I’m all ears if you have a good idea. “Obviously ridiculous” sounds like a great standard to block an acquisition. Explain what’s obviously ridiculous about it.

I judge these things on the potential for harm to consumers. I don’t see that here. Perhaps you do.

Do you see this leading to increased prices or a reduction in quantity consumed? (And of what, btw?) That’s how we make these judgments so if it’s obvious to you, let’s talk.

But it's not just about 'consumers' is it? I mean its great and all that you are playing devils advocate and using your education to argue on behalf of a Trillion dollar corporation but this isn't just about what an economist thinks, especially since economists get it wrong all the time. This entire discussion is about peoples natural reaction to a super large entity, that as one of your supporters put it "single-handedly makes up 4% of the US economy" buying more of the US economy thus further concentrating money/power in fewer hands.

> But it's not just about 'consumers' is it?

Who else is it about? If any sort of investigation is to be brought into it, the main investigation would be on behalf of consumers right?

> "single-handedly makes up 4% of the US economy"

Correction: 4% of the US stock market, not the US economy.

Regardless, is your argument that any company that is at a certain threshold % of the US economy/stock market should not do acquisitions or expand their business?

Sorry to disappoint you, but this is what I actually believe. I am not playing devils advocate.

Economists do get it wrong. If you think this will reduce consumer welfare (which is one of the standards used to judge mergers), tell me how.

I see no reason to block the merger on the grounds that Amazon is a trillion dollar company, rather than a 900 or 800 or whatever billion dollar company.

Amazon is not 4% of the US economy, btw.

> Do you see this leading to increased prices or a reduction in quantity consumed?

We’re way past that at this point. Amazon is closer to a level of government than traditional company. They are already under multiple antitrust investigations in multiple countries and jurisdictions so it’s nuts for you to go all pikachu face on the comment that they may be guilty of such.

The amount of power Amazon has over media, retail and internet is unparalleled and is a threat to a well regulated democracy. Their second HQ is going in DC metro for a reason.

IMO Amazon should be split into a dozen companies. Would that be good for consumers on day 1? No. But it would create a better market over time just as when the megacorps of the past have been split up.

> Amazon is closer to a level of government than traditional company.

I'm not sure what this could possibly mean.

> is a threat to a well regulated democracy

Ok - tell me how. Is Jeff Bezos going to... buy the Presidency? A Senate seat? Or... ? I really don't see what you have in mind.

> IMO Amazon should be split into a dozen companies.

You can do this if you want. You could split AWS from the retail operation, I guess. I wouldn't expect any outcome for consumers to be better. If you have a different idea, tell me what outcome and why you think it gets better.

And probably you don't want this, b just like w/ Standard Oil this would likely have the effect of making Jeff Bezos richer.

Did I say anything about bezos? No. Quit deflecting and making strawmen.

Amazon is already under antitrust charges in the EU and under investigation for antitrust in the US, stop ignoring that fact.

> Did I say anything about bezos?

I'm trying to understand what you meant when you said that Amazon is a threat to democracy. That is a very strong claim. What exactly do you mean and what is your evidence for it?

> stop ignoring that fact

I'm not ignoring the fact that there is criticism of Amazon and that it is being investigated. I'm expressing an opinion on the basis of professional expertise: I do not see Amazon as a monopolist in general, nor do I see any particular concern from this acquisition.

> The amount of power Amazon has over media, retail and internet is unparalleled and is a threat to a well regulated democracy.

I don't subscribe to any Amazon-owned media. I consume tons of media practically every day. If Amazon was a monopoly in media, shouldn't it be near impossible for me to get non-Amazon owned media?

I've purchased maybe a dozen items from Amazon in the last few years. It makes up <1% of my retail spending. If they were a monopoly in retail, shouldn't it be hard for me shop at any other retail space?

I somehow manage to host tons of applications both professionally and personally. I only really use S3 and Amazon DNS, and that's in only a few limited places and could be easily replaced. If Amazon was a monopoly in internet services, shouldn't I pretty much be forced to use them for something?

I don't even have to try and I can avoid them for my own usages, both professionally and personally.

It can't be that obvious, because I don't see it. How does Amazon buying MGM create a negative outcome for consumers?

Exclusive content.

Netflix has exclusive content. ABC, NBC, Discovery, ... all have exclusive content.

Why does Amazon buying MGM and getting some exclusive MGM content harm consumers?

Less competitive marketplaces harm consumers. Consolidation means less competition. Amazon is already under antitrust charges and investigations in the EU and US for these types of misdeeds.

There is no marketplace for copyrighted content and there can't really ever be one unless you mandate compulsory licensing. If you want to watch Frozen then you have to buy from Disney or one of their approved vendors. You can't take your business elsewhere and so from a monopoly standpoint it doesn't matter who actually owns it. You might not like that Amazon in particular owns MGM because because it means that their content will likely only be available on Prime but nothing was stopping them from making an exclusive deal prior to the merger.

>Less competitive marketplaces harm consumers.

That's not a law.

There are a lot of examples of more competitive markets harming consumers - the trick is regulating the products and the relationship between producer and consumer.

So literally any acquisition is bad?

See my other comment above.

It doesn't increase the amount of exclusive content, though, does it?

If this is your objection: "It is a bad thing for the consumer because it means more exclusive titles which is gives rise to a false market. It looks like consumers have a choice of platforms with content, but when that content is exclusive the consumer ends up having to pay for all the platforms to see the content they want to see. This in effect means more costs for the consumer and less choice."

Then wouldn't consolidating existing exclusive content mean consumers pay for less platforms?