I often see many people show immediate solidarity with Amazon as soon as the ideas of anti-trust or monopoly are brought up. If the government is allowed to break up a large corporation then where does it stop? Will they come after my small business next?
The ironic part of this is that the same large companies they are showing solidarity with are implementing anti-competitive practices to prevent smaller entrants from standing a chance. Between google and facebook's unknown algorithms, Apple's secretive approval process for iOS apps, and Amazon's practice of pushing their products up and pushing new entrants out, the large companies already act as gatekeepers for their dominion.
Perhaps it's marketing, maybe it's brand loyalty, but it seems bizarre that people are more willing to give control of their lives to a large corporation than to have any government intervention.
You raise an interesting point, but I wonder if the point is less that people trust the brand than they _distrust_ the government. Do you think it might be possible that however much people distrust corporations, they at least trust the corporation to function unlike the government, which they only trust to deepen dysfunction?
I’m familiar with the phenomenon of the “temporarily embarrassed millionaire,” but I’ve never heard of anyone seeing themselves as a temporarily embarrassed oligarch before.
> I often see many people show immediate solidarity with Amazon as soon as the ideas of anti-trust or monopoly are brought up. If the government is allowed to break up a large corporation then where does it stop? Will they come after my small business next?
If the govern doesn't go after Aamzon, Amazon will probably come after your small business.
I absolutely categorically distrust government power. The bar is very high for me to even consider government intervention being the right thing. The current government has a public dislike for the tech industry which has nothing to do with any inherent issues with monopoly.
While, I believe that Democrats who want to involve themselves in the private markets have good intentions - the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Neither side knows enough nor things deeply enough to understand that everything has tradeoffs and especially in tech. The former generation of tech giants fell as technology changed and through disruption - not government intervention
> If the government is allowed to break up a large corporation then where does it stop? Will they come after my small business next?
This is like the corporate / upper class version of the "everyone in America is a temporarily embarrassed millionaire" trope. Maybe American millionaires are temporarily embarrassed billionaires?
If you are not in the Fortune 100, the idea of anti-trust ever applying to your business should never cross your mind. It's absurd. If you are in the Fortune 100 and anti-trust comes up, ease your mind by going out on your favorite yacht.
In fact history shows that breakups often increase shareholder value in the long term, so just make sure you own some of all the shards and you'll probably get richer.
As far as the government messing with you: yes, they can, but it won't be with anti-trust. There are a million ways the government can mess with you without ever going there.
1. Amazon is not a monopoly in any market. It faces stiff competition across the board.
2. Amazon both drives costs down and is a lead innovator and the fear with monopolies is that they raise prices and hinder innovation. Amazon probably captures 90% of my non-food consumer spending simply because nobody else seems to be trying to improve except them.
That’s only one fear about monopolies and a relatively recent one at that. See for example the EU’s quite different treatment and understanding around monopolies.
There can be more reason to be concerned about a monopoly than just consumer price harm.
A monopoly can have competition. Lots of people used Netscape on Macs in the 90s, but the US government (and lots of other people) said Microsoft was a monopoly anyway.
Now that he no longer has to worry about being fired, Tim is freely tossing around anti-competitive trigger words that anybody who has gone through corporate training at a FAANG company should instantly recognize.
"In effect cloud computing is providing the resources that Amazon is using to crush whole sectors of the retail economy."
I don’t see how this would work. The US can use sanctions or other legal means of preventing such companies from doing business in the US. China did this for years to ensure US companies didn’t dominate their market (among other reasons).
Here's a question, we're in a globally competitive marketplace. Wouldn't forcing a breakup of Amazon hurt its competitiveness globally against companies like Alibaba or JD?
During the precambrian era of the internet , when valuations were still small , companies like amazon and their competitors could get away with a lot , from bad security to piracy, to counterfeits, to fraud. back then metallica were the baddies and napster the good guys, today it would be the opposite. No amount of government intervention will change the monopolistic nature of the Single Market of the internet. What could enable competition is deregulation
Don't break Amazon up. Nationalize Amazon. Use all the data they collect to make supply chains more effective/efficient, move us closer to a planned economy.
I would argue that it would most likely become another bureaucracy where people jockey for position and power with efficiency being given little more than lip service. Such bureaucracies are difficult to kill or replace.
Does Amazon allegedly have some very bad practices toward workers and toward 3rd-party sellers? Yes, there are a lot of reports.
The solution then is to fix that problem through mandatory reporting and unions, not to break up the company.
"Why on earth should an online retailer, a cloud computing company, a smart speaker company, an organic supermarket company, and a video production company all be conglomerated into one corporate entity controlled by one person?"
