Live data from Hacker News

Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

nytimes.com

71–80 of 208 posts

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting that Nobel Prize Winner Paul Krugman is speaking out against Amazon because Hachette have drafted him for some sort of PR campaign?

Yes he is, and it looks like that to me as well. What's the deal with Paul Krugman being a Nobel Prize winner? [1] [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_accomplishment

Tyrannosaurs may have been tongue-in-cheek there; certainly the capitalised 'Winner' suggests so. (Relevant: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-04-16/paul-krugma... .)

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#72
post #52
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A part of me welcomes this. I am sick of the noise. Browsing the Amazon (Kindle) bookstore, I wish that 90% of the junk didn't even appear in my search results. Rather read works by people who are creating for the sake of art, and not money. This does not mean that I believe authors should not be correctly compensated, but has more to do with the impetus for action itself and the resulting quality of work that is pro…

> Rather read works by people who are creating for the sake of art, and not money. So basically the independently wealthy.

Point of information: back before I got the opportunity to write novels for a living, it took me 3-4 years to write one on a part-time/hobbyist/learning-the-art basis. That's because I had a day job, which came first.

As someone who is earning a living by writing, I typically produce a book a year, plus change (sometimes up to two books per year).

If downward pressure on production costs results in me having to seek work elsewhere, then of course I won't stop writing ... but I'll write a lot less.

Amazon's strategy of driving down prices by leaning on publishers to cap prices across the board works on the assumption that all books are created equal. It's commodification, equating work of serious artistic or literary merit, or work that lots of people like, with work that is neither artistic, meritorious, or even popular. If the monopsonist gets their way, then all authors take a haircut. Even if you're a market fundamentalist, this has problems: Amazon may be sending a price signal, but it doesn't apply to the individual SKU but instead to the manufacturers' entire product range across the board. Any useful information is thus lost in the noise ...

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#73
post #2

So 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...

I live in the Denver area, we're lucky enough to have The Tattered Cover. I've been able to order any book I want from them, and when it arrives I go pick it up. Bonus: I get out of the house. Bonus: I get to sniff the books on the shelf when I'm there.

If I recall correctly, in Seattle the University Bookstore has (had?) free shipping according to some deal or condition, and if not you can have it delivered there, and then get out of the house and sniff books.

But most of my book buying these days is DRM-free pdfs from O'Reilly.

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#74
Paul Krugman is a foam at the mouth kook. He's consistently wrong, and only continues to be "relevant" because he promotes a particular view of the world, which is both absurd and popular because it is based on feelings and not reality.

Capitalism is based on grow and destruction. It is just as absurd to argue against Amazon as it would have been to argue for Blockbuster. Netflix comes along, and Blockbuster disappears. Markets are brutally efficient, and crying over the losers is a waste of time at best, and if this bleating results in government regulation, harmful.

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#75
post #12

I 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…

what if we replace Amazon with Walmart and publisher with manufacturers?

"Walmart is squeezing manufacturers to push prices down, which is bad becuase... why?"

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#76
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disrupting editors does not mean eliminating them. Successful self-publishers pay for, among other things, their own editors. Readers are not stupid. Between descriptions, reviews, free samples and so on assessing quality (both abstractly and personally) isn't hard.

How are self-publishers supposed to pay editors if Amazon keep pushing prices down?

The really successful ones will be able to. Until Amazon renegotiates their contract.

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#77
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting that Nobel Prize Winner Paul Krugman is speaking out against Amazon because Hachette have drafted him for some sort of PR campaign?

I am suggesting that Paul Krugman is speaking as a New York Times Op Ed writer whose duty is to sell newspapers, rather than as an academic.

[deleted]

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#78
post #12

I 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…

The standard monopsony effect is on quality. Monopsonies push the price below the cost of production, so producers cut production costs to an unreasonable level. In the case of books, you'd see that by cuts in editing, by authors shortening the amount of time that they spend writing a book, and through authors dropping out and leaving the field to less talented writers with fewer alternative income sources. The textb…

Except Amazon is arguing for a lower price because it will increase sales and make both Amazon and the publisher more money. They aren't asking for more books or less editing. They're trying to make everyone more money.

Worse, the argument is over pricing on e-books, not physical stock, so Hachette's stance makes even less sense.

As usual, Paul Krugman sees everything through a political lens, so naturally Amazon is evil and must be beaten down.

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#79
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 n…

If they don't matter to you, perhaps you'd be willing to pay mine. I'd gladly buy paper books from http://www.powells.com/ and have them shipped here to Italy, but it's expensive and slow.

Have you tried bookdepository? They are slow, but cheap.

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting that Nobel Prize Winner Paul Krugman is speaking out against Amazon because Hachette have drafted him for some sort of PR campaign?

Yes he is, and it looks like that to me as well. What's the deal with Paul Krugman being a Nobel Prize winner? [1] [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_accomplishment

As long as we're talking about former Enron adviser Paul Krugman, we can look up a fuller bio.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman

Post reply on HN