Perhaps sometimes the justifications that politicians put forward for their regulatory actions are not entirely honest?
We’re being told that Amazon must be regulated against offering its own brand products. Or at least that the big commercial giants must be prevented from prioritizing their own items. The argument goes that they are unfairly competing against third-party suppliers.
The problem with this argument is that giants such as Amazon, like most businesses, are in business for themselves, not for their suppliers. In addition, we must return to the exigent question of whether consumers are actually hurt by this. That question, after all, is still the operating basis of antitrust law.
We also need to ponder whether this is anything out of the ordinary.
Walmart, or Dollar Store, or Albertsons, all have exactly the same power. They know more about who is shopping for what in their stores than any third-party brand does. They are also not restricted in what they may manufacture themselves to then sell on their own shelves. In fact, we generally regard that as healthy competition to the benefit of the consumer. It’s nearly the entire business model of Lidl and Aldi.
So what’s so special about the tech companies and their virtual shelves?
The answer: not much. Except that they’re the latest eruption of economic power into our polity. The reason for going into politics is to gain power over what happens out there. A new distribution of power toward Amazon means new attempts to gain political power over it.
The cry that virtual stores require more regulation than physical ones is only an excuse for an extension of political power. It is not a reason or justification for that extension of power.
