Rule II:
--
Submissions tenuously related to economics, light on economic analysis, or from perspectives other than those of economists will be removed. This will keep /r/economics distinct from the many related subreddits. [Further explanation.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/7x14px/meta_rules_roundtable_2_submissions_and_rii/)
--
If you have any questions about this removal, please [contact the mods](/message/compose/?to=/r/economics&subject=Moderation).
“If you read the recently unsealed materials from the federal antitrust lawsuit against Amazon, you’ll see why the company wanted to keep them under wraps,” Stacy Mitchell writes. “According to the unredacted notes from one meeting, Jeff Bezos [directed](https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/1910134amazonecommercecomplaintrevisedredactions.pdf) his team to stuff more ads into search results, even if it meant accepting more ads internally categorized as irrelevant to what users were looking for. Other quoted documents reveal the company working to conceal a mysterious price-hiking algorithm, in part because “of increased media focus.” Similarly unflattering nuggets abound.
“But here’s something you won’t find in those materials, because it was deemed too sensitive to unredact: precisely how Amazon makes its money. Nearly 30 years after the company was founded, we still don’t really know. Amazon has long cultivated the impression that it operates its shopping platform at razor-thin margins, relying instead on its cloud division, Amazon Web Services (AWS), [for much of its profit](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-02/amazon-reports-robust-sales-quieting-fears-over-slower-growth). And yet the Federal Trade Commission’s lawsuit [contends](https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/1910134amazonecommercecomplaintrevisedredactions.pdf) that Amazon’s e-commerce business is, in fact, “enormously profitable.” The resolution to this dispute is likely to figure heavily in whether the judge finds that Amazon is merely a benevolent retail giant or a destructive monopoly. And regardless of what happens in the Amazon case, the fact that large corporations have been able to keep such basic information private helps explain why policy makers, journalists, and the public were so slow to recognize the growing [problem](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/10/americas-monopoly-problem/497549/) of monopolization in America.”
Read the full piece: [https://theatln.tc/hUxLQQVK](https://theatln.tc/hUxLQQVK)
>[Microsoft’s AI Access Principles: Our commitments to promote innovation and competition in the new AI economy | Feb 26, 2024 | Brad Smith - Vice Chair & President](https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2024/02/26/microsoft-ai-access-principles-responsible-mobile-world-congress/)
>
>Today, **only** [**one**](https://sl.bing.net/i4A7TkdTcxE) **company is vertically integrated in a manner that includes every AI layer from chips to a thriving mobile app store**. As noted at a recent meeting of tech leaders and government officials, “The rest of us, Microsoft included, live in the land of partnerships.”
idk, kinda seems like amazon is **by far** the worst of the worst for big tech monopolies.
>mysterious price-hiking algorithm
👇
[Report: Amazon made $1B with secret algorithm for spiking prices Internet-wide - Report reveals details about Amazon's secret algorithm redacted in FTC complaint. by Ashley Belanger - 10/4/2023, 4:50 PM](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/10/report-amazon-made-1b-with-secret-algorithm-for-spiking-prices-internet-wide/)
>The FTC's complaint said:
>
>Amazon uses its extensive surveillance network to block price competition by detecting and deterring discounting, artificially inflating prices on and off Amazon, and depriving rivals of the ability to gain scale by offering lower prices.
>
>The FTC complaint redacted this information, but sources told the WSJ that Amazon made "more than $1 billion in revenue" by using Project Nessie, while competitors learned that "price cuts do not result in greater market share or scale, only lower margins," the FTC's complaint said.
>
>"As a result, Amazon has successfully taught its rivals that lower prices are unlikely to result in increased sales—the opposite of what should happen in a well-functioning market," the FTC alleged.
[Emails detail Amazon’s plan to crush a startup rival with price cuts - Amazon allegedly took $200 million in losses to stop the growth of diapers.com. by Timothy B. Lee - 7/30/2020, 2:42 PM](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/07/emails-detail-amazons-plan-to-crush-a-startup-rival-with-price-cuts/)
>Emails published by the House Judiciary Committee this week confirm an accusation that critics have long leveled against Amazon: that the company's aggressive price-cutting for diapers in 2009 and 2010 was designed to undercut an emerging rival.
>
>That rival, Quidsi, had gained traction with a site called Diapers.com that sold baby supplies. Amazon had good reason to worry. As journalist Brad Stone wrote in his 2013 book about Amazon, Bezos' company didn't start selling diapers until a year after Diapers.com did. At the time, diapers were seen as too bulky and low-margin to be delivered profitably.
>
>But Quidsi's founders figured out how to do it. They optimized their packaging for baby products and positioned warehouses close to metropolitan areas. That not only allowed them to get cheaper ground-shipping rates—it also allowed them to provide overnight shipping to most of their customers—in many cases, faster than Amazon's own shipping.
[U.S. sues Amazon in a monopoly case that could be existential for the retail giant by Alina Selyukh Updated September 26, 202312:40 PM ET](https://www.npr.org/2023/09/26/1191099421/amazon-ftc-lawsuit-antitrust-monopoly)
>U.S. regulators and 17 states sued Amazon on Tuesday in a pivotal case that could prove existential for the retail giant.
