Hacker News Reader

Comment by anm89 | Hacker News Reader

I can't put a finger on it but something feels sort of dishonest about this article to me.

He seems to be applying the concept of fear in an inconsistent manner that ends up just reducing down to “things are happening I don't like" and then noting that people experienced the normal human emotion of fear relating to that list.

Like is manufacturers being worried about about being undercut by a competitor for a big contract a wave of terror? As unpleasant as I could imagine that is for the small supplier, that's a pretty healthy way for that transaction to work.

It just seems like fear is another way of saying, not everyone gets what they want and this article is simply a list of things this guy doesn't like. It's not even a bad list it just doesn't really say much of anything.

View on HN

The author's point is about fear corroding democracy by limiting public action and information.

"I am not going to let you sell your widget through Tamazon" is unfortunate and potentially crippling for the supplier, but as you've pointed out that's business.

"I am not going to let you sell your widget through Tamazon... in the event you make disparaging remarks about Tamazon in any public forum or divulge any information about our agreements" is very different.

In the later case, the last mile is threatening to retaliate in the event the supplier does anything they don't like.

Which, as a supplier, you rightly wonder "What can I do to avoid getting on Tamazon's naughty list?" To which Tamazon replies with a wink and a smile, "Just be careful what you say and to who, and I'm sure it won't come to that."

Absent legal protections and methods of redress, this dynamic is likely to exist in any market where the aggregator captures a sizable customer share. The size disparity is simply too great.

Yeah, for me I personally agreed with his points when they were relating to how much power some corporate giants have to instill fear.

But then the union bit and the anecdote about bidding the contract just seemed totally off topic except for the fact that someone felt scared at some point.

I honestly don't hate the article but it ended up feeling like he was fishing for some story where someone was scared.

Same class of interaction - and it highlights the extent to which monopolies are a distortion of political power and freedom of action.

I agree with your point, limiting public discourse and transparency through business practices is more malicious than simply trying to increase efficiency by negotiating lower prices.

That said, brave suppliers are capable of shifting the balance of power. Think about it, if "Tamazon" drops an efficient supplier for one of their competitors, Tamazon is going to expose themselves to a competitor who picks up that supplier - likely a competitor who's trying to break Tamazon's monopoly.

Then, suddenly, Tamazon's competitor is offering the consumer a superior purchase option.

If I was the supplier, I wouldn't get afraid, I'd get even. I'd go to every Tamazon competitor I could find and convince them to offer my product at wholesale and then give a scathing testimony to the anti-trust regulator.

You would drive your own company out of business to make a minute dent in Tamazon's bottom line? Seems like it would not be a very popular course of action.

Seems like the core issue is Amazon's huge size.

I agree.

He is dishonest because his very nature is selling favors. Remember, we are not talking about an entrepreneur or engineer who create things that are exchanged for value. This is a guy that everyday when he was in office, his sole objective was literally to pick winners and losers. They dont create value. They literally destroy it AND get a cut of the action in the process.

Every single problem he comments on (central bank, monopolies etc) are a direct result of legislation that he (or someone like him) helped draft.

Only a bureaucrat can complain in the same article about Unions losing power and american enterprise being fearful of outsourcing. They simply cannot connect the dots.

So if the article seems disonest is because it is. You cant say something is bad when you have no skin in the game (alt currency vs hyperinflation) and you also enabled its creation (amazon via USPS, tax breaks, etc).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com