International Business Today
No Result
View All Result
Friday, March 24, 2023
  • Login
  • Home
  • Business
  • Markets
  • Economy
  • Stocks
  • Investing
  • Forex
  • Cryptocurrency
  • Startups
  • Fintech
  • Real Estate
  • PF
  • Analysis
  • Home
  • Business
  • Markets
  • Economy
  • Stocks
  • Investing
  • Forex
  • Cryptocurrency
  • Startups
  • Fintech
  • Real Estate
  • PF
  • Analysis
No Result
View All Result
International Business Today
No Result
View All Result
Home Economy

The Myopia of Antitrust | AIER

by Donald J. Boudreaux
September 23, 2022
in Economy
Reading Time: 6 mins read
A A
0
The Myopia of Antitrust | AIER
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter


On September 14th, California’s government announced an antitrust action against Amazon. The New York Times admirably summarizes the core of this action, which is a complaint about the way Amazon deals with the many third-party merchants who offer their wares for sale on Amazon’s website:

The lawsuit largely focuses on the way Amazon penalizes sellers for listing products at lower prices on other websites. If Amazon spots a product listed cheaper on a competitor’s website, it often will remove important buttons like “Buy Now” and “Add to Cart” from a product listing page.

Those buttons are a major driver of sales for companies selling through Amazon, and losing them can quickly hurt their businesses.

That creates a dilemma for marketplace sellers. At times, they can offer products for lower prices on sites other than Amazon because the cost of using those sites can be lower. But because Amazon is by far the largest online retailer, the sellers would rather raise their prices on other sites than risk losing their sales on Amazon, the complaint said, citing interviews with sellers, competitors and industry consultants.

“Without basic price competition, without different online sites trying to outdo each other with lower prices, prices artificially stabilize at levels higher than would be the case in a competitive market,” the complaint said.

Superficially, Amazon’s policy of dealing with third-party merchants who sell on its site does indeed seem anticompetitive. If Amazon did not react as it does to third-party merchants offering their wares on other sites at prices lower than these merchants charge for those items on Amazon’s site, merchants would more readily lower the prices they charge on other sites. Prices on average, it seems, would be lower and, thus, consumers would be better served.

But as is almost always true in economics, that which is seen does not reveal the whole, or even the most important part, of the relevant reality.

To get a more complete and clearer view of this reality, ask: given that Amazon unquestionably does discourage third-party merchants who use its site from selling their wares on other sites at lower prices, why do these merchants nevertheless continue to offer their wares on Amazon’s site? The very existence of the problem about which California complains means that Amazon’s platform isn’t the only one available for use by these merchants. So the problem is obviously not that Amazon has a literal monopoly in the market for online platforms that merchants can use. Merchants have, and in practice take advantage of, the option to use platforms in addition to Amazon’s.

These other platforms open to merchants aren’t owned by fly-by-night operations. One is owned and operated by Target, another by Walmart.

So the State of California’s complaint against Amazon boils down to this: Amazon has made its platform so attractive to third-party merchants that large numbers of them willingly pay a premium in order to continue to use Amazon’s platform. This premium is paid to Amazon by these merchants when they effectively agree not to cut the prices they charge for wares offered for sale on non-Amazon sites.

What, exactly, does Amazon offer to third-party merchants in exchange for their paying this premium? I don’t know, for I’m not a third-party merchant. But I do know that Amazon offers something of value, for otherwise third-party merchants wouldn’t agree to the terms Amazon asks, or wouldn’t care if Amazon reduces the visibility of their offerings on its platform.

Perhaps Amazon’s platform outperforms other platforms at bringing the offerings of third-party merchants to consumers’ attention. Perhaps Amazon’s platform supplies better product descriptions or more-reliable customer evaluations. Or maybe Amazon offers consumers an unusually easy, secure, or speedy means of paying for their purchases. But whatever the correct answer, the fact that Amazon offers some uniquely valuable service (or services) to third-party merchants is verified by the willingness of third-party merchants to pay a premium to use Amazon’s platform.

If California succeeds in its antitrust action, we can’t predict the immediate effect on the costs consumers would incur to buy goods online from third-party merchants, except to say that these effects won’t be positive.

On one hand, if Amazon’s superior platform performance is due to some feature that Amazon must regularly maintain, then successful use of antitrust to challenge Amazon’s commercial dealings with third-party merchants is unlikely to result in improved consumer welfare. In these circumstances, with Amazon no longer able to reap a return to compensate it for the effort that it must regularly expend to continue to supply its differentially superior service, Amazon will stop doing whatever it does to maintain its superior efficiency. And with Amazon’s superior efficiency damaged by antitrust, online retailing itself will become less competitive and efficient. Costs to consumers of acquiring goods online from third-party merchants might well rise almost immediately, even if the list prices of these goods remain the same or even fall.

On the other hand, if Amazon’s superior platform performance is due to some feature of that platform that is irreversible, then a government prohibition on Amazon’s efforts to discourage merchants from cutting prices on other platforms will result in the short-run in falling consumer-goods prices without any decline in the quality of service merchants and consumers receive from their continued use of Amazon’s platform. But this improvement in consumer welfare would indeed be only short-lived.