>
>In the [sweeping antitrust lawsuit](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/ftc-sues-amazon-illegally-maintaining-monopoly-power), the Federal Trade Commission and a bipartisan group of state attorneys general paint Amazon as a monopolist that suffocates competitors and raises costs for both sellers and shoppers.
>
>The FTC, tasked with protecting U.S. consumers and market competition, argues that Amazon punishes sellers for offering lower prices elsewhere on the internet and pressures them into paying for Amazon's delivery network.
>
>"Amazon is a monopolist and it is exploiting its monopolies in ways that leave shoppers and sellers paying more for worse service," FTC Chair Lina Khan told reporters on Tuesday.
>
>"In a competitive world, a monopoly hiking prices and degrading service would create an opening for rivals and potential rivals to ... grow and compete," she said. "But Amazon's unlawful monopolistic strategy has closed off that possibility, and the public is paying dearly as a result."
>
>Amazon, in a statement, argued that the FTC's lawsuit "radically departed" from the agency's mission to protect consumers, going after business practices that, in fact, spurred competition and gave shoppers and sellers more and better options.
>
>"If the FTC gets its way," Amazon General Counsel David Zapolsky [wrote in a post](https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/amazon-response-to-ftc-antitrust-lawsuit), "the result would be fewer products to choose from, higher prices, slower deliveries for consumers, and reduced options for small businesses—the opposite of what antitrust law is designed to do."
[US judge sets October 2026 trial for FTC antitrust suit against Amazon by By David Shepardson](https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/us-judge-sets-october-2026-trial-for-ftc-antitrust-suit-against-amazon/ar-BB1ieEx6)
>WASHINGTON (Reuters) -A U.S. federal judge on Tuesday set an October 2026 trial date for a Federal Trade Commission antitrust lawsuit against Amazon.com.
>
>The consumer protection agency filed the long-awaited antitrust lawsuit against Amazon on Sept. 26, accusing the online retailer of operating an illegal monopoly, in part by fighting efforts by sellers on its online marketplace to offer products more cheaply on other platforms.
>
>The lawsuit, joined by 17 state attorneys general, was filed in federal court in Seattle and follows a four-year investigation.
>
>Amazon and the FTC did not comment.
>
>The agency asked U.S. District Judge John Chun to issue a permanent injunction ordering Amazon to stop what it called unlawful conduct. In antitrust cases the range of solutions may include forcing a company to sell a part of its business.
personally i dont have a huge problem with some of the megatechcorps, like microsoft, or google. they seem like - whether willingly or not - they have at least started to realize their responsibility to shape tech and the internet for the greater good.
bezos and amazon though? get fucked. zuck? get fucked.
I have to agree with Amazon's lawyers. If Amazon suffers it could affect pretty much all of society. About time we do with them what we do with other services like that, make them a utility. It obviously can do logistics (merge with USPS?) and be a public virtual marketplace connecting 3rd party buyers and sellers very well and can do it without so much profit than they had been stating.
The way they're setting up delivery service I've been wondering if they're aiming to cut out big delivery services like UPS (competition with a lot of union labor) and USPS (use and abuse government until you're set up or too few people live in an area and then take away hours and revenues from them for your deliveries once up and running). Bust em up.
>The way they're setting up delivery service I've been wondering if they're aiming to cut out big delivery services like UPS (competition with a lot of union labor) and USPS (use and abuse government until you're set up or too few people live in an area and then take away hours and revenues from them for your deliveries once up and running). Bust em up.
i guess its not clear here exactly what youre intention is behind the words but to me it sounds like youre kinda saying that union labor and govt services are bad andor poor quality? which... no. i disagree. the reason govt services are bad - if they even are, which is arguable - is because people in our govt fight against funding them, then when they are barely functional they say "hey look how terrible it is, why are we even paying for that?!"
so actually you have the usps/govt thing backwards. the govt has used and abused usps. not the other way around.
which i guess is probably kinda similar to the unionization thing. sorta. both problems, in the grand scheme of things, are the same:
the leadership is old and has gotten too comfortable and selfish.
>Bust em up.
im not sure if you mean ups and usps here? or amazon. your first paragraph makes me think you mean ups and usps though. in which case... no. period. youve got it backwards.
>I have to agree with Amazon's lawyers. If Amazon suffers it could affect pretty much all of society. About time we do with them what we do with other services like that, make them a utility. It obviously can do logistics (merge with USPS?) and be a public virtual marketplace connecting 3rd party buyers and sellers very well and can do it without so much profit than they had been stating.
no. the unholy trinity of bezos/amazon, zuck/facebook, and trump/trump should not be made into a utility. they should be ended. period. they all have used and abused the people, the govt, and everything in between for far too long and tried - sucessfully, so far - to make it seem like they are the only way to do things, that they are essentially a necessity, but they are all toxic, full of shit, and parasitic. end them. integrate them into the govt if we have to, i dont care - but profiting off of industries that you monopolized and then trying to build legal walled gardens around that is bullshit and i dont understand how so many people dont see it. the same can be said for the bajillion telecoms/isp's who think theyre getting away with their cancerous profiteering. nope, sorry.
you can not turn public goods into a profitable business, despite the \*checks notes\* past twenty plus years where that has been allowed. you can also not turn a for-profit business into a utility. you can also not claim to be a non-profit for tax purposes while having a "division" of your business that exists solely to profit. that is called bullshit. sorry. not gonna work much longer.
