LearnBonds.com

Amazon.com, Inc. Will Infiltrate Government, Or Be Slammed By It

Rate this post

Amazon.com, Inc. (NASDAQ:AMZN) is one of the best-loved companied in the United States, and with good reason. The firm offers an incredible service at low prices. It lets consumers get what they want when they want it, and if there’s any problem customer service takes care of it. Some people, however, see Jeff Bezos’ bookseller as a fundamental evil, and calls are coming from Washington D.C. to punish the firm.

Marc Perrone, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, outlined such a complaint in The Hill on Tuesday morning. He reckons that the e-commerce giant needs to be stopped before it steam rolls over the entire US economy. The point of view may seem a little bit extreme, but ideas close to it have been espoused by all sorts of influential people among the elite.

Learning from the grand era of American corporate dominance, the gilded age which encompassed the closing decades of the nineteenth century, Amazon.com, Inc. only seems to have three choices. First, it can stop growing, something that seems anathema to its mission thus far. Second it can allow the government to shut off its growth, and possibly pull it apart. Thirdly, it can do what industrialists did after the Civil War and become a major influencer of the government itself.

Amazon is a labor destroyer

The big argument that Perrone made in this morning’s piece was about the effects on labor. Coming from a union leader that’s hardly a surprise. The key point is this:

“If Amazon’s dominance continues to be left unaddressed, politicians will one day have to explain to millions of displaced workers that their jobs and their children’s jobs weren’t lost because of unfair trade, changing markets, or true competition, but because they were unwilling to challenge an obvious retail monopoly that believes every job can be done better without people.”

The idea here is that workers rights are something worth caring about when it comes to anti-trust. Whether or not you agree with the argument being made by Perrone is immaterial. There is a growing coalition of forces lining up against Amazon.com, Inc. (NASDAQ:AMZN).

Amazon.com, Inc. is turning into a monopoly

The way things are going, it seems that Amazon may soon be classified as a monopoly. That’s not because the firm is becoming substantially more dominant in any single market, it’s because many people in power are pushing for rule changes that could affect the firm.

As an aside, be wary of the term monopoly. Though it can be technically argued all day long that Jeff Bezos’ firm isn’t really a monopoly, people using the term are doing as short hand for something else. Abusive market dominance is what the Federal Trade Commission would charge Amazon.com, Inc. (NASDAQ:AMZN) with in a real case. The use of the words monopoly or “anti-trust enforcement” or anything else won’t sway the opinion of the court, though it might be a valid communications strategy if arguing against rule changes.

Fourteen Democratic lawmakers signed a letter to the FTC recently looking for the institution to deeply scrutinize the Amazon attempt to acquire Whole Foods. They’re looking for the trade regulator to look at the effect the merger will have on workers and suppliers. That would require a dramatic change in the way that the FTC has carried out anti-trust investigations for decades.

The paradigm in anti-trust regulation comes from the Chicago school of economics. It says that the consumer is king. Therefore if a merger isn’t likely to increase prices, then it should be allowed. Putting labor and suppliers into the mix makes the calculus more complicated, and likely works against Jeff Bezos’ favor.

What’s more, the Democratic Party has made anti-trust enforcement a central part of its “Better Deal” platform. The risk of enforcement against Amazon appears to be growing, and there’s only one force that’s likely to be able to stop it.

Government by Amazon

Despite what you’ve heard about the Trump administration, there has been a lot more corruption in American history than that displayed by the current residents of the White House. From James Buchanan to Calvin Coolidge, the White House has a history of intense corrupt influence.

The gilded age was likely the height of that sort of influence. It eventually ended with Theodore Roosevelt’s trust-busting. That broke both the market and political power of the United States. Though some economic historians may believe that the effects are overblown, there is a common view that this set up the country for a period of growth that lead to the US becoming the most powerful country in the world.

Amazon.com, Inc. (NASDAQ:AMZN), in order to battle against the forces looking to paint it as abusive, is going to have to involve itself in the influence game. The firm spent more than $3 million in lobbying in the second quarter of 2017. That’s a record for the firm.

As it grows, that is the firm’s future. It may have to spend more and more to keep anti-trust regulators from its doors. At the same time, it may have increased legal costs as it tries to prevent any cases against it that might crop up.

Amazon stock holders should be careful of these risk

The firm’s shares are valued based on outlandish earnings in the future. If the state steps in to put an end to its strategies, that could very well result in a massive destruction of shareholder value.

There is a risk of action against Amazon, and it’s going to have to do its best to work against it. If the Democratic Party takes power on an anti-trust message that may get a lot more difficult for the firm.

Douglas Kass, a short seller and market commentator, reckons these problems may raise their head sooner rather than later. In an email to clients he wrote, “At the core of my concern is that the disruptive impact of Amazon’s growth (and plans) could lead to government restrictions affecting that growth.”

That’s precisely what Amazon stock holders should be afraid of. It’s also why the company is involving itself more and more in government in order to convince lawmakers not to take action against its growing hold on the e-commerce market.

Views expressed are those of the writers only. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Trading comes with severe risk. The opinions expressed in this Site do not constitute investment advice and independent financial advice should be sought where appropriate. This website is free for you to use but we may receive commission from the companies we feature on this site.
Avatar

Alan Innes

5 Comments

  1. Bezos is bringing this upon himself in spades, by owning a newspaper that is unfairly and mercilessly biased against the current Administration. He should wise up.
  2. And to think this has nothing to do with Trump attacking yet ANOTHER enemy is crazy, this has tRump, and his fallacies (lies) all over it.
  3. The same could be said of Ford Motor Company in the early 1900s. Henry Ford’s ‘horseless carriage’ put some people out of work too, while providing new jobs for others. It pioneered a whole new industry and set of opportunities going forward. It is simplistic to state that Amazon is a labor destroyer. It is a labor creator as well. Plus it may be doing more to lower consumer prices across the board than any other corporation. That doesn’t sound like a monopoly. They still have plenty of competition. Keep in mind that a new competitor (or technology) may come along one day and make Amazon obsolete! This is the nature of innovation in a free market.
  4. “Whether or not you agree with the argument being made by Perrone is immaterial.” Really? Actually, people’s (voters) opinions do matter. Why else make the argument? What Perrone is really saying is that automation is the lurking evil, and whether or not the government moves to stifle Amazon’s growth, the impact of automation on the American workforce is coming, and it won’t be restricted to the likes of Amazon. I think this is a good discussion to have, but understand the context. If you go after Amazon for building a “monopoly” in retail, you have to make the same argument against Google for its “monopoly” in search, and against Facebook for its “monopoly” in social networks. If that is our chosen route, our government (and our country) had better think long and hard about how it intends to limit the growth and success of businesses. Central planning has not worked out well historically for societies that have tried to implement it, and it will not work well for America either.

Reply

Your email address is not published.