Hacker News Reader

The measure of "consumer welfare" used by US antitrust is mostly concerned with prices, which I've always thought was a bit cynical but it is what it is. Do consumers stand to pay higher prices when a single company controls the production, licensing, and distribution of content?

I would argue yes and the government has argued it, too, when they forced movie studios to divest their stakes in movie theaters.

View on HN

I think you're both arguing the same point: that monopoly markups can negatively impact consumer welfare.

The central argument is whether Amazon specifically is a monopoly in any of the industries in which it operates, so as to be able to charge higher prices you speak of — that's not what's happening.

In fact, the GP comment laid out exactly why vertical acquisitions often improve consumer welfare, in the case that the company being sold is itself a monopoly:

> And indeed, in the Apple hypothetical you could well expect consumers to be better off and for exactly the same reason: if Apple purchases an input (the M1 chip) from a monopoly supplier (the hypothetical non-Apple-producer), vertical integration removes one monopoly markup.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com