The thing about anti-Trust in the US is that it's not about proving whether or not a business is a monopoly. It's about proving that the company is using illegal and anti-competitive practices to maintain their monopoly position to the detriment of the market and their industry. That's a distinction that took me a while to grasp. If you're a monopoly because your product is just that much better than your competitors, you're fine. If you're a monopoly because you cheat all of the other companies in your industry from growing due to conspiracy, intimidation, or predatory contracts, that's illegal.
Too bad that most monopolies are being held up with illegal tactics regardless. Aka big corps buying out future potential competitors. So what's the system worth if it fails at it's job?
@@BloodyMobile > Aka big corps buying out future potential competitors. That's not illegal. Remember, companies don't exist for the benefit of society, they exist to generate profit. The "benefit to society" bit is merely philosophy that we presume is true because we've been told its true for nearly a century, yet often fails in practice. So to that end antitrust laws (at least in the US) aren't designed to maintain competition, they're designed to ensure competitors have an opportunity to generate profit. Thus buyouts get overlooked because they're usually _very_ profitable for the company being bought, regardless of what that does to the overall competitiveness of the market or whether its ultimately good for consumers. I'm certainly not going to argue that its _good,_ but it's what we have and the only way to improve it is by convincing our representatives to update the regulations to be less pro-business and more pro-consumer. Certainly an uphill battle given how much of Washington runs on the "donations" of big business.
You are correct and that is what even most companies do not understand. The case against Amazon is much stronger than is understood. The difference is buying From Amazon and buying Through Amazon. The noncompetitive blocking occurs in the latter and the relief is not a breakup, but the elimination of that blocking.
Beyond that, the definition and thresholds of these things is extremely political. 60 years ago the courts would have quickly and unquestionably determined that Amazon is a monopoly.
@@BloodyMobile This recently happened when Adobe bought out Figma, It's so sad to see this happen because that means all the awesome PDF features that came with Figma will no longer be improved in order to avoid losing their primary customer base. Not only that, new accounts are more restricted without any organization or projects features, meaning you literally have to pay if you want those features. If your lucky enough to have gotten an account from when those features where free, you still have them. Hopefully it stays that way...
@@DaleonM4 after reading the definition of oligopoly. i am not sure it applies to amazon. that word is more like semiconductor situation where there is a handful of companies that own the market and each are pivotal in the need to exist. from the machine in the US maker to the wafer in japan and maker to the tsmc manufacturer to the designers in California. amazon own 60% of the market and everyone else is very small in comparison. there not even small director competitors that can possible be put in the same weight class. and they don't really need other companies like the semiconductors do, they own the customer which is the only thing that matters for middle man business like theirs. the producers need amazon to sell their products if they are not there and the competence is they are gonna lost a ton of sales.
Do you realize what a monopoly the Chaebols of Samsung, LG, etc are? And don't think that the technology companies in China are not a monopoly either, they're all controlled by the CCP. The dramatic music behind this video influences and pushes people's opinions in a certain direction That's the presentation of the ideas and I think if you want to be fair you got to think about what you're saying and what you're doing. We're talking about systems that require hundreds of millions and billions of dollars to build out and you're not obligated to use them. No none of this dire paranoia is warranted,😊 just keep a watchful eye out and don't put TikTok on your phone . Put the damn thing down and live life without constantly fearing the matrix that you already plugged into and caught up in. But alas I think all of this angst or most of it is usually a result of not facing reality and not understanding how we got to where we are today for good or for bad
@@DaleonM4 Really? Who's the competitor that's even within an order of magnitude market share of Amazon? The only one I can think of is Alibaba but they don't have much presence in the US and this is specifically a US allegation. The FTC doesn't care if the market looks different in China.
the biggest problem with "breaking up monopolies" as we have done up until now is the fact that these days, companies are treated more like people than actual people are, thus allowing a company to own another company and even though they're supposed to be "separate entities" on paper, we all know how well that often works out... We're not breaking up anything unless we can strip all current shareholders and board members out of the "new company," otherwise we're just giving the illusion that we're fighting monopoly without actually doing anything meaningful to fight monopoly.
I disagree. Companies are not treated like people. If they were, they would be liable. Instead people create LLCs, Limited Liability Companies to avoid being responsible for a business failure (or worse).
Peter Theil explained how monopolies like Google and Amazon brand themselves at Tech companies rather than Search engine or eCommerce companies, respectively. That way, Amazon's Alexa competes with many voice assistants, Kindle with many e-readers, AWS with Azure and Google Cloud, Amazon Video with Netflix, Wholefoods with Walmart. They can even point to defeats like the Fire phone as more proof that they are not an invincible monopoly.
Hi Hari, Great video as usual. Congrats on the recent 500k milestone, btw. I agree completely with your analysis regarding the futility of breaking up companies by the U.S. government to mitigate the excesses of monopolies. In fact, some industries are far worse as a result of lack of competition and lack of regulation (which is important so stay tuned), i.e. high-speed internet in the US. If you ask me (as someone who is in the legal field), the better thing to do is to actually strengthen protection laws for the common citizen, i.e. consumers, workers, small businesses, etc. A monopoly (like another commenter said earlier) is fine in theory if the company who achieves such monopoly does so using legitimate and ethical means because the company is inherently able to solve the problem that the market is seeking, and should be rewarded accordingly. Here's the logic in that question: why are we stopping at the "anti-competitive" behavior that hurts the public interest when the "competitive market" is still exhibiting bad faith, unlawful, and unethical practices against the public? For example, if Amazon is still acting ethically in a way that does not screw its customers, sellers, vendors, etc. (ha ha ha ha... no) and still comes out on top, would not that be fine? Moreover, if Amazon is actually and fairly paying taxes to every single jurisdiction it is operating in, and still comes out on top, shouldn't they keep the king of the hill title until the next company that disrupts them topple them from their top position? I could be very well wrong on this, but theoretically, it would be easier, more efficient, and more everlasting if the US government can get its act together to pass laws that regulate large corporate entity's behavior than litigating anti-trust claims against the likes of Amazon who has practically infinite legal budget, and even in the best case scenario the broken up companies will reconstitute together a la T-1000 terminator. For example, the USDA's regulation about beef safety in the early 1990s is still in effect today, and we rarely hear about tainted beef food poisoning compared to e coli and salmonella outbreaks from vegetables and poultry products nowadays. In summary, I believe a highly regulated e-commerce that primarily protect consumers and independent sellers, even though the entities are de facto monopolies or oligopolies (Amazon, Wal-Mart, Rakuten, etc), would still be a more realistic and better outcome for the public rather than FTC's current anti-trust fight. Of course, in practice, the dysfunctional nature of most governments (particularly US federal and state governments), the sore lack of understanding of the big picture by the public (regulations = bad, communist, etc), prevents all of us from reaching to the most obvious and elegant solution in this issue. Just my two cents, and thanks again for making these logically answered (very much true) videos.
