3 ms·
> good for some consumers (people who value convenient shopping and fast shipping) and bad for others (people who really like independent shops). It's bad for
by p1necone 4y ago
> good for some consumers (people who value convenient shopping and fast shipping) and bad for others (people who really like independent shops).
It's bad for them too once the monopoly is strong enough that Amazon can stop caring about those things.
Preventing monopolies isn't done because it satisifies some abstract sense of justice, it's done because they genuinely hurt consumers in the long term, even if the monopoly became a monopoly because they were really good for consumers to begin with.
- School-Cotton 4y agoI never argued against going after monopolies.
- astrange 4y agoAmazon is a two-sided market. I don’t think “monopoly” is a good description of a company that’s also a monopsony. There’s more of an argument that it’s a monopoly employer, but they’ve been raising wages.
- amelius 4y agoThe problem is that this two sided market is being regulated by a company.
- sokoloff 4y agoEverything you describe is fair game for the FTC to consider. Amazon’s stance on or relationship to unions is not a reason for the FTC to adjust its stance.