Amazon

[Bob Harper]

I doubt Frank will agree, but where is the modern Judge Harold Greene
when we need him?
I am a conservative, not a libertarian, and I find myself wondering
whether it might not be appropriate to break up Amazon into different
business units--marketplace, AWS, and delivery services, for example.
Worked for AT&T and much earlier for Standard Oil.

Bob Harper

[Frank Berger]

Post by Bob Harper
I doubt Frank will agree, but where is the modern Judge
Harold Greene when we need him?
I am a conservative, not a libertarian, and I find myself
wondering whether it might not be appropriate to break up
Amazon into different business units--marketplace, AWS, and
delivery services, for example. Worked for AT&T and much
earlier for Standard Oil.
Bob Harper

I've probably forgotten most of what my mostly free-market
oriented professors at UCLA tried to teach me. But I recall
them saying we should judge by the actions of the market
players and not so much just the results. If someone has an
effective monopoly because of his smarts, skills, natural
market conditions, etc. and not because of illegal
activities that would be basically OK and probably best
viewed as temporary. If his behavior as a monopolist is
egregious enough (deleting comments, e.g.) he will be
inviting in competitors. I don't know why Amazon has
succeeded in acquiring such apparent market power (despite
probably its being obvious to everyone else).

Always remembering that in order to police and enforce
government antitrust actions, you have fund the bureaucracy
that's going to do the work. Who's going to control them?

Is the FAA treating SpaceX correctly/fairly?

[Bob Harper]

Post by Bob Harper
I doubt Frank will agree, but where is the modern Judge Harold Greene
when we need him?
I am a conservative, not a libertarian, and I find myself wondering
whether it might not be appropriate to break up Amazon into different
business units--marketplace, AWS, and delivery services, for example.
Worked for AT&T and much earlier for Standard Oil.
Bob Harper

I've probably forgotten most of what my mostly free-market oriented
professors at UCLA tried to teach me.  But I recall them saying we
should judge by the actions of the market players and not so much just
the results.  If someone has an effective monopoly because of his
smarts, skills, natural market conditions, etc. and not because of
illegal activities that would be basically OK and probably best viewed
as temporary.  If his behavior as a monopolist is egregious enough
(deleting comments, e.g.) he will be inviting in competitors.  I don't
know why Amazon has succeeded in acquiring such apparent market power
(despite probably its being obvious to everyone else).

I am less sanguine than you about Amazon's behavior being OK. Their
sheer collection of data about users is enough to be troubling. Yes,
those are their rules, but whether they should be is a disputed
question. Mu answer is that at a certain point the collection of user
data crosses a line between what is useful in order to improve service
and what is so much as to tilt the playing field. IMO, users should be
able to express enforceable limits on collection of information that has
no direct connection with purchases or services. Not easy to define, of
course, but the customer should have the upper hand.

Bob Harper

Always remembering that in order to police and enforce government
antitrust actions, you have fund the bureaucracy that's going to do the
work. Who's going to control them?
Is the FAA treating SpaceX correctly/fairly?

[dk]

Post by Bob Harper

Post by Bob Harper
I doubt Frank will agree, but where is the modern Judge Harold Greene
when we need him?
I am a conservative, not a libertarian, and I find myself wondering
whether it might not be appropriate to break up Amazon into different
business units--marketplace, AWS, and delivery services, for example.
Worked for AT&T and much earlier for Standard Oil.
Bob Harper

I've probably forgotten most of what my mostly free-market oriented
professors at UCLA tried to teach me. But I recall them saying we
should judge by the actions of the market players and not so much just
the results. If someone has an effective monopoly because of his
smarts, skills, natural market conditions, etc. and not because of
illegal activities that would be basically OK and probably best viewed
as temporary. If his behavior as a monopolist is egregious enough
(deleting comments, e.g.) he will be inviting in competitors. I don't
know why Amazon has succeeded in acquiring such apparent market power
(despite probably its being obvious to everyone else).

I am less sanguine than you about Amazon's behavior being OK. Their
sheer collection of data about users is enough to be troubling. Yes,
those are their rules, but whether they should be is a disputed
question. Mu answer is that at a certain point the collection of user
data crosses a line between what is useful in order to improve service
and what is so much as to tilt the playing field. IMO, users should be
able to express enforceable limits on collection of information that has
no direct connection with purchases or services. Not easy to define, of
course, but the customer should have the upper hand.