@@LogicallyAnswered I'm merely working off your already spot-on analysis on monopolies and how the anti-trust system is not really an effective way to solve the situation. The burden of proof that the DOJ has to overcome to nail an anti-trust claim against an entity like Amazon is insane, and even when they prevail like you said in Microsoft, it can be easily overturned on a technicality. In contrast, in a functioning US democracy, Congress can pass regulations under the commerce clause that are narrowly tailored in a way that does not infringe on the large corporation's constitutional rights, but at the same time addresses the exploitative and anti-public behavior by these corporations small and large. For example, if wage and hour violations against entities like Amazon are made in a way that is proportional to their revenue base instead of a statutory dollar amount per violation, then they will take labor violations more seriously instead of a line item for Cost of Doing Business (TM) (CODB). If consumers can reliably report fraudulent and/or abusive seller tactics such that Amazon must bear the cost and cannot pass the cost to consumers/third party sellers, then it will likely address these issues very quickly. Finally, if consumers, workers, and small independent sellers can opt out of arbitration clauses when they have a dispute against Amazon and preserve their right for a jury trial, that's another narrowly tailored law that can easily pass that would be legally constitutional, but at the same time levels the playing field between Amazon and the average joe consumers, workers, and sellers. These can also apply to other tech companies too, i.e. data collection practices, prohibition of predatory marketing tactics against minors and vulnerable people (predatory monetization behaviors like loot boxes, etc), arbitrary changes of terms of use agreements (Unity, anyone?), etc. As you can see, these examples I listed above can be implemented independent of anti-trust regulations, and they will be far more salient and immediate to protect consumers and smaller entities against these large corporations' excesses. In fact, one could argue that once a company reaches a certain size in a critical industry, they should be treated as a public utility company along with all the regulations involving PUCs (which have significant protections to the public in theory). Finally, one topic that could be a Logically Answered video episode is the balance between freedom of speech in the internet under Section 230 versus public safety. For example, Section 230 provides safe harbor TikTok from harmful content posted by users, and yet countries like India and China either straight up bans, or heavily regulate the use and content of Tik Tok (i.e. Duoyin). To me, Section 230 gives too much opportunity for other countries to weaponize America's free speech to an unprecedented degree that have caused real and significant harm in the United States as a country. But at the same time, where the line can be drawn, and how can it be drawn in a way that still promotes a free and open internet is very much a very difficult question to answer entirely. Sorry for the long-ass reply post, but your videos are always invoking deep thoughts one way or the other. Cheers!
A lot of people mistake "market leaders" for monopolies. There are 2 key signs of a monopoly: 1) customers have no comparable choice and thus can't stop buying from a company even if they want to, and 2) the company abuses this lack of choice by raising prices to exorbitant levels. Meanwhile, the key sign of a market leader is: Customers have other choices, but consistently choose to buy from the market leader because something about their offering is better. I do not see how Amazon is a monopoly. They are clearly a market leader who maintains loyal customers by providing faster shipping, better customer service, more product selection, ease of use, and lower prices than most competitors. But here's a thought: if Amazon tripled their prices today, would anyone be forced to continue buying their products tomorrow? The answer is in almost all cases: no. Almost every product sold on Amazon is also available on other websites and from other stores. Amazon is therefore not a monopoly. They are a market leader, and only by continuing to keep customers happy will they continue their market dominance. This is not something the government should interfere with.
Amazon shipment or order doesn't arrive? One call and Amazon refunds the money. Amazon order isn't sent? Amazon automatically refunds the money. Most rival companies: Anything wrong with the shipment or order? Customer has to threaten legal actions, just to get back 5 bucks, if anything. ... Strange, why do customers prefer Amazon? It's a huge mystery.
All that comes from the money they saved by not paying workers living wages and not fixing horrible working conditions which is especially the case in their warehouses.
@@ME-xc1stAnd yet they find people who are willing to work, so unless they are enslaving them preventing them from leaving the job why are you concerned about how much they are paying them. They will find people who are willing to work for what they are paying and the conditions.
@@lostboy8084there's a huge difference between people being "willing to work" vs "having to work" for Amazon because Amazon has caused all the mom and pop businesses to close down. People care how much other people make because believe it or not the forces of supply and demand apply to labor as well. So if more people start only accepting higher pay then that'll become the norm, unfortunately the opposite is true too and most common.
The goal of breaking up a monopoly is not to stick it to the founder/owner, but to promote more competition. It may be true that we go from a monopoly to a oligopoly. But, we probably got the iPhone 10 years earlier because of the ATT break-up.
0:46 that's not a monopoly! A monopoly is more than just marketshare, it is about predatory practices that hurt competition. If everyone buys your product because your product is better, you did not actually do anything in and of itself to hurt the competition.
Just watched this on Amazon's antitrust saga. Crazy how even if they're split, they might still dominate. The Microsoft and AT&T examples were eye-opening. Makes you wonder, what's the next big shift that could challenge Amazon? 🤔🛒
It's very simple: negative margin. Since both Amazon Retail and Amazon Prime are likely operating at a lost year on year, a breakup will make them vulnerable. It's completely different than breaking up an oil company, just to have multiple, still profitable, oil companies. The video doesn't point this out, and I am not sure why.
Great and compact video. As usual the perfect amount of information at 12-14 min. Easily digest. (used to enjoy longer vids from other creators with 24min+ to 1 hour but its just getting lesser and lesser appealing)
For investors and owners it makes no difference, but for the people it does. It doesn't matter if the 7 companies that AT&T split up to turned in to 2 in the end because now I have a choice between them. I have 3 choices for gas instead of 1. There may not be much competition, but there is definitely more than there was before
@LogicallyAnswered it makes literally a 100% difference (2 is 100% more than 1). Imagine a town with one gas station. Everyone who drives has to go there, they have no other option and they have to pay whatever price is asked without question. If a second gas station opens up in town, even if prices only go down 5% because of it, that is still a win for the people buying gas. It doesn't matter if the same person owns both gas stations. If the town gets bigger because they can now provide more gas to more people at a cheaper price, the owner will get richer yes, but the consumers will still be saving 5% compared to if no competition came in which is still a win for them. I dont care if the rich get richer as long as it's done in a way where everyone gets richer with them, and not in a way where people are set back because they get richer.
@@singletgaming1322If 5% savings means no one ever gets the opportunity to make a better company with better services or fulfill thier dreams of being an entrepreneur as the laws (legalities, copyright, patents) get more and more twisted to protect the companies position in business then I guess you're right........ I'd rather take a 15% hit for 10 or 20 choices
I think that underestimates the power of cartels (which act similar to monopolies). All that needs to happen is that they agree to overcharge you, and occasionally adjust prices to make it look like there is competition. Perhaps an item costs 1 USD to make, and a healthy profit would be made selling it to you at 3USD. But two companies could instead agree that one sells it in one town for 6.95 and the other for 7.15. You believe you've saved 20 cents, but you're really overpaying 4 dollars.
@7rich79 I do understand what you're saying, and I don't think that is invalid in general, but I do think it is invalid to this discussion and it is also separately illegal. It is also harder to accomplish since you need to coordinate with your competition. The difference with a monopoly is it is blatant, there are no extra steps required to fix prices since you control the market, and it is obvious. Im not saying breaking up monopolies solves the problem entirely, but it will add more work and extra steps to the process of price fixing IF the smaller companies are actually able to successfully pull it off. It also leaves a bit more room for new companies to come in and throw off the balance of the cartels since the price fixing has those extra required steps (again, not that it will fix it, just that it will make price fixing harder to accomplish successfully)
Breakup into what ? AWS has nothing to do with the retail space. If you focus on retail alone, how do you break them up ? Different states ? Walmarts revenues haven’t reduced ever since Amazon got into the space. The monopoly argument doesn’t hold true if others are able to compete. If you focus only on online sales Amazon being the clear winner is a plus for consumers. It forced the other retailers to take online sales seriously. But they’re not as good as Amazon and that’s why they’re lagging. If Walmart offered same day or next day shipping on a variety of products ( which they can do since everyone lives close to a Walmart center ) they’d get more customers. You can even make the argument that Amazon is vulnerable to defeat if others get as good or better than them. The logistics are with the brick and mortar stores since they have the distribution power that Amazon simply does not have. Walmarts 5000 stores can act as distribution centers unlike amazons less than 200.
If Amazon were to win the antitrust case in regards to a monopoly in the retail space, could the courts charge them for monopoly in another industry after that or would that be double jeopardy?
heres a dark-green text for the record : > be me meeting a few people from each big tech company then this is in the news a couple weeks later 😂 > be me realizing how much Amazon is sniffing my network 😮 > be me keeping multiple copies of the proof in case I disappear 🧠 > be me stressing that this is not a joke 🗣️
Hadn’t heard but they need to! Now they are now outsourcing their trucking service as a common courier competing against Souther Freight, Yellow, SAIA, DHL and many others.
