3 ms·
> This, eventually, woudl lead to lower prices for consumers... What incentive would Amazon have to drop prices after vertical integration is done?
by bryant 1y ago
> This, eventually, woudl lead to lower prices for consumers...
What incentive would Amazon have to drop prices after vertical integration is done?
- tomrod 1y agoEconomies of scope are the common claim.
- margalabargala 1y agoNo, that's what lowers Amazon's costs. Why would Amazon, having lowered their costs, pass that savings on to the consumer when they could simply profit more?
- dgfitz 1y agoAre you asking about supply and demand?
- roughly 1y agoI believe he’s asking why the parent poster was suggesting monopolistic consolidation would be good for the consumer, contrary to what all theory and experience would suggest.
- tomrod 1y ago*shrug* I gave him the argument baseline argument commonly known because it claims that costs become lower (and thus the merged entity claims to pass lower costs to the consumer) that normally flies at the FTC.
- margalabargala 1y agoThe context of the conversation is one of a horizontal monopoly, in a market that's near saturation, operated by a megacorporation that could afford to ignore profits or losses indefinitely, in the specific industry of robot vaccuums. So maybe the question is "why on earth would someone think supply and demand does apply here?"
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Spooky23 1y agoWith respect to Amazon? Give us all a break.
- bee_rider 1y agoThis is sarcasm, right? The “eventually,” the ellipses, and the underlying ridiculousness lead me to believe it is sarcasm.
- sealeck 1y agoYes