Because they built it. Do we tell people building startups that the sky is the limit, unless you become too big or do something too many people consider wrong, and in that case we'll take it away from you?
Also because an economy of scale helps consumers. Amazon Prime gives access to music, books, delivery of home goods, delivery of groceries, and much more. Break it up and you will have Prime Music, Prime Books, Prime Home, Prime Market subscriptions, each for nearly the same price - one sub for each piece you break the company into.
I agree something must be done - the stories of the workers read like Bram Stoker award-winning horror novels, but swinging the needle the other way and completely breaking the company apart is over-reaction.
My suggestion: mandate unions in every field, every worker must be part of at least one union, and union dues must be paid as a tax by the employers.
> Because they built it. Do we tell people building startups that the sky is the limit, unless you become too big or do something too many people consider wrong, and in that case we'll take it away from you?
So now monopoly power is not a concern anymore? How did we get to this point?
Does anyone believe that the fact that a founder can only have, say 10 billion and not 100 prevent anyone from starting a startup?
Amazon claims it's against their internal policies. But it's widespread and there's no indication those policies serve as anything more than plausible deniability - i.e. managers can tell employees to increase sales, give them access to the seller's data, and just have them agree on paper that they won't use the data but never enforce it.
They built part of a logistics chain and acquired the rest.
>skys the limit
Why should those being exploited be limited by amazon? The sky should the limit for every individual not just Bezos.
>Prime books
If you broke up prime you would have nothing. The reason people subscribe is the overlap with multiple markets which is what makes it a monopolistic strategy. It uses loss leaders from one market to destroy competition in other markets with the intent to later raise prices.
> "Why on earth should [..] all be conglomerated into one corporate entity controlled by one person?"
> Because they built it.
This is an entirely fictional idea.
Consider who this language serves. Bezos started the company, but how does it make sense to say he “built” all of the businesses mentioned? They were built by many thousands of people, but they barely own what they created.
Bezos has abused his position as founder to capitalize on their work. If he hadn’t started the company, these people would still have found ways to build things, perhaps even under less heinous conditions.
The complaint about how warehouse workers are treated, hired, and such, is not unique to Amazon. It is manual labor where as much intelligence if not language skills is eliminated as possible.
Examples, from light walls where light is used to guide placement to pickup, indicator lights on bins for the same, to voice prompts in language of choice, all guided by computers because they know exactly where the gun/scan device the employee is holding.
Still I find it disappointing people only concentrate on the warehouse worker while completely ignoring other low wage workers they are likely working around but tend to be invisible to you, from mail clerks, building maintenance, and even the security guard at the front desk.
Look, not all jobs are equal nor should you assume offense on some other person's part. Believe me, I got the shock of my life working in IT while working for a "rent a cop" company. That some people earned and lived on what some of them made was both amazing and a little disappointing to me. Yet a few I would talk to thought it was fine as they had a job where they didn't have to put much effort into doing to get paid; plus in that line some were fond of being indoors and having a uniform. Basically what we find unacceptable other's will just blow off our opinion as being snotty or worse.
> My suggestion: mandate unions in every field, every worker must be part of at least one union, and union dues must be paid as a tax by the employers.
I was with you up until this point. So now instead of having one institution that I'm beholden to for my livelihood, I have two. Unions are just another form of institution that can succumb to the same kinds of corruption and bad practices as the company I work for.
Why not start with a higher minimum wage, or incentivizing companies to pay a living wage across all roles, or UBI, or cheaper/universal health care - something so that workers at shitty companies can say "screw this" and leave.
Isn't the government kind of already a union, and you are a member electing leadership and funding it with your dues (taxes)?
Why the need for a seperate org? How is it different than a government?
Standard Oil did a lot that was forward-thinking business. For example, oil shipped in barrels - real wooden barrels. Standard Oil got in the barrel-making business because they were having trouble getting enough barrels to run their business. (Today we call that "vertical integration"; they probably just thought of it as doing what they needed to do to keep their business running.) You don't build a business like Standard Oil just by being evil. You have to be able to execute really well.
But Standard Oil did a lot that was shady, too. For example, they shipped so much oil (by rail) that they demanded a kickback from railroads, or they'd take their business to the competing railroad. (This was back when there were enough railroads that there was competition.) That means that Standard Oil was paying lower freight rates (net) than other oil companies. (I think at this time rail rates were controlled by the government, so the kickbacks were probably illegal from that standing, not just from the extortion involved.) Standard Oil then went a step further. They demanded kickbacks not just for their own oil traffic, but for their competitors' oil shipments as well.
If you were a competitor, you weren't going to be able to prosper in that kind of an environment. Then Standard Oil would offer to buy your business...
