3 ms·

> The monopoly is a necessary precondition for the antitrust action. If it is, it shouldn't be, and we need some similarly concise term for "action to eliminat

> The monopoly is a necessary precondition for the antitrust action. If it is, it shouldn't be, and we need some similarly concise term for "action to eliminate biased incentives and promote competition for the good of the individual".

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
toasterlovin 7y ago
> promote competition for the good of the individual C'mon, this is ridiculous. There is no need to promote competition when competition already exists. Hence a monopoly (or cartel) being a necessary precondition of antitrust action.
- Marsymars 7y ago
  Competition free of biased incentives, but I thought that would be too wordy. Or simply products and services free of biased incentives would be fine too.
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    Do you really think the government needs to get involved when no demonstrable consumer harm is being done? Have you actually considered how house brands might be beneficial to consumers? Let me explain. I just did a search for "lightning cable" on Amazon. I don't want to pay $19, or whatever it would cost, to buy an Apple branded lightning cable. So I'm going to go for something cheaper. The top result is by Amazon Basics. Then we have YUNSONG, PLmuzsz, and KRISLOG. I have no idea what those are. I have no idea if I'm going to get a steaming pile of inauthentic shit. But with Amazon Basics, I can at least feel confident that they did a reasonable job of finding and vetting a factory to source the product from. And, more importantly, that they have a vested interest in me having a good experience, since Amazon Basics is Amazon.
    - Marsymars 7y ago
      > Do you really think the government needs to get involved when no demonstrable consumer harm is being done? Generally no, but I don't think a monopoly is a prerequisite for biased incentives to cause consumer harm, particularly for platform companies. Consumers don't have to choose between a bunch of non-monopoly platforms that aren't acting in their best interest when they can collectively decide, via their government, to force the platforms to do as they want. This is speaking generally - I don't actually have any problem with the specific case of Amazon promoting their AmazonBasics brands.
AmericanChopper 7y ago
It’s not at all. All sorts of anti-competitive behaviour is regulated under the broad banner of “antitrust” law. The Sherman Act doesn’t even prohibit every different type of monopoly for that matter.
stjohnswarts 7y ago
Yes it should be. Otherwise the government would have it's grubby hands in every deal, because power begets the desire for more power. Amazon has plenty competition

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

toasterlovin 7y ago

> promote competition for the good of the individual C'mon, this is ridiculous. There is no need to promote competition when competition already exists. Hence a monopoly (or cartel) being a necessary precondition of antitrust action.

Marsymars 7y ago
Competition free of biased incentives, but I thought that would be too wordy. Or simply products and services free of biased incentives would be fine too.
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  Do you really think the government needs to get involved when no demonstrable consumer harm is being done? Have you actually considered how house brands might be beneficial to consumers? Let me explain. I just did a search for "lightning cable" on Amazon. I don't want to pay $19, or whatever it would cost, to buy an Apple branded lightning cable. So I'm going to go for something cheaper. The top result is by Amazon Basics. Then we have YUNSONG, PLmuzsz, and KRISLOG. I have no idea what those are. I have no idea if I'm going to get a steaming pile of inauthentic shit. But with Amazon Basics, I can at least feel confident that they did a reasonable job of finding and vetting a factory to source the product from. And, more importantly, that they have a vested interest in me having a good experience, since Amazon Basics is Amazon.
  - Marsymars 7y ago
    > Do you really think the government needs to get involved when no demonstrable consumer harm is being done? Generally no, but I don't think a monopoly is a prerequisite for biased incentives to cause consumer harm, particularly for platform companies. Consumers don't have to choose between a bunch of non-monopoly platforms that aren't acting in their best interest when they can collectively decide, via their government, to force the platforms to do as they want. This is speaking generally - I don't actually have any problem with the specific case of Amazon promoting their AmazonBasics brands.

AmericanChopper 7y ago

It’s not at all. All sorts of anti-competitive behaviour is regulated under the broad banner of “antitrust” law. The Sherman Act doesn’t even prohibit every different type of monopoly for that matter.

stjohnswarts 7y ago

Yes it should be. Otherwise the government would have it's grubby hands in every deal, because power begets the desire for more power. Amazon has plenty competition