Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
It is the most anticompetitive company out there. Bork made same argument as you. Consumer benefit is only concern, not anticompetitive actions.
|
(1) What do you think is anticompetitive about Amazon?
(2) You use the words "anticompetitive" and "monopoly" as if they mean the same things, but they do not. You accused me of being an apologist for monopolies, which in light of what I've done for the last twenty years is pretty funny, so I have asked you why you think Amazon is a monopolist. A noncontroversial definition of monopoly is >50% share of a relevant market. In its core business, Amazon competes with like, everyone. How can you define a relevant market that gives them a monopoly share?
(3) Setting Bork aside, I am not wedded to the consumer welfare standard, and probably more open to considering other kinds of antitrust harm than most people. But, if you're going to argue that actions can be anticompetitive even if there's no harm to consumers, you have to explain what you're thinking.