When and where do/did customers have the upper hand ?!?

dk

[Todd Michel McComb]

Post by dk
When and where do/did customers have the upper hand ?!?

E.g. in a setting where they can patronize instead a basically
identical seller next door.

[Frank Berger]

Post by dk

Post by Bob Harper

Post by Bob Harper
I doubt Frank will agree, but where is the modern Judge Harold Greene
when we need him?
I am a conservative, not a libertarian, and I find myself wondering
whether it might not be appropriate to break up Amazon into different
business units--marketplace, AWS, and delivery services, for example.
Worked for AT&T and much earlier for Standard Oil.
Bob Harper

I've probably forgotten most of what my mostly free-market oriented
professors at UCLA tried to teach me. But I recall them saying we
should judge by the actions of the market players and not so much just
the results. If someone has an effective monopoly because of his
smarts, skills, natural market conditions, etc. and not because of
illegal activities that would be basically OK and probably best viewed
as temporary. If his behavior as a monopolist is egregious enough
(deleting comments, e.g.) he will be inviting in competitors. I don't
know why Amazon has succeeded in acquiring such apparent market power
(despite probably its being obvious to everyone else).

I am less sanguine than you about Amazon's behavior being OK. Their
sheer collection of data about users is enough to be troubling. Yes,
those are their rules, but whether they should be is a disputed
question. Mu answer is that at a certain point the collection of user
data crosses a line between what is useful in order to improve service
and what is so much as to tilt the playing field. IMO, users should be
able to express enforceable limits on collection of information that has
no direct connection with purchases or services. Not easy to define, of
course, but the customer should have the upper hand.

When and where do/did customers have the upper hand ?!?
dk

If I start listing things that negatively impact my life, Amazon collecting data on me will not figure significantly. Not necessarily in any order:

1. Covid.
2. Spam phone calls, especially with spoofed number. Those people should be killed.
3. Tailgaters.
4. Any web site re-design.
5. Paying a gazillion dollars per month for cable and finding I have to pay to watch an on-demand program I missed in real-time.
6. Getting a "hit" on a web search because your previous search for the same thing is on the bottom of the page as a "recent search."
7. Being put on a mailing list because you visited a web page
8. Amazon sellers who don't know the difference between classic and classical.

For starters.

[dk]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by dk

Post by Bob Harper

Post by Bob Harper
I doubt Frank will agree, but where is the modern Judge Harold Greene
when we need him?
I am a conservative, not a libertarian, and I find myself wondering
whether it might not be appropriate to break up Amazon into different
business units--marketplace, AWS, and delivery services, for example.
Worked for AT&T and much earlier for Standard Oil.
Bob Harper

I've probably forgotten most of what my mostly free-market oriented
professors at UCLA tried to teach me. But I recall them saying we
should judge by the actions of the market players and not so much just
the results. If someone has an effective monopoly because of his
smarts, skills, natural market conditions, etc. and not because of
illegal activities that would be basically OK and probably best viewed
as temporary. If his behavior as a monopolist is egregious enough
(deleting comments, e.g.) he will be inviting in competitors. I don't
know why Amazon has succeeded in acquiring such apparent market power
(despite probably its being obvious to everyone else).

I am less sanguine than you about Amazon's behavior being OK. Their
sheer collection of data about users is enough to be troubling. Yes,
those are their rules, but whether they should be is a disputed
question. Mu answer is that at a certain point the collection of user
data crosses a line between what is useful in order to improve service
and what is so much as to tilt the playing field. IMO, users should be
able to express enforceable limits on collection of information that has
no direct connection with purchases or services. Not easy to define, of
course, but the customer should have the upper hand.

When and where do/did customers have the upper hand ?!?

If I start listing things that negatively impact my life, Amazon collecting
1. Covid.
2. Spam phone calls, especially with spoofed number. Those people should be killed.
3. Tailgaters.
4. Any web site re-design.
5. Paying a gazillion dollars per month for cable and finding I have to pay to watch an on-demand program I missed in real-time.
6. Getting a "hit" on a web search because your previous search for the same thing is on the bottom of the page as a "recent search."
7. Being put on a mailing list because you visited a web page
8. Amazon sellers who don't know the difference between classic and classical.
For starters.