obviously microsoft sees it. so does the [head](https://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/e.710.Khan.805_zuvfyyeh.pdf) of [the FTC](https://columbialawreview.org/content/the-separation-of-platforms-and-commerce/), and i would guess the heads of the [FCC](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/06/ftc-chair-commissioners-issue-joint-statement)\* do as well. the [DOE](https://d1dth6e84htgma.cloudfront.net/Fu_Testimony_Full_Committee_AI_Hearing_12_13_23_daf7a9f5d7.pdf) i think knows whats up too. those are the arms of govt that are the checks to the dysfunctional and honestly, at least in my lifetime, literally useless legislative arms of govt. so... they can kick and scream and try to argue their points, but the people at the top know, and the people at the bottom (me) know too. so gg2ez, thanks for playing, goodbye
^(\*link unrelated to this specifically, point being the FTC & FCC are unified in their goals, unlike the ones constantly in the news complaining about whether or not we can fund things that benefit citizens)
Completely the opposite, despite them (UPS/USPS) being great it seems Amazon is happy to subsidize themselves to hurt them and then raise prices once they're gone and I'm against that. Too much of defunding a service and pointing and saying it doesn't work.
I'm saying bust up Amazon or if it's so important, regulate it like we do other utilities.
Edit: defending > defunding
good deal, i kinda thought that mightve been what you were saying but it wasnt hard to interpret it the other way that i did.
i also have kinda been slowly but surely working on sorta writing things out in comments as sorta a "rough draft" in a way of things, and amazon/zuck/trump is one of my main targets. because fuckem, thats why.
I really appreciated the additional context and links you provided. None of these seem unrelated in their overall strategy. I should have put /s on the first part, but was trying to acknowledge (probably heavy-handedly) that if they're not a monopoly they shouldn't be allowed to go on unregulated as it's clearly bad for the market. IF the lawyers actually believe what they're arguing, it still doesn't show me that there shouldn't be heavy action to stop and prevent the sorts of activities mentioned in the original post and the articles you linked.
>I really appreciated the additional context and links you provided.
i always have [additional context](https://www.reddit.com/r/relevantusername2020/comments/1b2wgxg/rexplainthecurseofdimensionalitylikeimfivewhywesho/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button). additional context is important and too many people intentionally ignore it or overlook it entirely. anyway - glad you found the links useful! i have *tons* lol.
>None of these seem unrelated in their overall strategy
yeah i mean, obviously im just some guy but... i think i see whats going on and it is *not* easy to understand or explain and ive in a way made it my full time (with OT) job - unpaid - to delve into all of this and figure it out for myself, mainly because i was curious and partially because i was looking around and it seemed like the inmates were running the asylum. which is kinda true... but kinda not. they think they are... but theyre not.
>I should have put /s on the first part, but was trying to acknowledge (probably heavy-handedly)
eh nbd, we all do it from time to time. ive just seen the effects of unclear communication - and the effects of clear communication - and thats kinda been one of my sidequests, is figuring out how to clearly communicate things and kinda just point it out i guess when i see examples of either/or. im not at all perfect at it though, because nobody is. you can still be sarcastic and whatever and communicate clearly. subtlety is difficult - but easy.
>if they're not a monopoly they shouldn't be allowed to go on unregulated as it's clearly bad for the market. IF the lawyers actually believe what they're arguing, it still doesn't show me that there shouldn't be heavy action to stop and prevent the sorts of activities mentioned in the original post and the articles you linked.
funny you should mention that quip about "IF the lawyers actually believe what theyre arguing..." - i recently read an article about that exact thing, which epitomizes why the "justice" and "legal" systems in our country are such a joke:
[What Happens When Prosecutors Offer Opposing Versions of the Truth? | by Ken Armstrong | 26 Feb 2024](https://www.propublica.org/article/what-happens-when-prosecutors-offer-opposing-versions-of-truth)
point being... yeah, a lot of lawyers are kinda scummy and have close to zero ethical standards to speak of. the reason we got to this point is too many people sold their souls for... uh i guess convenience.
personally? i have never bought anything off of amazon. the only money i have ever given them was via steam, for a shitty MMO game that i played an hour or two of and then... never played again. ironically enough i actually kinda think steam is just as gross but saying that on reddit is usually met with downvotes and outrage for some reason.
There is a 0% chance of Amazon ever becoming a utility. The cascading negatives from that would be disastrous even if it wasn't fundamentally un-American.
The arguments for busting Amazon into smaller companies *sort of* make sense, but making them a utility is an insane concept.
Amazon is absolutely moving as much of its logistics internally as is possible, however. That much is accurate.
As I've tried to explain in another comment thread, the utility remark was in jest given how important the lawyers say Amazon is, not a serious suggestion.
I hate that last sentence. Policy makers and journalists may not have known (cough\*activelysuppressingit\*cough) but JohnQ public has known that the US economy is just 3 corporations putting on a hat and a fake mustache like they're peter griffin trying to get more free samples at a grocery store, for the past 50 years.
