I wanted to get printer photo paper for my printer, a Canon. I went to Walmart, They had nothing. Went to Target, they had one pack of photo paper and it was crazy expensive, so I went to micro center. That one was just as expensive. So finally I went back to Amazon, which I was trying to avoid, and saw the price 25 to 40% lower than anywhere I had been. Literally everything that I was looking for, I could find within seconds. Not even Best buy has even close to the amount of inventory or variety, even when you’re shopping online…
Therefore, I think Amazon has a literal monopoly in the tech industry right now, you’re literally forced to buy from them, because unless you have the money and financial fortitude to protest with your wallet, you’re going to be buying from them. There’s no other choice. They have so aggressively and dominantly taken over the supply chain market that no other tech company can currently compete with them in any aspect at all. You will be paying 40 to 50% more on everything by cutting out Amazon, and no one has the money for that anymore unless you’re upper middle class or above
OP, I dislike Amazon and there are definitely plenty of things to accuse them of, but you’re literally describing the opposite of a monopoly. Generally the problem with monopolies is that they don’t need to compete on price so they’ll over charge. You’re saying Amazon is a monopoly because they’re the cheapest option though. That doesn’t follow.
Again, to be clear, I dislike them and believe they’re worthy of criticism. I’m not trying to “defend Amazon” here.
You need to read The Amazon Anti-Trust Paradox by current FTC head Lina Khan. She argues that the consumer price oriented monopoly definition is old and outdated in the modern setting. Price is not a sufficient proxy for market competitiveness, and in fact, price is often used to kill competitiveness by undercutting new and innovative products.
That’s a good point. Especially when we see so many things where there are exactly two companies competing.
I agree. Price is important in a classic “free market” where people compete to sell goods and services for cheaper and whoever does it best makes a profit and grows, etc, etc.
This ain’t a classic free market. We frequently see companies become market leaders without ever earning a profit. That’s not a classic free market.
Succeeding as a company because you make customers happy sounds nice, but the most powerful companies today succeed by gaining favor from those already in power (venture capitalists, etc), and the customers are just a bargaining chip to be tossed around on the bargaining tables of the wealthy.
“A monopoly is a market structure with a single seller or producer that assumes a dominant position in an industry or a sector. Monopolies are discouraged in free-market economies because they stifle competition, limit consumer substitutes, and thus, limit consumer choice.” ~investopedia
Nothing about needing to jack prices up. I’d say Amazon fits the description perfectly
Many monopolies form by first using a dominant market position to sell at a price no competitor can afford to match. Choice has already been removed before the “competition” folds or pulls out of the market. The consequences don’t happen overnight; you feel the squeeze before the “true” monopoly emerges. Amazon isn’t going to sell at a cheaper price once their competitors go out of business out of the kindness of their hearts.
Further, high consumer price is just one form monopoly power takes. Reduced labor power, wages, and worse working conditions are other important concerns, in addition to removing product variety and innovation incentive.
That’s a fair point. Bring loss leader can be a stepping stone on the path to being a “real” monopoly.
Amazon literally did this with diapers.com that led to them acquiring the company and shutting it down. I’m sure they’ve done it in hundreds of other product spaces as well.
OP didn’t say it, but Amazon also forces agreements with sellers not to list same items cheaper elsewhere online which is monopolistic.
I get the nuance you are communicating though.
I am no economist, but don’t you think this behaviour of Amazon leads to “carrot and stick” and at that point it is basically a monopoly right?
Just because they are the cheapest option doesn’t mean they aren’t a monopoly. They clearly have the most inventory. One store having all of the inventory of everything and being the leader for selling products of any kind, is a pretty big problem.
If they can put others out of business (pretty sure they have put smaller stores out of business in the past), they can become an even bigger monopoly.