No artists, performers, conductors or orchestras ever upset you? ;-)

dk

[Frank Berger]

Post by dk

Post by Frank Berger

Post by dk

Post by Bob Harper

Post by Bob Harper
I doubt Frank will agree, but where is the modern Judge Harold Greene
when we need him?
I am a conservative, not a libertarian, and I find myself wondering
whether it might not be appropriate to break up Amazon into different
business units--marketplace, AWS, and delivery services, for example.
Worked for AT&T and much earlier for Standard Oil.
Bob Harper

I've probably forgotten most of what my mostly free-market oriented
professors at UCLA tried to teach me. But I recall them saying we
should judge by the actions of the market players and not so much just
the results. If someone has an effective monopoly because of his
smarts, skills, natural market conditions, etc. and not because of
illegal activities that would be basically OK and probably best viewed
as temporary. If his behavior as a monopolist is egregious enough
(deleting comments, e.g.) he will be inviting in competitors. I don't
know why Amazon has succeeded in acquiring such apparent market power
(despite probably its being obvious to everyone else).

I am less sanguine than you about Amazon's behavior being OK. Their
sheer collection of data about users is enough to be troubling. Yes,
those are their rules, but whether they should be is a disputed
question. Mu answer is that at a certain point the collection of user
data crosses a line between what is useful in order to improve service
and what is so much as to tilt the playing field. IMO, users should be
able to express enforceable limits on collection of information that has
no direct connection with purchases or services. Not easy to define, of
course, but the customer should have the upper hand.

When and where do/did customers have the upper hand ?!?

If I start listing things that negatively impact my life, Amazon collecting
1. Covid.
2. Spam phone calls, especially with spoofed number. Those people should be killed.
3. Tailgaters.
4. Any web site re-design.
5. Paying a gazillion dollars per month for cable and finding I have to pay to watch an on-demand program I missed in real-time.
6. Getting a "hit" on a web search because your previous search for the same thing is on the bottom of the page as a "recent search."
7. Being put on a mailing list because you visited a web page
8. Amazon sellers who don't know the difference between classic and classical.
For starters.

No artists, performers, conductors or orchestras ever upset you? ;-)
dk

Nothing comes to mind. I am too much in awe of all artists, since I am totally devoid of any ability in that direction. Ask me about annoying economists and I right there.

[Bob Harper]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by dk

Post by Bob Harper

Post by Bob Harper
I doubt Frank will agree, but where is the modern Judge Harold Greene
when we need him?
I am a conservative, not a libertarian, and I find myself wondering
whether it might not be appropriate to break up Amazon into different
business units--marketplace, AWS, and delivery services, for example.
Worked for AT&T and much earlier for Standard Oil.
Bob Harper

I've probably forgotten most of what my mostly free-market oriented
professors at UCLA tried to teach me. But I recall them saying we
should judge by the actions of the market players and not so much just
the results. If someone has an effective monopoly because of his
smarts, skills, natural market conditions, etc. and not because of
illegal activities that would be basically OK and probably best viewed
as temporary. If his behavior as a monopolist is egregious enough
(deleting comments, e.g.) he will be inviting in competitors. I don't
know why Amazon has succeeded in acquiring such apparent market power
(despite probably its being obvious to everyone else).

I am less sanguine than you about Amazon's behavior being OK. Their
sheer collection of data about users is enough to be troubling. Yes,
those are their rules, but whether they should be is a disputed
question. Mu answer is that at a certain point the collection of user
data crosses a line between what is useful in order to improve service
and what is so much as to tilt the playing field. IMO, users should be
able to express enforceable limits on collection of information that has
no direct connection with purchases or services. Not easy to define, of
course, but the customer should have the upper hand.

When and where do/did customers have the upper hand ?!?
dk

If I start listing things that negatively impact my life, Amazon
collecting data on me will not figure significantly. Not necessarily in
1. Covid.
2. Spam phone calls, especially with spoofed number.  Those people
should be killed.
3. Tailgaters.
4. Any web site re-design.
5. Paying a gazillion dollars per month for cable and finding I have to
pay to watch an on-demand program I missed in real-time.
6. Getting a "hit" on a web search because your previous search for the
same thing is on the bottom of the page as a "recent search."
7. Being put on a mailing list because you visited a web page
8. Amazon sellers who don't know the difference between classic and classical.
For starters.

I am tempted to place your #2 in the first position, and while I think
execution *might* be too severe a punishment, a term of imprisonment
featuring a telephone which rings at all hours (which you as the
prisoner would be compelled to answer) with a call that begins, "Thank
you for choosing Marriott!" (That's what it is out here; your harasser
may vary.)

Bob Harper