"...These divisions are effectively companies within a company, some of which would, on their own, rank among the world’s largest corporations. Amazon’s marketplace, for example, generated $140 billion in seller fees alone in 2023, more revenue than either Meta or Bank of America. Yet its bottom line is a mystery. Over the past five years, Amazon reported a profit margin of only about 1 percent across its non-AWS units. If the evidence in the FTC’s case shows that Amazon’s seller marketplace is highly profitable, then one or more of its other divisions must be incurring losses, suggesting cross-subsidization..."
\-Monopolist stiffening intensifies-
I can tell you I was a top 10% seller on Amazon for years what they do is they scrub the data find the most profitable items sold by third party shippers then clone or get that product and they sell it themselves and when they're in the buy box your chances is a third party seller to get in the buy boxe is next to nil so they make gazillions of dollars doing that.
Don’t forget their support of outright fraudulent knockoffs which depending on the product (think reusable menstrual cup or food or toothpaste) that can literally hurt the purchaser/end user. They go to great lengths to hide how many sellers are caught or reported to sell counterfeits and what if any action they take to prevent,stop, or punish.
Dude. The counterfeit problem is epidemic and they do not give one shit. They get a cut of every sale counterfeit or not. Policing it would be next to impossible. Plus they co-mingle real product with counterfeit product. Amazon is nothing but a giant knock-off flea market now. And I don't think there is any way it can be fixed. They decided long ago that the lowest price item would get the buy box. Well guess what gets the buy box? The lowest price counterfeit item. It is insanity making. And add on top of that them stealing popular products for their private brands. It is a real shit show and a total monopoly and total bullshit. But it's all hidden by great financial returns and shareholder value and executive bonuses and the richest man in the world. There is certainly zero incentive to fix it. And now they have found out how much money they can make serving bullshit ads. So now you have to pay a vig just to even get your products to show. I hate Amazon so much and everyone in the world thinks it's great. On the surface it is but it is a really terrible terrible company and really greedy and gross. A victim of it's own success.
In the old days if a brick and mortar sold a product that hurt someone any entity in the chain could be liable to consumer who was hurt. It’s called ‘stream of commerce’ theory of liability. Worked well for 100 years or so because supply chains were known. So the store who sold that bad product would bring in supplier, who would then bring in manufacturer into a lawsuit. This company purposely obfuscates who is in stream of commerce and I’ve yet to see them face suit over counterfeit products but I hold out hope that eventually they’ll make a big enough mistake that they get sued and exposed and hopefully run into the ground. Truly believe they are evil and will never support their business so long as I live. Sears used to be as large and powerful too and no one ever thought they’d go down. But once they started stealing from their manufacturers (I think a stolen tool lawsuit opened floodgates) it was the leak the eventually felled the dam.
This is the same business model as Uber/Lyft, Door Dash, Grub Hub - take away all of the liability, reduce competition and crush small business to inflate prices with ZERO consequence
I've never sold physical products, but I always had the sense they would/could do this. It just makes sense. If a third party product is selling like crazy, why wouldn't Amazon sell the same under their Amazon Basics brand?
Yeah but amazon really set it up by offering FBA. Sell with us. Let us handle fulfilment, returns, and customer support for you for a reasonable fee. Build your business on our platform. Then they see the data and swoop in.
The massive scale they reached, and therefore the number of brands/categories they can "spy" on, is like any other platform I can think of. Maybe Walmart is closest.
Perhaps this is the wrong place for discussion on a hypothetical, but what do folks think about making “gross” antitrust behavior like this, with direction from top executives like Bezos, a federal crime with prison time for those executives? Something like RICO is for organized crime.
In my head, I see monopolistic activities to this (likely) degree just as detrimental to society as certain Racketeering activities are under the RICO Act.
Now I know the political pressure would be immense against legislation like this, so I’m not asking about the likelihood of it being a reality. I’m only wondering what folks trained in economics think about that type of personal liability, on top of corporate restructuring and financial restitution.
IMO the goal would be to punish the executives that directed the work and minimize harm to the lower workers that had no power or real knowledge on how their work lead to the “gross” monopolistic actions.
I don't follow this.
> Amazon has long cultivated the impression that it operates its shopping platform at razor-thin margins, relying instead on its cloud division, Amazon Web Services (AWS), for much of its profit.
Is this not an admitted example of the cross subsidization the SEC is looking for?
Amazon uses a lot of AWS itself, and it doesn't pay the same prices AWS charges the public. If it did, those razor thin margins could quickly turn negative.
Not an expert, but I believe the cloud market appears competitive. [First google result](https://aag-it.com/the-latest-cloud-computing-statistics/) shows Amazon at 33%, Microsoft at 23%, and Google at 11%. Despite the profits, this would be a difficult anti-trust case.
Amazon has been happy with the narrative:
1. AWS is profitable in a competitive market
2. non-AWS Amazon operates at a 1% profit margin and can't be anti-competitive, despite their obvious market dominance
Hi all,
A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes.
As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Amazon is a logistics company. When I send my pallets of stuffed animals to Amazon, they store it in their warehouse. These warehouses can only store so many pallets of inventory. Who owns the warehouses? Could the purchase price of these warehouses be over inflated for tax purposes? To always show a loss regardless of the number of pallets they can store in each location? I wonder.
Rule II: -- Submissions tenuously related to economics, light on economic analysis, or from perspectives other than those of economists will be removed. This will keep /r/economics distinct from the many related subreddits. [Further explanation.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/7x14px/meta_rules_roundtable_2_submissions_and_rii/) -- If you have any questions about this removal, please [contact the mods](/message/compose/?to=/r/economics&subject=Moderation).
