5 ms·

I think that's a very unique definition of market failure you're going by there. It seems hard to argue that Amazon hasn't driven prices down for consumers.

lisper 8y ago
You're making the wrong comparison. There is no question that Amazon has improved the retail experience and driven down prices. I love Amazon. I use them all the time. But what you have to compare is the world we live in and a hypothetical world where Amazon had a real competitor. In that world, prices would be even lower. And there would be other benefits as well. There might be an on-line retailer that was every bit as good as Amazon, but which exercised better oversight of their supply chain so that, say, ordering a name brand from them wasn't a total crap shoot in terms of whether you're getting the real thing or a counterfeit, or which carried items that you can't find on Amazon.
- notyourwork 8y ago
  > I use them all the time. But what you have to compare is the world we live in and a hypothetical world where Amazon had a real competitor. No you don't have to imagine a world where every successful company has a competitor that is completely equal. That isn't how free markets work, that is how things work in theory but never in practice. There is always someone at the top. > There might be an on-line retailer that was every bit as good as Amazon, but which exercised better oversight of their supply chain so that, say, ordering a name brand from them wasn't a total crap shoot in terms of whether you're getting the real thing or a counterfeit, or which carried items that you can't find on Amazon. You love Amazon but you are shooting craps when you "use them all the time"? It seems you want it both ways and want to just imagine a world where Amazon has more competition because Jeff Bezos is the worlds wealthiest person. I can imagine a world where there is a free market and the most successful become the most wealthy.
  - lisper 8y ago
    > a competitor that is completely equal Who said anything about "completely equal"? Of course every market has a leader. But in a healthy market there is at least one other player of comparable size: Coke & Pepsi. Hertz & Avis. Boeing and Airbus. > You love Amazon but you are shooting craps when you "use them all the time"? No, not quite. I love Amazon, but they are not a panacea. One of the problem with them is that a lot of the things they sell are counterfeits, and when you order something there is no way to insure that you're not going to get a counterfeit. Hence: crap shoot. A retailer with real competition could never get away with that. > want to just imagine a world where Amazon has more competition because Jeff Bezos is the worlds wealthiest person. No. The reason I want Amazon to have competition is not because I want Jeff Bezos to have less money, it's because I want him to have less power. And not so much as a potential buyer, but as a potential seller or potential employee. Amazon is generally pretty good to its customers (unlike, say, Comcast), not so much to its merchants and employees. And I also want to be clear: I am not saying that I would necessarily use government power to change how Amazon does business. But I do think that this is a legitimate thing for a society to do. Even if Amazon is not the worst example of a monopoly run amok, there is no question that monopolies can be harmful, and that society has a legitimate interest in defending itself against them.

lisper 8y ago

You're making the wrong comparison. There is no question that Amazon has improved the retail experience and driven down prices. I love Amazon. I use them all the time. But what you have to compare is the world we live in and a hypothetical world where Amazon had a real competitor. In that world, prices would be even lower. And there would be other benefits as well. There might be an on-line retailer that was every bit as good as Amazon, but which exercised better oversight of their supply chain so that, say, ordering a name brand from them wasn't a total crap shoot in terms of whether you're getting the real thing or a counterfeit, or which carried items that you can't find on Amazon.

notyourwork 8y ago
> I use them all the time. But what you have to compare is the world we live in and a hypothetical world where Amazon had a real competitor. No you don't have to imagine a world where every successful company has a competitor that is completely equal. That isn't how free markets work, that is how things work in theory but never in practice. There is always someone at the top. > There might be an on-line retailer that was every bit as good as Amazon, but which exercised better oversight of their supply chain so that, say, ordering a name brand from them wasn't a total crap shoot in terms of whether you're getting the real thing or a counterfeit, or which carried items that you can't find on Amazon. You love Amazon but you are shooting craps when you "use them all the time"? It seems you want it both ways and want to just imagine a world where Amazon has more competition because Jeff Bezos is the worlds wealthiest person. I can imagine a world where there is a free market and the most successful become the most wealthy.
- lisper 8y ago
  > a competitor that is completely equal Who said anything about "completely equal"? Of course every market has a leader. But in a healthy market there is at least one other player of comparable size: Coke & Pepsi. Hertz & Avis. Boeing and Airbus. > You love Amazon but you are shooting craps when you "use them all the time"? No, not quite. I love Amazon, but they are not a panacea. One of the problem with them is that a lot of the things they sell are counterfeits, and when you order something there is no way to insure that you're not going to get a counterfeit. Hence: crap shoot. A retailer with real competition could never get away with that. > want to just imagine a world where Amazon has more competition because Jeff Bezos is the worlds wealthiest person. No. The reason I want Amazon to have competition is not because I want Jeff Bezos to have less money, it's because I want him to have less power. And not so much as a potential buyer, but as a potential seller or potential employee. Amazon is generally pretty good to its customers (unlike, say, Comcast), not so much to its merchants and employees. And I also want to be clear: I am not saying that I would necessarily use government power to change how Amazon does business. But I do think that this is a legitimate thing for a society to do. Even if Amazon is not the worst example of a monopoly run amok, there is no question that monopolies can be harmful, and that society has a legitimate interest in defending itself against them.