Great Video! I think there is a thing that might end hurting Amazon if ever they will get split. In the case of Standard Oil and the Baby Bells were all companies based in the US. If, for any reason ever Amazon would be splitted there is no way that Amazon will be able to cross-subsidize its business and, I think a lot of countries with less favorable tax policies might be willing to stop the profit shifting and tax optimization across the group forcing to tax locally the profits. If it will happen will be a step towards a more fair taxation overall.
There's no legal law that can break your company because you're a monopoly the anti monopoly suits are just to benefit the government, when ur company is broken into 30 pieces it means thirty different license renewed every year instead of 1, 30 capital gains tax instead of 1 etc the government benifits not the consumers
So my wife and i were looking for a new bedframe. We needed one. We spent a day looking at discount furniture stores and second hand shops. We couldn't find one for less than $300 and they didn't meet our needs. We thought about building one ourselves so it would last and be to our specifications, but wood is too expensive. Once we remembered amazon existed it took less than 15 minutes to find a frame that exceeded our needs for $70. And then it was on our doorstep less than 24 hours later. Why are we excited about ending that?
in all cases that you showed we ended up with 2-3 companies who would compete with each other in the end rather than one big monopoly. so that is somewhat of a win right?
I kind of agree that Amazon breaking would benefit those broken up companies assuming they broken up across the different industries they operate as individual business would atleast have to profitable if not objectively better as they would no longer get subsidized by AWS. The Microsoft split not happening eventually led IE to stagnate and getting taken over by Firefox and chrome
But that does make sense: these individual companies fight for survival and it's survival of the fittest, giving them a much bigger incentive to actually improve their operational efficiency and profitability. This way the "too big to fail" is also lost, and you're left with the strongest companies merging, getting rid of slack.
11:29 I work with lawyers. Do not take Fed lawyers for light weights. Many of them come from big law firms. They go to the feds as lawyers or judges, do something high profile and then come back to big law for the same big paychecks as Amazon lawyers.
What not to love with the US model called "you may buy any verdict you like if you are rich enough"? Maybe the cases should be settled in EU (see famous Mattel vs Aqua case over the Barbie Girl song)?
The examples in part 2 aren't right. Oil would have grown a ton regardless of if the monopoly was broken up or not (for the reasons you mentioned). And the goal of breaking up a monopoly ISN'T to make the investors behind the monopoly poorer, it's to stop the monopolies form harming the rest of the economy. i.e. if Standard Oil was the only oil company, and they decided to triple the price of oil simply because they can, that would obviously screw everyone else over and be bad for the vast majority of people. A lack of competition in a space can be very bad for innovation to. As for the phone monopolies you cite, part of the problem there is that the government broke AT&T up the wrong way, going from 1 national monopoly into several smaller regional monopolies, which are still monopolies.
let's be honest: I don't care. In fact I'm probably team Amazon from my consumer view. They offer good enough pricing and most importantly: They offer the best customer service of any retailer world wide afaik. They are insanely pro consumer when handling returns or warranty claims, at least here in the EU.
He had a point tho, companies do come and go which is why I think they expanded AWS and made it one of their focuses, if they get govt contracts thats one lane that will never go away if they play their cards right.
@@assboyzent.2941 Yea I didn't say I didn't agree with that statement but he's still the richest narcissist in the world. He definitely rubs one out to the fact he's in control of the biggest e-commerce conglomerate in the world. Just saying that all billionaires are the same and they'll always claim that what they're doing is for "The betterment of society."
I have to look into the logic of distinguishing a product from a feature when it comes to novice consumer user level operating systems that are GUI based. After all, it can be argued that anything that makes access to information easier to use better presented etc could be described as either. If calendars took on the importance of an internet browser would the calendar tool or feature become then a product? Was it a product or a feature allready? Is it all about our center of focus? A popularity contest? The Beatles monopolized Liverpool British Rock? One could argue that accessing data locally and eventually over a network is what these machines were supposed to do from the beginning and of course as the networks expanded and the data became more valuable.. well just take it from here... I don't think the case of Standard oil is a good comparison at ALL. Oil is a commodity. Refined gasoline, heating oil, etc from one refinery is basically indistinguishable from another. And when oil is used for everything in the economy then yes Monopoly rules can apply. If one company owns the complete vertical. An operating system while it may be popular and the choice of millions is not essential to keep computing rolling along especially when there are competing operating systems after all the oil in this example is the silicon chipsets. These are entirely different industries, concepts, and use cases. The Monopoly that built the transcontinental telephone service in The United States didn't start out that way but in terms of building infrastructure, the research, and technology that was needed to bring forward this precursor of the internet as we know it right now, it was decided that it would be better to split the industry up in the way that it was and to tightly regulate it. Western electric did the hardware ATT and the Bells did the network. This wasn't horrible. God knows where we would all be if not for Bell Labs and if you don't know what I'm talking about just go research all of the discoveries, innovation, and technological progress that came out of that organization. I would not call that a terrible monopoly. Times changed and with the introduction of signaling system 7 and other technologies it was decided that competition could be allowed in the telecommunications market and we got it. I'm just trying to be logical when thinking about these answers. We assume so much when we are generations removed from the situations and structures of the history that got is here today. We rely upon those foundations for everything that we hold dear today in terms of technology and business as well as entertainment and living a modern life. If we don't have a background in the history of these things and only look at it with the judgment of today's " anti corporate" pov, we could be making a mistake. After all most of these innovations came out of the United States and the West they didn't result from the socialist revolutions in Europe and Asia. I'm not a Microsoft fanboy when it comes to the desktop. I use Apples bsd Unix. But in the case of Windows, it didn't become dominant solely because they brought out all of the competition and forced them out of business, otherwise there would have never been other successful operating systems that stayed, came and left the market. Windows was really popular and fit the needs of a lot of people and use cases, flaws and all. That's what fandom is all about. So I'm still not convinced.
IMO at least being a monopoly is more than just dominant market share, but large market share combined with legislation preventing any competitors from entering the mix. Did Apple and windows revolutionize computers and OS? Absolutely, but over the last 5-7 years what new crazy innovations have they introduced to KEEP their market share? There was a time period where Android phones (whether LG/Samsung/or even Huawei) were coming out with revolutionary features left and right, but most of america was hyper fixated on iPhones bc the media/entertainment, etc. were hyping up Apple to no end. Something I dont hear talked enough about in these convos is the role media (and marketing) play in these matters, and most of the media is controlled or orchestrated behind the scenes so the ability for competition of the same magnitude to exist in some instances is nearly impossible.
Like if a competitor to Amazon was spun up tomorrow and they had better prices/more to choose from how long would it take for them to gain massive popularity? Follow up question where will its marketing come from? Washington Post isnt writing about them bc Amazon owns them and its a conflict of interest, a lot of major TV networks arent covering them bc theyre also in bed with Amazon. It would take years upon years for them to actually become competitive with Amazon, and by that time amazon wouldve already ran news and marketing campaigns that either force them to get bought out, or go bankrupt. And thats what I consider a true monopoly, and thats also why simply breaking up massive companies wont fix anything; because the underlying problem is a lack of feasible competition and not just that the company grew too large.
10:40 this right here proves he doesn't know what the definition of a monopoly is. He continually confuses a member of an oligopoly as a monopoly. You can't have 2 national monopolies in the same market. MONO = 1, POLY = seller, MonoPoly = 1 seller.
I don’t agree what you have said when you point out that they have 60% market share. Now that they have 60% market share doesn’t mean they have monopoly. Monopoly is based on unfair business practice. That is it. That has nothing to do with market share.
