98 Comments
Jun 1, 2021Liked by Matt Stoller

When you bring up tech for disabled folk, how the right to repair is constrained looms large. Repair of wheelchairs and mobility scooters is a racket, and since many disabled people have fixed or little or no income for a variety of reasons, there's an underground economy of wheelchair repair.

Expand full comment
author

That's fascinating. Any leads on this? Who are the main wheelchair and mobility scooter producers?

Expand full comment

Can I point a friend of mine at you? They can speak to this better than I and have done more of the work.

Expand full comment

While waiting to hear back from my friend, here's a 2012 paper (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4886332/) that points out a few factors: what chairs you have access to depend on who you have your benefits through. Worth noting that if you're able to work with your disability or have other income one has much more choice, but you still need a physicians note if you want coverage or reimbursement (my wife and I went through that with my flex-spending provider when we bought her mobility assist a couple of years ago.)

Expand full comment

And a Berkleyside article on a place in Emeryville (sorta between Oakland and Berkeley) that's an independent wheelchair shop https://www.berkeleyside.org/2017/06/28/wheelchair-repair-program-lifeline-disabled-particularly-streets.

Lots of people on the streets have chairs and have to do makeshift repairs because of how the infrastructure's set up. And if you have a higher end device because of needs, like ALS or similar, then there are more faults that can leave you stranded.

I'll stop spamming the thread and wait to hear back from my friends.

Expand full comment

And the "just one more thing" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Heumann has been a leader in the independent living movement for disable people and I'd check out anything she's written on the topic of access and repair.

Thanks!

Expand full comment

A decades-long history of forcing users of "durable medical goods" to pay for and pay to install replacement parts only thru "authorized" suppliers. Was built upon the broken backs and blown off legs of veterans who received wheelchairs and the like thru the VA. In some cases only a single supplier held a VA contract, meaning not a virtual monopoly but a genuine monopoly on the market. The firm I was familiar with in the 70's was sued and paid fines to the Justice Dept. Simple cost of doing business for them...

Oh, and Judith Heumann lives in the same building I do...

Expand full comment

Great article as always, Matt. One nit: France didn't ban free shipping, it banned free shipping *on books* because book prices are regulated in France (you're not allowed more than 5% discount). Free shipping on the rest remains a thing. And Amazon worked around the free shipping on books ship by shipping for 0.01€. Yeah.

Expand full comment

I don't mean this to be rude, but you've clearly never sold on Amazon. Amazon, while not a walk in the park, is the best experience out there for the majority of sellers. It's also immensely protective of its consumers. Let me explain the reason behind some of the evil-seeming moves you've pointed out.

Shipping costs: FBA (the service 3rd party sellers use to offer Prime shipping) is practically unbeatably cheap. Even if the Buy Box weren't a factor, you'd be hard pressed to use any shipping + storage option that's more expensive.

Buy Box existence: would you rather search for "chapstick" and get 15 different listings offering the exact same product? Because that's the alternative. You can be efficient and lump everyone selling the exact same thing in one listing, or be "fair" and crowd my search results.

Buy Box competition: A lot of 3rd party sellers suck. They'll say they have inventory and won't, or take forever to ship. It makes sense that Amazon would prefer sellers use their shipping and warehouse service. They can ensure 1) the inventory levels are accurate, and 2) timely shipping. It gives you as a consumer a better experience, and a brand you can trust to deliver.

Also, not mentioned in the article: the Buy Box will usually go to those offering the lowest price.

Selling commissions: Unless you're already a big brand, it's way cheaper (in money and time) and less riskier to pay the commissions than becoming proficient at online marketing. You only pay for products you sell too.

Punishment for lower prices: Amazon also prohibits you from linking to your website. Why? Because they're not about to invest in a huge brand and let you use it as free advertising. Price agreements are standard across any industry.

