4 ms·

> Amazon considers sellers to be a renewable resource that can be disposed of haphazardly It's almost like... Amazon doesn't have to... compete to draw sellers

by _bxg1 7y ago

> Amazon considers sellers to be a renewable resource that can be disposed of haphazardly It's almost like... Amazon doesn't have to... compete to draw sellers to their platform

outside1234 7y ago
Or like they are a large trust ... that ... needs breaking ...
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  Trust means something fairly specific legally. A group of businesses that team up to, in theory, monopolize a market is a trust. A cartel would be when those businesses are all the manufacturers or suppliers, leaving, for instance, retailers with no other recourse but to pay the higher prices that the cartel sets. I think what you're thinking of with Amazon is more of a monopoly. I'm not sure they really need to team up with other businesses. EDIT: Yes. I know that Amazon does not fit the legal definition of "monopoly". I was only saying that if we bend the legal definition of "monopoly" a bit in just the right manner, Amazon would fit. Whereas Amazon would never fit the legal definition of "cartel", or "trust".
  - asdff 7y ago
    They are certainly trying to vertically integrate all of their businesses. Prime video is hosted by AWS. Amazon is getting into the delivery business. Won't be surprised if Amazon buys a few cheap factories overseas after real estate crashes, or a container vessel.
    - toasterlovin 7y ago
      They are a vertically integrated non-monopoly. Consumers and manufacturers both have plenty of other places to do business.
Bombthecat 7y ago
Amazon won, and they know it.
- _bxg1 7y ago
  So did Standard Oil.
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    Standard Oil was a monopoly. There was no Target Oil, or Wall Oil. There also was never any ginormous hypothetical foreign oil company. Like, if a middle eastern company existed back then that called itself Ali Baba's 40 Oils. It wouldn't have been a monopoly. That's the problem today. People want politicians to act against Amazon based on laws that are over a hundred years old. We never conceived of a situation where a company could have enormously powerful competitors, like Target, Walmart, and Alibaba, while simultaneously controlling an enormous market. Our laws never conceived that as a possibility. Or maybe our laws don't really see that situation as a problem? But whatever the case, if we want change, we're really going to need to rethink some of the laws on the books. They're going to need to change.
    - _bxg1 7y ago
      Target and Walmart are not platforms. Amazon isn't the only company selling consumer goods in general (for now), but they are the only online-seller platform in their category. Shopify exists, and Ebay exists, etc., but people wouldn't put up with stuff like in the OP if those platforms served their needs.
      - greeneggs 7y ago
        Isn't Walmart a platform? They have similar "Sold and shipped by XXX" as does Amazon. Random example: https://www.walmart.com/search/?query=bicycle%20tires https://www.walmart.com/search/?query=bicycle%20tires
    - valuearb 7y ago

by _bxg1 7y ago

> Amazon considers sellers to be a renewable resource that can be disposed of haphazardly It's almost like... Amazon doesn't have to... compete to draw sellers to their platform

outside1234 7y ago

Or like they are a large trust ... that ... needs breaking ...

bilbo0s 7y ago
Trust means something fairly specific legally. A group of businesses that team up to, in theory, monopolize a market is a trust. A cartel would be when those businesses are all the manufacturers or suppliers, leaving, for instance, retailers with no other recourse but to pay the higher prices that the cartel sets. I think what you're thinking of with Amazon is more of a monopoly. I'm not sure they really need to team up with other businesses. EDIT: Yes. I know that Amazon does not fit the legal definition of "monopoly". I was only saying that if we bend the legal definition of "monopoly" a bit in just the right manner, Amazon would fit. Whereas Amazon would never fit the legal definition of "cartel", or "trust".
- asdff 7y ago
  They are certainly trying to vertically integrate all of their businesses. Prime video is hosted by AWS. Amazon is getting into the delivery business. Won't be surprised if Amazon buys a few cheap factories overseas after real estate crashes, or a container vessel.
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    They are a vertically integrated non-monopoly. Consumers and manufacturers both have plenty of other places to do business.

Bombthecat 7y ago

Amazon won, and they know it.

_bxg1 7y ago
So did Standard Oil.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  Standard Oil was a monopoly. There was no Target Oil, or Wall Oil. There also was never any ginormous hypothetical foreign oil company. Like, if a middle eastern company existed back then that called itself Ali Baba's 40 Oils. It wouldn't have been a monopoly. That's the problem today. People want politicians to act against Amazon based on laws that are over a hundred years old. We never conceived of a situation where a company could have enormously powerful competitors, like Target, Walmart, and Alibaba, while simultaneously controlling an enormous market. Our laws never conceived that as a possibility. Or maybe our laws don't really see that situation as a problem? But whatever the case, if we want change, we're really going to need to rethink some of the laws on the books. They're going to need to change.
  - _bxg1 7y ago
    Target and Walmart are not platforms. Amazon isn't the only company selling consumer goods in general (for now), but they are the only online-seller platform in their category. Shopify exists, and Ebay exists, etc., but people wouldn't put up with stuff like in the OP if those platforms served their needs.
    - greeneggs 7y ago
      Isn't Walmart a platform? They have similar "Sold and shipped by XXX" as does Amazon. Random example: https://www.walmart.com/search/?query=bicycle%20tires https://www.walmart.com/search/?query=bicycle%20tires
  - valuearb 7y ago