Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Iku Rex" data-source="post: 5883576" data-attributes="member: 752">(This is looking more and more like the dreaded politics, but I figure Umbran will step in if he feels it's over the line.)And if pigs could fly...In fact, even if Amazon by some miracle did become the only outlet, it would still be vulnerable new competitors if it abused its position.You are really going to argue that there are no non-Marvel/DC comic publishers?! Not true, and you know it. There are other comic book publishers, and the fact that you have to use two rival companies (Marvel and DC) in your example makes it even more absurd with regards to monopolies. There is no shortage of available drinks on the market, including Coke and Pepsi clones.Yes, they can. As pointed out in the articles, a publisher does not have to accept Amazon's terms and prices. In this case the fact that they didn't is the story, so I really don't see why you would be confused. Of course Amazon doesn't have to sell the books if they can't negotiate an agreement. And if Amazon is buying books (according to an agreement) and selling them at a loss, that ought to be cause for celebration - Amazon is effectively subsidizing the publisher. (They should buy a few million copies for themselves, but I suppose the agreed upon contract probably prohibits that.)The idea that Amazon can somehow gain a total monopoly in this way is just plain nonsense. And if they did get a monopoly, they would not be able to "dictate prices", because new competitors could always enter the market. And notice that IPG did chose not to deal with Amazon, and are selling at higher prices. You are arguing against a proven fact. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma_Bell#Government_sanctioned_monopolization" target="_blank">Bell System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</a>A government-created monopoly is hardly a good example of a harmful free market monopoly. Wal-Mart operates in a highly competitive market and is a horrible example of a harmful monopoly. If they can cut costs by lowering wages, consumers benefit. If emplyees can gret a better deal elsewhere (including things like training and opportunities for inexperienced workers) they will go work elsewhere, so I doubt that Wal-Mart actually offers less than market value for labor. I suppose they could be doing more with less, thus leaving more people unemployed in the short term and lowering the price of labor, but a reasonable person should not object to greater efficiency. Luddism is way outdated.I can't say categorically that they don't try, but they clearly and undisputably don't succeed. Competitors do exist and new competitors do enter the market. Standard Oil reduced prices to a fraction of what they were before the evil "monopolist" started gouging consumers. In fact, as usual the main "evidence" against Standard Oil was that its competitors were having a hard time. Consumers were doing great.OPEC is an organization of governments, and so it has different goals than a hypothetical free market cartel. Many oil-producing countries aren't members. OPEC-countries have routinely ignored their quotas. And to the extent that OPEC actually stabilized oil prices/consumption, this is not automatically a bad thing for consumers in the long run.Not a monopoly, except in so far as government-granted copyrights and patents prevents competition. (By design.)I also note that you can now get a quality operating system for free. How terrible.There are many different auto makers. They aren't monopsonies. I'm sure some of them are very important to individual suppliers, and use that for everything it's worth, but they can only negotiate lower prices as long as the supplier is making a profit. In the end, consumers benefit.</blockquote>

Verification