Who would be an acceptable person to call for breaking up Amazon, then? If he were a low-level Amazon employee, they would say, "Bah, he's just jealous he doesn't have a killer salary like the rock-star developers at Amazon." If he were a non-Amazon employee, they would say, "He's just jealous of Amazon's market strength."
At least according to his own blog posts, he tried to work from within to change Amazon for the better, to the extent that was feasible without making his own life a living hell.
When things went too far for him, he resigned in protest. And yes, it is a privilege that he is able to do so and still live comfortably, but that doesn't make it a meaningless gesture.
Now that he's no longer in a position where saying what he really wants Amazon to be/do/have done to it will lead to those around him vilifying him on a daily basis, he's using his privilege, and his voice, which speaks louder than most in the tech world, to try to get that to happen.
[+] [-] rickyplouis|5 years ago|reply
The ironic part of this is that the same large companies they are showing solidarity with are implementing anti-competitive practices to prevent smaller entrants from standing a chance. Between google and facebook's unknown algorithms, Apple's secretive approval process for iOS apps, and Amazon's practice of pushing their products up and pushing new entrants out, the large companies already act as gatekeepers for their dominion.
Perhaps it's marketing, maybe it's brand loyalty, but it seems bizarre that people are more willing to give control of their lives to a large corporation than to have any government intervention.
[+] [-] roosterdawn|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aaronbrethorst|5 years ago|reply
I’m familiar with the phenomenon of the “temporarily embarrassed millionaire,” but I’ve never heard of anyone seeing themselves as a temporarily embarrassed oligarch before.
No, they won’t come after your small business.
[+] [-] znpy|5 years ago|reply
If the govern doesn't go after Aamzon, Amazon will probably come after your small business.
[+] [-] logicchains|5 years ago|reply
How is this any different from supermarkets that have their own generic, no-label brand that they push?
[+] [-] scarface74|5 years ago|reply
While, I believe that Democrats who want to involve themselves in the private markets have good intentions - the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Neither side knows enough nor things deeply enough to understand that everything has tradeoffs and especially in tech. The former generation of tech giants fell as technology changed and through disruption - not government intervention
[+] [-] api|5 years ago|reply
This is like the corporate / upper class version of the "everyone in America is a temporarily embarrassed millionaire" trope. Maybe American millionaires are temporarily embarrassed billionaires?
If you are not in the Fortune 100, the idea of anti-trust ever applying to your business should never cross your mind. It's absurd. If you are in the Fortune 100 and anti-trust comes up, ease your mind by going out on your favorite yacht.
In fact history shows that breakups often increase shareholder value in the long term, so just make sure you own some of all the shards and you'll probably get richer.
As far as the government messing with you: yes, they can, but it won't be with anti-trust. There are a million ways the government can mess with you without ever going there.
[+] [-] RIMR|5 years ago|reply
Everyone uses Amazon, but there's always an underlying belief that they are evil (even from employees). Trying to defend their practices isn't wise.
Yet the city council bends to their will rather than the will of their constituents... No surprise that Seattleites find them oppressive.
[+] [-] MattGaiser|5 years ago|reply
2. Amazon both drives costs down and is a lead innovator and the fear with monopolies is that they raise prices and hinder innovation. Amazon probably captures 90% of my non-food consumer spending simply because nobody else seems to be trying to improve except them.
[+] [-] stephenr|5 years ago|reply
Amazon has been selling books at a loss for decades, and it has absolutely killed a large chunk of their competition for physical books in the US.
[+] [-] yellow_postit|5 years ago|reply
There can be more reason to be concerned about a monopoly than just consumer price harm.
[+] [-] theandrewbailey|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tomte|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ikeboy|5 years ago|reply
The only company that's even close is Walmart, and Amazon still dwarfs their e-commerce sales.
[+] [-] steelframe|5 years ago|reply
"In effect cloud computing is providing the resources that Amazon is using to crush whole sectors of the retail economy."
[+] [-] ronnier|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ViViDboarder|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] t0mas88|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] logicchains|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rideontime|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RegnisGnaw|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] almost_usual|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] buboard|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kpmcc|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wisemanwillhear|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scarface74|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Communitivity|5 years ago|reply
The solution then is to fix that problem through mandatory reporting and unions, not to break up the company.
"Why on earth should an online retailer, a cloud computing company, a smart speaker company, an organic supermarket company, and a video production company all be conglomerated into one corporate entity controlled by one person?"
Because they built it. Do we tell people building startups that the sky is the limit, unless you become too big or do something too many people consider wrong, and in that case we'll take it away from you?
Also because an economy of scale helps consumers. Amazon Prime gives access to music, books, delivery of home goods, delivery of groceries, and much more. Break it up and you will have Prime Music, Prime Books, Prime Home, Prime Market subscriptions, each for nearly the same price - one sub for each piece you break the company into.
