5 ms·

That is literally the opposite of anti-competitive. That is the definition of a pro competitive behavior. Lower prices for consumers is the whole point of a c

by stale2002 3y ago

That is literally the opposite of anti-competitive. That is the definition of a pro competitive behavior. Lower prices for consumers is the whole point of a competitive market! Yes, big companies can compete in the market, by offer better quality stuff, for a lower price. Thats what we want! You are literally arguing in favor* of monopolies, and against competition by saying that other companies shouldn't do a better job.

pixl97 3y ago
Reality is far more complex then the simple take you have here. >by offer better quality stuff, Amazon, for example, offering counterfeits of your product as your product is not under the definition of "better quality stuff" >for a lower price Again, offering a lower price consistently is one thing. Using pricing as a weapon, for example selling a product lower than cost in order to monopolize a market is not.
- stale2002 3y ago
  > Using pricing as a weapon, for example selling a product lower than cost in order to monopolize a market is not. If the price stays low and never goes to high monopoly prices then it is a good thing. If a company becomes a "monopoly" by being cheap, and staying cheap, thats just competition by definition. Which is the situation we are seeing with amazon.
  - lp0_on_fire 3y ago
    Selling things at a loss doesn’t mean things are cheap it just means the real costs are being subsidized elsewhere.
  - ameister14 3y ago
    >If the price stays low and never goes to high monopoly prices then it is a good thing. Not necessarily, but it goes a long way to balancing out the negative consequences. The problem, though, is they've never had prices stay low. Eventually, prices go up. So far, Amazon does this through loss-leaders; products that have low prices allowing them to capture a market and charge high prices for other products as a monopoly. >If a company becomes a "monopoly" by being cheap, and staying cheap, thats just competition by definition. If that was all they were doing it would be legal.
ameister14 3y ago
The competitive market has multiple goals - lower prices for consumers is only one of them. Big companies compete in the market by offering the same quality for a lower price. That's good, no problem with them doing that. The problem is when the big companies crush nascent competitors by using their advantages in the market and not by being better quality or more consistent. That's bad; it stifles innovation and creates market concentration, resulting in monopolies and allowing large companies to charge supracompetitive prices.
- stale2002 3y ago
  > by using their advantages in the market and not by being better quality or more consistent But they have a lower price. That's competition working as intended. Yes, the lower price thing should win out against the more expensive product. > to charge supracompetitive prices. We aren't seeing too high prices. We are seeing low prices and then competitors that suck complaining about the fact that they suck in comparison to the more competitive company.
  - ameister14 3y ago
    That is not competition working as intended. So you can have pro-competitive behavior (lower price) that balances out anti-competitive behavior (crushing nascent competitors through market manipulation or cartels); That doesn't mean everything you do is above board. It means that while the lower prices are there, a certain amount of anti-competitive behavior has been acceptable because the net outcome to consumers is theoretically positive. [edit] Think about this - if you can win with lower prices, why do the other anti-competitive behaviors? Why not just have lower prices and let others try to compete with higher quality or lower prices than you? Wouldn't that be better? The reality of this is, though, that the monopoly you form affects far more than the consumer product price. What the FTC is saying here is that they are moving back to structural restriction rather than simply allowing anti-competitive behavior so long as the price is good, a la the Chicago School. >We are seeing low prices and then competitors that suck complaining about the fact that they suck in comparison to the more competitive company. That's not what we're seeing, though. What we are seeing is artificially high prices. One of the allegations is that if a seller prices below Amazon, Amazon removes their access to market.

pixl97 3y ago

Reality is far more complex then the simple take you have here. >by offer better quality stuff, Amazon, for example, offering counterfeits of your product as your product is not under the definition of "better quality stuff" >for a lower price Again, offering a lower price consistently is one thing. Using pricing as a weapon, for example selling a product lower than cost in order to monopolize a market is not.

stale2002 3y ago
> Using pricing as a weapon, for example selling a product lower than cost in order to monopolize a market is not. If the price stays low and never goes to high monopoly prices then it is a good thing. If a company becomes a "monopoly" by being cheap, and staying cheap, thats just competition by definition. Which is the situation we are seeing with amazon.
- lp0_on_fire 3y ago
  Selling things at a loss doesn’t mean things are cheap it just means the real costs are being subsidized elsewhere.
- ameister14 3y ago
  >If the price stays low and never goes to high monopoly prices then it is a good thing. Not necessarily, but it goes a long way to balancing out the negative consequences. The problem, though, is they've never had prices stay low. Eventually, prices go up. So far, Amazon does this through loss-leaders; products that have low prices allowing them to capture a market and charge high prices for other products as a monopoly. >If a company becomes a "monopoly" by being cheap, and staying cheap, thats just competition by definition. If that was all they were doing it would be legal.

ameister14 3y ago

The competitive market has multiple goals - lower prices for consumers is only one of them. Big companies compete in the market by offering the same quality for a lower price. That's good, no problem with them doing that. The problem is when the big companies crush nascent competitors by using their advantages in the market and not by being better quality or more consistent. That's bad; it stifles innovation and creates market concentration, resulting in monopolies and allowing large companies to charge supracompetitive prices.

stale2002 3y ago
> by using their advantages in the market and not by being better quality or more consistent But they have a lower price. That's competition working as intended. Yes, the lower price thing should win out against the more expensive product. > to charge supracompetitive prices. We aren't seeing too high prices. We are seeing low prices and then competitors that suck complaining about the fact that they suck in comparison to the more competitive company.
- ameister14 3y ago
  That is not competition working as intended. So you can have pro-competitive behavior (lower price) that balances out anti-competitive behavior (crushing nascent competitors through market manipulation or cartels); That doesn't mean everything you do is above board. It means that while the lower prices are there, a certain amount of anti-competitive behavior has been acceptable because the net outcome to consumers is theoretically positive. [edit] Think about this - if you can win with lower prices, why do the other anti-competitive behaviors? Why not just have lower prices and let others try to compete with higher quality or lower prices than you? Wouldn't that be better? The reality of this is, though, that the monopoly you form affects far more than the consumer product price. What the FTC is saying here is that they are moving back to structural restriction rather than simply allowing anti-competitive behavior so long as the price is good, a la the Chicago School. >We are seeing low prices and then competitors that suck complaining about the fact that they suck in comparison to the more competitive company. That's not what we're seeing, though. What we are seeing is artificially high prices. One of the allegations is that if a seller prices below Amazon, Amazon removes their access to market.