3 ms·

I agree that Amazon engages in anticompetitive behaviour but I'm not sure that it can control prices or exclude competition to that extent? Has Amazon come up

I agree that Amazon engages in anticompetitive behaviour but I'm not sure that it can control prices or exclude competition to that extent? Has Amazon come up with a way to dominate markets without controlling prices or excluding competition? Right at this moment, my answer is, "maybe?"

foota 7y ago
The classical theory has been that it doesn't matter if you dominate the market if you don't cause some harm (i.e., actively exclude competition or raise prices) as a result.
- Armisael16 7y ago
  That’s actually a newer theory dating back to Robert Bork’s 1978 book The Antitrust Paradox. It is not at all clear that consumer welfare was a goal of the Sherman Act.
- philipov 7y ago
  Likewise, if you cause harm, it doesn't matter if you technically dominate the market. The key word is trust, not monopoly. Cartels are also bad for markets, but aren't monopolies either. Monopolies have become a deprecated technology, but vertical integration lives on in new ways that resemble a feudal system more than a single empire. The economy as a whole has gotten so big that there is room for more than a single player at the top, and so we get cartel-like behavior between the largest players instead of full-blown monopolies. Each of them is large enough that they can ignore unrest from their customer base, and as a result they have more incentive to cooperate than to compete. The difference between Microsoft and Apple isn't the quality of their product anymore, it's a brand of tribal identity. As abusive, anti-competitive practices continue to be improved on, we should not be constrained by outdated theories that only focus on 19th and 20th century phenomena.
  - stcredzero 7y ago
    As abusive, anti-competitive practices continue to be improved on, we should not be constrained by outdated theories that only focus on 19th and 20th century phenomena. The same applies to censorship. Manufacturing Consent described how the western powers could have the effect of censorship without outright censorship, and that's from over 3 decades ago.
  - danmaz74 7y ago
    The word is trust only because of historical reasons. At the time when this became an issue, companies couldn't operate across US state borders. The solution was to create trusts which owned the various branches created in each state.

foota 7y ago

The classical theory has been that it doesn't matter if you dominate the market if you don't cause some harm (i.e., actively exclude competition or raise prices) as a result.

Armisael16 7y ago
That’s actually a newer theory dating back to Robert Bork’s 1978 book The Antitrust Paradox. It is not at all clear that consumer welfare was a goal of the Sherman Act.
philipov 7y ago
Likewise, if you cause harm, it doesn't matter if you technically dominate the market. The key word is trust, not monopoly. Cartels are also bad for markets, but aren't monopolies either. Monopolies have become a deprecated technology, but vertical integration lives on in new ways that resemble a feudal system more than a single empire. The economy as a whole has gotten so big that there is room for more than a single player at the top, and so we get cartel-like behavior between the largest players instead of full-blown monopolies. Each of them is large enough that they can ignore unrest from their customer base, and as a result they have more incentive to cooperate than to compete. The difference between Microsoft and Apple isn't the quality of their product anymore, it's a brand of tribal identity. As abusive, anti-competitive practices continue to be improved on, we should not be constrained by outdated theories that only focus on 19th and 20th century phenomena.
- stcredzero 7y ago
  As abusive, anti-competitive practices continue to be improved on, we should not be constrained by outdated theories that only focus on 19th and 20th century phenomena. The same applies to censorship. Manufacturing Consent described how the western powers could have the effect of censorship without outright censorship, and that's from over 3 decades ago.
- danmaz74 7y ago
  The word is trust only because of historical reasons. At the time when this became an issue, companies couldn't operate across US state borders. The solution was to create trusts which owned the various branches created in each state.