3 ms·
Probably not a bad idea to draw more attention to it regardless. Whether it's Walmart, Amazon, Costco, etc. If anyone can do it then they all MUST do it to comp
by rapind 5y ago
Probably not a bad idea to draw more attention to it regardless. Whether it's Walmart, Amazon, Costco, etc. If anyone can do it then they all MUST do it to compete. If we bring the hammer down on Amazon then we'll have to (ideally) bring the hammer down uniformly on everyone else.
Basically it's sketchy behaviour across the board and Amazon has just proven themselves to be better, more efficient, and more willing at it.
It's an argument worth having IMO. One side will cite consumer benefit and the other will point out that it has long term effects that reduce choice and innovation (and thus consumer benefit).
Amazon would do just fine with a level playing field.
- emodendroket 5y agoGotta be honest, I don't see it as much of a win if I can't buy store-brand cereal anymore.
- xyzzyz 5y agoYou don’t understand. Government needs you to stop buying store brand cereals, because they unfairly compete against General Mills Cheerios. See, stores can sell store brands cheaper than Cheerios, and that’s an anti-competitive practice, which the anti monopoly law is meant to protect from. Government will protect you by ensuring that there is no cheaper competing product, so that you will end up buying Cheerios at higher price. This will reduce the monopoly, and make the cereal market more competitive. Does that make sense to you? (It shouldn’t, because it doesn’t.)
- 8note 5y agoIt's just missing steps on breaking up General Mills, and grants for starting new cereal businesses
- emodendroket 5y agoSeems like a tremendous use of energy and resources for little to no benefit.