6 ms·

> We should not allow a company to have a share over around 10% of any market. If a company was already at said 10% limit and you wanted to buy something out o

by rualca 5y ago

> We should not allow a company to have a share over around 10% of any market. If a company was already at said 10% limit and you wanted to buy something out of them because to you their offer is by far so much better than any of the alternatives, in your opinion what should happen?

alfonsodev 5y ago
The price would regulate itself by offer/demand balance and you would still be able to buy it if you can afford it. With no limits, they can actually create artificial lower prices that competition can’t match, and they become exponentially more powerful and dominating. And sometimes you end up as a customer having less options and lower quality.
- pc86 5y ago
  Price dumping is already illegal.
  - andrepd 5y ago
    Explain Uber then :^)
- rualca 5y ago
  > The price would regulate itself by offer/demand balance and you would still be able to buy it if you can afford it. No, not really. I shopped around. I picked the best for me. I want to buy from that company but it is already at your 10% limit. What then? Can I actually buy what I want?
  - alfonsodev 5y ago
    if a company is maxing their sells, don't you think they will raise the price?, and play at a 9%, so there will be always room for new buyers willing to pay the price. And honestly is hard to debate because it's an vaguely defined hypothetical, I guess we are talking about situations where the state limits how much you can produce. I think is already happening if you think about Spanish Olive Oil for example, EU limits how much countries can produce, so the price goes up, still everyone that can pay for it can buy it, but at a price that represents the scarcity of it, otherwise you can choose other origin of same product. I'm really not an expert in these topics, but that's my mental model of it, and I'm not even defend it as I'm not sure it is the optimal, specially the EU way about vegetable production.
    - rualca 5y ago
      > a company is maxing their sells, don't you think they will raise the price? I said nothing about price. It is irrelevant. I shopped for a product and that particular company had exactly what I want, and they offer it in a way that makes it the absolute best option for my preference. The choice was made. The company wants to sell the product, I want to buy that product from them, but they hit 10% market share. What then? Am I free to buy what I want from who I want to buy it from?
      - alfonsodev 5y ago
        This can happen already to you when products go out of stock, because the company doesn’t have enough capacity to produce, or they underestimate the demand, but after the company makes profit and reinvest in the next batch, they can adjust the price to balance the demand. It’s not like you are already free to buy whatever you want, there are production limitations, and your budget limitation. Right now big companies are allowed to give 100x better solutions at fraction of the cost, that makes imposible to other companies to compete and your freedom to buy is just not real, as many times you’ll be obligated to buy from the big fish, being the only alternative. In the other hand limiting them, they will have to raise the prices and then it would make sense that something 100x more convenient is also more expensive. Right now we have convenience and low cost, but it’s at the expense of killing smaller business and creating virtual monopolies.
        rualca 5y ago
        > This can happen already to you when products go out of stock (...) No, it can't. Your case involves a scenario where no transaction is possible because there is no product to buy or sell. It has zero to do with my very simple and very straight-forward example of a customer wanting to buy a product indeed sold and available and on the store of a seller who already reached its 10% market share. My example is very clear, and for some reason all proponents of this virtuous 10% market share are either unable or unwilling to step up and either think their idea through or explain how they expect to implement their virtuous idea. And this is a very simple and straight-forward example: a seller has a product I want to buy, I shopped around and that seller has the absolute best offer, I want to buy the product from that seller, the seller has the product on the counter and I have the cash at hand, but the seller already hit the 10% market share. What then? Is the next step so mysterious that no one can even come close to dare explain what they believe should happen?
boomboomsubban 5y ago
There should be an investigation into why they can make a far better offer than their competition. Most answers are likely exploitative in some way.
- ch4s3 5y ago
  > Most answers are likely exploitative in some way On what basis are you making a claim like that? Toyota sells roughly as may vehicles in the US a Ford and more than the other manufacturers. Their cars are in many ways better than their competitors qualitatively and often cheaper. Do you think they are exploiting people? I could keep listing examples of market leaders that offer better products that are more aligned with consumer preferences, but I'm not sure that's going to convince you.
  - TchoBeer 5y ago
    I think what OP means is that amazon is using all the data they have from their storefront to beat everyone in the market, which does seem unfair to me.
    - ch4s3 5y ago
      I get that, but it doesn't seem any different from any national retailer that sells store brand products along side competitors. I'm not even sure how unique this data is. Every corporation in America has access to relatively detailed data about their competitors' sales. There's a time delay, but know what's selling well is really a small part of executing on go to market strategies.
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    >Do you think they are exploiting people? Yes, part of how they achieved this was by violating emissions standards for a decade, something that they've been fined for. I'd be willing to wager they engage in similar practices too. >I could keep listing examples of market leaders that offer better products that are more aligned with consumer preferences, Their existence alone won't convince me. You need to answer why the competition is unable to produce similar products at similar prices.
batty_alex 5y ago
It's not a math equation you run through a computer and get a legal result out the other end. Congress (or whatever) could use this measurement as a tool to drive investigations so you can stomp out anti-competitive behavior before it becomes a problem
- rualca 5y ago
  > It's not a math equation you run through a computer and get a legal result out the other end. Not really. This has zero to do with math. At all. We have a buyer and we have a seller, both the buyer and the seller wish to perform a transaction, but then we have a regulator which arbitrarily wants to force them not to execute said transaction because of reasons. And my question is terribly simple: to those who want to force someone like me from buying what I like from a seller I chose but they arbitrarily reject, how exactly do they wish to force me from buying what I'd like from who I chose to buy from? No math, no numbers. I'm asking a very simple question: what then?
  - diab0lic 5y ago
    > No math, no numbers. I’m asking a very simple question: what then? The comment you replied to answered your question. The transaction goes through, absolutely no additional regulation or control comes into play at the transaction level. NOTE: I am not supporting this position, or opposing it. I’m just stating what the gp post said.
    - rualca 5y ago
      > The comment you replied to answered your question. It really didn't, instead it weaseled out by putting up a strawman that pretends to put a loophole in a straight-forward and very clear way. In fact, it's blatantly clear by itself the fact that no one proposed a single idea or suggestion about how to enforce that mysterious 10%. No explanation was given on the impact on customers, and how the sellers would be forced to not go beyond that 10%. Why is that? Is the idea undefendable?
dragonwriter 5y ago
If they are offering, you buy it. Regulation would affect their legal ability and/or willingness (depending on the style of regulation) to make the offer. For instance, a regulation addressing this could involve a tax on gross receipts (not profits) in a defined market segment that was 0% at up to 8% share, and 50%×(10 - share in %) above that point.