Whatever is the source of the durability of the differentially superior service now available on Amazon’s platform was created by Amazon. The company was not gifted this competitive edge by luck or by leprechauns. The superiority of Amazon’s platform is the result of entrepreneurial creativity, risk-taking, and hard work. And the differential returns that Amazon now receives as a result of successfully discouraging third-party merchants from selling their wares on competing platforms at lower prices is the entrepreneurial profit that Amazon earns as a consequence of this entrepreneurial achievement.

Attempts to prevent Amazon from reaping this entrepreneurial profit will discourage not only it, but also other firms and entrepreneurs, from experimenting with differentially better ways to create value for customers. And so even if California successfully uses this antitrust action to lower today’s prices of goods sold on-line by third-party merchants, consumers will find tomorrow’s prices and quality worse as on-line retail platforms and platform features fail to improve as fast and as much as they would have improved had this stunt by California’s government not succeeded.

Since it began in the U.S. in 1889, antitrust has often been fueled by the hubris of intellectuals and government officials who do not realize that what the late Nobel-laureate economist Oliver Williamson called “the economic institutions of capitalism” are in reality mind-bogglingly creative, nuanced, and complex. These intellectuals and officials arrogantly suppose that any contractual term or organizational arrangement that they cannot immediately understand as serving competition must therefore be devious exercises of monopoly power or attempts to secure such power. Such is the case with California’s new antitrust attack on Amazon. Yet only a bit of dispassionate thought about the facts of this case makes plain that interfering with third-party merchants’ contractual arrangements with Amazon will quite possibly make consumers worse off even in the near term, and will certainly make consumers worse off over time.

Donald J. Boudreaux

Donald J. Boudreaux

Donald J. Boudreaux is a senior fellow with American Institute for Economic Research and with the F.A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University; a Mercatus Center Board Member; and a professor of economics and former economics-department chair at George Mason University. He is the author of the books The Essential Hayek, Globalization, Hypocrites and Half-Wits, and his articles appear in such publications as the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, US News & World Report as well as numerous scholarly journals. He writes a blog called Cafe Hayek and a regular column on economics for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Boudreaux earned a PhD in economics from Auburn University and a law degree from the University of Virginia.

Get notified of new articles from Donald J. Boudreaux and AIER.



Source link

Tags: AIERantitrustMyopia

Related Posts

The Market for Security vs. the Clown World of Civil Rights
Economy

The Political Response to our Banking Crisis

March 23, 2023
2:00PM Water Cooler 9/9/2022 | bare capitalism
Economy

2:00PM Water Cooler 3/23/2023 | naked capitalism

March 23, 2023
Fed Raises Rate, But Signals Potential Pause in May
Economy

Fed Raises Rate, But Signals Potential Pause in May

March 23, 2023
The battle for Europe’s economic soul
Economy

The battle for Europe’s economic soul

March 23, 2023
Lord, what fools these Ukrainians Be!
Economy

Lord, what fools these Ukrainians Be!

March 23, 2023
Truss appointed as Britain’s PM, Johnson bows out By Reuters
Economy

Bank of Korea says non-bank financial firms face stress from property market By Reuters

March 23, 2023
Tillerson testifies he was unaware of Trump ally Barrack’s role in foreign policy By Reuters

Wealth managers ramp up staff in Hong Kong to chase Chinese demand By Reuters

March 24, 2023
Exclusive-ValueAct seeks to oust four directors of Seven & i By Reuters

Exclusive-ValueAct seeks to oust four directors of Seven & i By Reuters

March 24, 2023
Academy Sports activities and Outside, Inc. (ASO) Q2 2022 Earnings Name Transcript

Ouster, Inc. 2022 Q4 – Results – Earnings Call Presentation (NYSE:OUST)

March 24, 2023
Inter-Bank Lending Has Stopped And We’re On The Verge Of A Crash – Investment Watch

Inter-Bank Lending Has Stopped And We’re On The Verge Of A Crash – Investment Watch

March 24, 2023
C-DoT says Rs 700 cr corpus available to fund startups; no limit to fund right innovation

C-DoT says Rs 700 cr corpus available to fund startups; no limit to fund right innovation

March 24, 2023
ICYMI – ECB’s Knot says still think we another rate hike will be needed in May

ICYMI – ECB’s Knot says still think we another rate hike will be needed in May

March 24, 2023

CATEGORIES

  • Business
  • Cryptocurrency
  • Economy
  • Fintech
  • Forex
  • Investing
  • Market Analysis
  • Markets
  • Personal Finance
  • Real Estate
  • Startups
  • Stock Market
  • Uncategorized

LATEST UPDATES

  • Wealth managers ramp up staff in Hong Kong to chase Chinese demand By Reuters
  • Exclusive-ValueAct seeks to oust four directors of Seven & i By Reuters
  • Ouster, Inc. 2022 Q4 – Results – Earnings Call Presentation (NYSE:OUST)
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • DMCA
  • Cookie Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Contact us

Copyright © 2022 International Business Today.
International Business Today is not responsible for the content of external sites.

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Business
  • Markets
  • Economy
  • Stocks
  • Investing
  • Forex
  • Cryptocurrency
  • Startups
  • Fintech
  • Real Estate
  • PF
  • Analysis

Copyright © 2022 International Business Today.
International Business Today is not responsible for the content of external sites.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password?

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In