[malfist]

They can't do whatever they want, we live in a regulated economy for precisely this reason. Otherwise you get exactly what is happening here, a company using it's near monopoly power to raise prices on everyone to enrich a few

[twoodfin]

In what sense does Amazon have “near monopoly power”?

Elsewhere in this thread we find shock that American households spend a few thousand dollars on average between Whole Foods and Amazon.com.

I assure you that’s a small fraction of household spending on the goods Amazon sells.

[eesmith]

In the sense described in the lawsuit. See https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/2022-... for details, starting with:

> The policy and spirit of the California antitrust laws are to promote the free play of competitive market forces and the lower prices to consumers that result. Amazon, the dominant online retail store in the United States, has violated the policy, spirit, and letter of those laws by imposing agreements at the retail and wholesale level that have prevented effective price competition across a wide swath of online marketplaces and stores.

The linked-to article concerns a possible preliminary injunction related to that antitrust case.

[twoodfin]

You don’t need to be a monopoly for anti-trust law to come into play. Airlines can’t collude on pricing, for example, even though no single airline is a monopoly.

[eesmith]

Yes. And? There's no claim that Amazon is part of a price-fixing cartel or other collusion.

A pure monopoly is one where there is a single seller or provider. The US grants limited-time monopoly power to a new patent holder, and USPS has a monopoly on traditional letter delivery within the United States, for examples. A pure monopoly is therefore not necessarily illegal.

In addition to that definition, quoting https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/monopoly :

"In a legal context, the term monopoly is also used to describe a variety of market conditions that are not monopolies in the truest sense. For instance, the term monopoly may be referring to instances where: ... There are many buyers or sellers, but one actor has enough market share to dictate prices (near monopolies)"

That use certainly seems appropriate in the context of Amazon's ability to dictate prices, as described in California's complaint, yes?

[twoodfin]

California’s complaint alleges that Amazon is a monopoly?

That word is not used in the injunction request or the original complaint, except in the title of an article cited by the latter.

[eesmith]

malfist literally wrote "near monopoly power", which is not the same thing as claiming that "Amazon is a monopoly".

You asked malfist 'In what sense does Amazon have “near monopoly power”?'

I answered that question. The state of California claims Amazon has enough market share to dictate prices, making it a near monopoly, and it abuses those near monopoly powers in violation of California anti-trust laws. California doesn't need to demonstrate that Amazon is a pure monopoly because that is irrelevant, and not true.

I farther pointed out that even using the term "monopoly" without the "near" qualifier can mean "There are many buyers or sellers, but one actor has enough market share to dictate prices (near monopolies)", with citation.

Which means your statement "Amazon is a monopoly" is a correct summary of the issue, even if those injunction request and complaint don't use those terms.

It seems you think the term "monopoly" can only ever be applied to pure monopolies. You seem to be confusing the economic and legal definitions. Quoting the introduction paragraph from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

> In economics, a monopoly is a single seller. In law, a monopoly is a business entity that has significant market power, that is, the power to charge overly high prices, which is associated with unfair price raises.

This thread concerns a lawsuit, so the legal definition is the most relevant.