Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly” • Hacker News Board

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#171

Post by ucaetano » Wed, Nov 14, 2018, 8:10 PM UTC

dools wrote: post #167

ucaetano wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the Department of Justice: For this reason, antitrust law does not regard as illegal the mere possession of monopoly power where it is the product of superior skill, foresight, or industry. Where monopoly power is acquired or maintained through anticompetitive conduct, however, antitrust law properly objects. A monopoly that doesn't abuse its market power to prevent competition is either a natural monopoly or a…

Okay so they're not illegal. I wouldn't say "perfectly fine" though... As you point out, it's a temporary situation in the case that they're not being anti-competitive. I would argue that any situation where there is a natural monopoly it should be state run rather than privately run because that situation is, by its very nature, anti-competitive (first in, best dressed!)

> Okay so they're not illegal. I wouldn't say "perfectly fine" though

From a anti-trust perspective, not-illegal is perfectly fine.

> I would argue that any situation where there is a natural monopoly it should be state run rather than privately run because that situation is, by its very nature, anti-competitive (first in, best dressed!)

Argue as much as you want, the real world has consistently shown that government-run enterprises, with rare exceptions, are inefficient drains of resources.

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#172

Post by ABCLAW » Wed, Nov 14, 2018, 9:51 PM UTC

ucaetano wrote: post #169

treis wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>No, it isn't. How can you prove consumer harm if there's more choice at lower prices? I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse or really don't understand. To be extremely clear, the important comparison would be the market as it is vs a hypothetical one where Google didn't abuse it's position. Comparing now to what was 13 years ago is meaningless in the tech world. >There are plenty of other vendors to choos…

> To be extremely clear, the important comparison would be the market as it is vs a hypothetical one where Google didn't abuse it's position. Comparing now to what was 13 years ago is meaningless in the tech world. No, that's not how it works. You can't compare to a random, made up scenario. Go look up antitrust cases... Seriously, I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse or really don't understand. > And the…

>No, that's not how it works. You can't compare to a random, made up scenario. Go look up antitrust cases...

... That's exactly the issue with the current paradigm of monopoly enforcement. You can subvert a market, then if you fly under the radar for long enough, the competition bureaus have no ability to determine that pricing pressure is being exerted because the market is already non-competitive at the point of the comparison.

You conflate the limits of our current enforcement framework with the principles that underlie the effort in the first place throughout this thread.

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#173

Post by paulgrant999 » Thu, Nov 15, 2018, 1:10 AM UTC

bilbo0s wrote: post #82

colllectorof wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The reason why anti-trust is based on precise economic definitions is that it leaves as little room as possible for the government to favor friendly players. When you need to prove harm to consumers, the bar is high, as it should be. Yeah, I'm sure that allowing companies to merge right until the point where they make consumer's lives a living hell is great for the society and the economy. >The classic example is: C…

> Google, Facebook, and Amazon control not only what you can do as a consumer... ??? I'm not sure this is true? I don't feel like they are controlling me when I go to Target or Walmart??? But I'm not sure if there is something maybe with the advertising that is making me go to Target and Walmart? Either way, it's totally up to me as a consumer where I spend my money I would think.

Feeling is irrelevant; alternative, supply, is.

If I put every small widget manufacturer out of business, by only highlighting the cost of large (destrtuctive) widget maker, guess what? Small widget manufacturers go out of business. The large widget maker jacks up the price now that all their competitors have been destroyed.

Same way Amazon leverages the US postal treaty, to ship their products from slave-labor plants set up in China, where the same good, even for equivalent labor cost, STILL has to pay domestic shipping rates.

Same way Walmart brings crappy jobs, that pay just low enough, to qualify its employees for state benefits.

At some point, you have to understand, that the world is NOT best served by a single corporation, totally dominating key sectors (such as search, communication, etc).

Personally the single most important thing I want to choose, when I buy a service is:

who gets my money.

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#174

Post by treis » Sun, Nov 18, 2018, 5:55 PM UTC

ucaetano wrote: post #169

treis wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>No, it isn't. How can you prove consumer harm if there's more choice at lower prices? I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse or really don't understand. To be extremely clear, the important comparison would be the market as it is vs a hypothetical one where Google didn't abuse it's position. Comparing now to what was 13 years ago is meaningless in the tech world. >There are plenty of other vendors to choos…

> To be extremely clear, the important comparison would be the market as it is vs a hypothetical one where Google didn't abuse it's position. Comparing now to what was 13 years ago is meaningless in the tech world. No, that's not how it works. You can't compare to a random, made up scenario. Go look up antitrust cases... Seriously, I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse or really don't understand. > And the…

>No, that's not how it works. You can't compare to a random, made up scenario. Go look up antitrust cases...

>Seriously, I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse or really don't understand.

You're wrong about this:

>The plaintiff must demonstrate that there is a likelihood that the scheme alleged would cause a rise in prices above a competitive level sufficient to compensate for the amounts expended on the predation, including the time value of the money invested in it

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-466.ZS.html

The test is "above a competitive level" and not more than prices before the scheme.

>Your product sucking is not a antitrust issue, it is simply your incompetence.

No, it's because your competitor is willing to spend more money than you and give their product away for free to protect their monopoly in another area.

>Asking that Google or Coca-Cola be punished for having a better product isn't only naive, is ignorance.

That's not what anyone is asking. If Google can make better maps for less cost than everyone else, bully for them. But that isn't what they do. They devote more resources than their competitors to make better products while giving them away for free. And they do it to extinguish competition and further cement their search/ad monopoly.

Re: Google, Facebook, and Amazon benefit from an outdated definition of “monopoly”

#175

Post by dools » Mon, Nov 19, 2018, 8:03 AM UTC

ucaetano wrote: post #171

dools wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay so they're not illegal. I wouldn't say "perfectly fine" though... As you point out, it's a temporary situation in the case that they're not being anti-competitive. I would argue that any situation where there is a natural monopoly it should be state run rather than privately run because that situation is, by its very nature, anti-competitive (first in, best dressed!)

> Okay so they're not illegal. I wouldn't say "perfectly fine" though From a anti-trust perspective, not-illegal is perfectly fine. > I would argue that any situation where there is a natural monopoly it should be state run rather than privately run because that situation is, by its very nature, anti-competitive (first in, best dressed!) Argue as much as you want, the real world has consistently shown that government…

> the real world has consistently shown that government-run enterprises, with rare exceptions, are inefficient drains of resources.

That is a ridiculous assertion, that stems purely from libertarian propaganda.