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

Amazon Is a Monopoly

marketplacepulse.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 348 posts

Re: Amazon Is a Monopoly

#251

Post by scarface74 »

xmprt wrote: post #223
scarface74 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple bans all sorts of apps from their store. Is every app that Apple bans “anticompetitive”? Google removes and deprioritizes sites all the time that breaks rules. CVS stop selling cigarettes in their stores. CloudFlare just kicked off 8Chan. Spotify bans musicians. Which one of these are anti competitive and which ones aren’t?

All of those scenarios are where there was a terms of service violation. When Google or Apple decide to ban their competition for no reason other than it being competition, it's anti-competitive.

So since Apple sells third party hardware at Apple.com, should they be forced to sell Dells?

Re: Amazon Is a Monopoly

#252

Post by chumali »

trappist wrote: post #182
Arrezz wrote: post #2

How we actually define a company to be a monopoly seems to be somewhat arbitrary? I agree that Amazon engages in anticompetitive behaviour but I'm not sure that it can control prices or exclude competition to that extent? I mean every company can affect that, at what point does it become problematic?

Economist Israel Kirzner insisted that monopoly analysis is only applicable when the possibility of competition is eliminated, either legally or by the producer's sole control of the total supply of a resource necessary for the production of a good or service, and that the term should therefore be defined as such. In which case Amazon is not a monopoly, and we shouldn't be surprised to see continually falling prices…

This is an arbitrary definition that few economists would accept. Market concentration exists on a spectrum ranging from perfect competition to full scale monopoly. The determinant is the ease of entry and exit and the extent to which the outcome diverges from utility maximising point.

In the case of Amazon there are sufficient barriers to entry that if Amazon were to make profit maximisation its goal, then it could increase prices and enjoy above market returns for a significant period even in spite of the eventual 'possibility' of competition.

To suggest that regulators should wait until the market is fully captured before considering a firm a monopoly is patently absurd since by then the efficiency losses would have already been realised and the remedy becomes harder to implement.

Also, I urge you to find anyone who agrees that there has been an increase in the quality of products available on Amazon. On the contrary, there are countless stories of people lamenting the decline in product quality.

Re: Amazon Is a Monopoly

#253

Post by nradov »

dylan604 wrote: post #170
scarface74 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have been complaining about basically the same thing with respect to Walmart for decades.

Exactly this. I've worked for a company where Walmart was the largest retailer for their product (DVDs). They were constantly being beat up to lower their wholesale prices while also demanding a separate SKU with edited content. Amazon is no different in this case (except not demanding edited content). Whenever I asked about this, they said you still had to provide product for sale wherever the customers were. The la…

The manufacturing cost for DVDs is close to zero so sellers have room to cut prices. They aren't comparable to appliances.

Re: Amazon Is a Monopoly

#254

Post by buboard »

Arrezz wrote: post #2

How we actually define a company to be a monopoly seems to be somewhat arbitrary? I agree that Amazon engages in anticompetitive behaviour but I'm not sure that it can control prices or exclude competition to that extent? I mean every company can affect that, at what point does it become problematic?

Doesnt matter how you define monopoly. Legally, anti trust targets those who choke competition.

> at what point does it become problematic?

I don't know , probably at the point where that company becomes a net negative to the economy.

Re: Amazon Is a Monopoly

#255

Post by chumali »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #184
daveFNbuck wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The interviewee didn't define monopoly by anti-competitive behavior. > Is Amazon a monopoly? > Yes, monopoly power is defined as the power to control prices or exclude competition. Amazon has the power to do both. But being a monopoly on its own is not illegal under the antitrust laws. Illegal monopolization requires both 1) monopoly power and 2) that the firm acquired, enhanced, or maintained that power by using exc…

> Amazon has the power to do both. No they don't. If Amazon significantly raises prices it charges customers, or lowers prices it pays suppliers, to above/below what Walmart or a hundred others do, are the customers and suppliers going to stay with them? No. When they don't put you in their store, can they also prevent you from reaching the same customers through any other store? No. The fact that they can choose not…

This is a ridiculous argument, Amazon clearly has substantial market power which can be used to reduce the exposure of their suppliers [1] (the loss in exposure means there a significant costs associated with suppliers moving to another platform/store - the very definition of market power).

