U.S. Politics

[insanity]

But even then, it doesn't negatively affect me as a consumer, whereas the problem with monopolies is supposed to be a negative effect on the consumer.

You don't think a company offering products for free has an effect on competition and the number of products you could choose from?  There is a reason there are price floors.

Whereas the problem with monopolies is supposed to be a negative effect on the consumer.  It may hurt other businesses trying to sell competing products, but that's not my problem.

I've never heard that the reason govt break up monopolies is only because of the negative effect on the consumer.  It has a negative effect on everyone involved in the economy.  Customers, competitors, partners, providors, etc.

[AlioTheFool]

You don't think a company offering products for free has an effect on competition and the number of products you could choose from?  There is a reason there are price floors.
I've never heard that the reason govt break up monopolies is only because of the negative effect on the consumer.  It has a negative effect on everyone involved in the economy. Customers, competitors, partners, providors, etc.

Which is true, but that's where I turn the conversation back around to something JE said earlier in it. So? Competitors not being able to compete is a problem they should have to solve, not you and I, nor the government.

The argument you're making has always been used to justify a problem to the consumer: higher prices due to less competition--an objectively bad result. If a monopoly isn't controlling prices to the detriment of the consumer, I don't see how it's bad for them to exist.

Let's use my favorite remaining retail store, Barnes and Noble, for example. Amazon is killing them and there's a real chance B&N may go out of business. Is that the DOJ's job to prevent, or is the problem that B&N isn't agile at all? I'd argue the latter. Here's an idea I had for B&N this past holiday season: stop selling vinyl records, record players, and DVDs, and instead capitalize on the disappearance of Toys R Us by expanding their toy selection. Instead, there is still physical media inventory on the shelves from the holidays left unsold.

Artificially keeping sinking companies afloat doesn't help anyone but those companies. Yes, all those B&N employees will lose their jobs if the stores close, but that may happen even if Amazon is broken up. Again, bad business decisions aren't the responsibility of oversight to clean up.

Just FTR, I believe Amazon is a monster that does use unfair tactics--especially against their supply chain. That needs to be looked at, and again, possibly regulated. But I don't see how separating Prime shipping and video from each other provides anyone a benefit. If someone can realistically address how it would, I'll certainly entertain the idea. But it feels like the argument against the Big 4 is just a contrived "Well, they're big so they're bad, and if they're small everything will be better" and that just doesn't resonate with me.

[insanity]

Which is true, but that's where I turn the conversation back around to something JE said earlier in it. So? Competitors not being able to compete is a problem they should have to solve, not you and I, nor the government.

The argument you're making has always been used to justify a problem to the consumer: higher prices due to less competition--an objectively bad result. If a monopoly isn't controlling prices to the detriment of the consumer, I don't see how it's bad for them to exist.

Let's use my favorite remaining retail store, Barnes and Noble, for example. Amazon is killing them and there's a real chance B&N may go out of business. Is that the DOJ's job to prevent, or is the problem that B&N isn't agile at all? I'd argue the latter. Here's an idea I had for B&N this past holiday season: stop selling vinyl records, record players, and DVDs, and instead capitalize on the disappearance of Toys R Us by expanding their toy selection. Instead, there is still physical media inventory on the shelves from the holidays left unsold.

Artificially keeping sinking companies afloat doesn't help anyone but those companies. Yes, all those B&N employees will lose their jobs if the stores close, but that may happen even if Amazon is broken up. Again, bad business decisions aren't the responsibility of oversight to clean up.

Just FTR, I believe Amazon is a monster that does use unfair tactics--especially against their supply chain. That needs to be looked at, and again, possibly regulated. But I don't see how separating Prime shipping and video from each other provides anyone a benefit. If someone can realistically address how it would, I'll certainly entertain the idea. But it feels like the argument against the Big 4 is just a contrived "Well, they're big so they're bad, and if they're small everything will be better" and that just doesn't resonate with me.

It's the DOJs job to make sure all competitors dont go out of business because then Amazon can do whatever with prices and quality because no one can compete.

Have you read the diapers.com paper?

[AlioTheFool]

It's the DOJs job to make sure all competitors dont go out of business because then Amazon can do whatever with prices and quality because no one can compete.

Have you read the diapers.com paper?

That's certainly fair, and agrees with what I've been saying (protecting the consumer is the job of the DOJ vs. monopolies).

I have not read the paper. Do you have a link? diapers.com doesn't connect to anything when I try it.

