Re:Amazon's Whole Foods deal under scrutiny
by bsder on Monday July 24, 2017 @06:57PM
(#14843509)
> Driving down costs isn't an argument against a merger.
True, but the restriction of choice is. And Amazon is NOT going to stay upmarket long. They're going to wipe out smaller players.
This merger drives down some consumers costs (generally the wealthier who already have plenty of choice) while increasing the costs of others (wiping out marginal stores in areas that are less affluent).
WalMart is a good analogy. When WalMart comes into an area costs go down--until all the alternatives are driven out of business. And, quite often, WalMart isn't even the cheapest. In addition, by wiping out those businesses WalMart wipes out jobs and those people don't care that groceries are 10% cheaper because they now have no income at all.
So, it basically boils down to the people who already have plenty, get things cheaper, while the people already hurting, hurt worse.
True, but the restriction of choice is. And Amazon is NOT going to stay upmarket long. They're going to wipe out smaller players.
This merger drives down some consumers costs (generally the wealthier who already have plenty of choice) while increasing the costs of others (wiping out marginal stores in areas that are less affluent).
WalMart is a good analogy. When WalMart comes into an area costs go down--until all the alternatives are driven out of business. And, quite often, WalMart isn't even the cheapest. In addition, by wiping out those businesses WalMart wipes out jobs and those people don't care that groceries are 10% cheaper because they now have no income at all.
So, it basically boils down to the people who already have plenty, get things cheaper, while the people already hurting, hurt worse.