"Free shipping": I personally agree that it's a sleazy tactic, but 1) it's not unique to Amazon and 2) people (me included) do prefer it. It´s a common marketing strategy in ecommerce: tell the clients the full price upfront, but call shipping "free". Personally, I find it easier to compare prices if I know the entire price upfront.

As an analogy: a hotel charges $500 for the weekend. If it it turned itself into an all-inclusive offer, raised prices to $800, and offered "free" drinks and food, would that be misleading? Would that be cheating?

Another thought: shipping is obviously not free. Could it not, let's say, be considered 'dishonest' to lure customers attention with unrealistically low prices (prices not including shipping), only to catch them at the end with shipping price once they've already made up their mind to buy?

Amazon has done it's fair share of shitty moves, but I think it's monopoly power is overestimated. It can raise prices a little, of course, as can any company with a big client base. But if it were cheaper to buy or more profitable to sell on other platforms, people would flock. You don't become a monopoly by charging everyone higher prices; you don't stay a monopoly if you charge higher prices.

Expand full comment

"But if it were cheaper to buy or more profitable to sell on other platforms, people would flock."

Yes, this is the point. It is not cheaper to buy or more profitable to sell on other platforms thanks to Amazon's heavyhanded tactics. It would be cheaper to buy or more profitable to sell if not for those tactics.

Expand full comment

" It would be cheaper to buy or more profitable to sell if [ on other platforms? ] not for those tactics."

So, what's the problem here? If they're using tactics to make it cheaper to buy, and more profitable to sell, isn't that a win-win? (Except for other platforms, of course).

Expand full comment

I respect and appreciate your perspective, thanks for sharing! I suspect though that we aren't really debating the present-day case, where yourself and many others actually benefit from Amazon's efforts (I buy a lot of stuff there myself). What we are carefully looking at is the potential earthquake that will result from Amazon's shifting of the retail world's tectonic plates. if it's not a monopoly now (and that I leave to the experts), it someday surely has the potential to either become one, given the current trends and dynamics, or we could settle into an Oligopoly with Walmart... is that any better? Is Jeff B. truly a megalomaniac? Is it worth waiting to find out?

Expand full comment

"Another thought: shipping is obviously not free. Could it not, let's say, be considered 'dishonest' to lure customers attention with unrealistically low prices (prices not including shipping), only to catch them at the end with shipping price once they've already made up their mind to buy?"

This applies to Amazon as well for non-Prime members who purchase less than $25 worth of FBA items, or various items not FBA.

Expand full comment

So, on the one hand Amazon dishonestly lowers prices and on the other hand Amazon dishonestly raises prices? Make up your mind already. I like it when people comment about stuff they have no clue about.

Expand full comment

Europe requires taxes to be added to the posted price. The US has long been a country that cares more about sellers than buyers.

Expand full comment

The US requires taxes to be added to the posted price when it is inconvenient for the government to tell you explicitly how much you will be taxed for the purchase. See gasoline. Europe also hides the VAT in the posted price. The consumer deserves to be able to see how much the government is raising prices.

Expand full comment

Interesting. Thanks for providing some alternative insight. I guess you are arguing that Amazon is "leveling the playing field" on a national level, whereas without Amazon consumers can only shop locally to "level the playing field." (I assume at the end of your paragraph 2, you meant to type "less" expensive; not "more" expensive.) I will try to keep your arguments in mind as I work my way through the anti-monopoly position of Lina Khan, as presented in an earlier issue of Big. In any case, I still personally despise Amazon and refuse to buy from it - mostly because of how the company is pulling the country apart economically and soaking the taxpayers for subsidies. Of course, the latter problem is more the fault of the politicians who give away the tax money. For reference on the destruction being wrought by Amazon see: "Fulfillment : winning and losing in one-click America" by Alec MacGillis.

Expand full comment

A lot of your argument seems to me to hang off the assertion that as a seller you will never win the buy box if you offer cheaper options outside of amazon, thus leading to higher prices everywhere. That's an extraordinary claim with crazy consequences. Why is it a single throwaway line in the middle of the post?

