Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 175 posts

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#11

Post by devindotcom »

roymurdock wrote: post #9

this is a rehashing/summary of the much more in-depth research note by law school student Lina Khan that gained some attention earlier this year: https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-parado... changes to the economic definition and legal enforcement of anti-monopoly are one issue, but a general slowdown in the pace of technological innovation combined with globalization/spread of technology is the pr…

Khan's piece was incredibly interesting. I learned a ton. It's long (100pp or so) but full of great info, not at all difficult to read. I highly recommend checking it out.

It's my understanding that the Chicago School types were not impressed, but that was probably to be expected.

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#12

Post by jchw »

dredmorbius wrote: post #8
drwl wrote: post #5

I'm reminded of Peter Thiel's take on this http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:iG3YKf1... cached because current link is unavailable

More durable: http://archive.is/ye5RY

Somewhat ironically, visiting this "more durable" link displayed a Cloudflare Origin DNS error page.

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#13

Post by amelius »

In my view, unfair competition practices begin when investors make a huge pile of money to "out-money" any competition.

For example, how is it fair that a bunch of investors make a pile of money so big that it puts small bookstores out of business?

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#14

Post by ucaetano »

It isn't outdated, it is an economics definition of a monopoly, and isn't even that: a monopoly is perfectly fine, AS LONG AS the economic power isn't abused to prevent competition which harms consumers.

What the author is proposing is that regulation is no longer based on economics and economic power, but on a vague definition of monopoly, and people are absurdly trigger-happy when calling something a monopoly.

The reason why anti-trust is based on precise economic definitions is that it leaves as little room as possible for the government to favor friendly players. When you need to prove harm to consumers, the bar is high, as it should be.

Otherwise, any government in power will simply abuse their own monopoly on regulation to favor and transfer wealth from society to friends.

The classic example is: Coca-Cola has a 95% market share of the cola market in some countries. Does it mean it has a monopoly? No.

If it had 100% of the cola market, would it have a monopoly? No.

Because the cola market doesn't exist in isolation. Colas compete with all other sodas, with water, juices, etc. for a share of wallet and a share of stomach.

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#15

Post by abkumar »

Apocryphon wrote: post #7
robertAngst wrote: post #3

Life is good today, people are panicking about tomorrow. Tech moves too fast, I dont think we will need to worry about a monopoly when FAANG stock starts falling.

Will AOL Own Everything? By Lawrence Lessig (Monday, June 19, 2000) http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,997265,... (sadly paywalled)

Pages 9-11 of this pdf [1] have the full text of the article

[1] https://transition.fcc.gov/transaction/aol-tw/exparte/disney...

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#16

Post by chrisco255 »

ucaetano wrote: post #14

It isn't outdated, it is an economics definition of a monopoly, and isn't even that: a monopoly is perfectly fine, AS LONG AS the economic power isn't abused to prevent competition which harms consumers. What the author is proposing is that regulation is no longer based on economics and economic power, but on a vague definition of monopoly, and people are absurdly trigger-happy when calling something a monopoly. The…

That would depend on the antitrust laws in said country. And if Coke had 95% market share in the U.S., it could easily be ruled a monopoly.

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#17

Post by Nullabillity »

ucaetano wrote: post #14

It isn't outdated, it is an economics definition of a monopoly, and isn't even that: a monopoly is perfectly fine, AS LONG AS the economic power isn't abused to prevent competition which harms consumers. What the author is proposing is that regulation is no longer based on economics and economic power, but on a vague definition of monopoly, and people are absurdly trigger-happy when calling something a monopoly. The…

> The classic example is: Coca-Cola has a 95% market share of the cola market in some countries. Does it mean it has a monopoly? No.

Effectively, yes. Why is the market so disfunctional that a single company has effectively swallowed all competition?

> If it had 100% of the cola market, would it have a monopoly? No.

Err, yes.

> Because the cola market doesn't exist in isolation. Colas compete with all other sodas, with water, juices, etc. for a share of wallet and a share of stomach.

And AT&T wasn't a monopoly, since you could just walk to the person you want to talk to. Oh, wait..

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#18

Post by AnimalMuppet »

amelius wrote: post #13

In my view, unfair competition practices begin when investors make a huge pile of money to "out-money" any competition. For example, how is it fair that a bunch of investors make a pile of money so big that it puts small bookstores out of business?

Nobody owed small bookstores a living. If Amazon can give people more choice at the same or better prices, why should the small bookstores survive? They're less efficient and therefore wasting resources.

(Yes, I know, small bookstores provide a whole different experience than shopping on Amazon. The thing is, nobody cares. Or at least too few people care to make the small bookstores into viable businesses.)

How did Amazon "out-money" small bookstores in a way that wasn't simply "more efficiently providing a competing service"?

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#19

Post by imgabe »

Nullabillity wrote: post #17
ucaetano wrote: post #14

It isn't outdated, it is an economics definition of a monopoly, and isn't even that: a monopoly is perfectly fine, AS LONG AS the economic power isn't abused to prevent competition which harms consumers. What the author is proposing is that regulation is no longer based on economics and economic power, but on a vague definition of monopoly, and people are absurdly trigger-happy when calling something a monopoly. The…

> The classic example is: Coca-Cola has a 95% market share of the cola market in some countries. Does it mean it has a monopoly? No. Effectively, yes. Why is the market so disfunctional that a single company has effectively swallowed all competition? > If it had 100% of the cola market, would it have a monopoly? No. Err, yes. > Because the cola market doesn't exist in isolation. Colas compete with all other sodas, wi…

But you couldn't walk to any person to talk. Not in any way remotely similar to how you can drink water instead of Coke.

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#20

Post by tylerhou »

Nullabillity wrote: post #17
ucaetano wrote: post #14

It isn't outdated, it is an economics definition of a monopoly, and isn't even that: a monopoly is perfectly fine, AS LONG AS the economic power isn't abused to prevent competition which harms consumers. What the author is proposing is that regulation is no longer based on economics and economic power, but on a vague definition of monopoly, and people are absurdly trigger-happy when calling something a monopoly. The…

> The classic example is: Coca-Cola has a 95% market share of the cola market in some countries. Does it mean it has a monopoly? No. Effectively, yes. Why is the market so disfunctional that a single company has effectively swallowed all competition? > If it had 100% of the cola market, would it have a monopoly? No. Err, yes. > Because the cola market doesn't exist in isolation. Colas compete with all other sodas, wi…

You can easily substitute juice/off-brand colas for coke. You can also easily substitute FaceTime/Skype/Hangouts for phone calls (provided you’re not using mobile data)...
Post reply on HN