2 ms·

>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, Amaz

• 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.