Publishers Lunch
You probably don't need us to tell you about Nobel
Prize-winning economist and NYT op-ed columnist Paul Krugman's latest piece:
"Amazon.com, the giant online retailer, has too much power, and it uses
that power in ways that hurt America."
Indirectly answering his NYT colleague Joe Nocera, who wrote, "Amazon plays rough, so what?" and noted "American antitrust law is simply not very concerned with the fate of competitors," Krugman asserts that for now Amazon is monopsonist rather than a monopolist. "In economics jargon, Amazon is not, at least so far, acting like a monopolist, a dominant seller with the power to raise prices. Instead, it is acting as a monopsonist, a dominant buyer with the power to push prices down." He adds, "Can we trust Amazon not to abuse that power? The Hachette dispute has settled that question: no, we can't."
To Nocera's point, however, Krugman's argument rests on principles rather than current interpretation and application of antitrust law, in saying "Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K." He concludes: "Don't tell me that Amazon is giving consumers what they want, or that it has earned its position. What matters is whether it has too much power, and is abusing that power. Well, it does, and it is."
Tangentially, author and advice columnist Margo Howard complained in a New Republic piece about Amazon Vine reviewers who posted early, unfavorable reviews of her recent memoir. The interesting part of that piece is when Howard appeals to a friend who is on Amazon's board of directors: "She was sympathetic—and surprised—by the whole Vine business...." Later, "After looking at my book's link on Amazon and reading the soi-disant 'reviewers,' my friend on the Amazon board wrote me, 'It's the wild west out there, isn't it?'" (Howard knows two board members and writes about the one who is a lawyer, making it likely she's talking about Jamie Gorelick.)
Indirectly answering his NYT colleague Joe Nocera, who wrote, "Amazon plays rough, so what?" and noted "American antitrust law is simply not very concerned with the fate of competitors," Krugman asserts that for now Amazon is monopsonist rather than a monopolist. "In economics jargon, Amazon is not, at least so far, acting like a monopolist, a dominant seller with the power to raise prices. Instead, it is acting as a monopsonist, a dominant buyer with the power to push prices down." He adds, "Can we trust Amazon not to abuse that power? The Hachette dispute has settled that question: no, we can't."
To Nocera's point, however, Krugman's argument rests on principles rather than current interpretation and application of antitrust law, in saying "Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K." He concludes: "Don't tell me that Amazon is giving consumers what they want, or that it has earned its position. What matters is whether it has too much power, and is abusing that power. Well, it does, and it is."
Tangentially, author and advice columnist Margo Howard complained in a New Republic piece about Amazon Vine reviewers who posted early, unfavorable reviews of her recent memoir. The interesting part of that piece is when Howard appeals to a friend who is on Amazon's board of directors: "She was sympathetic—and surprised—by the whole Vine business...." Later, "After looking at my book's link on Amazon and reading the soi-disant 'reviewers,' my friend on the Amazon board wrote me, 'It's the wild west out there, isn't it?'" (Howard knows two board members and writes about the one who is a lawyer, making it likely she's talking about Jamie Gorelick.)
No comments:
Post a Comment