[dredmorbius]

A monopolist controls the market.

http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-et-jc-amazon-and-...

The focus on price, alone, is a distraction. The monopolist can choose winners and losers, favour or exclude sellers or buyers, unilaterally determine and dictate dispute resolution (e.g., Amazon's purchase dispute process), in favour of buyers, or sellers, or parties specified on other bases.

Or as comms providers have done in the past, and it is feared they might do if network neutrality obligations are lifted, as the FCC are attempting to ram through presently.

The monopolist isn't answerable to the public or citizenry, as a government body is.

A monopoly market is not a competitive market, with many buyers and sellers, to which any given buyer or seller has a recourse should one counterparty decline business or terms.

A monopolist creates a situation of rents, by controlling and regulating supply. This allows for price inflation if demand can then be influenced, much as is the case with land.

That's just off the top of my head. Any further questions?

[stale2002]

Maybe your points are correct.

But my argument is that there must be provable consumer harm, and that consumers are the only thing that matters.

So all those bad things that you mentioned, do they hurt consumers AND is Amazon actually doing them? That is the only thing that matters, and would be the thing that should be determined by whatever court case happens.

[dredmorbius]

I disagree with both points.

There may be highly probable harms which cannot be directly proven, or for which various standards of proof are thwarted by the monopolist itself. Since "wealth is power" (Thomas Hobbes, Adam Smith), monopoly power itself conveys additional power. There's a strong argument for additional responsbility, limits, and/or oversight as a result, for which there's a long list of supporting argument (Smith, Mill, Marx, Galbraith, off the top of my head).

Secondly, consumers are only one of several parties potentially affected. The other groups may be competitors, suppliers, vendors, the public at large, natural systems, etc. I'd have to think over this at greater length.

The argument that price and "consumers" are the only factors of significance in considering monopoly harms is a distinctly modern one, promulgated almost exclusively by monopolists themselves. To rather great effect.

After all, wealth is power.