Lina Khan warned the merger would expand Amazon's "fief." Yes. Amazon is a feudal lord in this worldview.
As the Khan crew gets ready to rewrite the merger guidelines, let's look back at their predictive powers in the past:
Khan wasn't alone in her dire predictions about Amazon/Whole Foods.
Tim Wu called it a "super-monopoly." Apparently, Whole Foods had a grocery monopoly?? Barry Lynn said, "Amazon is monopolizing commerce in the United States."
Monopolizing commerce. All commerce. Full stop 🙄
What exactly would be hurt by the merger? Khan predicted in the NYT that the deal “would allow Amazon to potentially thwart future innovations.”
"Potentially" is a possible out.
But has the grocery industry stagnated?
If anything, others had to match the Amazon model of easy, online shopping with quick delivery.
For example, Walmart's changes to match:
- Grocery pickup announced in 2017, but real push in 2019
- Acquires Parcel in fall 2017
- Same-day delivery introduced in 2018
👆 is in addition to Amazon's changes: cashierless stores, Amazon locker, and cutting Whole Foods prices.
Maybe it's overhyped, but what innovation did we see pre-2017?
This isn't rigorous, causal evidence, but it's hard to see how the grocery market's innovation has stagnated.
Let's take another merger: Google-Fitbit.
Another prediction: Google's acquisition of Fitbit would allow it to use biometric data to target ads better and maintain its monopoly.
Reality: No evidence of that. Google has constantly been losing market share in digital ads. Fitbit remains a tiny (and shrinking) player in an expanding wearable tech market.
We have a history of false positives: predicting destruction that didn't occur. We also have false negatives.
Take Facebook/Instagram. Many people today point to it as the one that got away, but none of the usual voices worried in 2012
(TBF, some of us were still in college.)
At the time, The Guardian asked several commentators about the deal. No one mentioned anticompetitive behavior.
“Falling gas prices don’t lower inflation. Consumers have more money and they spend that which drives up inflation.”
That’s an argument I heard today on a podcast. It’s not true and highlights something economists focus on:
People respond in many ways to price changes.
Imagine it’s short run and supply is fixed. In a world with only gas and food, the above would be true. Any money left over after gas prices drop goes back into food which equally bids up housing prices.
Any measured inflation is an artifact of how the bundle is calculate.
But there’s always another substitute!
Now imagine it’s gas, food, and savings.
It’s obvious that in general some of that leftover money will go into savings, which doesn’t bid up the price of goods today.
Finally, there are lots of insights that are intro level. They don’t take any prior Econ training to understand, yet even PhD economists don’t realize.
It bans price discrimination. That's it. It was an attempt at strengthening the Clayton Act's ban on price discrimination.
There are a few checkboxes about when applies; it must be across state lines. But that's not the issue.
The true part: the RPA hasn't been enforced for decades.
With good reason!
1) Banning price discrimination is incoherent (that's different than technical). 2) Incoherent laws are bad and lead to lots of legal risks for businesses engaging in normal, competitive behavior.
Anticipating the possibility of a hold-up, both sides have the incentive to develop contractual workarounds.
Klein, Crawford, and Alchian's taught us that the more investments are specific to a particular partner, the more likely we will see "tying" jstor.org/stable/725234