Quote:
If Amazon breaks the law than the DOJ should get involved. I fail to see how enforcing the law is a bad thing.
|
I think the problem is that it looked like a one sided enforcement of the law. As to who should care , its authors and then consumers. SF author Charles Stross:
Quote:
Monopoly
exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity ... Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service and a lack of viable substitute goods.
Monopolies suck for their customers because they don't have to give a shit about product quality or price: they have you, the customer, over a barrel with nowhere else to go.
A monopoly is a consumer-side problem. In contrast, there is a less-well-known corresponding supplier-side problem ...
Monopsony
is a market form in which only one buyer faces many sellers. It is an example of imperfect competition, similar to a monopoly, in which only one seller faces many buyers. As the only or majority purchaser of a good or service, the "monopsonist" may dictate terms to its suppliers in the same manner that a monopolist controls the market for its buyers.
Monopsonies suck for their suppliers because the suppliers are systematically starved of profits by the middle-men running the monopsony. Which can lead to suppliers going bust, and a reduction in the diversity and quality of goods available (via the monopsony) to consumers.
|
AMAZON STRATEGY
I don't agree with all of his analysis, but there's a lot of truth here, IMO