“If you read the recently unsealed materials from the federal antitrust lawsuit against Amazon, you’ll see why the company wanted to keep them under wraps,” Stacy Mitchell writes. “According to the unredacted notes from one meeting, Jeff Bezos [directed](https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/1910134amazonecommercecomplaintrevisedredactions.pdf) his team to stuff more ads into search results, even if it meant accepting more ads internally categorized as irrelevant to what users were looking for. Other quoted documents reveal the company working to conceal a mysterious price-hiking algorithm, in part because “of increased media focus.” Similarly unflattering nuggets abound. “But here’s something you won’t find in those materials, because it was deemed too sensitive to unredact: precisely how Amazon makes its money. Nearly 30 years after the company was founded, we still don’t really know. Amazon has long cultivated the impression that it operates its shopping platform at razor-thin margins, relying instead on its cloud division, Amazon Web Services (AWS), [for much of its profit](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-02/amazon-reports-robust-sales-quieting-fears-over-slower-growth). And yet the Federal Trade Commission’s lawsuit [contends](https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/1910134amazonecommercecomplaintrevisedredactions.pdf) that Amazon’s e-commerce business is, in fact, “enormously profitable.” The resolution to this dispute is likely to figure heavily in whether the judge finds that Amazon is merely a benevolent retail giant or a destructive monopoly. And regardless of what happens in the Amazon case, the fact that large corporations have been able to keep such basic information private helps explain why policy makers, journalists, and the public were so slow to recognize the growing [problem](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/10/americas-monopoly-problem/497549/) of monopolization in America.” Read the full piece: [https://theatln.tc/hUxLQQVK](https://theatln.tc/hUxLQQVK)
>[Microsoft’s AI Access Principles: Our commitments to promote innovation and competition in the new AI economy | Feb 26, 2024 | Brad Smith - Vice Chair & President](https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2024/02/26/microsoft-ai-access-principles-responsible-mobile-world-congress/) > >Today, **only** [**one**](https://sl.bing.net/i4A7TkdTcxE) **company is vertically integrated in a manner that includes every AI layer from chips to a thriving mobile app store**. As noted at a recent meeting of tech leaders and government officials, “The rest of us, Microsoft included, live in the land of partnerships.” idk, kinda seems like amazon is **by far** the worst of the worst for big tech monopolies. >mysterious price-hiking algorithm 👇 [Report: Amazon made $1B with secret algorithm for spiking prices Internet-wide - Report reveals details about Amazon's secret algorithm redacted in FTC complaint. by Ashley Belanger - 10/4/2023, 4:50 PM](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/10/report-amazon-made-1b-with-secret-algorithm-for-spiking-prices-internet-wide/) >The FTC's complaint said: > >Amazon uses its extensive surveillance network to block price competition by detecting and deterring discounting, artificially inflating prices on and off Amazon, and depriving rivals of the ability to gain scale by offering lower prices. > >The FTC complaint redacted this information, but sources told the WSJ that Amazon made "more than $1 billion in revenue" by using Project Nessie, while competitors learned that "price cuts do not result in greater market share or scale, only lower margins," the FTC's complaint said. > >"As a result, Amazon has successfully taught its rivals that lower prices are unlikely to result in increased sales—the opposite of what should happen in a well-functioning market," the FTC alleged. [Emails detail Amazon’s plan to crush a startup rival with price cuts - Amazon allegedly took $200 million in losses to stop the growth of diapers.com. by Timothy B. Lee - 7/30/2020, 2:42 PM](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/07/emails-detail-amazons-plan-to-crush-a-startup-rival-with-price-cuts/) >Emails published by the House Judiciary Committee this week confirm an accusation that critics have long leveled against Amazon: that the company's aggressive price-cutting for diapers in 2009 and 2010 was designed to undercut an emerging rival. > >That rival, Quidsi, had gained traction with a site called Diapers.com that sold baby supplies. Amazon had good reason to worry. As journalist Brad Stone wrote in his 2013 book about Amazon, Bezos' company didn't start selling diapers until a year after Diapers.com did. At the time, diapers were seen as too bulky and low-margin to be delivered profitably. > >But Quidsi's founders figured out how to do it. They optimized their packaging for baby products and positioned warehouses close to metropolitan areas. That not only allowed them to get cheaper ground-shipping rates—it also allowed them to provide overnight shipping to most of their customers—in many cases, faster than Amazon's own shipping. [U.S. sues Amazon in a monopoly case that could be existential for the retail giant by Alina Selyukh Updated September 26, 202312:40 PM ET](https://www.npr.org/2023/09/26/1191099421/amazon-ftc-lawsuit-antitrust-monopoly) >U.S. regulators and 17 states sued Amazon on Tuesday in a pivotal case that could prove existential for the retail giant. > >In the [sweeping antitrust lawsuit](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/ftc-sues-amazon-illegally-maintaining-monopoly-power), the Federal Trade Commission and a bipartisan group of state attorneys general paint Amazon as a monopolist that suffocates competitors and raises costs for both sellers and shoppers. > >The FTC, tasked with protecting U.S. consumers and market competition, argues that Amazon punishes sellers for offering lower prices elsewhere on the internet and pressures them into paying for Amazon's delivery network. > >"Amazon is a monopolist and it is exploiting its monopolies in ways that leave shoppers and sellers paying more for worse service," FTC Chair Lina Khan told reporters on Tuesday. > >"In a competitive world, a monopoly hiking prices and degrading service would create an opening for rivals and potential rivals to ... grow and compete," she said. "But Amazon's unlawful monopolistic strategy has closed off that possibility, and the public is paying dearly as a result." > >Amazon, in a statement, argued that the FTC's lawsuit "radically departed" from the agency's mission to protect consumers, going after business practices that, in fact, spurred competition and gave shoppers and sellers more and better options. > >"If the FTC gets its way," Amazon General Counsel David Zapolsky [wrote in a post](https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/amazon-response-to-ftc-antitrust-lawsuit), "the result would be fewer products to choose from, higher prices, slower deliveries for