4 ms·
> 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 hig
by 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 agoSelling 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.