by rualca 5y ago

alfonsodev 5y ago

The price would regulate itself by offer/demand balance and you would still be able to buy it if you can afford it. With no limits, they can actually create artificial lower prices that competition can’t match, and they become exponentially more powerful and dominating. And sometimes you end up as a customer having less options and lower quality.

pc86 5y ago
Price dumping is already illegal.
- andrepd 5y ago
  Explain Uber then :^)
rualca 5y ago
> The price would regulate itself by offer/demand balance and you would still be able to buy it if you can afford it. No, not really. I shopped around. I picked the best for me. I want to buy from that company but it is already at your 10% limit. What then? Can I actually buy what I want?
- alfonsodev 5y ago
  if a company is maxing their sells, don't you think they will raise the price?, and play at a 9%, so there will be always room for new buyers willing to pay the price. And honestly is hard to debate because it's an vaguely defined hypothetical, I guess we are talking about situations where the state limits how much you can produce. I think is already happening if you think about Spanish Olive Oil for example, EU limits how much countries can produce, so the price goes up, still everyone that can pay for it can buy it, but at a price that represents the scarcity of it, otherwise you can choose other origin of same product. I'm really not an expert in these topics, but that's my mental model of it, and I'm not even defend it as I'm not sure it is the optimal, specially the EU way about vegetable production.
  - rualca 5y ago
    > a company is maxing their sells, don't you think they will raise the price? I said nothing about price. It is irrelevant. I shopped for a product and that particular company had exactly what I want, and they offer it in a way that makes it the absolute best option for my preference. The choice was made. The company wants to sell the product, I want to buy that product from them, but they hit 10% market share. What then? Am I free to buy what I want from who I want to buy it from?
    - alfonsodev 5y ago
      This can happen already to you when products go out of stock, because the company doesn’t have enough capacity to produce, or they underestimate the demand, but after the company makes profit and reinvest in the next batch, they can adjust the price to balance the demand. It’s not like you are already free to buy whatever you want, there are production limitations, and your budget limitation. Right now big companies are allowed to give 100x better solutions at fraction of the cost, that makes imposible to other companies to compete and your freedom to buy is just not real, as many times you’ll be obligated to buy from the big fish, being the only alternative. In the other hand limiting them, they will have to raise the prices and then it would make sense that something 100x more convenient is also more expensive. Right now we have convenience and low cost, but it’s at the expense of killing smaller business and creating virtual monopolies.
      - rualca 5y ago
        > This can happen already to you when products go out of stock (...) No, it can't. Your case involves a scenario where no transaction is possible because there is no product to buy or sell. It has zero to do with my very simple and very straight-forward example of a customer wanting to buy a product indeed sold and available and on the store of a seller who already reached its 10% market share. My example is very clear, and for some reason all proponents of this virtuous 10% market share are either unable or unwilling to step up and either think their idea through or explain how they expect to implement their virtuous idea. And this is a very simple and straight-forward example: a seller has a product I want to buy, I shopped around and that seller has the absolute best offer, I want to buy the product from that seller, the seller has the product on the counter and I have the cash at hand, but the seller already hit the 10% market share. What then? Is the next step so mysterious that no one can even come close to dare explain what they believe should happen?

