Amazon is a Monopoly

[brennan]

Even if this were true, why would it matter? If your wage is lower, and the price is lower, would you notice the difference?

Depends on the price of other stuff doesn't it?

If for example - and this is the current state of affairs in the UK - prices of virtually everything have been rocketing for several years and wages have stagnated, then we have a real problem in that disposable income across the board has fallen, taking purchasing power and thus stimulus out of the economy.

And now the news is filling up with warnings about a possible German recession and Eurozone downturn...

 

[kramerfan86]

Having large influence =/= monopoly.

 

[Hygro]

Even having 100% of the market share doesn't make you a monopoly.

 

[Hygro]

Wait, I'm probably missing something. Aren't you the same Hygro that's argued the economy that ships manufacturing jobs to China in return for cheap consumer goods is really just great because it means we get cheap stuff? Forgive me if I've gotten that wrong. I was sitting around a couple days ago mulling over how fantastic a policy that actually is for the upper middle class that maintains high wages and gets significantly increased purchasing power both from the cheap goods and also double benefits from the lower middle class getting crunched into providing them low-paid services in the new economy.

Farm Boy, no disrespect but over the past year you've passionately attributed and then argued against all sorts of positions I've never held. I gave up trying to clarify.

 

[Farm Boy]

Not enough qualifiers on that for you? It wasn't really even much of an argument other than "unfettered free trade is probably bogus." w/e

 

[luiz]

I would aim for deliberate error in making sure pricing isn't at all reliant on shortages in that particular market. If that creates some monetary waste in ensuring both the current supply is priced accessibly and future production is maintained, so be it. Protecting your food should be at least as important as armed defense and policing. US Ag can't just price out subsistence farmers. It can also price out farmers that would otherwise be doing o.k. in a developing economy. To an extent, that's ok. But only to an extent. It's sort of like the US Gilded Age's argument. If your economic policies are wrong for the population you have now, the population you have now just needs to change? Heck, I don't even get annoyed at Europe for leaning on quasi-science to impose protectionist barriers, I just get annoyed about the reliance on quasi-science rather than calling it what it is.

The great thing about not being an autarky is that shortages are not a problem. If US prices go up people can buy from wherever else. Japan is not even close to food self-sufficiency. How many people are starving in Japan? How many people go hungry? I'm willing to bet food insecurity is less of an issue in non self-sufficient Japan than uber self-sufficient USA.

Europe's agricultural subsidies take away money from Europeans in the form of taxes, and from farmers elsewhere in the form of sales. It's bad for everyone except the farmers getting the checks, who in turn don't have to be as efficient as they would otherwise be forced to, and can cash in large profits. In fact a large amount of the CAP gets channeled into millionaire land owners. So it hurts third world farmers and benefit millionaires, and also the average European. What a great policy. In the name of what? Food self-sufficiency? To avoid the fate of those starving Japanese?

 

[Hygro]

Not enough qualifiers on that for you? It wasn't really even much of an argument other than "unfettered free trade is probably bogus." w/e

Case in point.

 

[Farm Boy]

Case in point.

You could either just add me to the ignore list or pretend to if I need enough basic sentence structure and signposting that it gets tedious. I'm not even sure what you mean by "case in point." I can take it a couple ways ranging from dbaggy to not. So maybe, case in point?

In fact a large amount of the CAP gets channeled into millionaire land owners.

Cronyism and suboptimal distribution of funds is a hazard of governance. That's true.

In the name of what? Food self-sufficiency? To avoid the fate of those starving Japanese?

Yep. The Japanese subsidized in food by the US and in defense by the US. It's pretty easy to assume thing's will never be hard when the gentle rain is falling. But there are people who prepare for drought and people who don't.

 

[Hygro]

I argued my usual position of policies supporting low income Americans while un-subsidizing the rich. You're like "wait, I thought you were for eviscerating the manufacturing base via unfettered free trade?"
I'm like "nope, and you often think I think what I don't think"
The you're like, "I find it unreasonable that you are for unfettered free trade"
Then I'm like "there's an example of what I just said"

Let me break it down even simpler.

Hygro: "'A'"
Farm Boy: "I thought you meant 'B'"
Hygro: "You often think I mean 'B' when I write 'A'"
Farm Boy: "'A' is a reasonable position, why isn't it reasonable to you?"
Hygro: "You are again attributing 'B' to me when I said 'A'"
Farm Boy: "Put me on ignore"

 

[Farm Boy]

Perhaps you and I define the rich differently. It seems to be what we piss at each other the most about. So when you argue, passionately, for income support and un-subsidizing the rich, I read you arguing for income support and subsidization of the rich. Plausible or implausible?

 

[luiz]

Cronyism and suboptimal distribution of funds is a hazard of governance. That's true.

It's a hazard without a benefit.

Yep. The Japanese subsidized in food by the US and in defense by the US. It's pretty easy to assume thing's will never be hard when the gentle rain is falling. But there are people who prepare for drought and people who don't.

How is the US subsidizing their food? They buy food from the whole world, pretty much. The US is one supplier, not THE supplier. And Japan is not the only country in the world which is not self-sufficient in food. Most small, densely populated countries aren't either. I don't have any data at hand but am willing to bet that Singapore relies on imported food for the most part as well. And yet nobody is starving there. Countries don't need to grow their own food, just like they don't need to make their own cars or their own shoes. As long as you have some profitable activity going on, you can buy whatever you need. That's the beauty of trade.

