Stock prices provided no meaningful information regarding the competitive impacts of the merger.Amazon in not an essential facility and there is no risk of foreclosure.Amazon’s prioritization of its own products is no different from the behavior of every other major grocer.Amazon’s size and consumer reach are not a barrier to entry of new firms or expansion of existing firms.Both Amazon and Whole Foods comprise a small share of the retail food market.On its face, there was nothing about the Amazon/Whole Foods merger that should have raised any antitrust concerns. Simply saying that Amazon has grown like a weed, charges very low prices, and has driven many smaller retailers out of business is not sufficient.
This sort of speculation is a key component of the populist antitrust movement.Ĭarl Shapiro, the government’s economics expert opposing the AT&T-Time Warner merger, seems skeptical of much of the antitrust populists’ Amazon rhetoric: Instead it was an attempt to convince the antitrust subcommittee to jump over analysis of relevant markets, prices, and consumer welfare and go straight to speculation about small business, labor markets, and income inequality. The letter, however, was not so much about the merger itself. In fact, his letter noted that “several leading antitrust scholars” had suggested the merger would be beneficial to consumers. The Congressman claimed he was not “taking a position on the legality” of Amazon’s attempt to purchase Whole Foods. Cicilline, who serves on the House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee, called for a hearing on Amazon’s proposed $13.7 billion acquisition of Whole Foods. Eric Fruits is the Chief Economist at the International Center for Law & Economics
0 kommentar(er)