Do they scrape every other retailer? 1st party sales on their manufacturers own websites? Have we seen retailers lower prices elsewhere then notice retaliation from Amazon? Was this practice discovered and documented prior to the recent congressional hearings? Why haven't I heard about it before? It seems like a crazy amount of un-automatable scraping work and I have difficulty buying it.

Please elaborate!

Expand full comment

OK I read the original complaint and not selling for cheaper elsewhere was a provision of the seller's agreement to list things on amazon. So it's self reporting basically. I would argue you could sell for the 'same' price but include/exclude fees or surcharges to cover the additional costs that are bundled into the final price as shown on amazon.

Expand full comment
author

They scrape every other retailer.

Expand full comment

That's pretty bonkers if true (I work as a programme, that's why I say it). Off the top of my head it would require agreements with other retailers (i.e. Etsy or whatever) to allow robots from Amazon to scrape their website, in addition to being able to link a seller/product on Amazon with a seller/product on another retailer. Is there proof about this that you could point to? Thanks!

Expand full comment
author

Amazon doesn't need an agreement to look at someone else's website.

Expand full comment

Thanks for the response. It's not an Amazon thing. Every website has a page called robots.txt, which allows or disallows programmatic access, which you need in order to scrape. There are ways to get around it if it's poorly written, but if it isn't (and for a large retailer it probably wouldn't be) there's not much you can do. As a random example, take a look at https://www.etsy.com/robots.txt. If Amazon's bot isn't listed on there, it can't scrape Etsy, and if it is, then some programmer at Etsy put it there. This is what I mean by an agreement.

I read p. 11 on the complaint -- the software bit would require what I wrote above, which is a pretty clear smoking gun if it exists, that Amazon is coercing other websites to allow them to raise prices for the market as a whole. The other part, using humans to go on Etsy.com, is obviously just people browsing the Internet.

Expand full comment

robots.txt operates on the honor system. There’s nothing that prevents a scraper from ignoring it and scraping the whole site. There is no law to enforce its use.

Sure they could ask or coerce Etsy to add them to robots.txt, or they can just completely ignore it and scrape the website anyway.

Expand full comment

They don't scrape every other retailer, this is completely false. Do you have proof?

Expand full comment
author

It's well-known in the industry, it's also on p. 11 of the complaint.

Expand full comment

I've just read page 11, it does NOT say that they scrap "every other retailer" (which wouldn't be true), so your sentence is not correct. That they scrape "other online retail platforms" is well known, but they do NOT scrap "every other retailer".

Expand full comment

Sure, maybe they scrape only some of the retailers. That doesn’t reduce the risk for third party sellers if they try to evade the part of the seller agreement. If most are strong-armed by Amazon to follow the rules, does it really matter for the case if a few percent manage to evade getting caught?

Expand full comment

This is not true. If you are a Seller and have your own website (let's say you're a small-medium company and sell through your website and then also as a seller through eBay, Amazon etc.) your site is NOT getting scraped

Expand full comment

Haha. Dude you are so annoying. Which I think is your intent. Good job!

Pedantic -->> an insulting word used to describe someone who annoys others by correcting small errors, caring too much about minor details, or emphasizing their own expertise especially in some narrow or boring subject matter.

Expand full comment

It doesn't matter if the scrape the data. It's a term of their sellers agreement. Even if they don't enforce it the point is they csn.

Expand full comment

Does the seller's agreement preclude sellers from offering free shipping elsewhere?

Expand full comment

Amazon. I am always unsure anyone specifically sets out to create a monopoly. Lime Matt said it is always couched in business terms like competitive advantage. In internal meetings all of these ideas are richly rewarded. But at the end of the day it creates a big old ugly monopoly. And what successful compony is ever going to admit that!

