Amazon should be nationalized and run as a worker-owned and worker-controlled co-op.
The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”
571–580 of 653 posts
Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”
#572Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Much of what Amazon does is what other retailers already do. Walmart and Costco subsidize free shipping by raising prices on the third party businesses who sell through them? Because that's what the article is about.
Yes
Costco doesn't do this because they aren't a marketplace. They only sell products in their own inventory. They aren't gouging small sellers.
Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”
#573Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hate that every discussion of reigning in abusive companies has to come with 1000 comments about how other companies are also being abusive, which should apparently make us just wave the white flag. Nah, let's deal with all the monopolies, and Amazon is a good place to start since like you said, they are just incredibly blatant.
It's obvious astroturfing. The top two posts with the most upvotes are "Ebay is just as bad" for the startoff line, and "Everybody's just as bad as Amazon. Why are you being so mean and cruel to Amazon?" Obvious astroturfing, just like the entire Amazon review ecosystem. Surprise? No. https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/ Bezos' wealth relative to "normal" shown as 1-pixel comparisons. Be careful once you get…
I think this lawsuit is dumb and anti-consumer. I've also been active on HN since 2008. Not astroturfing :)
Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”
#574Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't that open and shut fraud on the part of ebay?
How is that fraud? Ebay is brokering a deal between two parties. It doesn't seem inherently fraudulent to offer differing prices to each party.
The deal I make with eBay is "I sell X for whatever the highest bidder pays, and then pay a percentage of that to Ebay for services rendered" (10% IIRC). That is: I would get $315 and eBay $35, but instead what happened is that I get $270 and eBay $80.
Note that it DIDN'T list a "higher price for the buyer"; people were bidding so that price was correct. What it did was list a LOWER price to the seller.
This is like you giving me your guitar and telling me "Martin, sell it for me and keep 10% of the price for your trouble" and then I lie to you about the price I sold it for so I can keep the difference.
I don't know how else to describe this than fraud. This seems wildly illegal in most jurisdictions and I'm surprised they're getting away with it.
Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”
#575Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was supposedly rogue execs. Not taking their side, but I don’t think it was company policy.
This statement is very meaningful in our current society, but one I wish sounded as insane as it is. I hope more people will think about the basic dogma of corporatism in the coming years...
Well, what if we translate this into a very different society?
You live in a big mansion. Your live-in cook heads into town one night and ends up getting into a fight in a bar. He breaks the other guy's leg.
What should happen to you?
Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”
#576Earlier quoted context omitted.
Say Amazon offers three items all equivalent: one is priced at $9 and two are priced at $9.50 all are Prime. If the vendor for the $9 offers it for $8.50 elsewhere and Amazon starts focusing on a $9.50 offer is that "better for the consumer"? If the $9 doesn't exist and there are two vendors at the $9.50 price and one has a higher review history but offers it lower elsewhere is Amazon making things better by focusing…
The "buy box" is a product-level feature, not a seller-level feature. On any given product page, there may be multiple sellers with offers (one for $9, two for $9.50). The $9 offer would be prominently displayed in the buy box and the other two would be in the "other offers" section. If another site starts selling the same product for $8.50 (regardless of who the seller is), Amazon may hide the buy box and put all th…
Except they do the same for non-new products which muddles things tremendously.
If I don't see a price I assume it is out or they only have used ones. Certainly occasionally I have seen scalpers when I double checked anyway to see what the price would be if it returned but generally Amazon caught maybe half the scalpers in my experience.
Having a signal that means "you could get it less elsewhere" be the same signal as "I only have scalpers" isn't exactly good for consumers.
Also this implies that Prime shipping is worthless given they exclude it from the calculation...
Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”
#577Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/investigation-ebay-employees-st... They also allegedly hired someone to stalk and harass a couple who posted negative reviews of them online.
That was supposedly rogue execs. Not taking their side, but I don’t think it was company policy.
> rogue execs
What is a company if not a collection of people? I fail to see the difference between "rogue execs did it" and "the company did it", except for who gets thrown under the bus.
Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”
#578Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to the FTC's lawsuit, Amazon no longer binds its sellers with a Most Favored Nation clause. Instead, Amazon now will refuse to promote an offer in its "buy box" space if it detects a lower price for that good on another website. The FTC alleges that this simply reconstitutes the MFA since most sales on Amazon take place from the buy box. Amazon responds that it is within its rights to not promote uncompetit…
> Amazon responds that it is within its rights to not promote uncompetitive offers Sounds to me like Amazon has found a loophole in the law. It agrees to list anything for sale, with no anti competitive conditions, but then only recommends customers buy things that it believes are in the customers best interests. The FTC will struggle to argue that is illegal. Amazon can't be compelled to recommend stuff. (free speec…
> only recommends customers buy things that it believes are in the customers best interests.
You mean like this outright scam with an "Amazon's choice" label on? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34588734
Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”
#579This is getting silly on the same level like the EU demanding Netflix to pay a certain percentage to local movie funds or enforcing certain rules to platforms owned by Meta to protect "user interests" about which no user really cares about. Amazon is not a self-evident service run submissive on behalf of the citizens. It's a private company. Nobody forces to do business with amazon nor is one forced to buy anything from it. There is something called freedom of contract. Amazon could demand a 90% fee, if that's a fair price to do business / to pay is up to the business / the customer. Looks like a ton of businesses are ok with not selling at a discount elsewhere - they signed. As money, markets are amoral. Consumers choose what they choose. There is no such thing as a monopoly in a free market system. At anytime anyone can compete with Amazon or Google, the 'gatekeeper' argument does not hold at all, this is competition - there is no such thing as fairness in markets and that's good. Nobody forces you to use android where googles product can't be removed and nobody forces you to use amazon for being just amazon, the number 1 in e-commerce. If your the operator of a business and whining about 'fairness' you surely should go find a normal job. Free will and free markets is all what matters, adults are mature, nobody needs a gov organization like the FTC wanting to split up businesses. People want to use amazon, period. At the same time amazon has 0 obligations to them or anyone else. Be real and sane to yourself.
Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”
#580Earlier quoted context omitted.
This statement is very meaningful in our current society, but one I wish sounded as insane as it is. I hope more people will think about the basic dogma of corporatism in the coming years...
Well, what if we translate this into a very different society? You live in a big mansion. Your live-in cook heads into town one night and ends up getting into a fight in a bar. He breaks the other guy's leg. What should happen to you?
Now imagine a legal entity represented and managed by several officials.
One of them heads into town, hires a bouncer to break a guys leg using the legal entities money, letterhead, and declares that this is work on behalf of the legal entity.
What should happen to the legal entity wrt acts commisioned in its name?