3 ms·

This is the essence of anti-trust. The Amazon retail business would struggle to compete effectively on its own, and would have to work on its weaknesses. As a

• repsilat 4y ago
  You could argue it both ways. The essence of US antitrust is consumer harm. If Amazon were broken up the retail arm might die, and consumers would arguably suffer -- they wouldn't receive the subsidies they currently get from AWS, they'd pay more for products and get slower shipping. To argue that Amazon retail consumers would be better off without the subsidies from AWS takes some slightly more complex logic -- that increased Amazon prices would lead to more competition and so lead to lower prices (or better quality). IMO that argument is tenuous. If Amazon, having killed off its competition, were to raise prices I think you'd have an argument, but at the "undercutting" stage I think (IANAL) they're safe.
  • bsder 4y ago
    > If Amazon were broken up the retail arm might die, and consumers would arguably suffer -- they wouldn't receive the subsidies they currently get from AWS, they'd pay more for products and get slower shipping. This isn't necessarily a downside for consumers as you might get actual customized retail shops opening up again. This would enable you to get your stuff faster than delivery. I would love to have a "technical bookstore" back again, for example. Amazon's retail arm imploding would enable that business to return.
• drstewart 4y ago
  How far do you take this? An individual developer would struggle to compete effectively on its own, and would have to work on their weaknesses. As a whole, the economy would be better off. So should we break up every venture of more than one person?