Thumbnail; on this planet, the most creepiest slimeball of all. It should be against the boundries of classical physics & quantum physics for this entity to exist. Perhaps burped out of volcano in which case we need to return it asap to not unbalance the universes. These are scary times.😬
13:10 - no, it' exactly because they have sufficient power, both monetary and influence, to suffocate any competitor or at least offer way more polished equivalent - as if the competitor can spend $1M, Amazon can spend $10M to create better alternative and drain blue ocean dry…
In the break ups dont matter portion the big companies break up into a lot of little companies then those comapanies combine together into 2-3 different bigger companies which compete with each other why cant they stop them from combining together and after enough time they will be viewed as entirely seperate enties similar to how chevron and exxon compete with each other if they arent allowed to combine collaborate or communicate in any form at least for idk 30-50 years then the companies would either dominate their region or be outplayed by outside forces while they might not compete with each other they also wouldnt combine to form verizon or at&t fixing the problem if only that was a thing
The illusion of choice is always better than no choice. Well at least that is the theory, basically people prefer the being given two choice over having only one, sure they all end up the same way, an example, currently in Starfield Bethesda new game, players feel like they have so many choices in dialogue, though through testing people have found every choice ends in more or less the same way. Another example. Would you prefer to pay 4.99 for a two liter of soda or 2.49 for a 1 liter of that same soda but you must buy two for the second deal? You're still paying the same amount but you get to choose how ya spend it, sorry I'm terrible at explaining things.
Whether breaking up Amazon makes Bezos richer is completely irrelevant. The whole point of antitrust breakups is not to prevent rich people, but to keep prices competitive for customers.
I think your quick quite simplified conclusions "microsoft didn't get broken up therefore the lawsuit did nothing" and the others like it contradict the more nuanced work of Cory Doctorow who explaines how the lawsuit changed the behaviour of microsoft, and how the breakup of tnt did cause a drop in prices and let to an increase of innovation.
Including AT&T in a discussion about monopolies is a little misleading without going into more detail. The history there is not similar to the other entities in any way.
I am not sure I understand your point of view, and your argument seems pretty weak to me. Amazon Web Services is powering Amazon retail. And we know Amazon retail isn't a profitable business. When the breakup happens, unless there is a way to legally fund retail, they will lose competitiveness, and there will be room for others. Same thing with Amazon Prime. I don't know if they are profitable yet, but without the backing of AWS, their survival is not at all guaranteed.
I'm an Amazon customer almost from day1. I live near an Amazon warehouse and have most of my orders in under 2 hours. I don't want it to be broken up. I think monopolies can only be broken up if the customers suffer. I don't think this is the case here. Amazon is usually the cheapest and the fastest to deliver. You mentioned that Amazon has 60% of the online market. This is also not high enough for a monopoly. Who is the victim here? Customers have a lot of other options and seller as well. I don't see a chance for a lawsuit to succeed
I need a Job. I'm okay with doing manual labor on a farm though I'm an experienced audio engineer and producer. I'm currently cleaning tanks but this ain't a regular way to earn money where I live and I can't afford to relocate. I don't have a degree yet, but I know a thing or two about accounting and finance. I can work as a virtual assistant, a graphic designer [Photoshop, InDesign, Coreldraw, AutoCAD] and/ or video editor [premiere pro]. I'm open to any available opportunity remote or otherwise. I have no problem working long hours and I'm willing to start immediately.
American companies become monopolies cant be solved with court cases. There needs to be regulatory laws that reign over the companies and prevent monopolies but instead companies reign over the country because they let them goo way too far.
Perhaps when these companies split up, owners of stocks in those companies should be forced to choose one specific sub-company to maintain their stocks in, and be forced to sell their stocks in the others. I'm pretty sure that if you were to buy stocks in competing companies at that scale from scratch you would be shut down for something similar to insider trading.
I think there are only two ways we'll ever see real tangible change in practices like this. 1) The consumer controlled way: People come together and do everything they can to just not buy products from the organizations that do these things. It's hard and it requires research to know where your products are coming from, sure. But it's entirely doable. For example, I entirely avoid anything Apple is a part of producing because I think they're pure evil. 2) The federally controlled way: If company suits who were responsible for human rights violations and intentionally impoverishing entire populations of people for a bit of corporate gain were forcefully removed from their positions by the state and had their assets and finances seized and auctioned off to charities, non-profits, or companies that could prove they followed proper business ethics--I'm sure you'd see far fewer of these shit head psychopaths thinking they could get away with the awful shit they do. And before anyone say it, no this move wouldn't be communism of socialist in nature--it would be the SAME LEGAL ACTION as we have today, but with MUCH HARSHER penalties in place that would force these people to actually consider thinking twice about what they do. If you cause ACTUAL harm to the individual board member's pocketbooks and company profits, they have no incentive to do it in the first place. As it is now the problem is most punishments--while they SOUND severe to normal citizens--are fucking NOTHING compared to the massive profits these people make. Why care about a 20 million dollar set of fines when you know you're making 60 million off of the illegal action in the first place? To a business psychopath it's not just worth it--it actually makes good business sense to them to do it in the first place. There is a third option too; though it's immoral AF. And that would be, 3) The fearful way: Just "disappear" the big wigs responsible. I assure you even the richest, most immoral, psychopathic loon will think twice about fucking people over if he or she sees a series of their fellows and friends suddenly start to go missing. This method is obviously not advisable and I believe the least likely to actually happen--but as it stands those are the only three ways I foresee any real change happening.
The thing about anti-Trust in the US is that it's not about proving whether or not a business is a monopoly. It's about proving that the company is using illegal and anti-competitive practices to maintain their monopoly position to the detriment of the market and their industry. That's a distinction that took me a while to grasp.
If you're a monopoly because your product is just that much better than your competitors, you're fine.
If you're a monopoly because you cheat all of the other companies in your industry from growing due to conspiracy, intimidation, or predatory contracts, that's illegal.
Too bad that most monopolies are being held up with illegal tactics regardless. Aka big corps buying out future potential competitors.
So what's the system worth if it fails at it's job?
@@BloodyMobile > Aka big corps buying out future potential competitors.
That's not illegal. Remember, companies don't exist for the benefit of society, they exist to generate profit. The "benefit to society" bit is merely philosophy that we presume is true because we've been told its true for nearly a century, yet often fails in practice.
So to that end antitrust laws (at least in the US) aren't designed to maintain competition, they're designed to ensure competitors have an opportunity to generate profit. Thus buyouts get overlooked because they're usually _very_ profitable for the company being bought, regardless of what that does to the overall competitiveness of the market or whether its ultimately good for consumers.
I'm certainly not going to argue that its _good,_ but it's what we have and the only way to improve it is by convincing our representatives to update the regulations to be less pro-business and more pro-consumer. Certainly an uphill battle given how much of Washington runs on the "donations" of big business.
You are correct and that is what even most companies do not understand. The case against Amazon is much stronger than is understood. The difference is buying From Amazon and buying Through Amazon. The noncompetitive blocking occurs in the latter and the relief is not a breakup, but the elimination of that blocking.
Beyond that, the definition and thresholds of these things is extremely political. 60 years ago the courts would have quickly and unquestionably determined that Amazon is a monopoly.
@@BloodyMobile This recently happened when Adobe bought out Figma, It's so sad to see this happen because that means all the awesome PDF features that came with Figma will no longer be improved in order to avoid losing their primary customer base. Not only that, new accounts are more restricted without any organization or projects features, meaning you literally have to pay if you want those features.
If your lucky enough to have gotten an account from when those features where free, you still have them. Hopefully it stays that way...
"winning this case will give them free reign" very scary thought, as all of big tech would abuse such power.
True
@@LogicallyAnsweredit isn't a monopoly it's an oligopoly. Pls don't push terms without doing a little research.
