Hacker News Reader

Comment by jandrewrogers | Hacker News Reader

It is interesting to note that the US government often requires the same kinds of MFN terms, even though it is usually much more expensive to do business with the government than the private sector. There are many ways of constructively working around MFN requirements but it creates collateral damage. For example, the practice of having very high prices that are steeply discounted for most customers is often an artifact of having the US government as one of your customers. For software, it is common to create a new product/service that is trivially different in some way so that you can justify a new SKU that is only sold to the government.

Amazon's practice is bad because it anchors pricing to their mandated cost structure. That the US government engages in similar practices should at least raise questions, because it has the same effect on the marketplace.

View on HN

There's several problems with that.

It's true that the US government does make those demands, but it's very important to note that the US government organization is not a reseller of goods. It is almost exclusively a consumer. It is not in direct competition in the same marketplace with private industry outside of a few select industries (e.g., USPS, limited healthcare).

Next, MFN tariffs kind of by definition only affect international commerce. For Amazon, a 100% domestic manufacturer producing goods would need to comply.

Finally, MFN is something defined by WTO treaty. If you have to abide by MFN when importing goods into the US, it's almost certainly because your nation is also a WTO member. Because almost all of them are. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade requires WTO members to extend MFN treatment to like products of other WTO members. It's literally the the first article of the treaty agreement. [0]

[0]: https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/gatt47_01_e.htm

You are confusing unrelated things. As used here, "MFN" refers to a common type of term found in standard business contracts that have nothing to do with the WTO or the government. This discussion is about Amazon's use of MFN terms when contracting with ordinary domestic businesses.

That's not what you used the term for. If there is conflating going on, it started with your post.

Nothing I wrote suggests your interpretation. The US government uses MFN terms in domestic vendor contracts in the same way Amazon does. This was plainly obvious in context, since the term was introduced in relation to Amazon. It has nothing to do with international trade and nothing I wrote implied that, "MFN" is a standard term if art in ordinary vendor contracts.

You are the only person that introduced the notion that this had anything to do with the WTO, international treaties, etc.

> the practice of having very high prices that are steeply discounted for most customers is often an artifact of having the US government as one of your customers

That's one of the main cases of sticker shock in the healthcare industrial complex. Price a cancer treatment that would still be profitable at $10k/month at $125k/mo and offer sweetheart discounts to insurance companies (and treat self-pay patients as charity case writeoffs).

Not the time or place for whataboutism

Why not? If it’s good enough for the government, why isn’t it good enough for the company they are going after?

It’s bad for both. But this thread is specifically about Amazon.

Common law is basically whataboutism. Whataboutism isn't inherently bad, it's not always a deflection. It is reasonable to expect similar treatment for similar actions. If anything, reciprocity is one of the very foundations of society and of our justice system. You can't really discuss a lawsuits without talking about precedent, it's inherent to the discussion

(In a way it's amazing how shouting whataboutism is now more often used to deflect or excuse double standards and unfairness than whatboutism itself.)

It isn't "whataboutism". If the government's position is that MFN terms for vendors are fundamentally anti-competitive and bad for consumers, which I agree with, then it raises questions about any organization or sector of the economy that widely requires MFN terms. It discredits the FTC when the US government routinely engages in the same market malpractice that they are accusing Amazon of but are disinterested in changing their own contracting behavior. It doesn't become less bad because it is the government doing it to vendors instead of Amazon.

This "rules for thee but not for me" behavior is why trust in government institutions has been eroding. It is difficult to give good and necessary actions the aura of legitimacy required for democratic institutions to function when the hypocrisy is obvious.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com