As for Amazon. The other huge issue related to everything Matt talks about is counterfeit products on Amazon. Bezos is/was obsessed with offerin products for the lowest price. So despite everything you outline it SEEMS like Amazon offers the lowest price. So not only does Prime screw consumers out of price competition everywhere it also screws sellers on Amazon. First b/c of all the reasons you outlined. But second bc fraud and counterfeit is WAY more rampent on Amazon then anyone is willing to admit. It takes a little exaining but counterfeiters have flocked to Amazon. It has literally become a worldwide flea market because Amazon has ZERO incentive to address it for two huge reasons. Which internally to Amazon don't look like negatives but huge positives. 1. They make your aforementioned 30-40% margins on ANY sale counterfeit or not. 2. They have changed the way to "win" the buy box to basically the lowest price. It used to be a whole host of factors (which they stil claim) but it is not anymore. It is simply lowest price. So who offers the lowest price? Fraudulant counterfeit producers. So sellers and manufactuers are getting reamed on the front end and the back end and it is all almost invisible to Amazon. Except in their great end of year financials and bonuses. To Amazon it.looks.like they are doing a great job. To add insult to injury they often comingle inventory of real and counterfeit products. So even if a consumer is smart enough to find the real manufacturer/seller of a product even tho they didn't get the buy box (and pay a bit more for hopefully a real product) there is still a not insignificant chance you will get the fake product. So then you get bad reviews for something that is completely Amazons fault. And no buyer understands the difference between product reviews and seller reviews. It is a comete and utter shitshow. And guess who is stepping down at this opportune momenet. Bezos the king himself. It is all really gross.

Expand full comment

“They have changed the way to "win" the buy box to basically the lowest price. It used to be a whole host of factors (which they stil claim) but it is not anymore. It is simply lowest price” - not sure where you are getting your info from but you wrote there is completely false. Not even wrong interpretation or misleading, it is simply false.

Expand full comment

It is 100% true. Maybe not for your product but def for mine. I sell niche expensive textbooks books. I create and manufacturer the books and have approved book distributors. I am vendor central. My vendor central "sold by Amazon" listing hovers around 10th on the buy box list. There is a rotating list of seller central sellers and brand new sellers who offer my expensive textbooks at 1/2 to 1/3 price that always pop into the buy box. They even destroy Amazons 1st party price. Since I make the books and know my distributor deals it is literally impossible to offer my books at this price. But you know a way to make a ton of money. Sell high quality counterfeits of high priced books for half price. I can look at all of the sellers products and they are all unrelated high price books. And Amazon has enabled this. WE used to show up in the buy box more often then not. Because sold by amazon and vendor central. We ARE the source of the products. Even if 3rd party sellers had a questionable lower price they did not get the buy box. But that ended 2 or 3 years ago. Now the lowest price even from NEW sellers get the buy box. So you can say that lowest price being the nimber 1 factor in buy box is patently false but in my case it most certainly is is. And amazon doesn't care because they get their fees, and the customer gets the lowest price. And it is literally invisible to them. The only person who gets screwed is us since it is pretty easy to counterfeit books in a close enough to top quality now that most people don't notice. We have ordered them. They are good. Same goes for other items especially electronics which can gray market out the back door from the original contract manufactuer super easy. I understand people being doubtful if you haven't been in it and seen it for the last 10 years. But I am not the only one. It is happening a lot more then you think. Google a little. It is not just digruntled sellers. And if you still doubt I have done enough google fu to even see the counterfeits trqvel from India, which shipping container, then all the way to Amazon. And you can argue that this just means I need to sell my books at a lower price. But that is BS b/c I know the time expense and expertise it takes to create these technical books. Sure minus all that I can sell it for half price. Which is exactly why they do it. It has become slightly better lately but Amazon provides almost zero tools to combat this. Becuase they really have little ince tive too. Again fees and.lowest price to end user looks great to them. And no one complains about quality. Well thats your problem then...

