3 ms·
They are extracting rent from a market that's now too big and powerful and are enforcing rules that do not have political (as in citizens') legitimacy. They ha
by cm277 6y ago
They are extracting rent from a market that's now too big and powerful and are enforcing rules that do not have political (as in citizens') legitimacy.
They have obviously won their market position fair-and-square and their rules aren't illegal. But extracting taxes ('rent' in economist-speak) from other companies just because they were successful at some point in the past is uncompetitive behavior now.
Same goes for Amazon/Google: extracting rent from a market-dominant position should be illegal (it isn't) regardless of how that position was won.
- ntsplnkv2 6y agoOnce again - they are not market dominant, they do not have the largest marketshare of phone users. This is false. > and are enforcing rules that do not have political (as in citizens') legitimacy. This is basically saying to me "yea you're right, it isn't illegal, but I don't like it!!" They're charging for a service, there is nothing unfair about it. Frankly, it could be even higher. > Same goes for Amazon/Google: extracting rent from a market-dominant position should be illegal (it isn't) regardless of how that position was won. Google is a clear monopoly - they dominate the market. Amazon does not - Wal-Mart, Target, are all viable competitors. BestBuy, NewEgg, Ebay, etc.