[moosekaka]

I don't understand why the author and many here consider splitting Amazon only AFTER they display behavior that is harmful to consumers (such as exorbitant prices and/or poor service).

Reading his article, he seems to be saying Amazon does everything good for the American economy and consumers, and he's against false positives (wrongly calling out anti competitive behavior). But at the very last paragraph he suddenly waves his wand and concludes "Amazon is too dominant, we should split them into two, after all two Amazons would be better then one". It just seems like he forgot or got lazy to consider the pros and cons of having two smaller Amazons for the sake of it.