I agree something must be done - the stories of the workers read like Bram Stoker award-winning horror novels, but swinging the needle the other way and completely breaking the company apart is over-reaction.
My suggestion: mandate unions in every field, every worker must be part of at least one union, and union dues must be paid as a tax by the employers.
[+] [-] quonn|5 years ago|reply
So now monopoly power is not a concern anymore? How did we get to this point?
Does anyone believe that the fact that a founder can only have, say 10 billion and not 100 prevent anyone from starting a startup?
I don‘t think so.
[+] [-] ikeboy|5 years ago|reply
Amazon claims it's against their internal policies. But it's widespread and there's no indication those policies serve as anything more than plausible deniability - i.e. managers can tell employees to increase sales, give them access to the seller's data, and just have them agree on paper that they won't use the data but never enforce it.
[+] [-] thatcat|5 years ago|reply
They built part of a logistics chain and acquired the rest.
>skys the limit
Why should those being exploited be limited by amazon? The sky should the limit for every individual not just Bezos.
>Prime books
If you broke up prime you would have nothing. The reason people subscribe is the overlap with multiple markets which is what makes it a monopolistic strategy. It uses loss leaders from one market to destroy competition in other markets with the intent to later raise prices.
[+] [-] tobr|5 years ago|reply
> Because they built it.
This is an entirely fictional idea.
Consider who this language serves. Bezos started the company, but how does it make sense to say he “built” all of the businesses mentioned? They were built by many thousands of people, but they barely own what they created.
Bezos has abused his position as founder to capitalize on their work. If he hadn’t started the company, these people would still have found ways to build things, perhaps even under less heinous conditions.
[+] [-] Shivetya|5 years ago|reply
Examples, from light walls where light is used to guide placement to pickup, indicator lights on bins for the same, to voice prompts in language of choice, all guided by computers because they know exactly where the gun/scan device the employee is holding.
Still I find it disappointing people only concentrate on the warehouse worker while completely ignoring other low wage workers they are likely working around but tend to be invisible to you, from mail clerks, building maintenance, and even the security guard at the front desk.
Look, not all jobs are equal nor should you assume offense on some other person's part. Believe me, I got the shock of my life working in IT while working for a "rent a cop" company. That some people earned and lived on what some of them made was both amazing and a little disappointing to me. Yet a few I would talk to thought it was fine as they had a job where they didn't have to put much effort into doing to get paid; plus in that line some were fond of being indoors and having a uniform. Basically what we find unacceptable other's will just blow off our opinion as being snotty or worse.
[+] [-] streblo|5 years ago|reply
I was with you up until this point. So now instead of having one institution that I'm beholden to for my livelihood, I have two. Unions are just another form of institution that can succumb to the same kinds of corruption and bad practices as the company I work for.
Why not start with a higher minimum wage, or incentivizing companies to pay a living wage across all roles, or UBI, or cheaper/universal health care - something so that workers at shitty companies can say "screw this" and leave.
[+] [-] spydum|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] killerpopiller|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] moneywoes|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AnimalMuppet|5 years ago|reply
But Standard Oil did a lot that was shady, too. For example, they shipped so much oil (by rail) that they demanded a kickback from railroads, or they'd take their business to the competing railroad. (This was back when there were enough railroads that there was competition.) That means that Standard Oil was paying lower freight rates (net) than other oil companies. (I think at this time rail rates were controlled by the government, so the kickbacks were probably illegal from that standing, not just from the extortion involved.) Standard Oil then went a step further. They demanded kickbacks not just for their own oil traffic, but for their competitors' oil shipments as well.
If you were a competitor, you weren't going to be able to prosper in that kind of an environment. Then Standard Oil would offer to buy your business...
[+] [-] tinyhouse|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AdmiralAsshat|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danaris|5 years ago|reply
When things went too far for him, he resigned in protest. And yes, it is a privilege that he is able to do so and still live comfortably, but that doesn't make it a meaningless gesture.
Now that he's no longer in a position where saying what he really wants Amazon to be/do/have done to it will lead to those around him vilifying him on a daily basis, he's using his privilege, and his voice, which speaks louder than most in the tech world, to try to get that to happen.
[+] [-] goatherders|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sys_64738|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] netsharc|5 years ago|reply
It can also be done belatedly, or one can be someone like Donald Trump and never admit past faults...
Edit: look at all the pious people downvoting me. Sure, I bet you're all morally superior to him!
[+] [-] sub7|5 years ago|reply
These guys make a shitload of blood money, get guilty and think that writing a blog post absolves everything.