Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Amazon Hits $1 Trillion Market Value Milestone (reuters.com)

Posted by msmash on from the aggressive-expansion dept.

Amazon.com on Tuesday became the second U.S. company to reach $1 trillion in stock market value, just weeks after Apple hit the same milestone on Aug. 2. Shares in the world's largest online retailer last traded up 1.4 percent at $2,041.68. Its shares hit the $2050.2677 level to give its stock a value of $1 trillion. From a report: Amazon and Apple, which hit the trillion-dollar milestone on Aug. 2, symbolize the growing influence of tech companies on markets and the economy. The industry is amassing wealth and power, creating a new order in business where the most valuable resource is no longer oil, but data. Not far behind in market value are Google owner Alphabet Inc. and Microsoft Corp. , both approaching $900 billion, while Facebook -- which crossed $500 billion in July 2017, a day after Amazon -- has stalled at those levels amid a data-privacy scandal and growth concerns.

4 of 75 comments (clear)

  1. Monopolies are evil by XXongo · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Monopolies are evil--even if they don't start out to be evil. The capitalism model only works with competition.

    Amazon is working hard to be a monopoly.

  2. Monopoly is meaningless? by XXongo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No. I buy nothing from Amazon. Whether they are worth a trillion dollars or they go out of business tomorrow, it is meaningless to me.

    When they drive the last of their competitors out of business, will it still be meaningless to you?

    1. Re: Monopoly is meaningless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perhaps, then, you don't mean nationalize? Breaking them up would leave room for competition. Nationalizing them would guarantee that no one could ever compete.

  3. Re:A tale of two P/Es.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For us readers of Benjamin Graham, today's stock valuations are just nuts. It's like the late 90s again. Folks justify the prices by saying they're paying for growth however; growth never lasts forever - there are always limits.

    Eventually, fundamentals win out in the end. And when they do, the people who ignored them for pie-in-the-sky predictions lose in the end. The years 1929, 1980, 1987, 1990-1991, 2000 and 2008 (and some others) illustrated that.

    I'm starting to see the articles with the theme of "it's different this time" like I saw in 1999.