Expand full comment

I don't believe that. Can you share an example of a specific book?

Expand full comment

Lol. No. Believe what you want. It is my experience. Obviously yours is different. You know that does happen right? I have zero reason to make any of this up.

Expand full comment

If you can't share ONE example of a specific book where what you are saying is happening is indeed happening, I can only assume what I thought when I read Matt's post and then your comments: total fabrication to fit a narrative of invention

Expand full comment

Gee, I'm starting to lean toward's Matt's evaluation of you. Can't you do better?

Expand full comment

That's ok. Clearly you have trollish tendencies by your other answers on this thread and here you are sucking me in, haha. Again. I have no reason to go to these lengths to make this up. What, I am jealous of bezos success and want to destroy his company? Lol. Give me a break. I am simply relating my specific experience. Amazon is an impressive company and has helped a lot of people. But they also do a lot of things poorly that affect people in a negative manner that can be improved. You know both things can be true at the same time right? Most mature adults realize and accept that. I wish you luck on your journey. I work for a company. These are not my books. I sell books online. On Amazon AND other sites. So I do have some small amount of experience here. And shouldn't it also give you pause that I am unwilling to get into exact specifics on an open forum. That in itself is a bad sign for amazon, no? Plus it is not my place to put a target on my employers products. But I can certainly relate my anecdotal experience. Don't believe me. it is fine. But I spend 40 hours a week figuring out what goes on with our products on amazon for the last 10 years. And this is what happens to us. Not the whole 10 years. But it has been a steady deterioration. Sorry it is so hard for you to believe. I have a hard time even coming up with a reason someone would make up a fabrication so specific. But hey, what ever keeps your narrow worldview ok in your head, sigh.

Expand full comment

I often wonder if Bezos, Zucker, Zuckerberg, Dorsey, et. al., started out evil or just turned evil when they realized how much money their (originally good) ideas could generate?

Expand full comment

Oh no. I don't believe it is conscious at all. I am leaning toward it being a problem with very large human run complicated systems. I think of it as big government bureaucracys. Just really financially successful ones :-) That is while I love Matt's ideas and posts I really struggle with big gov solutions. But I also know it is literally the only construct available to take on these problems. Since I absolutely abhor the kafkaesque nightmare of gov too. But those so called titans you mention. I 100% think it is the law of unintended consequences and then being unable to human puny brain handle those consequences because of unmitigated ego driven confirmation bias. And cultural bias too. They are "successful" and "right" by any business and moneyary measure. They "won". So who is anyone to question their genius. Exhibit 1 Elon Musk. I just don't know what the answer is. It is certainly fascinating to watch.

Expand full comment

If a market is competitive, does that not imply that the competition has an end point i.e. a winner? There's nothing I observe in power dynamics that makes me believe that there is any equilibrium outside of either a) winner-take-all, or b) balance of powers: a = monopoly, b = oligopoly. Or, perhaps c) chaos, which is always transitory. Big Govt. (and trust me I share your loathing) acts like the NFL, giving the team with the worst record the highest draft pick, namely, keeping the game going so we don't have to watch the same two or three teams play all the time.

Expand full comment

Man that would be great if it were true. I love the NFL analogy. While they are truly a loathsome successful organization they do somewhat try to keep things competitive. And lets be honest pretty totalitarian and basically and oligarchy, haha. While not always successful they keep trying. I think. But also imagine the fans had an actual say in the structure of the NFL every 2 years and the powerful teams could give basically unlimited amounts of money to the rules makers. And we are right back where we started.

Expand full comment

A great article. Keep 'er lit Bro!