Again. The non food self-sufficient Japan and Singapore have much less of a food insecurity problem than massive food producer USA. So much for the merits of growing your own food.

 

[Zelig]

It probably makes sense to subsidize food production in some cases (to avoid concentrating food production too much in disaster-prone areas, to avoid permanently paving over prime agricultural land, etc.), but doing it on the basis of country/province/county/city/whatever borderlines is silly.

 

[Farm Boy]

How is the US subsidizing their food? They buy food from the whole world, pretty much. The US is one supplier, not THE supplier. And Japan is not the only country in the world which is not self-sufficient in food. Most small, densely populated countries aren't either. I don't have any data at hand but am willing to bet that Singapore relies on imported food for the most part as well. And yet nobody is starving there. Countries don't need to grow their own food, just like they don't need to make their own cars or their own shoes. As long as you have some profitable activity going on, you can buy whatever you need. That's the beauty of trade.

Again. The non food self-sufficient Japan and Singapore have much less of a food insecurity problem than massive food producer USA. So much for the merits of growing your own food.

The US subsidizes its own production and Japan purchases ~60% of it's food on the global market. ~25% of which comes from the US. I agree that there are efficiencies to be gained through trade and that these are a good thing. They're a necessary thing in some areas, but the world is what it is. It doesn't always work well. Japan wasn't having a tremendous amount of fun in 2008(granted, it was still a rich country). And it apparently feels the pressure, it has some of the highest subsidization rates in the world to maintain its 40% domestic production. Now, if you are going to do subsidies through production-side and consumption side(like through SNAP) how to do those subsidies effectively, or at least more effectively, is definitely a topic unto its own. You almost seem to find it unimportant that wheat embargoes are a thing, they happen, and they can be every bit to even more effective than that OPEC tiff that happened when Carter was at the wheel. Food is power, and it's used as such particularly when times get rough.

 

[Zack]

How can they be a monopoly? They don't even have hotels.

 

[Paul in Saudi]

Upon further reflection, and an evening's rest, I am back.

I began by saying "If Amazon is not a monopoly, the word has no meaning." I think I can hold to that. Amazon has such a controlling place in the marketplace that its simple size makes it a problem. Too-large players stifle competition and its beneficial effects. An over-large company can control prices without regard to market forces.

Amazon is a problem. If you do wish to use the M-word, OK. But still it is unhealthy to have one seller control so much of ... well most everything.

 

[timtofly]

Is China a monopoly?

 

[classical_hero]

Europe's agricultural subsidies take away money from Europeans in the form of taxes, and from farmers elsewhere in the form of sales. It's bad for everyone except the farmers getting the checks, who in turn don't have to be as efficient as they would otherwise be forced to, and can cash in large profits. In fact a large amount of the CAP gets channeled into millionaire land owners. So it hurts third world farmers and benefit millionaires, and also the average European. What a great policy. In the name of what? Food self-sufficiency? To avoid the fate of those starving Japanese?

This just shows that when government gets involved it is disaster for most people, except those who directly benefit from it. The EU pays about 40% of it's total budget on farm subsidies and it close to $20 billion in the US. That is market distortion there by those whoo are supposed to be free trade.

 

[Gucumatz]

Finally, David Ricardo was the first person who formalized comparative advantages, and as such was all for free trade. I don't see how you can possibly claim to make an argument against free trade based on Ricardian economics. Let me be clear: you can't.

I think you have misunderstood - every nation naturally should take advantage of is comparative advantages. Every nation has a natural interest to export as much as it can. Every nation also should have an interest in protecting its people who are the losers within this cycle.

The issue however is the flight of capital from border to border and that element is often forgotten about when talking about Ricardo's writings. Ricardo was for free trade but he also argued capital (labor, resources, etc. all things that could make for comparative advantage in a country) should remain intrinsically immobile. (This didn't argue against foreign investment but for true development, Ricardo argued that if capital easily moved and labor/resources could not, then markets would not truly be competitive and instead give market share to the "Wellsprings of capital")

On the previous page I was just arguing that some do have an interest in raising up barriers and some governments do so more than others, which I am not saying is necessarily a bad thing nor necessarily a good thing (including american agri subsidies). Its a logical thing from non-economic factors for the US ie, giving it a greater degree of market share in the export market allowing the US government to influence policy around the world. There are more creative ways these days to create trade or entry barriers which depending on the circumstance of a nation in question should be looked at to help its situation [And I know that sounds hypocritical in the context of me agreeing that our policy to expand free trade in general is good for Americans, but I don't mind being a hypocrite and see it as logical for governments to protect internal development as well].

 

[Gucumatz]

Even having 100% of the market share doesn't make you a monopoly.

Kind of the definition of a pure monopoly there isn't it?

Going back to the OP, while some have reported that in the past Amazon did price its service below cost of production (and some services today) which would be anticompetitive practice and subject to the clayton antitrust act in theory, no one has an interest in going against Amazon unless it does something far more blatant.

 

[Hygro]

Kind of the definition of a pure monopoly there isn't it?

Going back to the OP, while some have reported that in the past Amazon did price its service below cost of production (and some services today) which would be anticompetitive practice and subject to the clayton antitrust act in theory, no one has an interest in going against Amazon unless it does something far more blatant.

There are different definitions. The one from my background defines a monopoly based on if it is the firm occupying the seat in a monopolistic market, which is different than before the only firm in a market.

Like if one firm is outcompeting all the other firms but must remain in a state of competition in order to continue to be the only firm, it would not then be a monopoly, just the only firm there.