You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Attacks On (Dystopian) Amazon Are Un-American?
The deluded ideology of "free market always prospers" has been expanded to substantiate itself in the denial that a monopoly by bringing better products to the market more efficiently lends itself to be destroyed by healthy competition, as if competition drops out of the sky and jackboots the monopoly with.. an even more efficient way.. because less government is how you stop monopolies..
It doesn't drop out of the sky. It is the result of other entrepreneurs studying your business plan and finding further tweaks that give them a slight advantage.
It is more difficult for an entrepreneur to overcome the advantages given by government to competitors. You have to watch your costs, they don't. So it is much harder to overcome a government sanctioned monopoly than a free market efficiency monopoly.
Tell me the story of how Comcast got help from the Gov (big gov) to be the monopoly they are, or how many of their competition doesn't, actually compete at all, such as when a overwhelming majority of household only have one choice for cable internet. Free market cacophony of efficiency..
good example. thank you for your time defending the obvious
So by studying and finding ways to tweak it you can manifest the resources necessary to compete? How much studying and tweaking does it take to compete as a publisher with Amazon?
Is AMC a state propped monopoly?
No, resources don't fall out of the sky. Resources accumulate to those who use them most efficiently.
What would it take to topple Amazon, I have no idea. They gain market share by offering bargain basement prices for books. And they have an efficient method of distribution.
Taking a gander at their financials, they aren't making much with books, their main income earner is web services. This is Amazon's bread and butter.
All the studying and tweaking..
What publisher can compete with Amazon? But Amazon is no monopoly, the same joke and punchline for Microsoft, where you claim its government that allowed them the monopoly, somehow even though ..
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.
Penguin Random House £409.9m (23.4%) ...
Hachette Livre (UK) £287.9m (16.4%) ...
HarperCollins £132.3m (7.6%) ...
Pan Macmillan £57.3m (3.3%) ...
Pearson Education £40.7m (2.3%)
Oxford University Press £37.6m (2.1%)
Bloomsbury £35.6m (2.0%) ...
Simon & Schuster £27.2m (1.6%)
Microsoft https://www.copyright.gov/
Har har, how can any publisher compete with the largest publisher AND by far the largest distributor, Amazon?
They fucking can't.
http://theamericanreader.com/the-house-of-penguin-notes-on-a-publishing-apocalypse/
But Amazon is not some monopoly...
I don't know, how did Amazon compete with the previous largest distributor? Wasn't that impossible? Amazon fucking couldn't!
derpaderp
Microsoft didn't gain a monopoly because of copyright or patents, dhur-dhur-dhur, why did you stop there though, it seems the only thing you can offer to substantiate your argument that the government helped Microsoft is a link to the government copyright website, nothing what so ever exists that details exactly which copyrights, what patents, when they were secured and where and how they helped Microsoft secure their monopoly or why? O yeah, you've been expanding your thinking LMAO.
Do you want me to list all of Microsoft's government protected copyrights?
derpaderp
Nive way to evade the rest of my questions, because you could have a chance in hell to demonstrate that a copyright or 1000 guaranteed Microsoft the monopoly it has today.
#aMaZoNiSnTaMoNoPoLy