[AnimalMuppet]

> > Nobody owed small bookstores a living.

> By saying that you're basically throwing the whole concept of "fairness" out of the window, so that's no argument.

Not at all. I'm saying that, if the small bookstores are less efficient at providing books to people, then there is room for a more efficient competitor to drive them out of business without any unfair competition taking place.

> In my view, Amazon does provide a more complete service than smaller bookstores, but they achieved this with external money; money obtained from outside the book-selling business.

So what if the money was from outside the book-selling business? You seem to be declaring all outside capital investment to be unfair, which strikes me as a bizarre stance. Were railroads unfair competition to wagons because the railroads had to raise capital on Wall Street?

[fzeroracer]

The large failure of your argument is that those competitors are not more actually more efficient. This is why large companies are harmful even before they reach the distinction of monopoly; although as an aside I see people here making arguments that monopolies cannot exist.

Uber for example is not more efficient than RideAustin, the local non-profit ridesharing alternative. What they do have however, is a large amount of funding behind them which allows them to artificially lower the true cost and choke out competitors. Once they've bled the competition dry, they can raise the prices again and benefit from full control over various parts of a market.

This is the same tactic that Walmart has used in order to destroy many local towns by severely undercutting local businesses into oblivion. We should consider this to be an objectively bad thing, considering if said sole company ends up leaving the area due to profitability reasons they leave the residents with nothing [1].

This is how the 'free market' works in practice. The largest companies with the most money don't actually compete on the same level as local companies and it would be naive to think that small bookstores vanishing is solely due to inefficiency.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/09/what-happene...

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

> Once they've bled the competition dry, they can raise the prices again and benefit from full control over various parts of a market.

A thing that HNers have been speculating will happen for years, but which has so far failed to materialize.

[fzeroracer]

Failed to materialize would be objectively wrong. I even gave you a direct example in the tactics that Walmart pulled in order to destroy local stores.

You can also look at how dreadful the situation is for ISPs in America.

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

You did not provide any evidence that Walmart raised its prices after local competition diminished. Please do not say that you did when you did not.

ISPs are often a monopoly, and often a government sanctioned one. I'd not argue against an investigation into their practices.

[fzeroracer]

Walmart's tactics are extremely well-known and well-cited but if you're unable to even glance at the Wikipedia page: [1] [2] [3] [4].

You would have to be not arguing in good faith to somehow not be aware of all of the monopolistic and anti-consumer tactics Walmart has pulled, been accused of and has had to legally dealt with over the long period of time they've been active. So if you want to make any arguments about how the free market works, I think you should start by looking deeply at how Walmart is ran.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20051027020550/http://www.newrul...

[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20060820080242/http://www.harper...

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/30/business/30pharmacy.html?...

[4] https://ilsr.org/walmart-settles-predatory-pricing-charge/

[ChrisLomont]

None of your links support your claim that "Once they've bled the competition dry, they can raise the prices again and benefit from full control over various parts of a market." Every one of them support that Walmart is selling goods cheaper than competitors who then file suit.

For example, your last link specifically states Walmart was selling things cheaper than their competitors, the competitors sued, and in the agreement with the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection, Walmart admitted no wrong doing and was not fined whatsoever.

If you're going to post links supporting your claim that "Once they've bled the competition dry, they can raise the prices again and benefit from full control over various parts of a market." don't post links with zero support for that. It's a waste of our time.

[amelius]

> You seem to be declaring all outside capital investment to be unfair

Let's take the Uber Eats example. You think that restaurants owe Uber money for simply being present on their platform (necessary for survival these days for restaurant owners). But Uber doesn't owe restaurants anything?

It's not investments that are the problem. It's the way whole professions are "enslaved" by investors who simply make a pile of money, scale things up and build a portal, which then becomes the new market leader.

(Of course, if you keep thinking inside the box of the free-market, then you will think this is all ok, but that is not the point).

[AnimalMuppet]

Is being present on Uber Eats really necessary for a restaurant's survival these days? If so, why? Is it because Uber Eats has become how customers find restaurants? And if so, how has it done so? It wasn't just by having a lot of money and setting up a website. (See pets.com for a counterexample.)

Uber Eats provides value to (at least some) eaters, who therefore use it to decide which restaurants to patronize. (I can't tell you why they do so; I don't use it myself, and I don't understand why anyone would want to.) The restaurants then have to be part of Uber Eats (at a cost), or to miss out on those customers who use Uber Eats. If Uber Eats charges more than it's worth, then the restaurants won't sign up.

> It's not investments that are the problem. It's the way whole professions are "enslaved" by investors who simply make a pile of money, scale things up and build a portal, which then becomes the new market leader.

You don't become a market leader by having a lot of money and building a portal. You do it by providing something that people want enough for them to use your portal. Otherwise you get ignored.

> (Of course, if you keep thinking inside the box of the free-market, then you will think this is all ok, but that is not the point).

I think my box matches the reality of the world more than your box does. Maybe you need to think outside of your box a bit too...

[cryptonerd2212]

I don't know that using railroads as a model of non-monopolistic business is the best idea, but I agree with you that investors are critical to business. It's the original crowdfunding.