Ryan Petersen

And the way that Amazon does this, as I understand it, is they try to make the bottleneck the most capital-intensive piece, and then they over-stack it.

So that there's plenty of capacity on that, whatever the machine is probably that is capital intensive.

It requires a lot of capital and have like lots and lots of that machine so that that way they're never, it just keeps flowing the goods.

You don't hit the bottleneck.

You don't actually hit it.

And if you do, it's because, oh, okay, didn't.

Nothing I could do there is like more capital needed rather than if it's labor, you're like, cool, just throw more labor at it.

That should never be the bottleneck.

It's only where, oh, I need a lot more capital here, even that I planned.

And then they overinvest in CapEx so they don't hit the bottleneck.

Yeah, the asset intense part should be always should be operating.

No, but you should have excess capacity there that way.

you don't get stuck with this machine holding you back.

Like you have extra machine, but it's, it's a, that's a strategy for people with a lot of,

CapEx.

That's Amazon's model, but plenty of CapEx.

And I'm not sure that they do it right.

Like, one of the things that they do that pisses off their merchants is they have this endless line of trucks at the warehouse they can't unload.

They've pushed the bottleneck off into the unload piece, the loading docks and truckers and can't get appointments and stuff.

So I think that'd be wrong in that framework that, like, they should...