this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2024
617 points (92.8% liked)
Technology
58209 readers
5550 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
OP, I dislike Amazon and there are definitely plenty of things to accuse them of, but you're literally describing the opposite of a monopoly. Generally the problem with monopolies is that they don't need to compete on price so they'll over charge. You're saying Amazon is a monopoly because they're the cheapest option though. That doesn't follow.
Again, to be clear, I dislike them and believe they're worthy of criticism. I'm not trying to "defend Amazon" here.
You need to read The Amazon Anti-Trust Paradox by current FTC head Lina Khan. She argues that the consumer price oriented monopoly definition is old and outdated in the modern setting. Price is not a sufficient proxy for market competitiveness, and in fact, price is often used to kill competitiveness by undercutting new and innovative products.
That's a good point. Especially when we see so many things where there are exactly two companies competing.
Many monopolies form by first using a dominant market position to sell at a price no competitor can afford to match. Choice has already been removed before the "competition" folds or pulls out of the market. The consequences don't happen overnight; you feel the squeeze before the "true" monopoly emerges. Amazon isn't going to sell at a cheaper price once their competitors go out of business out of the kindness of their hearts.
Further, high consumer price is just one form monopoly power takes. Reduced labor power, wages, and worse working conditions are other important concerns, in addition to removing product variety and innovation incentive.
That's a fair point. Bring loss leader can be a stepping stone on the path to being a "real" monopoly.
Amazon literally did this with diapers.com that led to them acquiring the company and shutting it down. I'm sure they've done it in hundreds of other product spaces as well.
OP didn't say it, but Amazon also forces agreements with sellers not to list same items cheaper elsewhere online which is monopolistic.
I get the nuance you are communicating though.
Just because they are the cheapest option doesn't mean they aren't a monopoly. They clearly have the most inventory. One store having all of the inventory of everything and being the leader for selling products of any kind, is a pretty big problem.
If they can put others out of business (pretty sure they have put smaller stores out of business in the past), they can become an even bigger monopoly.
"A monopoly is a market structure with a single seller or producer that assumes a dominant position in an industry or a sector. Monopolies are discouraged in free-market economies because they stifle competition, limit consumer substitutes, and thus, limit consumer choice." ~investopedia
Nothing about needing to jack prices up. I'd say Amazon fits the description perfectly
I am no economist, but don't you think this behaviour of Amazon leads to "carrot and stick" and at that point it is basically a monopoly right?