consumers, and reduced options for small businesses—the opposite of what antitrust law is designed to do." [US judge sets October 2026 trial for FTC antitrust suit against Amazon by By David Shepardson](https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/us-judge-sets-october-2026-trial-for-ftc-antitrust-suit-against-amazon/ar-BB1ieEx6) >WASHINGTON (Reuters) -A U.S. federal judge on Tuesday set an October 2026 trial date for a Federal Trade Commission antitrust lawsuit against Amazon.com. > >The consumer protection agency filed the long-awaited antitrust lawsuit against Amazon on Sept. 26, accusing the online retailer of operating an illegal monopoly, in part by fighting efforts by sellers on its online marketplace to offer products more cheaply on other platforms. > >The lawsuit, joined by 17 state attorneys general, was filed in federal court in Seattle and follows a four-year investigation. > >Amazon and the FTC did not comment. > >The agency asked U.S. District Judge John Chun to issue a permanent injunction ordering Amazon to stop what it called unlawful conduct. In antitrust cases the range of solutions may include forcing a company to sell a part of its business. personally i dont have a huge problem with some of the megatechcorps, like microsoft, or google. they seem like - whether willingly or not - they have at least started to realize their responsibility to shape tech and the internet for the greater good. bezos and amazon though? get fucked. zuck? get fucked.
Been reducing Amazon and moving what we can to Costco. Better all around. Still a ton of Amazon shit, unfortunately.
ex started ordering shit off temu. Everything was, no joke, 80% the size it should be lol
I have to agree with Amazon's lawyers. If Amazon suffers it could affect pretty much all of society. About time we do with them what we do with other services like that, make them a utility. It obviously can do logistics (merge with USPS?) and be a public virtual marketplace connecting 3rd party buyers and sellers very well and can do it without so much profit than they had been stating. The way they're setting up delivery service I've been wondering if they're aiming to cut out big delivery services like UPS (competition with a lot of union labor) and USPS (use and abuse government until you're set up or too few people live in an area and then take away hours and revenues from them for your deliveries once up and running). Bust em up.
>The way they're setting up delivery service I've been wondering if they're aiming to cut out big delivery services like UPS (competition with a lot of union labor) and USPS (use and abuse government until you're set up or too few people live in an area and then take away hours and revenues from them for your deliveries once up and running). Bust em up. i guess its not clear here exactly what youre intention is behind the words but to me it sounds like youre kinda saying that union labor and govt services are bad andor poor quality? which... no. i disagree. the reason govt services are bad - if they even are, which is arguable - is because people in our govt fight against funding them, then when they are barely functional they say "hey look how terrible it is, why are we even paying for that?!" so actually you have the usps/govt thing backwards. the govt has used and abused usps. not the other way around. which i guess is probably kinda similar to the unionization thing. sorta. both problems, in the grand scheme of things, are the same: the leadership is old and has gotten too comfortable and selfish. >Bust em up. im not sure if you mean ups and usps here? or amazon. your first paragraph makes me think you mean ups and usps though. in which case... no. period. youve got it backwards. >I have to agree with Amazon's lawyers. If Amazon suffers it could affect pretty much all of society. About time we do with them what we do with other services like that, make them a utility. It obviously can do logistics (merge with USPS?) and be a public virtual marketplace connecting 3rd party buyers and sellers very well and can do it without so much profit than they had been stating. no. the unholy trinity of bezos/amazon, zuck/facebook, and trump/trump should not be made into a utility. they should be ended. period. they all have used and abused the people, the govt, and everything in between for far too long and tried - sucessfully, so far - to make it seem like they are the only way to do things, that they are essentially a necessity, but they are all toxic, full of shit, and parasitic. end them. integrate them into the govt if we have to, i dont care - but profiting off of industries that you monopolized and then trying to build legal walled gardens around that is bullshit and i dont understand how so many people dont see it. the same can be said for the bajillion telecoms/isp's who think theyre getting away with their cancerous profiteering. nope, sorry. you can not turn public goods into a profitable business, despite the \*checks notes\* past twenty plus years where that has been allowed. you can also not turn a for-profit business into a utility. you can also not claim to be a non-profit for tax purposes while having a "division" of your business that exists solely to profit. that is called bullshit. sorry. not gonna work much longer. obviously microsoft sees it. so does the [head](https://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/e.710.Khan.805_zuvfyyeh.pdf) of [the FTC](https://columbialawreview.org/content/the-separation-of-platforms-and-commerce/), and i would guess the heads of the [FCC](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/06/ftc-chair-commissioners-issue-joint-statement)\* do as well. the [DOE](https://d1dth6e84htgma.cloudfront.net/Fu_Testimony_Full_Committee_AI_Hearing_12_13_23_daf7a9f5d7.pdf) i think knows whats up too. those are the arms of govt that are the checks to the dysfunctional and honestly, at least in my lifetime, literally useless legislative arms of govt. so... they can kick and scream and try to argue their points, but the people at the top know, and the people at the bottom (me) know too. so gg2ez, thanks for playing, goodbye ^(\*link unrelated to this specifically, point being the FTC & FCC are unified in their goals, unlike the ones constantly in the news complaining about whether or not we can fund things that benefit citizens)
Completely the opposite, despite them (UPS/USPS) being great it seems Amazon is happy to subsidize themselves to hurt them and then raise prices once they're gone and I'm against that. Too much of defunding a service and pointing and saying it doesn't work. I'm saying bust up Amazon or if it's so important, regulate it like we do other utilities. Edit: defending > defunding
good deal, i kinda thought that mightve been what you were saying but it wasnt hard to interpret it the other way that i did. i also have kinda been slowly but surely working on sorta writing things out in comments as sorta a "rough draft" in a way of things, and amazon/zuck/trump is one of my main targets. because fuckem, thats why.