@@DaleonM4 after reading the definition of oligopoly. i am not sure it applies to amazon. that word is more like semiconductor situation where there is a handful of companies that own the market and each are pivotal in the need to exist. from the machine in the US maker to the wafer in japan and maker to the tsmc manufacturer to the designers in California.
amazon own 60% of the market and everyone else is very small in comparison. there not even small director competitors that can possible be put in the same weight class. and they don't really need other companies like the semiconductors do, they own the customer which is the only thing that matters for middle man business like theirs. the producers need amazon to sell their products if they are not there and the competence is they are gonna lost a ton of sales.
Do you realize what a monopoly the Chaebols of Samsung, LG, etc are? And don't think that the technology companies in China are not a monopoly either, they're all controlled by the CCP. The dramatic music behind this video influences and pushes people's opinions in a certain direction That's the presentation of the ideas and I think if you want to be fair you got to think about what you're saying and what you're doing. We're talking about systems that require hundreds of millions and billions of dollars to build out and you're not obligated to use them. No none of this dire paranoia is warranted,😊 just keep a watchful eye out and don't put TikTok on your phone . Put the damn thing down and live life without constantly fearing the matrix that you already plugged into and caught up in. But alas I think all of this angst or most of it is usually a result of not facing reality and not understanding how we got to where we are today for good or for bad
@@DaleonM4 Really? Who's the competitor that's even within an order of magnitude market share of Amazon? The only one I can think of is Alibaba but they don't have much presence in the US and this is specifically a US allegation. The FTC doesn't care if the market looks different in China.
the biggest problem with "breaking up monopolies" as we have done up until now is the fact that these days, companies are treated more like people than actual people are, thus allowing a company to own another company and even though they're supposed to be "separate entities" on paper, we all know how well that often works out... We're not breaking up anything unless we can strip all current shareholders and board members out of the "new company," otherwise we're just giving the illusion that we're fighting monopoly without actually doing anything meaningful to fight monopoly.
I disagree. Companies are not treated like people. If they were, they would be liable. Instead people create LLCs, Limited Liability Companies to avoid being responsible for a business failure (or worse).
Peter Theil explained how monopolies like Google and Amazon brand themselves at Tech companies rather than Search engine or eCommerce companies, respectively. That way, Amazon's Alexa competes with many voice assistants, Kindle with many e-readers, AWS with Azure and Google Cloud, Amazon Video with Netflix, Wholefoods with Walmart. They can even point to defeats like the Fire phone as more proof that they are not an invincible monopoly.
At this rate they’d have to Sue a lot of companies
True haha
"This lawsuit is good for Amazon, because if they win it, they'll have won!"
Hi Hari,
Great video as usual. Congrats on the recent 500k milestone, btw.
I agree completely with your analysis regarding the futility of breaking up companies by the U.S. government to mitigate the excesses of monopolies. In fact, some industries are far worse as a result of lack of competition and lack of regulation (which is important so stay tuned), i.e. high-speed internet in the US.
If you ask me (as someone who is in the legal field), the better thing to do is to actually strengthen protection laws for the common citizen, i.e. consumers, workers, small businesses, etc. A monopoly (like another commenter said earlier) is fine in theory if the company who achieves such monopoly does so using legitimate and ethical means because the company is inherently able to solve the problem that the market is seeking, and should be rewarded accordingly.
Here's the logic in that question: why are we stopping at the "anti-competitive" behavior that hurts the public interest when the "competitive market" is still exhibiting bad faith, unlawful, and unethical practices against the public? For example, if Amazon is still acting ethically in a way that does not screw its customers, sellers, vendors, etc. (ha ha ha ha... no) and still comes out on top, would not that be fine? Moreover, if Amazon is actually and fairly paying taxes to every single jurisdiction it is operating in, and still comes out on top, shouldn't they keep the king of the hill title until the next company that disrupts them topple them from their top position?
I could be very well wrong on this, but theoretically, it would be easier, more efficient, and more everlasting if the US government can get its act together to pass laws that regulate large corporate entity's behavior than litigating anti-trust claims against the likes of Amazon who has practically infinite legal budget, and even in the best case scenario the broken up companies will reconstitute together a la T-1000 terminator. For example, the USDA's regulation about beef safety in the early 1990s is still in effect today, and we rarely hear about tainted beef food poisoning compared to e coli and salmonella outbreaks from vegetables and poultry products nowadays.
In summary, I believe a highly regulated e-commerce that primarily protect consumers and independent sellers, even though the entities are de facto monopolies or oligopolies (Amazon, Wal-Mart, Rakuten, etc), would still be a more realistic and better outcome for the public rather than FTC's current anti-trust fight. Of course, in practice, the dysfunctional nature of most governments (particularly US federal and state governments), the sore lack of understanding of the big picture by the public (regulations = bad, communist, etc), prevents all of us from reaching to the most obvious and elegant solution in this issue.
Just my two cents, and thanks again for making these logically answered (very much true) videos.
Interesting perspective. Definitely out of the norm thinking.
@@LogicallyAnswered I'm merely working off your already spot-on analysis on monopolies and how the anti-trust system is not really an effective way to solve the situation.
The burden of proof that the DOJ has to overcome to nail an anti-trust claim against an entity like Amazon is insane, and even when they prevail like you said in Microsoft, it can be easily overturned on a technicality.
In contrast, in a functioning US democracy, Congress can pass regulations under the commerce clause that are narrowly tailored in a way that does not infringe on the large corporation's constitutional rights, but at the same time addresses the exploitative and anti-public behavior by these corporations small and large.
For example, if wage and hour violations against entities like Amazon are made in a way that is proportional to their revenue base instead of a statutory dollar amount per violation, then they will take labor violations more seriously instead of a line item for Cost of Doing Business (TM) (CODB).
If consumers can reliably report fraudulent and/or abusive seller tactics such that Amazon must bear the cost and cannot pass the cost to consumers/third party sellers, then it will likely address these issues very quickly.
Finally, if consumers, workers, and small independent sellers can opt out of arbitration clauses when they have a dispute against Amazon and preserve their right for a jury trial, that's another narrowly tailored law that can easily pass that would be legally constitutional, but at the same time levels the playing field between Amazon and the average joe consumers, workers, and sellers.
These can also apply to other tech companies too, i.e. data collection practices, prohibition of predatory marketing tactics against minors and vulnerable people (predatory monetization behaviors like loot boxes, etc), arbitrary changes of terms of use agreements (Unity, anyone?), etc.
As you can see, these examples I listed above can be implemented independent of anti-trust regulations, and they will be far more salient and immediate to protect consumers and smaller entities against these large corporations' excesses. In fact, one could argue that once a company reaches a certain size in a critical industry, they should be treated as a public utility company along with all the regulations involving PUCs (which have significant protections to the public in theory).
Finally, one topic that could be a Logically Answered video episode is the balance between freedom of speech in the internet under Section 230 versus public safety. For example, Section 230 provides safe harbor TikTok from harmful content posted by users, and yet countries like India and China either straight up bans, or heavily regulate the use and content of Tik Tok (i.e. Duoyin). To me, Section 230 gives too much opportunity for other countries to weaponize America's free speech to an unprecedented degree that have caused real and significant harm in the United States as a country. But at the same time, where the line can be drawn, and how can it be drawn in a way that still promotes a free and open internet is very much a very difficult question to answer entirely.
Sorry for the long-ass reply post, but your videos are always invoking deep thoughts one way or the other.
Cheers!
A lot of people mistake "market leaders" for monopolies. There are 2 key signs of a monopoly: 1) customers have no comparable choice and thus can't stop buying from a company even if they want to, and 2) the company abuses this lack of choice by raising prices to exorbitant levels. Meanwhile, the key sign of a market leader is: Customers have other choices, but consistently choose to buy from the market leader because something about their offering is better.
I do not see how Amazon is a monopoly. They are clearly a market leader who maintains loyal customers by providing faster shipping, better customer service, more product selection, ease of use, and lower prices than most competitors. But here's a thought: if Amazon tripled their prices today, would anyone be forced to continue buying their products tomorrow? The answer is in almost all cases: no. Almost every product sold on Amazon is also available on other websites and from other stores.
