4 ms·

40% in ecommerce would definitely be able to have monopoly power which would often be enough to trigger an anti-trust response, historically. What producer of

40% in ecommerce would definitely be able to have monopoly power which would often be enough to trigger an anti-trust response, historically. What producer of a consumer good sold through Amazon could afford to lose 40% of their retail presence/revenue overnight? Well in the current environment, Amazon has that power. Its extremely unbalanced and lets them really crush any rising opposition unless you trust they won't unfairly wield that power.

logicchains 6y ago
>What producer of a consumer good sold through Amazon could afford to lose 40% of their retail presence/revenue overnight? Well in the current environment, Amazon has that power. Are there any examples of them actually doing this?
- ViViDboarder 6y ago
  Of them having 40% of the market place? The comment is referring to the fact that companies trying to sell goods online are given a choice to either forego 40% of potential revenues or work with Amazon. This gives Amazon an enormous amount of leverage over suppliers.
  - logicchains 6y ago
    No, of them forcing anybody off their platform. >The comment is referring to the fact that companies trying to sell goods online are given a choice to either forego 40% of potential revenues or work with Amazon. This gives Amazon an enormous amount of leverage over suppliers. Antitrust law (at least in the US) is conducted on the basis of harm to consumers. If Amazon's negotiating power with suppliers results in better prices/outcomes for consumers, then there's not necessarily anything wrong with that. As a producer, nobody is obligated to buy what you're selling. http://sites.middlebury.edu/econ0450f10/files/2010/08/bastiat.pdf http://sites.middlebury.edu/econ0450f10/files/2010/08/bastia... is a nice argument why laws should try to benefit consumers, not producers.
    - cybwraith 6y ago
      > Antitrust law (at least in the US) is conducted on the basis of harm to consumers. This is far from a consensus view amongst lawmakers and economists.
- cybwraith 6y ago
  Thats why its called anti-trust. If we are in a position where society needs to trust a company to not abuse their power, then they should be a candidate for anti-trust actions.
Grimm1 6y ago
Yes but historically an anti-trust response is brought against a company that is actually using that monopoly power, and frankly "definitely able to have" is speculative. Do they have it? Are they abusing it? I don't know but, there are two potential cases that pop up that could be such as them leveraging internal data on their third party sellers to out compete them and putting their products first in line which as we know from search carries a lot of weight for what people click. And then there's the part where this has to be bad for consumers. Sucks for competitors but anti-trust has also historically been used when a companies practices are bad for the consumer. My life has only gotten better using Amazon services I don't know about you. My point being is that there are things that legally could be construed as anti-competitive but I as a consumer am not hurt and third party sellers and other competitors generally speaking and in my opinion, suck. I'm not in the business of breaking up companies simply because they're better.
xoa 6y ago
Are you sure you're not confusing "monopoly" with monopsony? The former is about a seller vs buyers, where a single source has huge power over pricing and thus is able to raise prices for buyers far beyond market justification. The latter is when a single buyer controls a high enough share of purchases that they can exert significant power of sellers. While they both impact markets, they're not the same thing and they have different effects. The impact of monopsonys and to what extent their bad is a lot more controversial, because the fundamental idea of grouping together in order to gain enough purchasing power to negotiate lower prices from sellers is used in a lot of areas. I think monopsony does have implications for things like wages and working conditions, with outright depressing of wages as well as potential for more wage discrimination. Those are all different issues though with different potential regulatory tools to apply against them vs a monopolist simply outright raising prices for buyers. I'm definitely concerned that way, way too many people have started to just reach for the big BREAK 'EM UP hammer for any problem they see, despite the potential for nasty battles delaying effectiveness and enormous and unpredictable side effects. I'd really like to see much more focused efforts tried first, particularly since a big central target can actually be easier to regulate and check for certain things. There is plenty of low hanging fruit at Amazon like their commingling practices, but such things tend to be more technocratic. I'm concerned that focused efforts like that are seen as "boring" and in turn not getting the attention they should. This is similar to how I feel about other areas like secure hardware stacks. Rather then "break up Apple/Google!!!" I'd much, much rather see things like "devices owners must have the option to load their own crypto roots with equal power as any manufacturer roots" or "devices must be warranted for 1 month/$20 retail price up to 60 months" or the like done. They're not as catchy politics but they'd be really directly useful without risking a lot of the value scale can bring.
- cybwraith 6y ago
  Antitrust is not purely about consumers, but about protecting a competitive and open market. However I will admit that this has been widely debated and is not actually consensus in US history. A counter-argument is that antitrust action should be purely focused on consumer prices and do nothing unless consumer pricing is negatively affected. I would argue that the former is still being consumer-pricing focused, just with a long term view instead of a short term view

logicchains 6y ago

>What producer of a consumer good sold through Amazon could afford to lose 40% of their retail presence/revenue overnight? Well in the current environment, Amazon has that power. Are there any examples of them actually doing this?

