4 ms·
The measure of "consumer welfare" used by US antitrust is mostly concerned with prices, which I've always thought was a bit cynical but it is what it is. Do con
by NoSorryCannot 5y ago
The measure of "consumer welfare" used by US antitrust is mostly concerned with prices, which I've always thought was a bit cynical but it is what it is. Do consumers stand to pay higher prices when a single company controls the production, licensing, and distribution of content?
I would argue yes and the government has argued it, too, when they forced movie studios to divest their stakes in movie theaters.
- bhupy 5y agoI think you're both arguing the same point: that monopoly markups can negatively impact consumer welfare. The central argument is whether Amazon specifically is a monopoly in any of the industries in which it operates, so as to be able to charge higher prices you speak of — that's not what's happening. In fact, the GP comment laid out exactly why vertical acquisitions often improve consumer welfare, in the case that the company being sold is itself a monopoly: > And indeed, in the Apple hypothetical you could well expect consumers to be better off and for exactly the same reason: if Apple purchases an input (the M1 chip) from a monopoly supplier (the hypothetical non-Apple-producer), vertical integration removes one monopoly markup.