undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmushufasa7y ago0 comments

In the past couple years, a new legal theory proposed that the definition of monopoloy needs to be updated for the 21st century.

Instead of focusing on consumer welfare, antitrust law should focus on 'anticompetitive behavior'. In this argument, amazon is the platform through which all other online sellers go to market, like railroads in the late 19th century. Behaving as both a platform and participant is anticompetitive, regardless of whether programs like 'amazon basics' make consumers happy.

NYT article about the author of the original law paper https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/07/technology/monopoly-antit...

I don't have strong feelings on the issue, but this may help explain warren's stance, which isn't directly related to consumer choice.

0 comments

basch7y ago

The original paper is pretty readable, the NYT article doesnt really add anything but context. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-parado...

int_19h7y ago

It's not a new legal theory, though. It's a return to the old one that predated the current state of affairs. In other words, it's a return to what the people who originally wrote our anti-monopoly laws meant them to do.

throwaway20487y ago

Yep people forget the economic impact of monopsonies aswell as monopolies

cowl7y ago

so we are ok with removing the only thing we as people have going for us, consumer welfare consideration and focus only on how to make it easier for businesses to screw us. Should I feel better that the business that is screwing me is a "small business" instead of a giant? is that the new standard?

int_19h7y ago

It's not either-or. The problem is that the current interpretation only looks at consumer impact, and ignores a lot of anti-competitive behavior that makes the market less free overall. In practice, this still hurts consumers, it's just that much harder to prove because of indirect effects - and so monopolies get away with it more often than they used to.

cowl7y ago

>>In practice, this still hurts consumers.

I Don't agree with this view. It surely has the potential to hurt the consumers in the future but IF and WHEN it does consumer impact at that time can be used to fight it (break up etc). No need to actually hurt the consumer NOW for the fear that they might be hurt in the future.

vkou7y ago

>so we are ok with removing the only thing we as people have going for us

The way that the 'consumer welfare' protection is currently implemented has no teeth.

Consider the Comcast/TWC mergers. The companies involved pay 'experts' (Of their choice) to spin fairy tales about how they project that costs to customers will go down. Five years down the road, when they don't (Or, customers suffer because other intangibles degrade, due to lack of competition), nobody actually holds them accountable, after the fact.

dnautics7y ago

the old hay is, if you charge less than your competitor, you're engaging in anticompetitive behavior, if you charge the same as your competitor, you're engaging in collusion, if you charge more than your competitor, you're price gouging, so as a business, the only way to survive is to lobby politicians enough and buy yourself protection.

ajhurliman7y ago

Amazon Basics is a tiny part of their revenue. The conclusion that they participate in their own platform and therefore need to be broken up makes no sense.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

basch7y ago

The original paper is pretty readable, the NYT article doesnt really add anything but context. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-parado...

int_19h7y ago

throwaway20487y ago

Yep people forget the economic impact of monopsonies aswell as monopolies

cowl7y ago

int_19h7y ago

cowl7y ago

>>In practice, this still hurts consumers.

vkou7y ago

>so we are ok with removing the only thing we as people have going for us

The way that the 'consumer welfare' protection is currently implemented has no teeth.

dnautics7y ago

ajhurliman7y ago

Amazon Basics is a tiny part of their revenue. The conclusion that they participate in their own platform and therefore need to be broken up makes no sense.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse