Trump says he wants to dismantle Amazon, Executive Order using antitrust law

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Is this any different than what happened to Microsoft?

Microsoft was found by a court to be abusing its market power by coercing vendors, etc. Such a showing would need to be made with Amazon, which while not a monopoly, is getting closer and closer to one. I am unaware that any such allegations have been made.

I'd be surprised if Amazon isn't coercing vendors.

And by gum, we'll make them confess to that sooner or later!

Unless their billionaire owner's pet newspaper starts writing about how big the Trump's "button" is, and posting glowing reviews of his new clothingpolicies. Then their behavior will somehow become just fine. (Maybe they could get away with buying a few memberships at his clubs and permanently renting some of his overpriced hotel suites? I hear he's a pretty cheap bribe.)

[HisGrace]

To my knowledge, anti-trust laws don't mean the president can just say "that company's too big" and then break it up. You have to demonstrate that they're engaged in restraint of trade or that their market share constitutes a monopoly. The second one is clearly not true and there have been no accusations of the first. If he tried something like this Amazon would sue and he'd lose like he does all his other lawsuits.

This would actually be way closer to Communism than anything any president has done in recent memory, but of course all the "secret marxist" alarmists during the Obama years have nothing to say about it.

Also it's clear the only reason he's talking about this is in political retaliation for the WaPo's negative coverage, which I think brings up a legitimate 1st Amendment issue even aside from the other stuff. Unless Trump is just genuinely opposed to a business efficiently providing a service. If Obama tried to break up 20th Century Fox everyone would have lost their sh**t.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Trump would have more success if he went after Amazon's dominance in the book market. That's a place he would have more ground to make antitrust allegations against Amazon.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Trump would have more success if he went after Amazon's dominance in the book market. That's a place he would have more ground to make antitrust allegations against Amazon.

True, but I don't think the book market is significant enough a sector of the US Economy to really worry anyone, and there's enough separate sectors - textbooks, specialty bookstores - that it likely doesn't qualify as a monopoly.

[IndustrialJustice]

There is no good case for breaking Amazon up using anti-trust laws. This is a stupid suggestion from our POTUS that has no grounding in law or rationality.

... Are you serious?

My god, some of the posts in here.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

There is no good case for breaking Amazon up using anti-trust laws. This is a stupid suggestion from our POTUS that has no grounding in law or rationality.

... Are you serious?

My god, some of the posts in here.

What's your argument for breaking them up besides "They're very successful"?

[Virginiá]

There is no good case for breaking Amazon up using anti-trust laws. This is a stupid suggestion from our POTUS that has no grounding in law or rationality.

... Are you serious?

My god, some of the posts in here.

What's your argument for breaking them up besides "They're very successful"?

Just nitpicking really, but aren't most/all anti-trust cases at heart because they are too successful?

[MasterJedi]

There is no good case for breaking Amazon up using anti-trust laws. This is a stupid suggestion from our POTUS that has no grounding in law or rationality.

... Are you serious?

My god, some of the posts in here.

What's your argument for breaking them up besides "They're very successful"?

Just nitpicking really, but aren't most/all anti-trust cases at heart because they are too successful?

If you want to use antitrust laws right use it against the telecoms and energy companies that are actual monopolies. Nobody HAS to buy from Amazon. It has plenty of competition in streaming services and sales of products.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

There is no good case for breaking Amazon up using anti-trust laws. This is a stupid suggestion from our POTUS that has no grounding in law or rationality.

... Are you serious?

My god, some of the posts in here.

What's your argument for breaking them up besides "They're very successful"?

Just nitpicking really, but aren't most/all anti-trust cases at heart because they are too successful?

If you want to use antitrust laws right use it against the telecoms and energy companies that are actual monopolies. Nobody HAS to buy from Amazon. It has plenty of competition in streaming services and sales of products.

This. It's not their success, it's their impact in the market. Amazon is so diversified and that's largely where its power comes from. It's not cornering the market on a commodity. The closest would be the book market, but I don't think the government has a stake in subsidizing the existence of bookstories.

[Virginiá]

If you want to use antitrust laws right use it against the telecoms and energy companies that are actual monopolies. Nobody HAS to buy from Amazon. It has plenty of competition in streaming services and sales of products.

I'm not saying Amazon needs to broken up - I really have not even thought about it, so I can't comment. I was just talking about trust busting in general. These companies become victims of their own success, so to speak. They keep growing and growing, gobbling up all their competitors, and then when there is no real threat to their dominance, they begin slacking off, innovating less, and using their position to extract more and more while providing less. This is all about them being, as Goldfield put it, "very successful."

FWIW, I completely agree with the telecom/energy industries.

[Torie]

If you want to use antitrust laws right use it against the telecoms and energy companies that are actual monopolies. Nobody HAS to buy from Amazon. It has plenty of competition in streaming services and sales of products.

I'm not saying Amazon needs to broken up - I really have not even thought about it, so I can't comment. I was just talking about trust busting in general. These companies become victims of their own success, so to speak. They keep growing and growing, gobbling up all their competitors, and then when there is no real threat to their dominance, they begin slacking off, innovating less, and using their position to extract more and more while providing less. This is all about them being, as Goldfield put it, "very successful."

FWIW, I completely agree with the telecom/energy industries.

If the monopoly or quasi monopoly gets lazy and slacks off, and stops innovating, then competitors will emerge, unless illegal coercive tactics are used to stamp them out, including buying the competitors out, which would also be illegal. That happened with IBM, that had its day. It is not as if there are not huge capital reserves to fund such competitions. There are such reserves, which is why real interest rates are so low. Capital is struggling to find a home in which to invest, so much is out there (fueled by massive inequality, but I digress). It's all good as far as the natural monopoly concern goes. It is just not that big a deal.