Quote:
Originally Posted by DiapDealer
"Without predatory pricing."
Meaning you're suggesting that Amazon IS guilty of "predatory pricing;" meaning you're either guilty of purposely misusing the inflammatory term for emphasis and effect, or that you just simply don't understand what it actually is.
That fact that some retailers choose not to employ (and even manage to thrive) without loss-leader pricing is not proof that loss-leader pricing is "bad" or "predatory" (or that other companies should stop doing it).
Please stop trying to falsely conflate loss-leader pricing with predatory pricing. One is perfectly legal, the other is not.
|
So what definition do you have of predatory pricing? One of the issues with being a monopoly, i.e. holding a dominate market position is that there is a different standard of behavior which it comes to such tactics. What might be simply a loss leader in someone else, can easily become predatory pricing in a company that holds the dominate market position. It's really not as straight forward as you seem to think.