Amazon is therefore not a monopoly. They are a market leader, and only by continuing to keep customers happy will they continue their market dominance. This is not something the government should interfere with.
Didn't think I'd meet Jeff Bezos himself in yt comments section!
Amazon shipment or order doesn't arrive? One call and Amazon refunds the money.
Amazon order isn't sent? Amazon automatically refunds the money.
Most rival companies: Anything wrong with the shipment or order? Customer has to threaten legal actions, just to get back 5 bucks, if anything.
... Strange, why do customers prefer Amazon? It's a huge mystery.
All that comes from the money they saved by not paying workers living wages and not fixing horrible working conditions which is especially the case in their warehouses.
@@ME-xc1stAnd yet they find people who are willing to work, so unless they are enslaving them preventing them from leaving the job why are you concerned about how much they are paying them. They will find people who are willing to work for what they are paying and the conditions.
@@lostboy8084there's a huge difference between people being "willing to work" vs "having to work" for Amazon because Amazon has caused all the mom and pop businesses to close down.
People care how much other people make because believe it or not the forces of supply and demand apply to labor as well. So if more people start only accepting higher pay then that'll become the norm, unfortunately the opposite is true too and most common.
there will always be people willing to work as long as there is people struggling with money@@lostboy8084
Love from Ghana keep it up been following since 20k
The goal of breaking up a monopoly is not to stick it to the founder/owner, but to promote more competition. It may be true that we go from a monopoly to a oligopoly. But, we probably got the iPhone 10 years earlier because of the ATT break-up.
0:46 that's not a monopoly! A monopoly is more than just marketshare, it is about predatory practices that hurt competition. If everyone buys your product because your product is better, you did not actually do anything in and of itself to hurt the competition.
UK and US have very different monopoly and anti-trust laws/standards.
Just watched this on Amazon's antitrust saga. Crazy how even if they're split, they might still dominate. The Microsoft and AT&T examples were eye-opening. Makes you wonder, what's the next big shift that could challenge Amazon? 🤔🛒
It's very simple: negative margin. Since both Amazon Retail and Amazon Prime are likely operating at a lost year on year, a breakup will make them vulnerable.
It's completely different than breaking up an oil company, just to have multiple, still profitable, oil companies.
The video doesn't point this out, and I am not sure why.
in EU microsoft was obligated to show browser selection window, where you can select what browser other than microsofts' you want to use
Great and compact video. As usual the perfect amount of information at 12-14 min. Easily digest.
(used to enjoy longer vids from other creators with 24min+ to 1 hour but its just getting lesser and lesser appealing)
The problem is splitting by region. This does not invite competition at all. In fact, it just creates new monopolies.
For investors and owners it makes no difference, but for the people it does. It doesn't matter if the 7 companies that AT&T split up to turned in to 2 in the end because now I have a choice between them. I have 3 choices for gas instead of 1. There may not be much competition, but there is definitely more than there was before
Hmmm, that’s true, but does that make a big difference?
@LogicallyAnswered it makes literally a 100% difference (2 is 100% more than 1). Imagine a town with one gas station. Everyone who drives has to go there, they have no other option and they have to pay whatever price is asked without question. If a second gas station opens up in town, even if prices only go down 5% because of it, that is still a win for the people buying gas. It doesn't matter if the same person owns both gas stations. If the town gets bigger because they can now provide more gas to more people at a cheaper price, the owner will get richer yes, but the consumers will still be saving 5% compared to if no competition came in which is still a win for them. I dont care if the rich get richer as long as it's done in a way where everyone gets richer with them, and not in a way where people are set back because they get richer.
@@singletgaming1322If 5% savings means no one ever gets the opportunity to make a better company with better services or fulfill thier dreams of being an entrepreneur as the laws (legalities, copyright, patents) get more and more twisted to protect the companies position in business then I guess you're right........ I'd rather take a 15% hit for 10 or 20 choices
I think that underestimates the power of cartels (which act similar to monopolies). All that needs to happen is that they agree to overcharge you, and occasionally adjust prices to make it look like there is competition.
Perhaps an item costs 1 USD to make, and a healthy profit would be made selling it to you at 3USD. But two companies could instead agree that one sells it in one town for 6.95 and the other for 7.15.
You believe you've saved 20 cents, but you're really overpaying 4 dollars.
@7rich79 I do understand what you're saying, and I don't think that is invalid in general, but I do think it is invalid to this discussion and it is also separately illegal. It is also harder to accomplish since you need to coordinate with your competition. The difference with a monopoly is it is blatant, there are no extra steps required to fix prices since you control the market, and it is obvious. Im not saying breaking up monopolies solves the problem entirely, but it will add more work and extra steps to the process of price fixing IF the smaller companies are actually able to successfully pull it off. It also leaves a bit more room for new companies to come in and throw off the balance of the cartels since the price fixing has those extra required steps (again, not that it will fix it, just that it will make price fixing harder to accomplish successfully)
The big question. Does Amazon harm the consumer?
This is no big question and would never be put forward on the basis that amazon has no such company policy intended for Consumers.
it harms its workers for sure(i.e they cannt say living wage or they get into trouble...poor working conditions...)
Breakup into what ? AWS has nothing to do with the retail space. If you focus on retail alone, how do you break them up ? Different states ?
Walmarts revenues haven’t reduced ever since Amazon got into the space. The monopoly argument doesn’t hold true if others are able to compete. If you focus only on online sales Amazon being the clear winner is a plus for consumers. It forced the other retailers to take online sales seriously. But they’re not as good as Amazon and that’s why they’re lagging. If Walmart offered same day or next day shipping on a variety of products ( which they can do since everyone lives close to a Walmart center ) they’d get more customers. You can even make the argument that Amazon is vulnerable to defeat if others get as good or better than them. The logistics are with the brick and mortar stores since they have the distribution power that Amazon simply does not have. Walmarts 5000 stores can act as distribution centers unlike amazons less than 200.
If Amazon were to win the antitrust case in regards to a monopoly in the retail space, could the courts charge them for monopoly in another industry after that or would that be double jeopardy?
You know its gonna be a good day if you see a new video from this guy
heres a dark-green text for the record :
> be me meeting a few people from each big tech company then this is in the news a couple weeks later 😂
> be me realizing how much Amazon is sniffing my network 😮
> be me keeping multiple copies of the proof in case I disappear 🧠
> be me stressing that this is not a joke 🗣️
The problem with monopolies is that they have the power to abuse their position. So hence why its always best to try to limit their power
I agree, but the solution to this isnt to break up the companies, its to remove the laws and regulations that allow them to remain a monopoly.
I jst like this dude😂 e way he explains staff makes me feel like a lawyer
That Besos laugh has haunted me eversince hehehe
Love the music choice here, Dark Souls 3 right? :D
Also you're looking good Hari, the face reveal was totally a good choice.
Hadn’t heard but they need to! Now they are now outsourcing their trucking service as a common courier competing against Souther Freight, Yellow, SAIA, DHL and many others.
Great content, by far the best channel to learn business insights.
Thank you dhikshith!
please fix the loop on the background music at 12:11, great video again tho!
wow 60% of purchases in the world are made on amazon
Great Video!
I think there is a thing that might end hurting Amazon if ever they will get split.
In the case of Standard Oil and the Baby Bells were all companies based in the US.
If, for any reason ever Amazon would be splitted there is no way that Amazon will be able to cross-subsidize its business and, I think a lot of countries with less favorable tax policies might be willing to stop the profit shifting and tax optimization across the group forcing to tax locally the profits.
If it will happen will be a step towards a more fair taxation overall.
bro, look up the definition of monopoly. Its not "has the biggest marketshare."
Great video as always
Thank you Philip!
