3 ms·

But doesn't the customer benefit in that scenario? They get the items they want for a lower price from a brand they trust (they're on their website for a reason

But doesn't the customer benefit in that scenario? They get the items they want for a lower price from a brand they trust (they're on their website for a reason). And if the customer is benefitting, isn't that the best outcome of capitalism? In that scenerio, and captialism in general, eBay doesn't owe sellers on its marketplace the right to sell items at all. They've just been given a chance to make hay while the sun shines.

Supermancho 7y ago
Benefits are not static. What's good in the short term, doesn't necessarily mean it's good long term. Following the capitalistic ethos, once you have less competition, you can raise your price to match what the customer can afford (which is not competitive, it's exploitative) as opposed to what the market will bear (because there is no market, just a limited or singular purveyor). This is economics 101 stuff. China survives this by government control and investment in the monopolistic companies and ignores IP, allowing small companies to have opportunity to make knock-offs and creating limited theater attrition. When these companies start being noticed (either profit impacts or potential efficiency improvement opportunities, whatever), they are either purchased into the fold or forced out of business by governmental mandate. The US is not unique, but it's also not as free, for reasons that people don't point out very often...ie the draconian enforcement of IP is multi-edged.
- kevinsundar 7y ago
  I agree with everything you say. However, everything you mentioned about how Amazon could act in the future is speculation. I agree that when / if they start raising prices they should be considered a monopoly and heavily scrutinized and possibly regulated. But at this point, there is no justification in doing that as they haven't crossed that line. I feel like a lot of people jump to attack Amazon on the basis of what they could do (because they're so big) instead of what they're doing currently.

Supermancho 7y ago

Benefits are not static. What's good in the short term, doesn't necessarily mean it's good long term. Following the capitalistic ethos, once you have less competition, you can raise your price to match what the customer can afford (which is not competitive, it's exploitative) as opposed to what the market will bear (because there is no market, just a limited or singular purveyor). This is economics 101 stuff. China survives this by government control and investment in the monopolistic companies and ignores IP, allowing small companies to have opportunity to make knock-offs and creating limited theater attrition. When these companies start being noticed (either profit impacts or potential efficiency improvement opportunities, whatever), they are either purchased into the fold or forced out of business by governmental mandate. The US is not unique, but it's also not as free, for reasons that people don't point out very often...ie the draconian enforcement of IP is multi-edged.

kevinsundar 7y ago
I agree with everything you say. However, everything you mentioned about how Amazon could act in the future is speculation. I agree that when / if they start raising prices they should be considered a monopoly and heavily scrutinized and possibly regulated. But at this point, there is no justification in doing that as they haven't crossed that line. I feel like a lot of people jump to attack Amazon on the basis of what they could do (because they're so big) instead of what they're doing currently.