4 ms·

Why would you possibly want a bureaucrat in Washington, or committee of such, overseeing Amazon's pricing decisions? Amazon's policy makes total sense. If you

Why would you possibly want a bureaucrat in Washington, or committee of such, overseeing Amazon's pricing decisions? Amazon's policy makes total sense. If you discover an item on its site, benefit from its reviews, specs and descriptions, and then last minute, go buy at Newegg or Walmart or wherever because its $20 cheaper, how does that help Amazon? Amazon would rather have you "discover" items that it sells at the lowest price, and thus lowest probability of you going to an alternative store. I don't like Amazon's massive dominance but I can't blame them for directing you to items you are most likely to buy from them.

jjoonathan 5y ago
Obviously Amazon's anticompetitive behavior is good for Amazon. Why on earth does that make it good for me? Why shouldn't I oppose it?
- listenallyall 5y ago
  Your comment isn't an argument, just a pair of questions. Don't ask me to justify your opinion, figure it out yourself. Amazon promoting products that Amazon is most likely to sell is NOT "anticompetitive behavior." Every company seeks to do things to benefit themselves. Do you oppose them all?
  - jjoonathan 5y ago
    Yeah, yeah, you're "just asking questions." Lol. Questions that relentlessly frame the matter in an agrgessively pro-amazon stance. Amazon is obviously free to show the best deals on Amazon. That's not at all what this is about, and you know it.
  - jessaustin 5y ago
    You don't seem to be discussing this in good faith. Obviously most consumers prefer what is good for consumers rather than what is good for giant retailers. We don't have to justify that to anyone.
    - listenallyall 5y ago
      You are missing the point of the whole argument. Amazon is successful because it does TONS of things that are GREAT for consumers. And lots of other stores do too. When a store opens at 6am on Black Friday, do you think they are doing it because their employees requested it? No, consumers did. Do you think retailers like slashing margins razor-thin? No, but if they don't, consumers will go elsewhere. Result is lower prices across the board. "Good for giant retailers" would be for you to pay shipping on all orders. To limit refunds as much as possible. To be "out of stock" on popular items they put on deep discounts and have you select an expensive alternative instead (i.e. bait and switch). Amazon and Walmart have enabled consumers to buy all kinds of goods without paying the premium that established brands charge -- the cheapest tent at REI.com is an $80 Kelty. Meanwhile Amazon has a wide selection at $60 and below from "SEMOO" and "ILOFRI" and "TEKOMI". The OP suggested lawmakers should somehow make it illegal for Amazon to offer preferential treatment -- prominently featuring their items -- to suppliers that don't charge less to other retailers. Every store does the exact same thing -- and this is GOOD for consumers. When your supermarket puts Coca-Cola on sale (because Coke paid the supermarket), it brings out extra bottles and places them at the front of the store and makes it easy to buy. Sure you can still buy Pepsi, it's back somewhere on aisle 12 where it always is.
      - jessaustin 5y ago
        ...suppliers that don't charge less to other retailers. Haha you can't even pretend to have misunderstood the situation to this extent. QED on the bad faith. Amazon DGAF what percentages other retailers get. How would they even know those? They are penalizing suppliers for the prices that consumers pay at other retailers. So long as Amazon are allowed to do this, they'll just keep slowly increasing their cut. What's 34% today will be 40% next year, etc.
        listenallyall 5y ago
        I concede that in haste I wrote "to" instead of "at". Amazon offers preferential treatment to suppliers that don't charge less (to consumers) AT other retailers. And before you say it's up to the retailers what to ultimately charge the consumer, this is not true in today's economy, where sites like Amazon, Newegg, eBay and Walmart act as marketplaces enabling direct manufacturer to consumer sales. Although I made the initial mistake, I'm pretty sure you just piled on with more bullshit. I'm rather confident Amazon has a good read on what its suppliers charge other vendors, just Wal-Mart and Target do in the B&M space, and that they do very much care.
