3 ms·

I know you probably didn’t mean it but I still want to state it. Your personal simplification of life or the amount you personally care or not doesn’t define mo

I know you probably didn’t mean it but I still want to state it. Your personal simplification of life or the amount you personally care or not doesn’t define monopolistic behavior. The entire population may not care about something but it could be disallowed.

canjobear 5y ago
> The entire population may not care about something but it could be disallowed. In a functioning democracy, not for long
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  Yeah, I agree, we may have bigger fish to fry with an entire party actively trying to redefine what voting is in America. It seems like if they didn't win that there certainly must be voter fraud and more minorities voters should be disenfranchised (or enough votes thrown out by 1 party lege committees so that they win) and if they do win then clearly voter fraud was no where to be found.
SavantIdiot 5y ago
Also, clearly that person makes a lot of money to not care about costs, they can afford convenience. Not everyone can, which is what makes the "I got mine, so what about everyone else?" attitude dangerous in any circumstance.
jonas21 5y ago
Modern US antitrust law is based solely on benefit to the consumer [1]. If the entire population doesn't care about something (by which I assume you mean they are not harmed by it or even benefit from it), then it's not prohibited. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law#Theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law#Th...
- nrmitchi 5y ago
  > If the entire population doesn't care about something It is a huge leap to assume that the entire population doesn't care about the literal cost of something they are buying.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - dannyw 5y ago
    The lawsuit fails to allege that Amazon is resulting in higher prices to consumers. It simply alleges that Amazon is essentially coercing all retailers to list prices with shipping included/amortized, and offer free shipping. That is something that might be substantially harder to successfully sue under US antitrust law. Consumers aren't paying any more. Consumers are just seeing a number with shipping prices built in.
    - batty_alex 5y ago
      The lawsuit alleges that Amazon Prime is resulting in higher prices to consumers
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  Yeah, and I think this is fundamentally what's wrong with our anti-trust law. Trying to decide what harms the consumer is far too narrow in scope, and instead we should have some broader goals related to the promotion of markets and competition, rather than just focusing on consumers. e.g. - competition is good in and of itself, so new entrants should not be harmed and competition should be promoted and monopoly restricted purely on the basis of promoting competition as a policy goal. - creation of new markets should be viewed as a policy goal in and of itself. Thus if a firm impedes a burgeoning secondary market or new derived market, that impediment should be viewed as a violation of anti-trust law. - consumer harm is also a factor, but only one of three factors. IMO, our maniacal focus on consumption while abandoning promotion of production and healthy market competition is behind many of our economic policy blunders.

canjobear 5y ago

> The entire population may not care about something but it could be disallowed. In a functioning democracy, not for long

stjohnswarts 5y ago
Yeah, I agree, we may have bigger fish to fry with an entire party actively trying to redefine what voting is in America. It seems like if they didn't win that there certainly must be voter fraud and more minorities voters should be disenfranchised (or enough votes thrown out by 1 party lege committees so that they win) and if they do win then clearly voter fraud was no where to be found.

SavantIdiot 5y ago

Also, clearly that person makes a lot of money to not care about costs, they can afford convenience. Not everyone can, which is what makes the "I got mine, so what about everyone else?" attitude dangerous in any circumstance.

jonas21 5y ago

Modern US antitrust law is based solely on benefit to the consumer [1]. If the entire population doesn't care about something (by which I assume you mean they are not harmed by it or even benefit from it), then it's not prohibited. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law#Theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law#Th...

nrmitchi 5y ago
> If the entire population doesn't care about something It is a huge leap to assume that the entire population doesn't care about the literal cost of something they are buying.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- dannyw 5y ago
  The lawsuit fails to allege that Amazon is resulting in higher prices to consumers. It simply alleges that Amazon is essentially coercing all retailers to list prices with shipping included/amortized, and offer free shipping. That is something that might be substantially harder to successfully sue under US antitrust law. Consumers aren't paying any more. Consumers are just seeing a number with shipping prices built in.
  - batty_alex 5y ago
    The lawsuit alleges that Amazon Prime is resulting in higher prices to consumers
rsj_hn 5y ago
Yeah, and I think this is fundamentally what's wrong with our anti-trust law. Trying to decide what harms the consumer is far too narrow in scope, and instead we should have some broader goals related to the promotion of markets and competition, rather than just focusing on consumers. e.g. - competition is good in and of itself, so new entrants should not be harmed and competition should be promoted and monopoly restricted purely on the basis of promoting competition as a policy goal. - creation of new markets should be viewed as a policy goal in and of itself. Thus if a firm impedes a burgeoning secondary market or new derived market, that impediment should be viewed as a violation of anti-trust law. - consumer harm is also a factor, but only one of three factors. IMO, our maniacal focus on consumption while abandoning promotion of production and healthy market competition is behind many of our economic policy blunders.