Tomorrow, he'll burn both Elliot Bay Books AND the Stranger to the ground, and sow the soil with his salty tears so nothing grows again. Also, Paul Constant will be flailed.

In the meantime, support the arts with your own and Tim Keck's money.

And a stock tip: if you want to make money as a shareholder, you'd probably do better not investing in retailers. Retailers' profit margins are exceedingly low, so even if the stock prices are high now, they'll eventually level out.

But why "philistine"? What does being a philistine have to do with wondering why Amazon doesn't devote a fraction of its profit to some sort of local arts foundations or causes? Frankly, it seems like it would be a good way to win over various people, or at least try to enhance its image?

Frankly, #10, you come across as a little hysterical. Are you the guy who threw the fit?

I am not a corporate finance officer, but I believe the theory here is that corporations get to write-off charitable contributions, just like individuals do.

If you give enough, you owe less taxes, increasing your bottom line. If you increase the bottom line the company is valued higher attracting more investors. And that in turn makes more money for the shareholders.

But, again, I am not a business person so I could be completely wrong.

Much as I hate to say it, though, corporations typically have no business giving away their shareholders' money to good causes, just as they have no business giving away their shareholders' money to excessive executive compensation.

That is a flaw, not a feature, in how corporations are chartered to function. There is no reward nor mechanism for anything but profit flowing to shareholders. It would be nice if that were not the case, and it seems like it should be possible to offer an alternative that's not "not for profit" or "non profit" but had the right tax and other incentives to allow a for-profit that had interests beyond greed.

A corporation has no business expending resources on a not-for-profit organization unless it expects some sort of return for its expenditure, a real return that will benefit its shareholders.

So I suppose I'm glad that I rarely used Amazon to begin with, and have local bookstores I can use instead. I see it simply as so: if they don't want to invest in me and my community, why do I want to invest in theirs?

Furthermore, is it not a little spurious to act as if Seattle's art community isn't something that can give a return to a company like Amazon?

Others here have alluded to it, but corporate boards (with the approval of big institutional investors) have in general made the determination that supporting the community and charitable giving do benefit shareholders in many ways.

Were it more mainstream and open-minded, Amazon's directors could very well conclude that supporting the community where it is based is good for its employees and a good recruiting tool; they could decide a high profile giving effort of the type that so many companies pursue is good for the brand and market awareness; and they could decide that the decision making about how to give to the community can be designed to enhance the experience of working at Amazon and make for better, smarter employees (see, e.g., The Boeing Good Neighbor Fund, Weyerhaeuser Foundation, all kinds of initiatives at Microsoft). They might even decide that the corporation should simply contribute something back to the communities from which it derives so many benefits, because it's the just right thing to do and good karma. And, it's deductible! As for you, @10, remind me not to hire you or join your company. I don't want to be around your creepy rigidity.