ViViDboarder 6y ago
Of them having 40% of the market place? The comment is referring to the fact that companies trying to sell goods online are given a choice to either forego 40% of potential revenues or work with Amazon. This gives Amazon an enormous amount of leverage over suppliers.
- logicchains 6y ago
  No, of them forcing anybody off their platform. >The comment is referring to the fact that companies trying to sell goods online are given a choice to either forego 40% of potential revenues or work with Amazon. This gives Amazon an enormous amount of leverage over suppliers. Antitrust law (at least in the US) is conducted on the basis of harm to consumers. If Amazon's negotiating power with suppliers results in better prices/outcomes for consumers, then there's not necessarily anything wrong with that. As a producer, nobody is obligated to buy what you're selling. http://sites.middlebury.edu/econ0450f10/files/2010/08/bastiat.pdf http://sites.middlebury.edu/econ0450f10/files/2010/08/bastia... is a nice argument why laws should try to benefit consumers, not producers.
  - cybwraith 6y ago
    > Antitrust law (at least in the US) is conducted on the basis of harm to consumers. This is far from a consensus view amongst lawmakers and economists.
cybwraith 6y ago
Thats why its called anti-trust. If we are in a position where society needs to trust a company to not abuse their power, then they should be a candidate for anti-trust actions.

Grimm1 6y ago

Yes but historically an anti-trust response is brought against a company that is actually using that monopoly power, and frankly "definitely able to have" is speculative. Do they have it? Are they abusing it? I don't know but, there are two potential cases that pop up that could be such as them leveraging internal data on their third party sellers to out compete them and putting their products first in line which as we know from search carries a lot of weight for what people click. And then there's the part where this has to be bad for consumers. Sucks for competitors but anti-trust has also historically been used when a companies practices are bad for the consumer. My life has only gotten better using Amazon services I don't know about you. My point being is that there are things that legally could be construed as anti-competitive but I as a consumer am not hurt and third party sellers and other competitors generally speaking and in my opinion, suck. I'm not in the business of breaking up companies simply because they're better.

xoa 6y ago

Are you sure you're not confusing "monopoly" with monopsony? The former is about a seller vs buyers, where a single source has huge power over pricing and thus is able to raise prices for buyers far beyond market justification. The latter is when a single buyer controls a high enough share of purchases that they can exert significant power of sellers. While they both impact markets, they're not the same thing and they have different effects. The impact of monopsonys and to what extent their bad is a lot more controversial, because the fundamental idea of grouping together in order to gain enough purchasing power to negotiate lower prices from sellers is used in a lot of areas. I think monopsony does have implications for things like wages and working conditions, with outright depressing of wages as well as potential for more wage discrimination. Those are all different issues though with different potential regulatory tools to apply against them vs a monopolist simply outright raising prices for buyers. I'm definitely concerned that way, way too many people have started to just reach for the big BREAK 'EM UP hammer for any problem they see, despite the potential for nasty battles delaying effectiveness and enormous and unpredictable side effects. I'd really like to see much more focused efforts tried first, particularly since a big central target can actually be easier to regulate and check for certain things. There is plenty of low hanging fruit at Amazon like their commingling practices, but such things tend to be more technocratic. I'm concerned that focused efforts like that are seen as "boring" and in turn not getting the attention they should. This is similar to how I feel about other areas like secure hardware stacks. Rather then "break up Apple/Google!!!" I'd much, much rather see things like "devices owners must have the option to load their own crypto roots with equal power as any manufacturer roots" or "devices must be warranted for 1 month/$20 retail price up to 60 months" or the like done. They're not as catchy politics but they'd be really directly useful without risking a lot of the value scale can bring.

cybwraith 6y ago
Antitrust is not purely about consumers, but about protecting a competitive and open market. However I will admit that this has been widely debated and is not actually consensus in US history. A counter-argument is that antitrust action should be purely focused on consumer prices and do nothing unless consumer pricing is negatively affected. I would argue that the former is still being consumer-pricing focused, just with a long term view instead of a short term view