4 ms·

Different problems. One is the regulation of which suppliers can distribute on a platform, deceptive advertising, right-to-repair, and similar consumer protecti

Different problems. One is the regulation of which suppliers can distribute on a platform, deceptive advertising, right-to-repair, and similar consumer protection considerations. The other problem the article and parent comments are describing relates to the distributor/retailer creating or sourcing generic alternatives to the items sold by their existing suppliers and informing their decisions to do so based on the sales data from their own partners/suppliers. This latter case seems ok to me, even if it sucks for suppliers, in the sense that we generally get better outcomes for customers. As long as the general regulations for consumer protection are in-place such as preventing confusion between brands and generics.

wpietri 7y ago
What's your evidence that we get better outcomes for consumers?
- jacobr1 7y ago
  Good question. Actually I don't have any data for that. Anecdotally many "store brand" items of things that seem commodity-like, are things that I can get the same quality as a name brand at a lower price. This is better for me, and I suspect better for most consumers in a static situation. But the market is dynamic. Does this stifle innovation of new products? Does the reduced revenue of "brand" named producers, especially smaller ones hurt? Does the price competition produce a race to the bottom that ultimately doesn't benefit consumers? I don't know. But I would say that the considerations of increased regulations of "generics" vs increased regulation of "online markets" seem to me to involve different tradeoffs.
  - wpietri 7y ago
    Sadly, the American grocery store is not optimized for consumers, so we can't draw many inferences from it. It's true that no-frills versions of commodity products are a good deal compared with heavily marketed products. But I don't see any reason to think letting individual stores dominate that market segment would be necessarily better for consumers.
- bofadeez 7y ago
  Giving consumers the same basket of goods at a lower cost just increases their real income, purchasing power, and overall standard of living. Amazon is effectively distributing billions of dollars of charity to those who need it the most. They lose $2 billion a quarter on retail. That's $2 billion per quarter in subsidies to consumers.
  - arrosenberg 7y ago
    ...which is classic anti-competitive behavior. That isn't a free and fair market - it's one that's in the process of being captured by a few large incumbents.
  - plausible 7y ago
    Except that they'll quickly recoup that "subsidy" by raising prices after they've dumped their competition.
    - bofadeez 7y ago
      If they raise prices then they invite an instant flood of competition and lose their monopoly. They have no power to raise prices and restrict competition. Their only competitive advantage is pricing. Amazon's only profitable products are AWS and its stock. The benefit of losing $2 billion a quarter doing retail is debatable. Would you prefer a world without amazon's subsidies given that they have no power to exploit anyone?
      - wpietri 7y ago
        Your theory is that Amazon is spending $2 billion a quarter even though it gets them no long-term advantage? If you're right, then capitalism is hopelessly bad at optimization and we should scrap it. But what I think is more likely here is that Amazon's execs understands the economics of their business way better than a zero-karma free-market fundamentalist whose pseudonym is a genitalia joke.
        bofadeez 7y ago
annoyingnoob 7y ago
Fair enough, its not quite the same thing. Though Home Depot has a ton of its own products now too - they are doing the same thing inside physical retail stores rather than online only. For pharmacy items where there is some regulation around the quality of the product, I find generics/store brands to be great. For products that are not regulated in some way quality is all over the place. If you search Amazon for "ul listed usb charger" you will mostly see results for products that are not UL listed - there are probably 5 times more unlisted products for sale there than listed products - Amazon is pushing a bunch of cheap and high-profit crap at me even when I try to avoid it.

wpietri 7y ago

What's your evidence that we get better outcomes for consumers?

jacobr1 7y ago
Good question. Actually I don't have any data for that. Anecdotally many "store brand" items of things that seem commodity-like, are things that I can get the same quality as a name brand at a lower price. This is better for me, and I suspect better for most consumers in a static situation. But the market is dynamic. Does this stifle innovation of new products? Does the reduced revenue of "brand" named producers, especially smaller ones hurt? Does the price competition produce a race to the bottom that ultimately doesn't benefit consumers? I don't know. But I would say that the considerations of increased regulations of "generics" vs increased regulation of "online markets" seem to me to involve different tradeoffs.
- wpietri 7y ago
  Sadly, the American grocery store is not optimized for consumers, so we can't draw many inferences from it. It's true that no-frills versions of commodity products are a good deal compared with heavily marketed products. But I don't see any reason to think letting individual stores dominate that market segment would be necessarily better for consumers.
bofadeez 7y ago
Giving consumers the same basket of goods at a lower cost just increases their real income, purchasing power, and overall standard of living. Amazon is effectively distributing billions of dollars of charity to those who need it the most. They lose $2 billion a quarter on retail. That's $2 billion per quarter in subsidies to consumers.
- arrosenberg 7y ago
  ...which is classic anti-competitive behavior. That isn't a free and fair market - it's one that's in the process of being captured by a few large incumbents.
- plausible 7y ago
  Except that they'll quickly recoup that "subsidy" by raising prices after they've dumped their competition.
  - bofadeez 7y ago
    If they raise prices then they invite an instant flood of competition and lose their monopoly. They have no power to raise prices and restrict competition. Their only competitive advantage is pricing. Amazon's only profitable products are AWS and its stock. The benefit of losing $2 billion a quarter doing retail is debatable. Would you prefer a world without amazon's subsidies given that they have no power to exploit anyone?
    - wpietri 7y ago
      Your theory is that Amazon is spending $2 billion a quarter even though it gets them no long-term advantage? If you're right, then capitalism is hopelessly bad at optimization and we should scrap it. But what I think is more likely here is that Amazon's execs understands the economics of their business way better than a zero-karma free-market fundamentalist whose pseudonym is a genitalia joke.
      - bofadeez 7y ago

annoyingnoob 7y ago

Fair enough, its not quite the same thing. Though Home Depot has a ton of its own products now too - they are doing the same thing inside physical retail stores rather than online only. For pharmacy items where there is some regulation around the quality of the product, I find generics/store brands to be great. For products that are not regulated in some way quality is all over the place. If you search Amazon for "ul listed usb charger" you will mostly see results for products that are not UL listed - there are probably 5 times more unlisted products for sale there than listed products - Amazon is pushing a bunch of cheap and high-profit crap at me even when I try to avoid it.