I find her ideas (that Amazon is anti-competitive by being big) interesting, but I find her reasoning unconvincing. Her point is that breaking up large companies, merely because they are big, into smaller companies would improve the economy. She says:
"the economics of platform markets create incentives for a company to pursue growth over profits, a strategy that investors have rewarded. "
She is upset because companies pursue growth over profits. I'm not sure I see this as a bad thing. Even if it were a bad thing, it's not something that only large companies pursue, it is probably more common among small companies.
Small companies can't lose billions in order to destroy a single competitor, and then recover it by jacking up prices when they're gone. Read the diapers.com story and tell me there's not a problem with Amazon.
Just an FYI that is how Amazon started: as a small company that lost billions. So yes, it is possible.
No it didn't. The Small Business Administration caps a small business at $7.5 million in annual receipts. While the definition of a small business isn't solely determined by the US government, you are severely contorting the definition by considering a company losing (and therefore spending) billions per year as a small company.
The Small Business Administration caps a small business at $7.5 million in annual receipts.
The SBA does no such thing, and anyone even vaguely familiar with it would make no such claim. I suggest you go browse the table of size standards. A brewery, for instance, can have 1250 employees before it no longer qualifies. Although I guess revenue of $6k/employee is exactly the kind of extreme losses we're talking about here.
The Small Business Administration caps a small business at $7.5 million in annual receipts.
The SBA does no such thing, and anyone even vaguely familiar with it would make no such claim. I suggest you go browse the table of size standards. A brewery, for instance, can have 1250 employees before it no longer qualifies. Although I guess revenue of $6k/employee is exactly the kind of extreme losses we're talking about here.
I did misrepresent the situation when I said they put a $7.5 million cap (a result of brevity in a short comment). $7.5 million is merely an initial guideline the SBA uses when beginning their analysis of whether a company qualifies as a small business. Manufacturing is usually an exception to this threshold, which I assume breweries qualify as.
Her paper (Score:3, Insightful)
I find her ideas (that Amazon is anti-competitive by being big) interesting, but I find her reasoning unconvincing. Her point is that breaking up large companies, merely because they are big, into smaller companies would improve the economy. She says:
"the economics of platform markets create incentives for a company to pursue growth over profits, a strategy that investors have rewarded. "
She is upset because companies pursue growth over profits. I'm not sure I see this as a bad thing. Even if it were a bad thing, it's not something that only large companies pursue, it is probably more common among small companies.
Her second argument addresses A
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:4, Interesting)
Small companies can't lose billions in order to destroy a single competitor,
Just an FYI that is how Amazon started: as a small company that lost billions. So yes, it is possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Just an FYI that is how Amazon started: as a small company that lost billions. So yes, it is possible.
No it didn't. The Small Business Administration caps a small business at $7.5 million in annual receipts. While the definition of a small business isn't solely determined by the US government, you are severely contorting the definition by considering a company losing (and therefore spending) billions per year as a small company.
Re: Her paper (Score:2)
The SBA does no such thing, and anyone even vaguely familiar with it would make no such claim. I suggest you go browse the table of size standards. A brewery, for instance, can have 1250 employees before it no longer qualifies. Although I guess revenue of $6k/employee is exactly the kind of extreme losses we're talking about here.
Re: (Score:3)
The Small Business Administration caps a small business at $7.5 million in annual receipts.
The SBA does no such thing, and anyone even vaguely familiar with it would make no such claim. I suggest you go browse the table of size standards. A brewery, for instance, can have 1250 employees before it no longer qualifies. Although I guess revenue of $6k/employee is exactly the kind of extreme losses we're talking about here.
I did misrepresent the situation when I said they put a $7.5 million cap (a result of brevity in a short comment). $7.5 million is merely an initial guideline the SBA uses when beginning their analysis of whether a company qualifies as a small business. Manufacturing is usually an exception to this threshold, which I assume breweries qualify as.
To be more precise, The SBA announced that it would begin its analysis of its size standards by assuming that “$6.5 million [later increased to $7.5 million] i [fas.org]