5 ms·
Well, the competitor did agree to sell the items to Amazon. Nobody forced them. They did it for economic benefit. So I don't understand the problem here.
by blocked_again 5y ago
Well, the competitor did agree to sell the items to Amazon. Nobody forced them. They did it for economic benefit. So I don't understand the problem here.
- daemoens 5y agoThey raised the price of his goods so that they could sell their own product for cheaper.
- blocked_again 5y agoThey did bought the goods from him beforehand. And he agreed to sell. He should have considered the possibility that Amazon has option to later sell the items as a higher price. Isn't that obvious to any seller?
- brodock 5y agoAmazon does not buy and keep a stock, they charge you for the privilege of selling in their marketplace: > Sellers then bore the risk of having their products not sell in a timely manner, or at all, while still paying Amazon for things like storage fees of their enrolled products
- bee_rider 5y agoOur system is not a totally free market, we have consumer protection and antitrust regulations to avoid some of the possible negative outcomes there.
- blocked_again 5y agoI don't really buy that consumer protection and antitrust regulations actually result in a better free market. I think the market is better off doing it's thing rather than a bunch of politicians trying to make it more efficient.
- pixl97 5y agoWell then, hopefully you dont want IP laws either.
- ggff67 5y agoThe funny thing is IP laws are by definition monopolies protected by government. Every one of the big tech "quasi-monopolies" are sitting on a mountain of it.
- eru 5y agoBe careful, IP is a hodgepodge of things, like copyrights, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets. To pick one: trade secrets are not a monopoly. If you figure out the secret ingredient in Coca Cola (by legal means), you are free to use that knowledge and even publish it. Similarly, I have my reservations about whether patents are a good idea; but I don't mind trademarks nearly as much.
- bee_rider 5y agoWhat do you mean by "better free market?" Are you using terms like "efficient" and "free market" in their technical sense or are you just saying that you don't like regulations? Definitionally regulations are a divergence from an ideal free market. Provably, under some conditions (which don't exist in the real world) a market will converge to some definition of efficiency. Practically, no politician cares about this. Politicians aren't trying to make the market more efficient with regulations -- good politicians are trying to protect their constituents, bad ones are mostly trying to protect their donors.
- p1necone 5y agoDo you want a single megacorp ruling the world? Because this is how you get a single megacorp ruling the world.
- kylebyproxy 5y agoDepends. Is it a worker cooperative that employs everyone?
- ohelabs 5y agoThis is anti trust because it’s probably in violation of the sherman act and price fixing. The anti trust laws are designed to prevent monopolies and promote competition… as Amazon is acting as the market here and simultaneously fixing prices and discouraging competition with them thats a no-no
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- croes 5y agoIt's about the consumer, price fixing removes the competition and consumer have to pay more than they would in a competitive market. It's sort of a cartel.