The usual crusade against Amazon has started, and obviously the narrative consists in saying that Amazon, being a de facto monopolist, is dangerous for "the market".
This might SEEM true, if only the alternative to Amazon was the market. If BEFORE amazon there had been "the market", we might think that by removing Amazon then "the market" would return.
The trouble is, that's not the case. It would be like saying that we are against Charlemagne because an emperor is not democratic and has not been elected. It is true that no one has ever voted for Charlemagne, but to think that by removing Charlemagne we will have a democracy is a fact that would make any historian laugh. You would have had a feudal system without an empire.
We can start, to explain the analogy, with Über, and then get to Amazon. If I made the same objections to Über as I did to Amazon (being a monopolist, operating in a non-market situation, etc.) everything I say would be true.
The trouble is, if I take away Über, I don't get a monopoly-free market situation. I am back from a state monopoly that grants licenses, and an oligarchic system of family licensing.
The liberating question is: because there is no Italian Über that does the same things. And if we extend to all monopolists (I don't include all the GAfam, I'm talking about those who offer real services such as Über, Amazon, etc), why doesn't there exist X Italian, European or other?
If we assume that someone had done Über in Italy or Germany, they would have blocked it immediately using the legislator. The taxi licenses are given by the municipalities, period.
In Germany, MyTaxi exists, but only because it requires a license to accept a taxi. That is, it has bowed to a situation of monopoly of the entities that issue licenses.
And it is an important thing, because the same thing applies to Amazon: if Amazon had been born in Italy, what would have happened?
First the Coop would have moved, with their political mafia. They would have gone to the usual PD asking to hyper-regulate web supermarkets, asking for things like:
- the website must be open only during supermarket hours.
- the website should only offer things that are stocked locally.
- the website must use certified cashiers.
and they would break his legs. But not only the coop mafia would have moved. The real mafia, which makes the so-called "discount", would also have moved: the chain "discount" in Italy is one of the channels for laundering mafia money. The mafioso would not have tolerated that the Italian Amazon made him a competitor (at least he would have wanted to be an amazon, but the payment is too little cash for a mafia), and would have moved BOTH on the political level, addressing that 30% of politicians that he owns, whether criminally, by setting fire to the competitor's headquarters, or by threatening his family.
The small shops of the villages, which work with a margin (often in black) of 150% (if all goes well) compared to those of the city (they have no competitors) would have moved with the local mayor, or with the local councilor, to block the Amazon delivery vans.
Poste Italiane would have moved to prevent Amazon from doing the delivery or logistics part.
And the Italian amazon would have died from the start.
And by this I mean that BEFORE Amazon there was no "market" system. So those who oppose amazon because it is not "the market" is the analogue of whoever is against Charlemagne because it kills democracy.
But which democracy exactly killed Charlemagne? And to say it all, which "market" have killed Amazon, Über & co?
And here we are getting closer to the point: Charlemagne was possible because the system was already feudal. If Europe had been an immense republic, or a great empire like the Roman one, a Charlemagne would not have been possible.
And in the same way, we can say that if the previous situation had been "market", Amazon would not have been possible.
Amazon, Über and company are born precisely in the sectors where there is NO market. And not only that: they are born ONLY IF there is no real market in a sector.
Think Über. In a free market situation, without a Vogon regulator to regulate the matter, Über would have had no chance. By the time it was already possible for anyone to operate on the market, Über would only be a service, and not the enabler, and the aspiring taxi driver could decide whether to use it or not, and therefore Über would have to compete with other services. analogues.
But when MyTaxi is super-regulated and does not operate in a market situation, Über is "disruptive". And it is the same concept of "disruptive" that should make us think of when it is NECESSARY that the market DOES NOT EXIST, for Amazon, Über, deliveroo & company to operate.
Those who snort about hitting digital monopolists to "save the market" ALWAYS forget to ascertain that these monopolists have ALWAYS invaded a segment WITHOUT a real market.
If you remove Amazon, you are not going back to the "free market" of retail before. Go back to the mafia and oligarchic situation as before.
If you take away Über, it's not back to the "free market" of retail. Go back to the family and fascist taxi license mafia.
Because if there had been a free market BEFORE, we would NOT have neither Amazon nor Über.
But we could extend it to the idea of a “European” Amazon, and to that of a “European” Über. What would have happened? ALL the lobbies and all the mafias of the continent would have moved, and the usual Verstager, who lives in a world of dreams where there is "the free market that benefits users", would have prohibited the giant from existing because "it is harmful to the market".
Here, Verstager is, if you like, the ridiculous face of this superstition, according to which in Europe it makes sense to protect the market as there is a market.
I don't know exactly what this woman is doing drugs, and those who support her vulgarity, because it takes really effective molecules to see a free market in Europe. When Verstager blocks the merger between Alstom and Siemens, is it trying to prove that there is a free train market in Europe?
The truth is that Verstager is Danish, Denmark hosts offices of the same Bombardier that makes trains like the frecciarossa, and was afraid of a competitor of the same size. For a small country like Denmark, a large Bombardier headquarters is important, like the small town factory, and consequently the Danish politician behaves. Under Verstager, before you do a big merger, you need to make sure there is no competitor in Denmark , ie "free market" and "Danish competitor".
But the excuse was to save "the free market". Similarly, those who fight Über are not fighting for the "free market", but for a mafia system, fascist (taxi drivers are fascists, like all those who benefit from a mafia system), and monopolist. In the hands of small local parties.
The same for Amazon: those who fight against Amazon are fighting for that layer of “the co-op is you”, of discount stores “the Godfather”, and all the local mafiette that regulate retail.
And the proof is that ONLY in the sectors already managed in an oligarchic manner the great "disruptors" are born. We want to talk about the hotel sector, another area of mafia money laundering, managed by oligarchs and affiliates? It was obvious that AirBnB would pop up.
And so on.
There is NO situation in which large digital enablers have destroyed "the market" or undermined "the market". Because these systems grow ONLY if the market DOES NOT EXIST before, and this is the secret of their success.
And this is not only true for Europe, mind you. In the US, Amazon was born in a situation where the "Malls", that is the chains of large shopping centers, were monopolists. These oligarchs had the power to strangle and kill anyone who tried to compete. Opening a shopping center against Wal Mart was one of the least hygienic things you could do in the US.
Ditto for the Taxis: not only were they in the hands of large chains, but the exploitation was so terrible that Über's prices and the freedom of hours seemed like a paradise.
Quintarelli comes to terms with this: Amazon exists because the market did not exist before, and it was AN IMPROVEMENT compared to the existing one. It has never destroyed, hit or damaged any market, because it didn't exist before.
And so stop clinging to the "market" skirt when you want to defend systems that are mafia or oligarchic: before Amazon there were co-ops and mafia. And they will return to occupy that segment if you take out Amazon.
Just as Charlemagne never overthrew a single democracy but one. Because if there had been, we wouldn't have had Charlemagne.
The free market is an excuse to go against those who have escaped small oligarchs and mobsters, and obviously have become large oligarchs, or emperors.
But to say it all, I like Charlemagne much more than all the previous Vitichindos. Then, that Charlemagne reorganized the previous system in a hierarchy is a consequence: but don't tell me that before Charlemagne there was democracy.
And the struggle "to defend the free market that benefits citizens" is more pathetic than ridiculous. It requires a free market to exist.
Also because, in addition to talking about the free market, we add the claim (demonstrated with highly discredited statistics and numbers) that it "benefits the consumer".
For the series: Fantastic Beasts, and Where to Find Them.
Drug less, and you will see that the "free market that benefits consumers" you will never see again. Your problem is drugs.