Capitalism is inherently self-destructive because it tends towards a monopoly and unregulated monopolies make competition impossible (especially if they're "vertically integrated", i.e. monopolies at every level of the value chain). Regulation solves this by restraining capitalism and actively working against it. But companies like Amazon and other US megacorps have been lobbying against regulation for decades and in the US they have been extremely effective.
"Don't blame Amazon" is a position from privilege. I make enough money to be able to waste hours clicking through various websites to find the best deal. Whether or not I shop local is largely a question of laziness. But assuming this holds true for everyone is absurd.
There simply is no direct competitor to Amazon. Sure, there are specialised shops and some of them may have put in the effort to gain their target audience's trust and brand recognition, but everyone already has an Amazon account and if you are already paying every month for Prime shipping (now included in your VOD package!) why not just shop Amazon -- you'll likely order something from them anyway, so just throw it in and maybe you pay enough to hit the threshold for that "plus" product that's been collecting dust in your shopping card.
I think you would be hard-pressed to find any justification for capitalism that doesn't include:
1. Competition, and
2. Property rights.
This article does effectively slam Amazon for violating both of those capitalist tenets. But it doesn't effectively say anything about capitalism; the whole problem with Amazon is that it's violating capitalist tenets by being an anti-competitive monopoly, with enough power that it can steal intellectual property with impunity. If there was meaningful competition, and Amazon was forced to respect intellectual property rights... At least as presented by this article, there wouldn't seem to be a problem.
Capitalism isn't anti-government — it relies on governments so that businesses don't have their property stolen.
Amazon's business practices do indeed suck though, and seem (to me) to be illegal. The US government should step in forcefully.
Capitalism doesn't work when the market is non-free, and the market is non-free when it's monopolized. So if you believe in capitalism and want it to function as intended, you should be actively promoting antitrust enforcement against the likes of Amazon.
Surely at some point the market will just regulate itself and amazon will have to improve working conditions to keep operations running... Right? Isn't that how capitalism is supposed to work?
Amazon is the best of what capitalism can offer. They have basically crushed competition by focusing on providing better value, not building a monopoly through lobbying or a legal moat.
Given that, I wish us economic policy was focused on allowing more Amazon’s to exist in more industries, and a social policy that focused on helping the folks that are acutely negatively impacted by competition.
Why is that a bad thing? The point of capitalism is that a company will grow if it can grow. We let Amazon do it why not this? Anyways it's better that Amazon has competition minimally, right?
How is capitalism "supposed to" work at all? That concept exists entirely in our heads, in fact in Laissez-Faire capitalism, this seems like a good outcome.
And it's hard to say that Amazon has no competitors. MS and Google have very similar cloud offerings, and there's always baremetal and running my own DCs as an option too. On the retail front I can shop on any number of e-commerce stores, and there's still physical retail as well.
Being able to choose not to order from Amazon is a massive privilege that most in the middle class do not have if they want to maintain something akin to a normal life. It takes a considerable expenditure of time, effort, and money, and will have effectively zero impact on Amazon.
Even fairly widespread organized temporary boycotts have not made more than a blip for them, because they're just too goddamn big. The only remedies that will work against Amazon are government-level, not individuals either on their own or in organized groups smaller than at least a state government.
Because the idea of free market capitalism, in the way Amazon lobbies for, is detrimental to the common good of the people. Which, per our own Constitution, is supposed to be the primary focus of our government.
Free market capitalism (specifically Amazon's method) significantly results in market dominance, a macro-economic reliance on that company succeeding, and reduces social mobility among working class Americans.
Market Dominance: Amazon has, in basic terms, brought upon the Walmart Effect throughout the US. And exacerbates the effect within the small towns where they build their warehouses.
Macro-Economic Reliance: As Amazon employs 1.1m Americans, the macro-economics of America have become reliant on Amazon succeeding. Resulting in a fear, or at least a trepidation, in interfering with whatever Amazon wants to do. The threat of mass layoffs due to any state/local/federal regulations would have profound effects of the American economy. Something that, back when free market capitalism was seen as the most equal way to ensure competition, was not possible, and most likely not even conceived as being likely.
