4 ms·

I do not think it is good public policy to wait until companies are abusing their power before something is done about their size; that suggests the problem is

by cmurf 9y ago

I do not think it is good public policy to wait until companies are abusing their power before something is done about their size; that suggests the problem is not size, but behaviors which should already be illegal if they're wrong regardless of size. Are they a natural monopoly? If so they should be regulated as a monopoly. If they aren't a natural monopoly, then why is the market not more competitive; and why is it wrong for policy to create a competitive environment? And isn't there an opportunity cost in every case, even if you don't know what it is? What businesses aren't being created because of Amazon's sheer weight? Many of these questions are asked and answered (not entirely satisfactorily in some cases) in the case of Standard Oil.

wpasc 9y ago
Taxpayer dollars and regulators' attention are rival commodities. There are plenty of monopolistic/oligopolistic companies and industries that merit examination and reform much, much earlier than Amazon because they currently are exploiting their market position (Chicken companies, Monsanto, etc.) If no mono-/oligopolies existed that were abusing their power, then maybe our government could talk regulation Amazon, but still you'd have to make a strong case. I think it's a tough sell to have an inefficient entity that does not have to compete in a corporate survival sense (the government) tell a very efficient entity that has seen many similar "monopolies" fall (e.g. microsoft) to act differently.
- ianai 9y ago
  By definition, if a company has significant market power then they are not delivering the services/goods society wants from their market. Because they are able to set price they are setting output below optimum. This leaves demand unmet. But the worst part is it creates wasted goods. Ie they wind up making units that they won’t sell or hoarding resources that then may not be used by anyone. Market power leads to inefficiency and that’s supposed to be what free economy does better than the other resource allocation systems.

by cmurf 9y ago

wpasc 9y ago

Taxpayer dollars and regulators' attention are rival commodities. There are plenty of monopolistic/oligopolistic companies and industries that merit examination and reform much, much earlier than Amazon because they currently are exploiting their market position (Chicken companies, Monsanto, etc.) If no mono-/oligopolies existed that were abusing their power, then maybe our government could talk regulation Amazon, but still you'd have to make a strong case. I think it's a tough sell to have an inefficient entity that does not have to compete in a corporate survival sense (the government) tell a very efficient entity that has seen many similar "monopolies" fall (e.g. microsoft) to act differently.

ianai 9y ago
By definition, if a company has significant market power then they are not delivering the services/goods society wants from their market. Because they are able to set price they are setting output below optimum. This leaves demand unmet. But the worst part is it creates wasted goods. Ie they wind up making units that they won’t sell or hoarding resources that then may not be used by anyone. Market power leads to inefficiency and that’s supposed to be what free economy does better than the other resource allocation systems.