Try having a discussion with anyone here in the US about not using Amazon. The free market is a myth.
and when they get sufficiently large it is not even free anymore...
There can be no alternative when Amazon is able to buy them out, or dominate the market through network effects.
Even if it does cost me a bit extra, continuing to have local businesses is worth it to me
Like yeah, Walmart isn't really much better than Amazon in the grand scheme of things, but I would rather people be able to get stable employment at a Walmart store than have to fight it out as gig workers delivering for Amazon.
Maybe I'm overthinking it though
It's not like being a delivery gig worker is great income either
Amazon used to be better, and they still have the logistics network to be better, but they've dropped the ball. If this downward trend hasn't hit you yet, it's only a matter of time.
I tried many times to order something directly, and most of the time it’s the same price and longer shipping. So, for me in terms of convenience Amazon wins.
In any case, there’s a big difference between “there’s no reasonable alternative” and “there are plenty of reasonable alternatives but I like Amazon more.”
At least 3-4 times a week, ranging from groceries to various household items, like water filters and what not.
I mean, different people have different behavioral patterns and preferences, if Amazon is not for you, it’s fine. It definitely works for me and saves me a lot of time.
I didn’t order those from Amazon because their search sucks, I’d have to pay for shipping or find something else to bundle into the purchase, and I don’t trust them with anything that goes on or in my body. At least with Home Depot, if I end up in the hospital because their water filters poisoned me, I can point to their name on the label and sue them.
I know people are going to chime in and say "the fact that all of your personal criteria align maximally with the strengths of one particular vendor doesn't represent an uncompetitive market, but to the contrary, represents an extremely competitive market in which all of the participants are distinguishing themselves by maximizing the value they offer to different market segments with diverse preferences."
But as a presumptuous narcissist, my expectation is that everyone in the market should be optimizing their business practices to satisfy my preferences in particular, rather than limiting my options by trying to appeal to anyone other than me.
BUT, if I care more about getting something real fast than the quality, or if I don't want to pay 5 EUR for shipping (especially cheap stuff), I'm not aware of any competition Amazon has here. I use it quite a bit still, for these two use cases.
More to the point - is it not government oversight that appears incapable of leveling the playing field for others?
That said - the only "others" we seem capable of getting is other governments' Amazons. So. Devil you know?
only if you think free market == unrestrained market
as monopoly is antithesis to capitalism itself, whose main principle is competition.
.. the "means of production" (factories, employees, computers, tools, etc.) ..
.. are "privately owned" (as opposed to state owned) ..
.. for "profit" (so you do not have to live paycheck to paycheck).
This is a good idea, because otherwise the state would have a monopoly on everything by definition. Monopolies can form under capitalism, but that's where the state should take action. Remember when Standard Oil became a monopoly and was broken apart by the state under capitalism back in 1911? A failure of the state isn't a failure of capitalism, which is also why I can't understand people wanting communism, which would give the state a monopoly on everything, when what we are witnessing is already a failure of the state.
god gave us all plants to use.
they will fear monger rather than publish medical reasoning.