2 ms·
No it is not. Unless you can't buy basically the same stuff from lots of other places this is simple the usual whining about 'big cooperations'. The reality is
by nickik 7y ago
No it is not. Unless you can't buy basically the same stuff from lots of other places this is simple the usual whining about 'big cooperations'.
The reality is that amazon overs good prices and people like to shop there.
And yes, suppliers are gone complain, that amazon is evil, just like suppliers complain that walmarket is evil, just as suppliers always claim whatever larger reseller they sell to is a evil monopoly.
The definition of a monopoly in economics is if that seller can essentially employ monopoly pricing, but amazon prices are not incredible higher compared to the competition.
- dominicr 7y agoWhat you're referring to is a 'pure' monopoly, which are relatively rare (but still common enough). The wider use of definition in economics is a company that dominates a market to the extent that is has control over the market. For example, when suppliers have little actual choice in dealing with the company. Higher prices are not necessarily a product of a monopoly and are not needed to define one.
- nickik 7y agoIts actually now standard in anti-trust law now that you actually have to show significant consumer harm. Richard Posner writting has this made the standard in Anti-Trust. In the past it was just politics and any big company could get hit with anti-trust. Presidents routinly used anti-trust to go after their political enemies. And if you don't use this 'pure' definition you are essentially just saying 'this is a big company'. Every single large company would be a 'monopoly' by those definition.
- dominicr 7y agoThe comment I was replying to was referring to the word's definition in economics, not the current legal standards of specific countries.