I am generally skeptical towards anti trust laws--though i do recognize that they are necessary. They give the state too much power to decide who is a market wi

I am generally skeptical towards anti trust laws--though i do recognize that they are necessary. They give the state too much power to decide who is a market winner. Too often the definition of anti-competitive comes down to political favoratism. I would caution the author to consider the implications of what he seems to be asking for. Most businesses run at a loss at first. You really cannot start a business--nevermind an unproven startup--if you're required to charge at a profitable level initially. So I think the argument about Uber is accurate. Clearly the investors do plan on re-couping their losses. Were they planning on doing it anti-competitively? Maybe. The line between 'taking losses initially to get started' and 'taking losses so we can clear the field of competition and then reign as a monopoly' is dubious and difficult to quantify. Most of the tactics mentioned re: Amazon seem like regular retail tactics (staples in the back, high-margin items prominently displayed). All retailers control the price of items (usually they don't want a reputation for being expensive, a few don't want a reputation for being cheap). And 40% profit margins are not unusual. And consider even after this, Amazon basically breaks even in it's retail.