3 ms·

You're right, I could have been more kind to middlemen. I agree there are middlemen who add value. I also think that when middlemen become essentials, it's a

You're right, I could have been more kind to middlemen. I agree there are middlemen who add value. I also think that when middlemen become essentials, it's a sign we are over-regulating society. I have a lot of respect for Amazon in the early days: they really changed the world of online shopping. In the last years, they didn't innovate their e-commerce offering and I attribute a lot of their growth to pure government regulation. The great european VATMOSS (together with GDPR, SCA, cookie banners) killed small independent e-commerces with and pushed the survivors on Amazon, just to avoid the complexity. Let all remember how VATMOSS was supposed to "tax big tech". COVID lockdowns are now killing physical small businesses and Amazon is benefiting from it.

jacobr1 5y ago
All middlemen provide "some" value, or else they get eliminated by the market. Sure, some might stick around vestigially for momentum sake, but that gets worked out over the long run. The question is more one of a value judgement. Is that value "fair" at its price? At the vary least many middle-provide market making functions. Even with your more recent Amazon example, there was nothing stopping smaller e-commerce stores from complying with VATMOSS. If Amazon wasn't there, most of them probably would have been able to hire consultants or other firms to help them comply. They didn't because Amazon was cheaper/easier. Is the loss of control to Amazon worth it? For the vendor? For society? Unclear, but we are only in the position because of the value Amazon provided even it comes with a social cost.
- jokethrowaway 5y ago
  I'm arguing against regulation; before VATMOSS was there small businesses didn't need to comply. The question I'm hinting at is: is Amazon using the money they earned in their first phase by being a useful middleman to push the narrative in a certain direction (eg. lobbying, owning a newspaper, etc) and influence governmental bodies so that they introduce more regulation which Amazon benefit from? If the capital we're giving to Amazon gets reinvested to make everyone's life more complicated so that we need more Amazon and Amazon can grow more, then it's not something I want to spend my money on.

jacobr1 5y ago

All middlemen provide "some" value, or else they get eliminated by the market. Sure, some might stick around vestigially for momentum sake, but that gets worked out over the long run. The question is more one of a value judgement. Is that value "fair" at its price? At the vary least many middle-provide market making functions. Even with your more recent Amazon example, there was nothing stopping smaller e-commerce stores from complying with VATMOSS. If Amazon wasn't there, most of them probably would have been able to hire consultants or other firms to help them comply. They didn't because Amazon was cheaper/easier. Is the loss of control to Amazon worth it? For the vendor? For society? Unclear, but we are only in the position because of the value Amazon provided even it comes with a social cost.

jokethrowaway 5y ago
I'm arguing against regulation; before VATMOSS was there small businesses didn't need to comply. The question I'm hinting at is: is Amazon using the money they earned in their first phase by being a useful middleman to push the narrative in a certain direction (eg. lobbying, owning a newspaper, etc) and influence governmental bodies so that they introduce more regulation which Amazon benefit from? If the capital we're giving to Amazon gets reinvested to make everyone's life more complicated so that we need more Amazon and Amazon can grow more, then it's not something I want to spend my money on.