- Svettie 5y ago
  competing is not anti-competitive. > Even though some competing platforms charge much lower fees, if Steve lowers his prices on another shopping site, Amazon’s algorithms punish him I think in most cases, this "fair-pricing" bot kicks in because a seller has instead inflated prices on Amazon to squeeze more profit from Amazon customers. Amazon thinks that such tactics diminish the value of their marketplace, so they apply this crude heuristic as a way to disincentivize it. So to answer your question: it's good for you, because if you're shopping on Amazon you can reasonably expect that you're getting good prices (at least in theory). This leads to a virtuous cycle which feeds the beast: people buy more stuff from Amazon, Amazon can operate more efficiently, you get lower prices. Steve is griping against Amazon, but quite possibly he just has a bad business, and the core of his problem is that he can't compete effectively with other sellers on Amazon. But to him, Amazon seems like the problem because he feels like he's between a rock and a hard place. But, hypothetical harm aside, Amazon (FBA especially) is currently a really good deal for sellers in terms of shipping costs and access to customers.
vkou 5y ago
> Why would you possibly want a bureaucrat in Washington, or committee of such, overseeing Amazon's pricing decisions? Presumably for the same reason(s) that you want an unelected corporate bureaucrat in Seattle making these decisions instead.
- listenallyall 5y ago
  The guy in Seattle is a capitalist. If you don't like his decisions, you are free to ignore him and not do any business with him. Of course, many of his decisions do benefit you -- low prices, free delivery, wide range of products, displaying reviews, etc. -- but again, you aren't obligated to participate or interact. In fact, even if you refuse to buy from Amazon, you still benefit -- because of competition, your favorite store probably also offers free delivery or has low prices because it needs to compete. If a committee of Senators, on the other hand, makes a declaration -- Amazon cannot sell Chinese goods cheaper than American-made alternatives -- or maybe, delivery times to rural areas must match those to cities -- then everybody loses, and you can't opt out of that.
  - vkou 5y ago
    You can only ignore a capitalist until he becomes a monopolist. You can ignore a commitee of senators at any time by voting them out.
    - listenallyall 5y ago
      I agree Amazon has an uncomfortable amount of power and influence in retail. But they are very far from a monopolist. And "voting them out" doesn't erase laws that those Senators passed.
- rkk3 5y ago
  > an unelected corporate bureaucrat in Seattle Do board votes or shareholder votes not count ?
w-j-w 5y ago
Amazon isn't motivated to make the best economy, they're motivated to make the most money. They absolutely cannot be trusted and are not accountable to anything or anyone other than shareholders. By contrast, a burecrat can be held responsible for doing things contradictory to the goal of creating a fair marketplace.
snthd 5y ago
>Why would you possibly want a bureaucrat in Washington, or committee of such, overseeing Amazon's pricing decisions? Alternatively "Why would you possibly want your democratic representative in Washington, or committee of such, regulating markets to work in favour of the average citizen?"
- listenallyall 5y ago
  How would higher prices work in favor (sorry, favour) of the average citizen? Amazon promotes items that it sells for the lowest price. Your local supermarket sends out a flyer every week with all the items it has put on sale, then makes sure those items are easy to find in the store. It's the same thing. Or maybe you want Senators to have final approval over supermarket flyers too.
  - snthd 5y ago
    Allowing sellers to price their items higher on Amazon than elsewhere means it's possible for the seller to offer me a better price, and still make more money (because their costs are lower when Amazon isn't involved). When Amazon can force a "lowest price" the cost of Amazon's service always gets passed to me, and the lowest possible price is higher.

