[fsckboy]

> I don't think the sins of Amazon are any worse than most other major U.S. retailers.

monopolies are bad, for consumers and for competitors. Even if you build your monopoly "fairly" by inventing a better mousetrap, putting the competition out of business is a reward that that is unfair and does not belong to the owner of the mousetrap. For example, Amazon could be split into 3 smaller Amazon mousetraps that compete with each other. Is that unfair to Jeff Bezos? No, he would own the same percentage of mousetrapping companies as he did before. What he would not own is a monopoly.

The sins of Amazon the monopolistic competitor are worse.

[minsc_and_boo]

>Even if you build your monopoly "fairly" by inventing a better mousetrap, putting the competition out of business is a reward that that is unfair and does not belong to the owner of the mousetrap.

Antitrust laws exist to protect consumers, and if you're forcing consumers to buy inferior mousetraps, you're not helping.

[moate]

Got it, so the issue isn’t anti-trust law. It’s IP law that, by its very nature, forces people to produce inferior mousetraps.

[fsckboy]

we don't actually have anti-trust laws, we have laws against the abuse of monopoly power, a standard that can be difficult to prove and well after the commission of the injustices. I think there is sufficient theoretical and practical experience to have anti-trust laws simply be anti-market concentration.

I'm arguing for it because it's an example of "third way" regulation, regulation that should be embraced by left wing socialist and right wing capitalists.

[BeetleB]

I have no trouble finding stuff to buy from companies other than Amazon. For retail, it is not even close to a monopoly.

[fsckboy]

in what way does breaking Amazon into three companies reduce your choice of product? and monopoly in common usage also refers to monopsony, the choice of vendors for different marketplaces in which to sell their goods.