Comparing them to the mom and pop coffee shop is absurd - unlike the coffee shop, there are not hundreds of Amazon competitors that you can sell your product through. You are literally comparing textbook definitions of perfectly competitive markets (e.g. coffee shops - hundreds of competitors and low barriers to entry) to oligopoly markets (e.g. Amazon - very few competitors and high barriers to entry), and somehow reaching the conclusion that they are the same? This is obviously nonsense and goes against the most basic of economic principles.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/19/heres-why-retailers-should-b...

Re: Amazon Is a Monopoly

#256

Post by cyborgx7 »

amelius wrote: post #250
cyborgx7 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stallman's biggest problem, in my opinion, is that all his proposed solutions are individual consumption choices. A beast like Amazon can only be tamed by collective action and regulation.

From his post: > We should not allow a company to have a share over around 10% of any market. If in a certain field a single dominant company is beneficial for society, that means it is a natural monopoly, and should be served by a regulated utility.

Fair enough. I had just read the introduction, and the section headlines. I'm glad to see him agree on the importance of regulated utilities. Free Software sometimes gets associated with the American Capitalist Libertarian movement. So I wasn't clear on Stallman's personal views on the matter.

Re: Amazon Is a Monopoly

#257

Post by cowsandmilk »

c2h5oh wrote: post #237
indopedia wrote: post #45

She forgets that the Amazon marketplace is made up of sellers and the prices aren't controlled by Amazon for a lot of their products. These are inherited from the distributor in most cases. Sure Amazon fulfills the orders but it's not like Walmart that controls the entire process. There is more freedom in Amazon. Anyways, this is just the hip thing of today. How about making a service better than Amazon? No that's im…

> She forgets that the Amazon marketplace is made up of sellers and the prices aren't controlled by Amazon for a lot of their products. 1. Amazon requires you to sell your products at the price that is not higher than at any other channel you use to sell. Even if there was a competitor that allowed you to offer a lower price because of lower fees (important on high price, low margin stuff like computers) you can't. 2…

> 3. Buy box algorithm, which is a black box, is known for kicking out sellers who raised their prices.

Why should you continue to win the buy box if you raise your prices? Another supplier didn’t, so now they win.

> 2. Access to many traffic/buyer driving features of Amazon is conditional on the product being offered at the lowest price it was ever sold

Amazon has lots of products to choose from to feature. It is no surprise that the best deals they can feature are at the lowest price a product has ever been sold.

Re: Amazon Is a Monopoly

#258

Post by tim333 »

It's not a monopoly under the dictionary definition:

>the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.

It is maybe under the Sherman Act:

>“Monopoly power” is generally understood to mean “the power to control prices or exclude competition”.

I wish when people use words in a different way to the dictionary meaning they'd say so. Otherwise it leads to a whole lot of pointless "Oh yes it is" vs "oh no it isn't" in discussion.

Re: Amazon Is a Monopoly

#259

Post by [deleted] »

tim333 wrote: post #258

It's not a monopoly under the dictionary definition: >the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service. It is maybe under the Sherman Act: >“Monopoly power” is generally understood to mean “the power to control prices or exclude competition”. I wish when people use words in a different way to the dictionary meaning they'd say so. Otherwise it leads to a whole lot of pointless "O…

[deleted]

Re: Amazon Is a Monopoly

#260

Post by boomlinde »

cyborgx7 wrote: post #256
amelius wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From his post: > We should not allow a company to have a share over around 10% of any market. If in a certain field a single dominant company is beneficial for society, that means it is a natural monopoly, and should be served by a regulated utility.

Fair enough. I had just read the introduction, and the section headlines. I'm glad to see him agree on the importance of regulated utilities. Free Software sometimes gets associated with the American Capitalist Libertarian movement. So I wasn't clear on Stallman's personal views on the matter.

> Free Software sometimes gets associated with the American Capitalist Libertarian movement. So I wasn't clear on Stallman's personal views on the matter.

The problem isn't that you weren't clear on his personal views on the matter, but that you comment on "all his proposed solutions" when even a cursory reading of his political articles would reveal that he is very much not a libertarian.

Post reply on HN