3 ms·

I suspect at some point t we might see Amazon regulated like a utility. For example in Australia/UK phone networks must give reasonably priced access for virtua

I suspect at some point t we might see Amazon regulated like a utility. For example in Australia/UK phone networks must give reasonably priced access for virtual phone network companies to use their infrastructure and compete. I'd love to see something like this with companies like Walmart. Imagine that got broken up into 6,000 invividual stores. It would be a jobs boom with every store now needing an accountant, marketing help etc. Then we have 6,000 stores all looking back into each others markets wondering if the can open a competing store and how they can improve. I really think breaking g up large companies will be a boom for economies.

reificator 9y ago
> I'd love to see something like this with companies like Walmart. I think there would be some serious unintended consequences here. Think about Walmart's negotiating position and logistics network going up in smoke overnight. Costs go up and selection vanishes. This hurts doubly in small to medium sized towns where Walmart already crushed the competition.
adventured 9y ago
We had that decentralized system. It was terrible for everyone. That's why Walmart stomped them. It was bad for consumers - selection would implode, individual stores can't handle inventory as well or bargain properly, their pricing power is low. It was bad for employees - very poor wages, zero benefits, no dependability that the business would be there tomorrow. It was bad for competition - stores constantly went under. Walmart benefits from a national system of standards, of training, inventory, pricing & buying, shipping, storage, quality control, etc and so on for dozens of other major issues. Walmart also benefits from being able to offset weaker stores with stronger stores. You can yield a small profit over here, and make up for it with a better profit over there. Without that, the store simply goes under given the hyper thin margins, when things slip (inevitable).
- Gustomaximus 9y ago
  I dont think it would be as bad as you feel. Things like pricing can be overcome as we have better information flow these days so the opportunity to order from a variety of suppliers is much easier than ever to create competition. And wages...well I dont think the centralised system is showing much benefit there to debate the counter point. The key is seeing the problem as a flow rather than 2 options. Yes large centralised systems are more efficient. So over time stores would re-centralise with the benefit being 'as they centralise'. When you break up a large player you now have many opportunities for improvement/innovation rather than someone entrenched who can win via their scale alone. The best stores will grow and spread, become entrenched and then we rinse and repeat. I feel people forget a core component of governments role in healthy capitalism is ensuring a level playing field. This allows competition and innovation. I agree that centralisation has benefits for business but these seem to entrench and stagnate the business while they hold out competition through their scale rather than theses qualities. Some business you can legislate for this level playing field, others it best to break-up and let the market sort itself.

reificator 9y ago

> I'd love to see something like this with companies like Walmart. I think there would be some serious unintended consequences here. Think about Walmart's negotiating position and logistics network going up in smoke overnight. Costs go up and selection vanishes. This hurts doubly in small to medium sized towns where Walmart already crushed the competition.

adventured 9y ago

We had that decentralized system. It was terrible for everyone. That's why Walmart stomped them. It was bad for consumers - selection would implode, individual stores can't handle inventory as well or bargain properly, their pricing power is low. It was bad for employees - very poor wages, zero benefits, no dependability that the business would be there tomorrow. It was bad for competition - stores constantly went under. Walmart benefits from a national system of standards, of training, inventory, pricing & buying, shipping, storage, quality control, etc and so on for dozens of other major issues. Walmart also benefits from being able to offset weaker stores with stronger stores. You can yield a small profit over here, and make up for it with a better profit over there. Without that, the store simply goes under given the hyper thin margins, when things slip (inevitable).

Gustomaximus 9y ago
I dont think it would be as bad as you feel. Things like pricing can be overcome as we have better information flow these days so the opportunity to order from a variety of suppliers is much easier than ever to create competition. And wages...well I dont think the centralised system is showing much benefit there to debate the counter point. The key is seeing the problem as a flow rather than 2 options. Yes large centralised systems are more efficient. So over time stores would re-centralise with the benefit being 'as they centralise'. When you break up a large player you now have many opportunities for improvement/innovation rather than someone entrenched who can win via their scale alone. The best stores will grow and spread, become entrenched and then we rinse and repeat. I feel people forget a core component of governments role in healthy capitalism is ensuring a level playing field. This allows competition and innovation. I agree that centralisation has benefits for business but these seem to entrench and stagnate the business while they hold out competition through their scale rather than theses qualities. Some business you can legislate for this level playing field, others it best to break-up and let the market sort itself.