Reduction in Social Mobility: Building off of the Market Dominance bit, this reduction in wages and revenue for small businesses/local businesses reduces the ability of everyday American citizens to build a successful business to provide social mobility for them and their children. And for employees, yes, they make great money working at an Amazon factory. But talk to many Amazon employees and they'll tell you it's grueling, backbreaking work. And when they have enough and decide to quit or are fired there are, typically, no jobs in their local area that either pay that well or that they may qualify for.
I'm not saying Amazon is forcing you at gunpoint to buy from them. I'm saying that Amazon, due to our government's failure to intervene earlier on in their growth, has crafted the free market around them, has made it to where it's more difficult/annoying/impossible to not buy from them.
You’re the one suggesting these companies could have made the switch.
I have no problem with capitalism crushing companies, as long as it’s head to head in a free market rather than based on fraud or avoiding regulations. I am simply pointing out Amazon has been a huge net loss for small businesses, which it objectively has.
Maybe I’m alone in this, but I feel like if you’re going to break up a company with antitrust regulation you should at least be able to point to a way they’re abusing their power or are making a worse experience for customers. The article goes as far as to admit that Amazon is currently not doing anything wrong.
Should we really seek to regulate away hard-earned (and valuable!) advantages because they make it possible to abuse the position? Surely we should wait until they’re actually abusing it?
As an aside, I can’t think of any advantage Amazon has that wouldn’t open up opportunities for a competitor should they start to abuse them. That’s the goal of capitalism, in a sense; you have to be great or people just go elsewhere. Seems odd to fight against that.
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.
I disagree completely. Amazon is successful through legal means. What do you want to do? Government punishing them for being too successful? As long as there isn't regulation that prohibits market entrants --a big reason for monopolies in the late 19th and early 20th century -- I don't see exactly what someone would suggest to do. The free market is a cumulation of mutually beneficial exchanges-- its a volunteer economy. Amazon's not forcing anyone to do anything. Publisher's do business with Amazon because it benefits them. They could easily stick with Barnes and Noble. Capitalism is by no means perfect but it's the best way to distribute capital. It's the only economic system that's brought masses of people out of poverty. For someone to say government should step in and set pricings!? Force Amazon to breakup?! Government knows better than anyone else? They know the market better than the participants? Who are these people in this all-knowing government? I'd like to meet them.
What industry does Amazon have monopolized anyway? 41% on new books? cool. their cheaper prices on books benefit all of americans more than it hurts the handful of publishers. Fact is monopolies are defined by if they set higher prices than would-be in a perfect competition industry. As long as prices are low -- it signals they have competition-- so don't come at me talking about how big of a monopoly they are.
It’s already becoming an unregulated hellscape, where vendors are locked in a race to the bottom, only the least scrupulous survive and it becomes impossible to distinguish come classes of products on quality.
Yes maximal regulation would lead to much higher prices, fewer options and make it more difficult to find goods. I wouldn’t call that a hellscape but it’s not what we want. I do think the only way to dissincentivise Amazons behaviour is increased accountability. I am completely open to alternative suggestions on that though.
For those who are against regulating Amazon because "in a free market someone could overthrow Amazon as the leader at any time so the fact they are on top means they must be providing the best service for consumers", this is a great example of why that's not true.
The problem is the marketplace. Amazon was great when they were an online retailer. The marketplace has brought in vast amounts of garbage, and now ads for that garbage.
The regulation you mention will probably only make it much worse. It is being advocated for by the third party sellers that are making in a bad experience in the first place. I don't want to see them at all, much less give them more prominence.
Capitalism is inherently self-destructive because it tends towards a monopoly and unregulated monopolies make competition impossible (especially if they're "vertically integrated", i.e. monopolies at every level of the value chain). Regulation solves this by restraining capitalism and actively working against it. But companies like Amazon and other US megacorps have been lobbying against regulation for decades and in the US they have been extremely effective.
"Don't blame Amazon" is a position from privilege. I make enough money to be able to waste hours clicking through various websites to find the best deal. Whether or not I shop local is largely a question of laziness. But assuming this holds true for everyone is absurd.
There simply is no direct competitor to Amazon. Sure, there are specialised shops and some of them may have put in the effort to gain their target audience's trust and brand recognition, but everyone already has an Amazon account and if you are already paying every month for Prime shipping (now included in your VOD package!) why not just shop Amazon -- you'll likely order something from them anyway, so just throw it in and maybe you pay enough to hit the threshold for that "plus" product that's been collecting dust in your shopping card.
reply