[montagg]

Walmart too. And Target. And grocery stores.

I am not sure people are really prepared to take the implication of how unfair Amazon seems to its logical conclusion, because it means undermining a lot of what makes us comfortable in modern life under capitalism. Regulation targeted at increasing competition (breakups, rather than regulation Amazon as a monopoly of a kind and entrenching them) might result in a better outcome, or it just might make things more expensive and then you have to repeat the same breakup and regulation process again every 15 years.

[freejazz]

Isn't that inevitably the result if you want the cheapest thing? I pay a little more and I never shop at amazon.

[ClumsyPilot]

> undermining a lot of what makes us comfortable in modern life under capitalism

I read Wealth of Nations, did I miss the part where it says:

"you should have a single global company control most of the market"?

Every economist writes about importance of competition.

If you want to keep around giant monopolies, you are not capitalist.

[lotsofpulp]

On a global scale, it helps if your country is where all the biggest companies are coming from, especially to compete with big companies from other countries.

[ClumsyPilot]

You could make the same argument fir trade barriers, protectionism, subsidies, etc.

It also comes across as "two wrongs make a right"