4 ms·
My comment is not about their lying. That's a different problem and not what my comment is about. > Can you really not distinguish Amazon, it’s market position
by whoisjuan 5y ago
My comment is not about their lying. That's a different problem and not what my comment is about.
> Can you really not distinguish Amazon, it’s market position, and their acts from brick and mortar retailers that carry private label items?
Who do you think had the dominant market position before Amazon was a thing? Again, this play is older than Amazon itself.
My argument was just a rhetorical statement reflecting on the government's ineffectiveness and contradictory behavior when defining what harms customers or competition.
It's only now they care, because it's only now that they seem to see the political benefits from pursuing what's a rampant decades-long behavior.
Believe me, my comment is not trying to defend Amazon, is simply trying to showcase how politicians are opportunistic demagogues.
- tchalla 5y agoThere seems to be no winning with the government actions : Act early and they’re accused of stifling “innovation”, act late and they’re accused of “ineffective ness”.
- whoisjuan 5y agoExcept that in this case they are about 30 to 40 years late.
- xyzzyz 5y agoYes, the government regulatory actions are typically net negative.
- asdff 5y agoI don't know, I like being able to see the mountains from Pasadena today. That wasn't possible in the 1980s.
- nosianu 5y agoBut nobody is paying for better air! (Yet)
- helmholtz 5y agoOh wow. Take a look at EdgyTeenager3000 here with his edgy, modern views. Those net negative regulations prevent your house from burning to a crisp in a fire, they prevent your car from using your knees as a crumple zone when you inevitably total it, they prevent the air that you breathe in an office being foul, they prevent (usually) your drinking water being full of feces. But nah, that edgy flippant comment was totally rad and so cool bruh!!!
- bluecalm 5y agoIs their argument that it harms customers and competition? It seems it benefits both. Customers get cheaper goods and Amazon is competing with the existing players. The government willingnes to act is then easier to explain: it's not defending customers (it rarely does) but it tries to shelve other established businesses from competition (which is common).