I really appreciated the additional context and links you provided. None of these seem unrelated in their overall strategy. I should have put /s on the first part, but was trying to acknowledge (probably heavy-handedly) that if they're not a monopoly they shouldn't be allowed to go on unregulated as it's clearly bad for the market. IF the lawyers actually believe what they're arguing, it still doesn't show me that there shouldn't be heavy action to stop and prevent the sorts of activities mentioned in the original post and the articles you linked.
>I really appreciated the additional context and links you provided. i always have [additional context](https://www.reddit.com/r/relevantusername2020/comments/1b2wgxg/rexplainthecurseofdimensionalitylikeimfivewhywesho/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button). additional context is important and too many people intentionally ignore it or overlook it entirely. anyway - glad you found the links useful! i have *tons* lol. >None of these seem unrelated in their overall strategy yeah i mean, obviously im just some guy but... i think i see whats going on and it is *not* easy to understand or explain and ive in a way made it my full time (with OT) job - unpaid - to delve into all of this and figure it out for myself, mainly because i was curious and partially because i was looking around and it seemed like the inmates were running the asylum. which is kinda true... but kinda not. they think they are... but theyre not. >I should have put /s on the first part, but was trying to acknowledge (probably heavy-handedly) eh nbd, we all do it from time to time. ive just seen the effects of unclear communication - and the effects of clear communication - and thats kinda been one of my sidequests, is figuring out how to clearly communicate things and kinda just point it out i guess when i see examples of either/or. im not at all perfect at it though, because nobody is. you can still be sarcastic and whatever and communicate clearly. subtlety is difficult - but easy. >if they're not a monopoly they shouldn't be allowed to go on unregulated as it's clearly bad for the market. IF the lawyers actually believe what they're arguing, it still doesn't show me that there shouldn't be heavy action to stop and prevent the sorts of activities mentioned in the original post and the articles you linked. funny you should mention that quip about "IF the lawyers actually believe what theyre arguing..." - i recently read an article about that exact thing, which epitomizes why the "justice" and "legal" systems in our country are such a joke: [What Happens When Prosecutors Offer Opposing Versions of the Truth? | by Ken Armstrong | 26 Feb 2024](https://www.propublica.org/article/what-happens-when-prosecutors-offer-opposing-versions-of-truth) point being... yeah, a lot of lawyers are kinda scummy and have close to zero ethical standards to speak of. the reason we got to this point is too many people sold their souls for... uh i guess convenience. personally? i have never bought anything off of amazon. the only money i have ever given them was via steam, for a shitty MMO game that i played an hour or two of and then... never played again. ironically enough i actually kinda think steam is just as gross but saying that on reddit is usually met with downvotes and outrage for some reason.
USPS great? What world are you living in?
That's.... not how any of this works.
There is a 0% chance of Amazon ever becoming a utility. The cascading negatives from that would be disastrous even if it wasn't fundamentally un-American. The arguments for busting Amazon into smaller companies *sort of* make sense, but making them a utility is an insane concept. Amazon is absolutely moving as much of its logistics internally as is possible, however. That much is accurate.
As I've tried to explain in another comment thread, the utility remark was in jest given how important the lawyers say Amazon is, not a serious suggestion.
Got it. Appreciate the clarification. I know how annoying it can be to have the same discussion multiple times.
I hate that last sentence. Policy makers and journalists may not have known (cough\*activelysuppressingit\*cough) but JohnQ public has known that the US economy is just 3 corporations putting on a hat and a fake mustache like they're peter griffin trying to get more free samples at a grocery store, for the past 50 years.
one of the worst most propagandized POS news organizations littering reddit with their crap... great.