Expand full comment

Anyone who shops at Whole Foods, and isn't a Prime member, should be aware of how much it costs them to subsidize deals available ONLY to Prime members, which means that the less well-off, who don't shop at Amazon, nevermind joining to be a Prime (rhymes with "Crime") member, have to pay higher prices in order to subsidize the lower prices charged to the well-heeled. Are you familiar with the book Freakonomics? (Levitt ... available on Amazon . lol) Calling s/t "Free" (buy one get one "Free" (how is it free, if it cost me the price of the "buy One"?)) gets an irrational response, and since, in a Capitalis society, there is no such thing as a free lunch, no entity with a business license should ever be able to make that claim, as it is always a lie, our entire economic system is built on that fact. Great article, I've been waiting for years, literally, for someone to hash this out, great Job, M. Stoller!

Expand full comment

Oh I'm fully aware. I see the prices at Sprouts vs the prices at Whole Foods.

Expand full comment

Is the problem that people lie, or is it that other people are so willing to believe lies? Exhibit A: former Pres. T.

Expand full comment

The most-favored nation clause Amazon has is exactly what Apple was convicted and fined for in the iBooks case, even though iBooks has a negligible market share in eBooks.

Expand full comment

This model is actually fully in line with typical manufacturing revenue: If AMZ is costing/taking approx 50% of gross rev, that gross rev (importantly!) corresponds to retail price. If the businesses were to sell their wares at wholesale pricing to retail stores (even local/independent stores), the net would be TOPS 50% of retail and/but often less than same. (Mass retailers, for instance, might get the goods at 30% of retail...WITH returns privileges.) So, as an ACTUAL former manufacturer, these fees seem totally fair to me...and they seem to offer a more profitable avenue of sale than the standard wholesale channels I worked within. I would actually have been quite tempted to work with AMZ...although doing same would've raised ethical concerns. I love this podcast, but I would encourage the hosts to learn the manufacturing business before positing inherently flawed arguments such as these. And for the record, I am by no means an AMZ fan. I am just saying that pursuant to the argument put forth here, they are actually a better and more profitable venue of manufacturer sale than typical wholesale-to-retail channels.

Expand full comment

Whole heartedly agree with your thoughts here Matt. One area not touched upon puts Prime in place to take out UPS and smaller shippers. You mentioned around 125 million Prime members. I don't know the exact costs of that but do recall about 100usd to join for one year. At todays price that adds 12+ billion to the balance sheet yearly. How many vans, line haulers, and drop shippers did that buy? UPS has their business down, documented and controlled to the point of mandating which of their drivers feet hits the ground first when stopping for a delivery. They generally do not block roads, driveways and such. If they do it is for less than 3 minutes. They drive courteously, use turn signals, emergency flashers and rarely break down.

Prime drivers use something different. I've seen it in Thailand, USA and Europe during trucking slowdowns but generally not as a daily issue. Until you have been on a small truck doing at least 50mph on a 2 lane highway with no shoulders it is hard to fathom. Imagine 2 dragon* trucks coming at you side by side and neither willing to give way. This was a daily occurrence going back home after a work shift at Nakhon Phanom Royal Thai Navy base. The base was located 15 miles inland from the Mekong river with the town of Nakhon Phanom on the river. It was put their for 2 reasons; 1) Infrastructure upgrades to existing base was cheaper than building a new base, 2) So mortars couldn't reach it from the other side of the river if/when fired from Laos. My point being it scared the hell out of us riding in the back or on top of a small Datsun or Toyota truck wondering if we were going to be heading into the swamp/bog on both sides of raised highway.

Lately I've unfortunately had to be in San Jose picking up parts and shopping for myself and see a lot of PRIME trucks. The newest ones look similar in size and configuration to the Brown trucks. Their drivers look to have no rules, oversight nor training. 3.75 billion USD is plenty to start with when attempting to take over and/or wipe out existing competition.

*dragon trucks - highly colorful paints, plastic, glass and lots of lights about the size of small single axle dump truck that have more road rights than anything smaller.

