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.
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:Her paper (Score:2)
The stock pumping kept them floating, it was like 15-20 years before they turn a profit on paper.