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.
She is upset because companies pursue growth over profits. I'm not sure I see this as a bad thing.
Khan is not upset about companies pursuing growth over profits. She believes this phenomenon now makes the Brooke Group recoupment test inadequate to fight predatory pricing. The current doctrine of the court is that predatory pricing must result in higher profits for the accused. If the plaintiff cannot show the predatory pricing led to higher profit, they are very unlikely to win in court. Khan's position is companies are not only driven by profit, and Amazon has been a pioneer in focusing on growth with
It's not really about "keeping up with the times". This is the way monopoly power has been abused since the 19th century. It's the courts that have regressed in their ability to see the bare basics of how monopolies operate.
It's not really about "keeping up with the times". This is the way monopoly power has been abused since the 19th century. It's the courts that have regressed in their ability to see the bare basics of how monopolies operate.
I am not aware of 19th century monopolists spending decades operating with little to no profit in order to grow their market share. I am under the impression they were making significant profit throughout their monopolistic practices. I'm not a historian though, so I could be wrong. If I'm right, though, things really are different today. At least they are different when it comes to how laws are applied and how liability is determined. I do agree that to a layman it certainly doesn't feel very different.
Strategy introduced by Japanese companies about 40 years ago.
I am unaware of Japanese companies taking a similar approach, at least not on a large scale. For all I know this was common throughout the world before Amazon, just not nearly on the same scale. I tried finding examples among Japan's largest companies, but their automotive companies, Hitachi, Sony, Post Holdings, AEON, etc. are all 70+ year old companies so they don't line up with your timeline. I would be interested to learn more though.
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:4, Interesting)
She is upset because companies pursue growth over profits. I'm not sure I see this as a bad thing.
Khan is not upset about companies pursuing growth over profits. She believes this phenomenon now makes the Brooke Group recoupment test inadequate to fight predatory pricing. The current doctrine of the court is that predatory pricing must result in higher profits for the accused. If the plaintiff cannot show the predatory pricing led to higher profit, they are very unlikely to win in court. Khan's position is companies are not only driven by profit, and Amazon has been a pioneer in focusing on growth with
Re: (Score:2)
It's not really about "keeping up with the times". This is the way monopoly power has been abused since the 19th century. It's the courts that have regressed in their ability to see the bare basics of how monopolies operate.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not really about "keeping up with the times". This is the way monopoly power has been abused since the 19th century. It's the courts that have regressed in their ability to see the bare basics of how monopolies operate.
I am not aware of 19th century monopolists spending decades operating with little to no profit in order to grow their market share. I am under the impression they were making significant profit throughout their monopolistic practices. I'm not a historian though, so I could be wrong. If I'm right, though, things really are different today. At least they are different when it comes to how laws are applied and how liability is determined. I do agree that to a layman it certainly doesn't feel very different.
Re: (Score:0)
spending decades operating with little to no profit in order to grow their market share
Strategy introduced by Japanese companies about 40 years ago.
Re:Her paper (Score:2)
Strategy introduced by Japanese companies about 40 years ago.
I am unaware of Japanese companies taking a similar approach, at least not on a large scale. For all I know this was common throughout the world before Amazon, just not nearly on the same scale. I tried finding examples among Japan's largest companies, but their automotive companies, Hitachi, Sony, Post Holdings, AEON, etc. are all 70+ year old companies so they don't line up with your timeline. I would be interested to learn more though.