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.
> 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.
That's pretty much econ 101. Free market economies ONLY functions when there is a large numbers of players competing. Sometimes government intervention is required to maintain a "free market". This is where people with low IQs and sub standard education hyperventilate and have a brain aneurism in confusion.
A Free Market governments role is to provide macro services
But anyway, the reality is more complicated. First of all, Amazon is more of a monopsonist than monopolist, though the company is moving in both directions now.
Second, monopoly laws have been Borked. As long as Amazon can sustain the pretense of lower prices to the consumers, they're going to file it as "No harm, no foul." Or as the lawyers would plead it: "Externalities? We don't need no stinkin' externalities." The gamesters have won that round and the rules need a page-one rewrite.
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:2, Funny)
> 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.
That's pretty much econ 101. Free market economies ONLY functions when there is a large numbers of players competing. Sometimes government intervention is required to maintain a "free market". This is where people with low IQs and sub standard education hyperventilate and have a brain aneurism in confusion.
A Free Market governments role is to provide macro services
Harm? We don't need no stinkin' harms! (Score:2)
Why was that modded funny?
But anyway, the reality is more complicated. First of all, Amazon is more of a monopsonist than monopolist, though the company is moving in both directions now.
Second, monopoly laws have been Borked. As long as Amazon can sustain the pretense of lower prices to the consumers, they're going to file it as "No harm, no foul." Or as the lawyers would plead it: "Externalities? We don't need no stinkin' externalities." The gamesters have won that round and the rules need a page-one rewrite.