[kodah]

I know what the legal and colloquial definitions of a monopoly are. It obviously needs to change. I cannot fathom how one company with all these varied interests and capabilities are somehow "good for consumers", which is exactly the spirit of anti-trust law.

At one point in American history we were far too loose and reckless with what a monopoly was defined as. Now, nothing is a monopoly. I can't imagine how this is much better.

[lotsofpulp]

The appropriate term is conglomeration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conglomerate_(company)

Arguments should be made about the harmful aspects of those, which Amazon actually is. Perhaps one can make the case that conglomerates inevitably leads to monopolies, and on that basis one can argue against the development of conglomerates.

[kodah]

> Perhaps one can make the case that conglomerates inevitably leads to monopolies, and on that basis one can argue against the development of conglomerates.

You are right and this is precisely my line of thinking. All the parts you need to make a monopoly are already there, so then they either go full tilt or they try to engineer the economy so key businesses don't go down so they can continue to claim a monopoly doesn't exist yet.

It's worth noting I originally referred to it as "monopoly law" but it's actually anti-trust law, which could make some room for conglomerate making.

[lotsofpulp]

It's not as simple as writing a law that says "Conglomerates are illegal."

How do you define conglomerate? Amazon started selling books. Then it started selling other things. Now it's starting to sell medicine. At what point should the line have been drawn?

Obviously, the goal is to prevent harm to the consumer, but can one demonstrate that the consumer has been harmed? As a consumer, I know it was very hard for me to get such quick delivery of random items before Amazon. I especially remember getting ripped off on HDMI cables and other cables by Best Buy as a kid, and Amazon was amazing for enabling me to purchase them so cheaply, and with such huge selection I never would have found at Best Buy.

(I personally use Amazon.com sparingly now due to their commingling policies and disinterest in providing me with a quality product).

But the point is that demonstrating consumer harm isn't simple. Conglomerates can deliver goods and services at lower prices, which is good for buyers. Conglomerates can also engage in practices which helps buyers in the short term, but harms them in the long term.

Before grocery stores, there were produce stands, butchers, delis, bakers. Then a giant grocery comes into town, and now, as a buyer, I can save time and money going to one place and getting all I need. Should this be illegal?

The purpose of my comment is to illustrate that the situation is not as simple as screaming "monopoly". There are even geo-political risks to consider, where having conglomerates on your side can be helpful, if not help counteract the effects of conglomerates of other countries.

[s1artibartfast]

Monopoly is not a synonym for "bad for consumers" or "company that should be broken up". Using it this way only confuses the issue.

I think it is more productive to advocate for a point in plain english.

Why argue that:

1) The existing definition of a monopoly is wrong

2) Your definition is right

3) companies that meet your definition should be broken up

4) Amazon is a monopoly by your new definition

5) Therefore, Amazon should be broken up

When you could just say:

1) Amazon is too big and bad for consumers