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

FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

ftc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

911–920 of 930 posts

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#911

Post by stale2002 »

ameister14 wrote: post #883
stale2002 wrote: post #869

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lower prices for consumers is not the whole point of a competitive market. You are 40 years behind on the modern day interpretations of the anti-trust laws by the courts then. An analysis of how much consumers benefit or are harmed by certain behavior is what the courts use for most anti-trust laws. And lower prices are almost the court decided definition of a consumer benefit. So yes, the point stands. Someone els…

>You are 40 years behind on the modern day interpretations of the anti-trust laws by the courts then . . . lower prices are almost the court decided definition of a consumer benefit. That's not the policy of Lina Khan and the current FTC. She was literally put into the position she holds because she was critical of that framework for antitrust. Yes, since the 70's Bork and the Chicago school has held sway in courts,…

> Yes, since the 70's Bork and the Chicago school has held sway in courts

Oh OK, so then I am correct under the overwhelming majority position/framework which is the only interpretation that matters for enforcement, which is the interpretation held by the court system.

I am more than happy to accept that concession and only be "wrong" under the minority position that hasn't been relevant for 40 years.

> That's not the policy of Lina Khan and the current FTC

They can make whatever bad arguments they want in court, and lose their lawsuits I guess.

They don't decide the outcome of these court cases.

If anything this strategy is actually harming then, as they make failing arguments that the courts won't listen to.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#912

Post by ashbee »

Xeronate wrote: post #448
ashbee wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some do, some don't. I know some folks who really genuinely believe that Amazon is a force for good, the criticism is exaggerated, will talk about how lucky they are to work for the World's Best Employer, and will get a bit sulky if you say anything negative about the company. Generally though, I think it's understood that "most customer centric company" doesn't mean "we will put the customer before ourselves because…

I've never met anyone that thought the LPs were meant to imply Amazon "really cares". I like Amazon because it seems more straightforward than other companies. It's a business and it wants to make money. The only way I've ever interpreted "customer obsession" is that it's mutually beneficial to do what's best for the customer.

That's exactly it though: it's often (perhaps even usually) not beneficial for Amazon to do what's best for the customer.

What's the point of "Customer Obsession" if it's secondary to "Amazon Obsession"? Doing what's best for the customer unless it isn't also what's best for Amazon is just doing what's best for Amazon.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#913

Post by SenAnder »

hellojesus wrote: post #910
SenAnder wrote: post #908

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not anticompetitive because they aren't restricting competition off their platform. Yes, they are . They are using their influence and market power to prevent others from competing on price, using the threat of economic retribution on their platform. If this isn't anti-competitive, then nothing short of sending assassins on your competitors is.

Nonsense. They are only able to influence your behavior if you use them. It is completely self selected. It is the exact same thing as is argued by social media companies: they have the right to moderate the content posted on their platforms because it's their platforms. You can do whatever you want on your own site.

> They are only able to influence your behavior if you use them.

Yes, companies cannot influence behavior of people or businesses that have no business relationship with them, direct or indirect. In other words, you are saying that indeed, the only anti-competitive action is sending armed thugs to sabotage your competition. Everything else, every contractual condition, is fair game.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#914

Post by hellojesus »

SenAnder wrote: post #913
hellojesus wrote: post #910

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonsense. They are only able to influence your behavior if you use them. It is completely self selected. It is the exact same thing as is argued by social media companies: they have the right to moderate the content posted on their platforms because it's their platforms. You can do whatever you want on your own site.

> They are only able to influence your behavior if you use them. Yes, companies cannot influence behavior of people or businesses that have no business relationship with them, direct or indirect. In other words, you are saying that indeed, the only anti-competitive action is sending armed thugs to sabotage your competition. Everything else, every contractual condition, is fair game.

> the only anti-competitive action is sending armed thugs to sabotage your competition

I'm saying that entering a voluntary transaction knowing the terms of the trade does not amount to anti-competitive behavior. Nobody forced you into the trade. Nobody prohibited you from entering the trade.

Entering the trade with clear conditions is voluntary. You could easily just not do business with that partner. Here that would be not using Amazon's marketplace.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#915

Post by SenAnder »

hellojesus wrote: post #914
SenAnder wrote: post #913

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are only able to influence your behavior if you use them. Yes, companies cannot influence behavior of people or businesses that have no business relationship with them, direct or indirect. In other words, you are saying that indeed, the only anti-competitive action is sending armed thugs to sabotage your competition. Everything else, every contractual condition, is fair game.

> the only anti-competitive action is sending armed thugs to sabotage your competition I'm saying that entering a voluntary transaction knowing the terms of the trade does not amount to anti-competitive behavior. Nobody forced you into the trade. Nobody prohibited you from entering the trade. Entering the trade with clear conditions is voluntary. You could easily just not do business with that partner. Here that woul…

> I'm saying that entering a voluntary transaction knowing the terms of the trade does not amount to anti-competitive behavior.