boomboomsubban 5y ago

There should be an investigation into why they can make a far better offer than their competition. Most answers are likely exploitative in some way.

ch4s3 5y ago
> Most answers are likely exploitative in some way On what basis are you making a claim like that? Toyota sells roughly as may vehicles in the US a Ford and more than the other manufacturers. Their cars are in many ways better than their competitors qualitatively and often cheaper. Do you think they are exploiting people? I could keep listing examples of market leaders that offer better products that are more aligned with consumer preferences, but I'm not sure that's going to convince you.
- TchoBeer 5y ago
  I think what OP means is that amazon is using all the data they have from their storefront to beat everyone in the market, which does seem unfair to me.
  - ch4s3 5y ago
    I get that, but it doesn't seem any different from any national retailer that sells store brand products along side competitors. I'm not even sure how unique this data is. Every corporation in America has access to relatively detailed data about their competitors' sales. There's a time delay, but know what's selling well is really a small part of executing on go to market strategies.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  >Do you think they are exploiting people? Yes, part of how they achieved this was by violating emissions standards for a decade, something that they've been fined for. I'd be willing to wager they engage in similar practices too. >I could keep listing examples of market leaders that offer better products that are more aligned with consumer preferences, Their existence alone won't convince me. You need to answer why the competition is unable to produce similar products at similar prices.

batty_alex 5y ago

It's not a math equation you run through a computer and get a legal result out the other end. Congress (or whatever) could use this measurement as a tool to drive investigations so you can stomp out anti-competitive behavior before it becomes a problem

rualca 5y ago
> It's not a math equation you run through a computer and get a legal result out the other end. Not really. This has zero to do with math. At all. We have a buyer and we have a seller, both the buyer and the seller wish to perform a transaction, but then we have a regulator which arbitrarily wants to force them not to execute said transaction because of reasons. And my question is terribly simple: to those who want to force someone like me from buying what I like from a seller I chose but they arbitrarily reject, how exactly do they wish to force me from buying what I'd like from who I chose to buy from? No math, no numbers. I'm asking a very simple question: what then?
- diab0lic 5y ago
  > No math, no numbers. I’m asking a very simple question: what then? The comment you replied to answered your question. The transaction goes through, absolutely no additional regulation or control comes into play at the transaction level. NOTE: I am not supporting this position, or opposing it. I’m just stating what the gp post said.
  - rualca 5y ago
    > The comment you replied to answered your question. It really didn't, instead it weaseled out by putting up a strawman that pretends to put a loophole in a straight-forward and very clear way. In fact, it's blatantly clear by itself the fact that no one proposed a single idea or suggestion about how to enforce that mysterious 10%. No explanation was given on the impact on customers, and how the sellers would be forced to not go beyond that 10%. Why is that? Is the idea undefendable?

dragonwriter 5y ago

If they are offering, you buy it. Regulation would affect their legal ability and/or willingness (depending on the style of regulation) to make the offer. For instance, a regulation addressing this could involve a tax on gross receipts (not profits) in a defined market segment that was 0% at up to 8% share, and 50%×(10 - share in %) above that point.