Amazon does need to be broken up... into about 5000+ companies
Great info Hari! Could you look into what Apple is doing w.r.t. their App Store compliance with China?
There's no legal law that can break your company because you're a monopoly the anti monopoly suits are just to benefit the government, when ur company is broken into 30 pieces it means thirty different license renewed every year instead of 1, 30 capital gains tax instead of 1 etc the government benifits not the consumers
60% isnt a monopoly in my opinion, the largest market player sure, but not a monopoly by a long short.
Something known as, "Netscape" sheesh I feel so old right now
So my wife and i were looking for a new bedframe. We needed one. We spent a day looking at discount furniture stores and second hand shops. We couldn't find one for less than $300 and they didn't meet our needs. We thought about building one ourselves so it would last and be to our specifications, but wood is too expensive. Once we remembered amazon existed it took less than 15 minutes to find a frame that exceeded our needs for $70. And then it was on our doorstep less than 24 hours later. Why are we excited about ending that?
in all cases that you showed we ended up with 2-3 companies who would compete with each other in the end rather than one big monopoly. so that is somewhat of a win right?
The problem especially with big oil is that they form cartels and collude to fix pricing and decrease competition.
I kind of agree that Amazon breaking would benefit those broken up companies assuming they broken up across the different industries they operate as individual business would atleast have to profitable if not objectively better as they would no longer get subsidized by AWS. The Microsoft split not happening eventually led IE to stagnate and getting taken over by Firefox and chrome
Not at&t at the time it was Bell. They use the at&t name due to better optics at the time.
But that does make sense: these individual companies fight for survival and it's survival of the fittest, giving them a much bigger incentive to actually improve their operational efficiency and profitability. This way the "too big to fail" is also lost, and you're left with the strongest companies merging, getting rid of slack.
True hahaha
Thanks for another great video!! Thanks LA!!
Thank you as always Daniel!
11:29 I work with lawyers. Do not take Fed lawyers for light weights. Many of them come from big law firms. They go to the feds as lawyers or judges, do something high profile and then come back to big law for the same big paychecks as Amazon lawyers.
Man now the fkin Amazon gonna cover their lawyers expenses by increasing the price 😢
9:15 "Eight trillion dollars" - that's a bit optimistic. That looks a lot closer to ~900 billion dollars to me.
It said just under a trillion dollars
What not to love with the US model called "you may buy any verdict you like if you are rich enough"? Maybe the cases should be settled in EU (see famous Mattel vs Aqua case over the Barbie Girl song)?
good thing we have eMAG in Romania and we don't depend on amazon
The examples in part 2 aren't right. Oil would have grown a ton regardless of if the monopoly was broken up or not (for the reasons you mentioned). And the goal of breaking up a monopoly ISN'T to make the investors behind the monopoly poorer, it's to stop the monopolies form harming the rest of the economy. i.e. if Standard Oil was the only oil company, and they decided to triple the price of oil simply because they can, that would obviously screw everyone else over and be bad for the vast majority of people. A lack of competition in a space can be very bad for innovation to. As for the phone monopolies you cite, part of the problem there is that the government broke AT&T up the wrong way, going from 1 national monopoly into several smaller regional monopolies, which are still monopolies.
Neat moustache😅
let's be honest: I don't care. In fact I'm probably team Amazon from my consumer view. They offer good enough pricing and most importantly: They offer the best customer service of any retailer world wide afaik. They are insanely pro consumer when handling returns or warranty claims, at least here in the EU.
Fair enough
Don't know why the companies go for monopoly in the first place instead cartelize with multiple companies from the beginning.
More efficient to coordinate decisions as a single organization.
How can they breakup
🤔🤔
"I would love for it to be after I'm dead" *EVIL LAUGHTER*
Bro's actually a villain...
😂
He had a point tho, companies do come and go which is why I think they expanded AWS and made it one of their focuses, if they get govt contracts thats one lane that will never go away if they play their cards right.
@@assboyzent.2941 Yea I didn't say I didn't agree with that statement but he's still the richest narcissist in the world. He definitely rubs one out to the fact he's in control of the biggest e-commerce conglomerate in the world. Just saying that all billionaires are the same and they'll always claim that what they're doing is for "The betterment of society."
Sorry, my autism is showing.
Hari garu, meeru super ehe
I have to look into the logic of distinguishing a product from a feature when it comes to novice consumer user level operating systems that are GUI based. After all, it can be argued that anything that makes access to information easier to use better presented etc could be described as either. If calendars took on the importance of an internet browser would the calendar tool or feature become then a product? Was it a product or a feature allready? Is it all about our center of focus? A popularity contest? The Beatles monopolized Liverpool British Rock? One could argue that accessing data locally and eventually over a network is what these machines were supposed to do from the beginning and of course as the networks expanded and the data became more valuable.. well just take it from here... I don't think the case of Standard oil is a good comparison at ALL. Oil is a commodity. Refined gasoline, heating oil, etc from one refinery is basically indistinguishable from another. And when oil is used for everything in the economy then yes Monopoly rules can apply. If one company owns the complete vertical. An operating system while it may be popular and the choice of millions is not essential to keep computing rolling along especially when there are competing operating systems after all the oil in this example is the silicon chipsets. These are entirely different industries, concepts, and use cases. The Monopoly that built the transcontinental telephone service in The United States didn't start out that way but in terms of building infrastructure, the research, and technology that was needed to bring forward this precursor of the internet as we know it right now, it was decided that it would be better to split the industry up in the way that it was and to tightly regulate it. Western electric did the hardware ATT and the Bells did the network.
This wasn't horrible. God knows where we would all be if not for Bell Labs and if you don't know what I'm talking about just go research all of the discoveries, innovation, and technological progress that came out of that organization. I would not call that a terrible monopoly. Times changed and with the introduction of signaling system 7 and other technologies it was decided that competition could be allowed in the telecommunications market and we got it. I'm just trying to be logical when thinking about these answers. We assume so much when we are generations removed from the situations and structures of the history that got is here today. We rely upon those foundations for everything that we hold dear today in terms of technology and business as well as entertainment and living a modern life. If we don't have a background in the history of these things and only look at it with the judgment of today's " anti corporate" pov, we could be making a mistake. After all most of these innovations came out of the United States and the West they didn't result from the socialist revolutions in Europe and Asia. I'm not a Microsoft fanboy when it comes to the desktop. I use Apples bsd Unix. But in the case of Windows, it didn't become dominant solely because they brought out all of the competition and forced them out of business, otherwise there would have never been other successful operating systems that stayed, came and left the market. Windows was really popular and fit the needs of a lot of people and use cases, flaws and all. That's what fandom is all about. So I'm still not convinced.
IMO at least being a monopoly is more than just dominant market share, but large market share combined with legislation preventing any competitors from entering the mix.
Did Apple and windows revolutionize computers and OS? Absolutely, but over the last 5-7 years what new crazy innovations have they introduced to KEEP their market share?
There was a time period where Android phones (whether LG/Samsung/or even Huawei) were coming out with revolutionary features left and right, but most of america was hyper fixated on iPhones bc the media/entertainment, etc. were hyping up Apple to no end.
Something I dont hear talked enough about in these convos is the role media (and marketing) play in these matters, and most of the media is controlled or orchestrated behind the scenes so the ability for competition of the same magnitude to exist in some instances is nearly impossible.
Like if a competitor to Amazon was spun up tomorrow and they had better prices/more to choose from how long would it take for them to gain massive popularity? Follow up question where will its marketing come from? Washington Post isnt writing about them bc Amazon owns them and its a conflict of interest, a lot of major TV networks arent covering them bc theyre also in bed with Amazon.
It would take years upon years for them to actually become competitive with Amazon, and by that time amazon wouldve already ran news and marketing campaigns that either force them to get bought out, or go bankrupt. And thats what I consider a true monopoly, and thats also why simply breaking up massive companies wont fix anything; because the underlying problem is a lack of feasible competition and not just that the company grew too large.
