4 ms·

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 a

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.

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.