FTR, I'm not quite as pro-Big-4 as I'm portraying myself in this conversation. I think they're all due for a good baseball bat to the knees. That said, I'm also very leery of the idea of "break them up" as a means toward making life better for everyone. I really don't think it's as black-and-white as it's being portrayed, and in the near-term could be quite painful to American consumers if Warren were to get her way.

[insanity]

That's certainly fair, and agrees with what I've been saying (protecting the consumer is the job of the DOJ vs. monopolies).

Right and sometimes to protect the customer you may need to intervene before it's too late.  My only real problem is with Amazon at the moment TBH.

I have not read the paper. Do you have a link? diapers.com doesn't connect to anything when I try it.

I actually cant find it anymore either.  It was a long article about Amazon practices.  Basically they use one part of their business to allow for non profitable price gauging so they can destroy competition and then raise prices back to their normal position.

Bezos wanted to acquire diapers.com.  owners said no.  Bezos said you'll regret that.  Undercut all their prices significantly.  Every single sku they had.  Then just waited because diapers couldn't compete.  Then they came back with an offer tht was 60% less, and diapers couldn't do anything about it. 

Amazon acquired them, then raised their prices back to normal prices.  Now that they've fully acquired and integrated the company they are shutting down the business

[SixFeetDeep]

https://mobile.twitter.com/comfortablysmug/status/1105986971032268802

[AlioTheFool]

Right and sometimes to protect the customer you may need to intervene before it's too late.  My only real problem is with Amazon at the moment TBH.
I actually cant find it anymore either.  It was a long article about Amazon practices.  Basically they use one part of their business to allow for non profitable price gauging so they can destroy competition and then raise prices back to their normal position.

Bezos wanted to acquire diapers.com.  owners said no.  Bezos said you'll regret that.  Undercut all their prices significantly.  Every single sku they had.  Then just waited because diapers couldn't compete.  Then they came back with an offer tht was 60% less, and diapers couldn't do anything about it. 

Amazon acquired them, then raised their prices back to normal prices.  Now that they've fully acquired and integrated the company they are shutting down the business

That's a legitimate reason to pursue them. That's kind of along the same lines with their strongarming of their distribution channels. Don't want to give us cut-rate pricing so we can sell products at 35% below MSRP? Okay, we'll find someone else who will, and you'll have zero business in a year.

Again, I'd say "absolutely not" if the question is: should we break up Amazon? Fine them harshly, absolutely. Demand they submit to oversight via external audits, sure. But splitting the core shipping business from the streaming video business serves no benefit to the consumer, and that's the crux of my argument.

Incidentally, of the Big-4, I think Facebook is the biggest menace to the general public. I'm all about allowing my data to be used to serve me advertising and I haven't been under an illusion of having privacy since not very long after 9/11/01, but Facebook borders on--if it's not absolutely guilty of--criminal negligence with user data, and the information, both true and false, being spread on their platform.

[mj2sexay]

https://mobile.twitter.com/comfortablysmug/status/1105986971032268802

freaking guys name is Robert Francis. This whole Beto bullshit is such a farce.

[SixFeetDeep]

https://twitter.com/vibehi/status/1106187429705338880

#YangGang

[Jumbo]

https://twitter.com/vibehi/status/1106187429705338880

#YangGang

also this lol

[insanity]

https://twitter.com/vibehi/status/1106187429705338880

#YangGang

I have no clue who this guy is, but Did you actually watch the video?

[SixFeetDeep]

I have no clue who this guy is, but Did you actually watch the video?

You have no clue who Andrew Yang is?

Yes, I had to watch the video several times to make sure I heard what he was saying correctly.

[insanity]

You have no clue who Andrew Yang is?

Yes, I had to watch the video several times to make sure I heard what he was saying correctly.

So you realize he didnt say what was in the tweet.

I'm not a huge fan of his narrative because its dividing the country once more, but he's talking about his own fear of what could happen.  And if you look at Americas past between the japanese concentration camps and why we've done most recently with mexican immigrants is he really that far off?

[SixFeetDeep]

So you realize he didnt say what was in the tweet.

I'm not a huge fan of his narrative because its dividing the country once more, but he's talking about his own fear of what could happen.  And if you look at Americas past between the japanese concentration camps and why we've done most recently with mexican immigrants is he really that far off?

I didn’t pay any attention to the caption of the tweet. I got linked there from Yang arguing with Jack Posobiec on twitter lol

[Gorilla]

I didn’t pay any attention to the caption of the tweet. I got linked there from Yang arguing with Jack Posobiec on twitter lol

Yeah the tweet caption was very misleading and/or willfully retarded.
"Omggg Yang said Asians gonna be put in concentration camps!!", or something equally intelligent.