jjoonathan 5y ago

Obviously Amazon's anticompetitive behavior is good for Amazon. Why on earth does that make it good for me? Why shouldn't I oppose it?

listenallyall 5y ago
Your comment isn't an argument, just a pair of questions. Don't ask me to justify your opinion, figure it out yourself. Amazon promoting products that Amazon is most likely to sell is NOT "anticompetitive behavior." Every company seeks to do things to benefit themselves. Do you oppose them all?
- jjoonathan 5y ago
  Yeah, yeah, you're "just asking questions." Lol. Questions that relentlessly frame the matter in an agrgessively pro-amazon stance. Amazon is obviously free to show the best deals on Amazon. That's not at all what this is about, and you know it.
- jessaustin 5y ago
  You don't seem to be discussing this in good faith. Obviously most consumers prefer what is good for consumers rather than what is good for giant retailers. We don't have to justify that to anyone.
  - listenallyall 5y ago
    You are missing the point of the whole argument. Amazon is successful because it does TONS of things that are GREAT for consumers. And lots of other stores do too. When a store opens at 6am on Black Friday, do you think they are doing it because their employees requested it? No, consumers did. Do you think retailers like slashing margins razor-thin? No, but if they don't, consumers will go elsewhere. Result is lower prices across the board. "Good for giant retailers" would be for you to pay shipping on all orders. To limit refunds as much as possible. To be "out of stock" on popular items they put on deep discounts and have you select an expensive alternative instead (i.e. bait and switch). Amazon and Walmart have enabled consumers to buy all kinds of goods without paying the premium that established brands charge -- the cheapest tent at REI.com is an $80 Kelty. Meanwhile Amazon has a wide selection at $60 and below from "SEMOO" and "ILOFRI" and "TEKOMI". The OP suggested lawmakers should somehow make it illegal for Amazon to offer preferential treatment -- prominently featuring their items -- to suppliers that don't charge less to other retailers. Every store does the exact same thing -- and this is GOOD for consumers. When your supermarket puts Coca-Cola on sale (because Coke paid the supermarket), it brings out extra bottles and places them at the front of the store and makes it easy to buy. Sure you can still buy Pepsi, it's back somewhere on aisle 12 where it always is.
    - jessaustin 5y ago
      ...suppliers that don't charge less to other retailers. Haha you can't even pretend to have misunderstood the situation to this extent. QED on the bad faith. Amazon DGAF what percentages other retailers get. How would they even know those? They are penalizing suppliers for the prices that consumers pay at other retailers. So long as Amazon are allowed to do this, they'll just keep slowly increasing their cut. What's 34% today will be 40% next year, etc.
      - listenallyall 5y ago
        I concede that in haste I wrote "to" instead of "at". Amazon offers preferential treatment to suppliers that don't charge less (to consumers) AT other retailers. And before you say it's up to the retailers what to ultimately charge the consumer, this is not true in today's economy, where sites like Amazon, Newegg, eBay and Walmart act as marketplaces enabling direct manufacturer to consumer sales. Although I made the initial mistake, I'm pretty sure you just piled on with more bullshit. I'm rather confident Amazon has a good read on what its suppliers charge other vendors, just Wal-Mart and Target do in the B&M space, and that they do very much care.
Svettie 5y ago
competing is not anti-competitive. > Even though some competing platforms charge much lower fees, if Steve lowers his prices on another shopping site, Amazon’s algorithms punish him I think in most cases, this "fair-pricing" bot kicks in because a seller has instead inflated prices on Amazon to squeeze more profit from Amazon customers. Amazon thinks that such tactics diminish the value of their marketplace, so they apply this crude heuristic as a way to disincentivize it. So to answer your question: it's good for you, because if you're shopping on Amazon you can reasonably expect that you're getting good prices (at least in theory). This leads to a virtuous cycle which feeds the beast: people buy more stuff from Amazon, Amazon can operate more efficiently, you get lower prices. Steve is griping against Amazon, but quite possibly he just has a bad business, and the core of his problem is that he can't compete effectively with other sellers on Amazon. But to him, Amazon seems like the problem because he feels like he's between a rock and a hard place. But, hypothetical harm aside, Amazon (FBA especially) is currently a really good deal for sellers in terms of shipping costs and access to customers.

vkou 5y ago

> Why would you possibly want a bureaucrat in Washington, or committee of such, overseeing Amazon's pricing decisions? Presumably for the same reason(s) that you want an unelected corporate bureaucrat in Seattle making these decisions instead.

listenallyall 5y ago
The guy in Seattle is a capitalist. If you don't like his decisions, you are free to ignore him and not do any business with him. Of course, many of his decisions do benefit you -- low prices, free delivery, wide range of products, displaying reviews, etc. -- but again, you aren't obligated to participate or interact. In fact, even if you refuse to buy from Amazon, you still benefit -- because of competition, your favorite store probably also offers free delivery or has low prices because it needs to compete. If a committee of Senators, on the other hand, makes a declaration -- Amazon cannot sell Chinese goods cheaper than American-made alternatives -- or maybe, delivery times to rural areas must match those to cities -- then everybody loses, and you can't opt out of that.
- vkou 5y ago
  You can only ignore a capitalist until he becomes a monopolist. You can ignore a commitee of senators at any time by voting them out.
  - listenallyall 5y ago
    I agree Amazon has an uncomfortable amount of power and influence in retail. But they are very far from a monopolist. And "voting them out" doesn't erase laws that those Senators passed.
rkk3 5y ago
> an unelected corporate bureaucrat in Seattle Do board votes or shareholder votes not count ?

w-j-w 5y ago

Amazon isn't motivated to make the best economy, they're motivated to make the most money. They absolutely cannot be trusted and are not accountable to anything or anyone other than shareholders. By contrast, a burecrat can be held responsible for doing things contradictory to the goal of creating a fair marketplace.

snthd 5y ago

>Why would you possibly want a bureaucrat in Washington, or committee of such, overseeing Amazon's pricing decisions? Alternatively "Why would you possibly want your democratic representative in Washington, or committee of such, regulating markets to work in favour of the average citizen?"

listenallyall 5y ago
How would higher prices work in favor (sorry, favour) of the average citizen? Amazon promotes items that it sells for the lowest price. Your local supermarket sends out a flyer every week with all the items it has put on sale, then makes sure those items are easy to find in the store. It's the same thing. Or maybe you want Senators to have final approval over supermarket flyers too.
- snthd 5y ago
  Allowing sellers to price their items higher on Amazon than elsewhere means it's possible for the seller to offer me a better price, and still make more money (because their costs are lower when Amazon isn't involved). When Amazon can force a "lowest price" the cost of Amazon's service always gets passed to me, and the lowest possible price is higher.