|
|
|
|
|
|
by stale2002
3131 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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.