(This is looking more and more like the dreaded
politics, but I figure Umbran will step in if he feels it's over the line.)
Not in the long run- if amazon becomes the only or nearly only outlet, they can dictate prices & policies.
And if pigs could fly...
In fact, even if Amazon by some miracle did become the only outlet, it would still be vulnerable new competitors if it abused its position.
They can also manipulate the market token new companies from entering the market- Marvel & DC Comics have done this by periodically flooding the market with titles, making it extmely difficult for competitors to get shelf space and sucking up the $$$ of the market's main purchasers as they strive for "complete" ollections.
You are really going to argue that there are no non-Marvel/DC comic publishers?! Not true, and you know it. There are other comic book publishers, and the fact that you have to use two rival companies (Marvel and DC) in your example makes it even more absurd with regards to monopolies.
Other companies do likewise- like Coke & Pepsi.
There is no shortage of available drinks on the market, including Coke and Pepsi clones.
No they can't.
As pointed out in the articles, if a publisher does not accept Amazon's price- physical or e-books- Amazon will either not sell them or will cross-subsidize the sale of their books while selling them at a loss. Consumers who are looking at price only will stop buying the products at other outlets where prices are higher, so sales at those other outlets drop (also shown in those articles). Products that don't sell get returned; those publishers don't get orders for new products, leaving Amazon as the monopsonist and able to dictate price.
Yes, they can.
As pointed out in the articles, a publisher does not have to accept Amazon's terms and prices. In this case the fact that they didn't is the story, so I really don't see why you would be confused.
Of course Amazon doesn't
have to sell the books if they can't negotiate an agreement. And if Amazon is buying books (according to an agreement) and selling them at a loss, that ought to be cause for celebration - Amazon is effectively subsidizing the publisher. (They should buy a few million copies for themselves, but I suppose the agreed upon contract probably prohibits that.)
The idea that Amazon can somehow gain a total monopoly in this way is just plain nonsense. And if they did get a monopoly, they would not be able to "dictate prices", because new competitors could always enter the market.
And notice that
According to Suchomel, the removal of IPG’s books from the Kindle store shouldn’t have a big impact on the firm’s business, adding that its titles are still available at other online stores such as iTunes and BarnesandNoble.com.
Amazon pulls 5,000 titles from Kindle store in dispute with distributor
IPG
did chose not to deal with Amazon, and
are selling at higher prices. You are arguing against a proven fact.
Before being broken up, Ma Bell used to rent phones- a basic rented rotary phone might cost you hundreds of dollars a year before companies were allowed to start selling them for $10-20.
Bell System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A government-created monopoly is hardly a good example of a harmful free market monopoly.
Among the oligopolies, there is enough economic data on Wal-Mart's negative pressure on wages that they constantly find themselves in court over it,
Wal-Mart operates in a highly competitive market and is a horrible example of a harmful monopoly.
If they can cut costs by lowering wages, consumers benefit.
If emplyees can gret a better deal elsewhere (including things like training and opportunities for inexperienced workers) they will go work elsewhere, so I doubt that Wal-Mart actually offers less than market value for labor. I suppose they could be doing more with less, thus leaving more people unemployed in the short term and lowering the price of labor, but a reasonable person should not object to greater efficiency. Luddism is way outdated.
while Marvel/DC & Coke/Pepsi routinely keep competitors from entering the market by glutting it with products...or buying smaller companies outright. .
I can't say categorically that they don't try, but they clearly and undisputably don't succeed. Competitors
do exist and new competitors
do enter the market.
Since Standard Oil's breakup,
Standard Oil reduced prices to a
fraction of what they were before the evil "monopolist" started gouging consumers.
In fact, as usual the main "evidence" against Standard Oil was that its competitors were having a hard time. Consumers were doing great.
the industry has been dominated by the oligopolistic cartel known as OPEC.
OPEC is an organization of governments, and so it has different goals than a hypothetical free market cartel. Many oil-producing countries aren't members. OPEC-countries have routinely ignored their quotas.
And to the extent that OPEC actually stabilized oil prices/consumption, this is not automatically a bad thing for consumers in the long run.
Microsoft ony just dodged getting broken up itself.
Not a monopoly, except in so far as government-granted copyrights and patents prevents competition. (By design.)
I also note that you can now get a quality operating system
for free. How terrible.
The monopsonistic practices of GM and other large auto makers is very well documented.
There are many different auto makers. They aren't monopsonies. I'm sure some of them are very important to individual suppliers, and use that for everything it's worth, but they can only negotiate lower prices as long as the supplier is making a profit. In the end, consumers benefit.
