So apart from stop buying from Amazon, what else one common citizen of Internet can do?
Join your local library and make full use of the inter-library lending agreement, or internet 0.1b as I like to think of it.
Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.
11–20 of 208 posts
Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.
#12I normally love Krugman, but it seems like he skipped a step here. Amazon is squeezing publishers to push prices down, which is bad becuase... why?
I mean, the apocalyptic end game here is that publishers are forced out of business entirely and Amazon ends up buying content directly from authors, I guess. That doesn't sound so bad to me, nor like something that's going to "hurt America". Maybe then they might squeeze authors too, though that seems like something publishers are already able to do today, no?
What's the critical function provided by publishing houses that Amazon is in danger of disrupting?
Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.
#13I normally love Krugman, but it seems like he skipped a step here. Amazon is squeezing publishers to push prices down, which is bad becuase... why? I mean, the apocalyptic end game here is that publishers are forced out of business entirely and Amazon ends up buying content directly from authors, I guess. That doesn't sound so bad to me, nor like something that's going to "hurt America". Maybe then they might squeeze…
Once the publishing companies are gone it is millions of authors selling to Amazon, classic monopsony. The competitive solution is millions of authors selling direct to billions of consumers without a powerful intermediary.
Whether the current situation with extra ineffectual intermediaries is much better I am not sure, probably not.
Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.
#14I normally love Krugman, but it seems like he skipped a step here. Amazon is squeezing publishers to push prices down, which is bad becuase... why? I mean, the apocalyptic end game here is that publishers are forced out of business entirely and Amazon ends up buying content directly from authors, I guess. That doesn't sound so bad to me, nor like something that's going to "hurt America". Maybe then they might squeeze…
That is exactly what I was thinking. Why should I worry that Amazon makes publishers sell their books for lower prices? No explanation is offered...
Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.
#15I normally love Krugman, but it seems like he skipped a step here. Amazon is squeezing publishers to push prices down, which is bad becuase... why? I mean, the apocalyptic end game here is that publishers are forced out of business entirely and Amazon ends up buying content directly from authors, I guess. That doesn't sound so bad to me, nor like something that's going to "hurt America". Maybe then they might squeeze…
Once the publishing companies are gone it is millions of authors selling to Amazon, classic monopsony. The competitive solution is millions of authors selling direct to billions of consumers without a powerful intermediary. Whether the current situation with extra ineffectual intermediaries is much better I am not sure, probably not.
Right, but that's sort of a semantic answer: I know (well, OK, I looked up) what monosony means. I just don't see the argument, specific to publishing, that it's such a terrible thing.
Having a single buyer of a commodity good is bad, but books aren't commodities. Basically right now book authors, to first approximation, get paid basically nothing. But a few are huge successes with the ability essentially to set their own price. Amazon can't squeeze Joe-nature-book-writer any more than his publisher does already. But could even Amazon squeeze J. K. Rowling? I doubt it.
I just don't see the path to this argument. Needs numbers or something.
Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.
#16I normally love Krugman, but it seems like he skipped a step here. Amazon is squeezing publishers to push prices down, which is bad becuase... why? I mean, the apocalyptic end game here is that publishers are forced out of business entirely and Amazon ends up buying content directly from authors, I guess. That doesn't sound so bad to me, nor like something that's going to "hurt America". Maybe then they might squeeze…
That is exactly what I was thinking. Why should I worry that Amazon makes publishers sell their books for lower prices? No explanation is offered...
Because what if they repeat the same trick towards Customers? Do we have a choice then?
Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.
#17So apart from stop buying from Amazon, what else one common citizen of Internet can do?
Yeah, we can buy elsewhere, but they charge more for shipping and oh yeah, your CC is not working here...
Shipping costs dont't matter, do they?
Reading a book takes a while. Why do I care whether it comes free of charge or costs a few cents? Books still are great value for the money. I can read 2 or three a month, maximum. Shipping cost for books are really a negligible point in my total budget.
Finally, you always pay for shipping. Either with cash or, as we see, by amazon squeezing the price from someone else. It is not free.
Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.
#18Monopoly usually follows monopsony. I do not expect book prices to be kept low by Amazon, if Amazon manage to kill off the major publishing houses. And their willingness to make exceptions for politician's books in their corporate spats is outrageous.
Monopoly usually follows monopsony.
Does it? For a business with a low barrier to entry like selling books? I'd like to see some examples.
The reason Amazon can have a monopsony is because it keeps prices low. It retains customers and forces publishers to go through them. If they raised prices, they'd lose their advantage, and there are plenty of competitors ready to take the market, including well funded companies (e.g. Apple and Google).
If this was what's usually called a "natural monopoly", maybe that could be argued, but book selling - and especially ebook selling - is anything but.
Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.
#19I normally love Krugman, but it seems like he skipped a step here. Amazon is squeezing publishers to push prices down, which is bad becuase... why? I mean, the apocalyptic end game here is that publishers are forced out of business entirely and Amazon ends up buying content directly from authors, I guess. That doesn't sound so bad to me, nor like something that's going to "hurt America". Maybe then they might squeeze…
Somebody has to pay (almost) always - you raise your prices, your customers pay, you lower your prices, your employees or suppliers pay. It's not about hurting or not hurting but about distributing the pain well.
Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is exactly what I was thinking. Why should I worry that Amazon makes publishers sell their books for lower prices? No explanation is offered...
Because what if they repeat the same trick towards Customers? Do we have a choice then?
Why wouldn't we? There are hundreds of companies selling books, and you can start a new one with essentially nothing. Book selling is not a natural monopoly which requires heavy investment to enter into. I see no reason to assume Amazon can keep a monopoly with high prices simply because they squeezed the publishers. Low prices is what keeps them in power.
(Btw, I'm playing Devil's advocate here. I don't buy at Amazon for ethical reasons - I just don't find their purchasing power to be a problem)