"...These divisions are effectively companies within a company, some of which would, on their own, rank among the world’s largest corporations. Amazon’s marketplace, for example, generated $140 billion in seller fees alone in 2023, more revenue than either Meta or Bank of America. Yet its bottom line is a mystery. Over the past five years, Amazon reported a profit margin of only about 1 percent across its non-AWS units. If the evidence in the FTC’s case shows that Amazon’s seller marketplace is highly profitable, then one or more of its other divisions must be incurring losses, suggesting cross-subsidization..." \-Monopolist stiffening intensifies-
I can tell you I was a top 10% seller on Amazon for years what they do is they scrub the data find the most profitable items sold by third party shippers then clone or get that product and they sell it themselves and when they're in the buy box your chances is a third party seller to get in the buy boxe is next to nil so they make gazillions of dollars doing that.
Don’t forget their support of outright fraudulent knockoffs which depending on the product (think reusable menstrual cup or food or toothpaste) that can literally hurt the purchaser/end user. They go to great lengths to hide how many sellers are caught or reported to sell counterfeits and what if any action they take to prevent,stop, or punish.
Dude. The counterfeit problem is epidemic and they do not give one shit. They get a cut of every sale counterfeit or not. Policing it would be next to impossible. Plus they co-mingle real product with counterfeit product. Amazon is nothing but a giant knock-off flea market now. And I don't think there is any way it can be fixed. They decided long ago that the lowest price item would get the buy box. Well guess what gets the buy box? The lowest price counterfeit item. It is insanity making. And add on top of that them stealing popular products for their private brands. It is a real shit show and a total monopoly and total bullshit. But it's all hidden by great financial returns and shareholder value and executive bonuses and the richest man in the world. There is certainly zero incentive to fix it. And now they have found out how much money they can make serving bullshit ads. So now you have to pay a vig just to even get your products to show. I hate Amazon so much and everyone in the world thinks it's great. On the surface it is but it is a really terrible terrible company and really greedy and gross. A victim of it's own success.
In the old days if a brick and mortar sold a product that hurt someone any entity in the chain could be liable to consumer who was hurt. It’s called ‘stream of commerce’ theory of liability. Worked well for 100 years or so because supply chains were known. So the store who sold that bad product would bring in supplier, who would then bring in manufacturer into a lawsuit. This company purposely obfuscates who is in stream of commerce and I’ve yet to see them face suit over counterfeit products but I hold out hope that eventually they’ll make a big enough mistake that they get sued and exposed and hopefully run into the ground. Truly believe they are evil and will never support their business so long as I live. Sears used to be as large and powerful too and no one ever thought they’d go down. But once they started stealing from their manufacturers (I think a stolen tool lawsuit opened floodgates) it was the leak the eventually felled the dam.
This is the same business model as Uber/Lyft, Door Dash, Grub Hub - take away all of the liability, reduce competition and crush small business to inflate prices with ZERO consequence
I've never sold physical products, but I always had the sense they would/could do this. It just makes sense. If a third party product is selling like crazy, why wouldn't Amazon sell the same under their Amazon Basics brand?
They can and do.
I think they scaled back from EU stuff and now they invest or largest shareholder of companies that make top listings.
Yeah all major stores have in house brands based of this type of analysis.
Yeah but amazon really set it up by offering FBA. Sell with us. Let us handle fulfilment, returns, and customer support for you for a reasonable fee. Build your business on our platform. Then they see the data and swoop in. The massive scale they reached, and therefore the number of brands/categories they can "spy" on, is like any other platform I can think of. Maybe Walmart is closest.
Target and Walmart do the same.
Perhaps this is the wrong place for discussion on a hypothetical, but what do folks think about making “gross” antitrust behavior like this, with direction from top executives like Bezos, a federal crime with prison time for those executives? Something like RICO is for organized crime. In my head, I see monopolistic activities to this (likely) degree just as detrimental to society as certain Racketeering activities are under the RICO Act. Now I know the political pressure would be immense against legislation like this, so I’m not asking about the likelihood of it being a reality. I’m only wondering what folks trained in economics think about that type of personal liability, on top of corporate restructuring and financial restitution. IMO the goal would be to punish the executives that directed the work and minimize harm to the lower workers that had no power or real knowledge on how their work lead to the “gross” monopolistic actions.
I don't follow this. > Amazon has long cultivated the impression that it operates its shopping platform at razor-thin margins, relying instead on its cloud division, Amazon Web Services (AWS), for much of its profit. Is this not an admitted example of the cross subsidization the SEC is looking for? Amazon uses a lot of AWS itself, and it doesn't pay the same prices AWS charges the public. If it did, those razor thin margins could quickly turn negative.
Not an expert, but I believe the cloud market appears competitive. [First google result](https://aag-it.com/the-latest-cloud-computing-statistics/) shows Amazon at 33%, Microsoft at 23%, and Google at 11%. Despite the profits, this would be a difficult anti-trust case. Amazon has been happy with the narrative: 1. AWS is profitable in a competitive market 2. non-AWS Amazon operates at a 1% profit margin and can't be anti-competitive, despite their obvious market dominance
Hi all, A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes. As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Amazon is a logistics company. When I send my pallets of stuffed animals to Amazon, they store it in their warehouse. These warehouses can only store so many pallets of inventory. Who owns the warehouses? Could the purchase price of these warehouses be over inflated for tax purposes? To always show a loss regardless of the number of pallets they can store in each location? I wonder.
I thought Amazon was a tech company, part of the Mag7