(no title)
twoodfin | 1 day ago
It can’t be because 99% of people shop at Amazon to the exclusion of other retailers, because they don’t. Indeed, Amazon’s share of aggregate retail spending is quite low.
The response has been, roughly, “There are a bunch of court cases where these things are hashed out, and Amazon’s name has come up.”
OK, but as I said to begin with, antitrust is not just about monopoly power.
What monopoly powers does Amazon hold? At what point did they acquire them (roughly) looking back to their founding 30 years ago?
Maybe frame this the other way: If Amazon is only a “near monopoly”, what would have to happen to drop the “near”? What weight is that word carrying?
eesmith|1 day ago
The steps are to identify the relevant market and show abuse of market power - abuse as defined by antitrust law. The relevant market is not "aggregate retail spending". The California complaint goes into details about how online sales are not interchangeable with brick and mortar stores, something I mentioned earlier.
Determining abuse is not a simple plug&chug exercise.
The Walmart complaint I linked to describes the SSNIP test as one such test. The complaint goes into the analysis. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_but_significant_and_non-... for an overview.
It's not "99%", but such levels are a political decision about how what is fair and what is unfair market power. I pointed to the ISLR page, and mentioned how the threshold for concerns about market concentration has increased. Here's the full paragraph:
> Even by the permissive standards of today’s Justice Department, Walmart’s market power is considered extreme. Under guidelines established by the department’s Antitrust Division in 2010, markets in which one corporation captures more than 50 percent of revenue are defined as “highly concentrated.” (The agency has repeatedly raised this threshold since the 1960s, including sharply increasing it in 2010. These guidelines are used to evaluate mergers.)
My response has been "here are complaints which go into the details that you've asked about. You should read them to understand their arguments."
> but as I said to begin with, antitrust is not just about monopoly power.
And I completely agreed with you. However, for this specific case of Amazon, the California complaint can correctly be interpreted as concerning abuse of monopoly power, even if California never used that term. Because they don't need to use that term.
> What monopoly powers does Amazon hold?
Addressed in the complaint.
> At what point did they acquire them (roughly) looking back to their founding 30 years ago?
Why does that matter? When did Standard Oil become a monopoly? I doubt the Supreme Court of Ohio had to determine a rough date before being able to issue a breakup order.
> what would have to happen to drop the “near”?
Why does it matter?
I've already pointed out that economics and law use different definitions of "monopoly". Adding the qualifier "near" ensures that "monopoly" isn't misread as the economics definition of being a (pure) monopoly.
twoodfin|6 hours ago
I’m not asking about abuse, I’m asking about monopoly. As I’m sure you’re aware, it’s possible to become a monopoly through legitimate competitive action, and indeed similarly preserve that monopoly without violating anti-trust law.
So again: Why is Amazon a “near monopoly”? You go on for pages and pages through multiple comments that amount to, “Because California alleges that they are”—despite California not using that word, just words about anti-competitive practices that you claim are the same thing. I deny that claim. I believe California is alleging Amazon is engaging in anti-competitive behavior that would be anti-competitive behavior whether they’re a monopoly, near monopoly, or no monopoly at all.
Why am I wrong?