You do realize that, by this definition, nothing short of fraud or forcing someone into a contract at gunpoint, could qualify as anti-competitive?

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#916

Post by cbsmith »

megaman821 wrote: post #814
cbsmith wrote: post #812

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're talking about gross margin/mark up, and there really isn't a "traditional retail margin". It varies a lot by product, but, as an example, the typical mark up for grocery stores is 15%. I used to do retail sales for appliances, including BBQs. The markup could get as high as 50%, even more for high end BBQs that sell in the $800+ range, but was generally more like 30%... and discount outlets or online retailers…

Are talking about markup from cost of goods? The manufacturer costs usually take into account their overhead; assembly line, warehousing, transport, running the business, profit etc. Amazon is taking over some of those things for sellers, so yes they take a bigger percentage than a normal retail store.

Comparing to retail is not apples to apples. The overall margins on Amazon tend to be lower across the board. So, yes, there's a problem with comparing directly with retail in general. Amazon is taking on distributor costs, but they aren't really doing anything to reduce manufacturer costs. Manufacturers still need an assembly line, warehousing, shipping (to get it to Amazon), & running their business... maybe they're not getting any profit, but that's the problem we're talking about.

While amazon is covering their own warehouse & fulfillment shipping costs, that's really that different from costs normally borne by retailers who have warehouses and handle delivery to their retail outlets.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#917

Post by hnlmorg »

hellojesus wrote: post #860
hnlmorg wrote: post #747

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So Amazon making good fat margins on every small business that sells on Amazon is demonstration of an ineffective market. And hence why the FTC are stepping in.

What? Amazon is offering lower prices to consumers, which is why they're winning business. If other competitors could get their costs as low or lower than Amazon's, then they could enjoy those margins themselves.

I cannot speak for every location, but Amazon isn’t the cheapest in the UK. I would say it is about average.

Where Amazon wins is the range of stock and its next day deliveries. Which means most people default to Amazon because it’s quicker and easier than shopping around. But you can definitely get cheaper if you were to shop around.

Also by Amazon owning the whole pipeline, from stock to delivery, they can squeeze costs down and thus improve their margins. For example, I guarantee you that other online retailers are paying more to ship their products than Amazon are.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#918

Post by cbsmith »

cbsmith wrote: post #916
megaman821 wrote: post #814

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are talking about markup from cost of goods? The manufacturer costs usually take into account their overhead; assembly line, warehousing, transport, running the business, profit etc. Amazon is taking over some of those things for sellers, so yes they take a bigger percentage than a normal retail store.

Comparing to retail is not apples to apples. The overall margins on Amazon tend to be lower across the board. So, yes, there's a problem with comparing directly with retail in general. Amazon is taking on distributor costs, but they aren't really doing anything to reduce manufacturer costs. Manufacturers still need an assembly line, warehousing, shipping (to get it to Amazon), & running their business... maybe they'r…

Should be: "that's NOT really that different from costs normally borne by retailers"

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#919

Post by hellojesus »

SenAnder wrote: post #915
hellojesus wrote: post #914

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the only anti-competitive action is sending armed thugs to sabotage your competition I'm saying that entering a voluntary transaction knowing the terms of the trade does not amount to anti-competitive behavior. Nobody forced you into the trade. Nobody prohibited you from entering the trade. Entering the trade with clear conditions is voluntary. You could easily just not do business with that partner. Here that woul…

> I'm saying that entering a voluntary transaction knowing the terms of the trade does not amount to anti-competitive behavior. You do realize that, by this definition, nothing short of fraud or forcing someone into a contract at gunpoint, could qualify as anti-competitive?

Yes. I am a free market enthusiast.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#920

Post by hellojesus »

hnlmorg wrote: post #917
hellojesus wrote: post #860

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? Amazon is offering lower prices to consumers, which is why they're winning business. If other competitors could get their costs as low or lower than Amazon's, then they could enjoy those margins themselves.

I cannot speak for every location, but Amazon isn’t the cheapest in the UK. I would say it is about average. Where Amazon wins is the range of stock and its next day deliveries. Which means most people default to Amazon because it’s quicker and easier than shopping around. But you can definitely get cheaper if you were to shop around. Also by Amazon owning the whole pipeline, from stock to delivery, they can squeeze…

I agree fully, but Amazon is still the "cheapest" when you consider the all in price of cost_of_goods+cost_of_delivery|want_goods_in_fewer_than_two_days.

Amazon has the most efficient business, which allows them to survive on lower margins and attract buyers because of the vertically integrated pipeline they've created.

Your example of other companies selling the same product at cheaper prices helps to illuminate the fact that there isn't any real impact from the supposed anti-competitive behavior to the consumer. Cheaper prices still exist! Amazon hasn't become the sole provider.

Post reply on HN