>In the brick and mortar stores that wouldn't have closed if Amazon wasn't there. This seems unlikely, online shopping is far too convenient and provides far t

>In the brick and mortar stores that wouldn't have closed if Amazon wasn't there. This seems unlikely, online shopping is far too convenient and provides far too much value for brick and mortar stores to compete. However, that's not to say that these stores necessarily went out of business. A savvy proprietor would see the writing on the wall and move their operations online. >Because Amazon destroyed these somewhere elses. Why Amazon? Would it also not be fair to say that consumers destroyed the somewhere elses by shopping online instead of on main street? >This decision is wrong though. Humans are pretty bad at taking externalities into account. That's the thing about freedom - when people are free to make their own decisions, one must accept that they may occasionally make (to some observers) irrational or counterproductive decisions. That does not mean that removing said freedoms is an acceptable solution. >You can't when existing players use their established position as a way to prevent new players from entering the market. This statement holds. Anti-competitive behaviour is counterproductive and should be discouraged because it has a negative impact on the free market.