Expand full comment

I used to sell a product direct from overseas (Asia). Air freight prices jumped big time in 2008-9. I offered a $20 product (footwear, for the record) and the actual shipping charge to the USA was $13 so the price was $33. RIPOFF!!! potential buyers screamed. How can I be so blood-thirsty and shameless to charge 60% more for shipping???? Well, because that's what it costs, Mr. Magellan. But in the interests of not trying to reason with the unreasonable, I changed the price to $30 and charged $3 for shipping, so the total was, yes, $33. Viola! Orders poured in... well I exaggerate, but you get the point.

Expand full comment

Like with anything, there's a lot of psychology involved in pricing. Like how almost nothing at the store costs a whole number amount, but one penny under (e.g. $4.99 vs $5.00) and the cost of gas is listed as 9/10 of a cent less than it actually is (e.g. 2.959 vs 2.96). And people, by and large, either aren't intelligent enough or are too lazy or indifferent to see past all of this and realize they're being played. More often than not, they'll even refer to the first example as "four ninety-nine" rather than "five dollars." A guy I used to work for, and who I didn't respect at all for many reasons, would mark the products he sold artificially high then give *everyone* a "discount" so they thought they were getting a deal (similar to JCPenney's, Kohl's, Macy's, etc).

I sometimes actually prefer the shipping charges on cheaper items, like when I'm buying multiple items. It's a lot cheaper to buy three pairs of shoes at $20 plus $20 in shipping (assuming it costs a bit, but not three times, more to ship three pairs) at a total of $80 than to pay $33 a pair for a total of $132. That said, I've seen plenty of times, especially on eBay, where the shipping being charged is clearly more than the actual cost, and it's obvious that's where they're making most of their money on the sale. I assume they do it to try and place higher on the search results since it's "cheaper," but I always just sort by price + shipping (I hate eBay, but that's a sorting option that should be available everywhere and something they've done right). And I'll even pay a little more for another product that the seller isn't clearly trying to game things and, in my mind, rip off the buyer by charging exorbitant amounts for shipping.

Expand full comment
User was indefinitely suspended for this comment. Show
Expand full comment

You have bad reading comprehension.

Expand full comment

So apt a profile name

Expand full comment

Free Market Uber Alles!

Expand full comment

Is there a reason Walmart wouldn't sue Amazon over the price manipulation, other than the fact that Walmart enjoys higher prices because of Amazon ? I would think Walmart would have more to gain by knocking Amazon out of the price manipulation scheme, than they gain from the increased pricing, that just keeps them on equal footing with Amazon. Walmart certainly has the competitive advantage on locations, cost of goods and logistics, so they could overpower Amazon if the pricing manipulation were eliminated.

Expand full comment

https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://duckduckgo.com/&httpsredir=1&article=6064&context=penn_law_review

Note that this is an old article, the law may have changed since then. In order to have standing to sue, Walmart has to show that it has been:

1) "injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the anti-trust laws"

Walmart has also been accused of similar sorts of anticompetitive behavior as has Amazon. It stands to lose more than it has to gain from a lawsuit. Mobsters of competing families don't lobby the government for harsher RICO laws.

Expand full comment

+1 for mobster analogy

Expand full comment

Thank you. That explains what I wondered about.

Expand full comment

Thanks Matt. These cheaters like Amazon have to be revealed for what they are. This manipulation of the consumer mindset goes back to Edward Bernay's extension of his uncle 's (Freud) psychological theses. In this case "I'm too lazy to go to the store and pick the item up - let alone return it - so absolve me of that guilt and you've got a deal".

Wish there were more sufficient evidence concerning whether Scamazon's margin are such that "landfilling" returns were just rounding error. That's a negative externality that most civically minded people might have an issue with.

Expand full comment

+1 for scamazon

Expand full comment

Matt - The most terrifying bit of news I've read in some time, here's yet another reason we need a global campaign to thwart amazon's monopoly: https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/ai-that-developed-antibiotic-could-also-neutralize-unions-by-yanis-varoufakis-2023-06?utm_source=pocket_reader&barrier=accesspay

Expand full comment