That is the definition of a pro competitive behavior.
Lower prices for consumers is the whole point of a competitive market!
Yes, big companies can compete in the market, by offer better quality stuff, for a lower price. Thats what we want!
You are literally arguing in favor* of monopolies, and against competition by saying that other companies shouldn't do a better job.
>by offer better quality stuff,
Amazon, for example, offering counterfeits of your product as your product is not under the definition of "better quality stuff"
>for a lower price
Again, offering a lower price consistently is one thing. Using pricing as a weapon, for example selling a product lower than cost in order to monopolize a market is not.
If the price stays low and never goes to high monopoly prices then it is a good thing.
If a company becomes a "monopoly" by being cheap, and staying cheap, thats just competition by definition.
Which is the situation we are seeing with amazon.
Not necessarily, but it goes a long way to balancing out the negative consequences. The problem, though, is they've never had prices stay low. Eventually, prices go up. So far, Amazon does this through loss-leaders; products that have low prices allowing them to capture a market and charge high prices for other products as a monopoly.
>If a company becomes a "monopoly" by being cheap, and staying cheap, thats just competition by definition.
If that was all they were doing it would be legal.
Big companies compete in the market by offering the same quality for a lower price. That's good, no problem with them doing that.
The problem is when the big companies crush nascent competitors by using their advantages in the market and not by being better quality or more consistent. That's bad; it stifles innovation and creates market concentration, resulting in monopolies and allowing large companies to charge supracompetitive prices.
But they have a lower price.
That's competition working as intended.
Yes, the lower price thing should win out against the more expensive product.
> to charge supracompetitive prices.
We aren't seeing too high prices.
We are seeing low prices and then competitors that suck complaining about the fact that they suck in comparison to the more competitive company.
So you can have pro-competitive behavior (lower price) that balances out anti-competitive behavior (crushing nascent competitors through market manipulation or cartels); That doesn't mean everything you do is above board. It means that while the lower prices are there, a certain amount of anti-competitive behavior has been acceptable because the net outcome to consumers is theoretically positive.
[edit] Think about this - if you can win with lower prices, why do the other anti-competitive behaviors? Why not just have lower prices and let others try to compete with higher quality or lower prices than you? Wouldn't that be better?
The reality of this is, though, that the monopoly you form affects far more than the consumer product price. What the FTC is saying here is that they are moving back to structural restriction rather than simply allowing anti-competitive behavior so long as the price is good, a la the Chicago School.
>We are seeing low prices and then competitors that suck complaining about the fact that they suck in comparison to the more competitive company.
That's not what we're seeing, though.
What we are seeing is artificially high prices. One of the allegations is that if a seller prices below Amazon, Amazon removes their access to market.
Defeating competitors with lower prices is pro competitive, not anti competitive.
It is exactly what competition is supposed to do.
> why do the other anti-competitive behaviors?
Notice how I made no comment on anything to do with vague "other behavior".
Instead I was only directly responding to the idea of "undercutting" competitors.
This is competitive and the whole purpose of competition.
Undercutting competitors and copying them is the only thing I was responding to.
So my point stands.
That thing is pro competitive.
Go back and read the comment that I responded to here:
>> So you can have pro-competitive behavior (lower price) that balances out anti-competitive behavior
>Defeating competitors with lower prices is pro competitive, not anti competitive.
I already acknowledged that lower prices is a positive, not sure why you repeated that. If that's your only point, then yes - you are right, lower prices is a positive for consumers. It's a balance, though; lower prices don't mean there is no anti-competitive behavior happening.
Undercutting competitors and copying them is often fine, though the process by which a competitor is undercut can be anti-competitive itself and have structural consequences that are anti-competitive, and copying competitors is obviously restricted by patent and copyright. It's not a blanket 'this is the whole purpose of competition' thing.
>Notice how I made no comment on anything to do with vague "other behavior"
It's not vague - it's laid out in the indictment. I get that you don't want to respond to it and only want to prove that lower prices is good, but that conversation ended, we all agree that lower prices for consumers is good. The question is how good. Good enough to balance the bad behavior? The FTC clearly thinks otherwise.
When you respond to me and bring something up, it comes off as if you are trying to refute something that I am saying.
If you are now that that I was correct completely, and that you were just bringing up a separate point that is irrelevant and does not refute anything that I said, well then OK?
1. That was not the definition of pro-competitive behavior. 2. Lower prices for consumers is not the whole point of a competitive market.
You are 40 years behind on the modern day interpretations of the anti-trust laws by the courts then.
An analysis of how much consumers benefit or are harmed by certain behavior is what the courts use for most anti-trust laws.
And lower prices are almost the court decided definition of a consumer benefit.
So yes, the point stands.
Someone else was complaining about competitors being undercut, and I responded by saying that actually lower prices are good and this is what our anti-trust laws are trying to promote, not stop.
That's not the policy of Lina Khan and the current FTC. She was literally put into the position she holds because she was critical of that framework for antitrust.
Yes, since the 70's Bork and the Chicago school has held sway in courts, but that's changing. So no, I'm not behind - this is why the FTC is bringing this case in the first place.
Oh OK, so then I am correct under the overwhelming majority position/framework which is the only interpretation that matters for enforcement, which is the interpretation held by the court system.
I am more than happy to accept that concession and only be "wrong" under the minority position that hasn't been relevant for 40 years.
> That's not the policy of Lina Khan and the current FTC
They can make whatever bad arguments they want in court, and lose their lawsuits I guess.
They don't decide the outcome of these court cases.
If anything this strategy is actually harming then, as they make failing arguments that the courts won't listen to.