can be classified as either hardware companies, banks, tech companies, government contractors, and agroindustry (that one's just Cargill, tho). Banks benefit from a looser regulatory landscape, hardware and tech companies suffer greatly from trade war and chip shortage created by Trump's and China's policies, and Cargill does too, only with a food and seed intellectual property angle.
It is scary snd concerning, don't get me wrong, but it seems to me all of them have an obvious reason to try to get something out of Trump or from a China-friendly Trump. Maybe it's a failure of my imagination, but I don't see why brezls would be in that same club.
> Market dictates the price and the demand.
> *Looks inside*
> Planned allocation.
I do generally think (and agree with rightwingers) that central planning suffers from new categories appearance, if there is no vision (say, cellular phones), there is very small group of people which will deny you funding/allocation/workforce, while capital allows say 50 banks to shop around with business plan. But something silly like we need 50 million tons of steel, is easily solvable
*and obvious solution is doing fairs with new products, where planners judge interest by general public, but whatever, haven't had that in ussr for new categories
I think that phenomenon is largely historical and not intrinsic, the result of practically all socialist states being born out of (or continuously laboring under) apocalyptic war conditions or literally at the beginning state, the most dire feudal conditions on planet earth at the time
By way of comparison during wartime, particularly WWII, the production and availability of small, non-essential consumer commodities (like radios, toys, and luxury trinkets) ate absolute shit in both the US and UK
I think it’s basically production level fumble which could have been avoided if the problem was recognized as such. Like you can know about history of the radio all you like, but you have to see it implementation dialectically, not as necessity first (be it propaganda or military) but both necessity and nicety
But capital naturally moves to monopoly and 'Central planning' anyhow. The argument that things would be rubber stamped by 50 people is more accurate of capitalism, as socialism allows a bottom up approach to innovation. People with more free time, better conditions can innovate and be noticed. There are committees at multiple levels of planning as well.
yes, but evidently, ussr was fumbling semiconductors and consumer electronics for decades, despite them being not that hard to do (hard, but not that hard).
it allows, but wasn't allowed to, they may pioneer some tech, but then adopt it after western consumers proved it feasibility for mass production.
Wasn't the export of new strategic computer technology and sophisticated electronics machinery to the Soviet Union literally banned during the Cold War?
This problem is solved in a communist world if we eliminate borders by allowing people to make their case to any administration they want instead of just the administration in their home country. There can be options because there will be hundreds of different administrations optimising for the specific local conditions they have.