Broken monopolies turn into cartels
10:40 this right here proves he doesn't know what the definition of a monopoly is. He continually confuses a member of an oligopoly as a monopoly. You can't have 2 national monopolies in the same market. MONO = 1, POLY = seller, MonoPoly = 1 seller.
Nice
Amazon isn't a monopoly. But certainly is absurdly guilty of tort.
Please make an episode about Aramco
I don’t agree what you have said when you point out that they have 60% market share. Now that they have 60% market share doesn’t mean they have monopoly. Monopoly is based on unfair business practice. That is it. That has nothing to do with market share.
Personally i think IE wasn't a feature but a bug...
Can I sponsor this program?
i swear it's like laws are only there when convenient for the powerful (oh wait, they are exactly that, tools for the rich and powerful)
Thumbnail; on this planet, the most creepiest slimeball of all. It should be against the boundries of classical physics & quantum physics for this entity to exist. Perhaps burped out of volcano in which case we need to return it asap to not unbalance the universes. These are scary times.😬
"heres the thing"
13:10 - no, it' exactly because they have sufficient power, both monetary and influence, to suffocate any competitor or at least offer way more polished equivalent - as if the competitor can spend $1M, Amazon can spend $10M to create better alternative and drain blue ocean dry…
In the break ups dont matter portion the big companies break up into a lot of little companies then those comapanies combine together into 2-3 different bigger companies which compete with each other why cant they stop them from combining together and after enough time they will be viewed as entirely seperate enties similar to how chevron and exxon compete with each other if they arent allowed to combine collaborate or communicate in any form at least for idk 30-50 years then the companies would either dominate their region or be outplayed by outside forces while they might not compete with each other they also wouldnt combine to form verizon or at&t fixing the problem if only that was a thing
Great video!
Thanks man!
@@LogicallyAnswered 👍
The illusion of choice is always better than no choice. Well at least that is the theory, basically people prefer the being given two choice over having only one, sure they all end up the same way, an example, currently in Starfield Bethesda new game, players feel like they have so many choices in dialogue, though through testing people have found every choice ends in more or less the same way. Another example. Would you prefer to pay 4.99 for a two liter of soda or 2.49 for a 1 liter of that same soda but you must buy two for the second deal? You're still paying the same amount but you get to choose how ya spend it, sorry I'm terrible at explaining things.
I've never purchased anything from Amazon and I've never been in a Walmart. Am I weird?
yes, definately
1:30 that is less than half of a percent of the population of the states. While doing 60% of all worldwide ecommerce.
60% of Online Commerce
They're not looking to break up Amazon
Whether breaking up Amazon makes Bezos richer is completely irrelevant. The whole point of antitrust breakups is not to prevent rich people, but to keep prices competitive for customers.
I think your quick quite simplified conclusions "microsoft didn't get broken up therefore the lawsuit did nothing" and the others like it contradict the more nuanced work of Cory Doctorow who explaines how the lawsuit changed the behaviour of microsoft, and how the breakup of tnt did cause a drop in prices and let to an increase of innovation.
Fair enough, I guess the point was just that it’s by no means do or die for amazon
Talking about what happened to these companies after they split really doesnt mean much, why not look at the market?
Including AT&T in a discussion about monopolies is a little misleading without going into more detail. The history there is not similar to the other entities in any way.
Why such law don't see the two players- Adobe and Autodesk
Amazon is getting greedy.
I am not sure I understand your point of view, and your argument seems pretty weak to me.
Amazon Web Services is powering Amazon retail. And we know Amazon retail isn't a profitable business. When the breakup happens, unless there is a way to legally fund retail, they will lose competitiveness, and there will be room for others.
Same thing with Amazon Prime. I don't know if they are profitable yet, but without the backing of AWS, their survival is not at all guaranteed.
Didn't you have an entire video about why Amazon wasn't a monopoly but a monopsony? Which is arguably worse
Monopoly in the US*
I love Amazon.
You have declare the winner by suing.
I'm an Amazon customer almost from day1. I live near an Amazon warehouse and have most of my orders in under 2 hours. I don't want it to be broken up. I think monopolies can only be broken up if the customers suffer. I don't think this is the case here. Amazon is usually the cheapest and the fastest to deliver. You mentioned that Amazon has 60% of the online market. This is also not high enough for a monopoly. Who is the victim here? Customers have a lot of other options and seller as well. I don't see a chance for a lawsuit to succeed
This is why Bill gates have diversified his portfolio 🤣🤣🤑
So he don't loose all his money if DOJ ever sue Microsoft again.
Yeah, it’s crazy how little Microsoft he owns nowadays
@@LogicallyAnswered 🙂🙂🙂
Microsoft edge is a feature. It lets me download Firefox and that's it
Time, to buy amazon stocks then.
Thanks
Haha 😂
I need a Job.
I'm okay with doing manual labor on a farm though I'm an experienced audio engineer and producer.
I'm currently cleaning tanks but this ain't a regular way to earn money where I live and I can't afford to relocate.
I don't have a degree yet, but I know a thing or two about accounting and finance.
I can work as a virtual assistant, a graphic designer [Photoshop, InDesign, Coreldraw, AutoCAD] and/
or video editor [premiere pro].
I'm open to any available opportunity remote or otherwise.
I have no problem working long hours and I'm willing to start immediately.
Why is people scared of Monopoly
American companies become monopolies cant be solved with court cases. There needs to be regulatory laws that reign over the companies and prevent monopolies but instead companies reign over the country because they let them goo way too far.
Don't want monopolies? Stop getting lobbied!
Perhaps when these companies split up, owners of stocks in those companies should be forced to choose one specific sub-company to maintain their stocks in, and be forced to sell their stocks in the others. I'm pretty sure that if you were to buy stocks in competing companies at that scale from scratch you would be shut down for something similar to insider trading.
That 60 minutes interview is a great watch. If that was Jeff bezos today, people would be rooting for him.
I would say that Disney is a monopoly
but there dying
Microsoft still bundles Edge… which everyone uses exclusively to download Chrome 😂😂😂
It's funny that the channel is called "logically explained" and then you guys publish a video like this, with massive logical leaps
I think there are only two ways we'll ever see real tangible change in practices like this. 1) The consumer controlled way: People come together and do everything they can to just not buy products from the organizations that do these things. It's hard and it requires research to know where your products are coming from, sure. But it's entirely doable. For example, I entirely avoid anything Apple is a part of producing because I think they're pure evil. 2) The federally controlled way: If company suits who were responsible for human rights violations and intentionally impoverishing entire populations of people for a bit of corporate gain were forcefully removed from their positions by the state and had their assets and finances seized and auctioned off to charities, non-profits, or companies that could prove they followed proper business ethics--I'm sure you'd see far fewer of these shit head psychopaths thinking they could get away with the awful shit they do.
And before anyone say it, no this move wouldn't be communism of socialist in nature--it would be the SAME LEGAL ACTION as we have today, but with MUCH HARSHER penalties in place that would force these people to actually consider thinking twice about what they do. If you cause ACTUAL harm to the individual board member's pocketbooks and company profits, they have no incentive to do it in the first place. As it is now the problem is most punishments--while they SOUND severe to normal citizens--are fucking NOTHING compared to the massive profits these people make. Why care about a 20 million dollar set of fines when you know you're making 60 million off of the illegal action in the first place? To a business psychopath it's not just worth it--it actually makes good business sense to them to do it in the first place.
There is a third option too; though it's immoral AF. And that would be, 3) The fearful way: Just "disappear" the big wigs responsible. I assure you even the richest, most immoral, psychopathic loon will think twice about fucking people over if he or she sees a series of their fellows and friends suddenly start to go missing. This method is obviously not advisable and I believe the least likely to actually happen--but as it stands those are the only three ways I foresee any real change happening.