Conservative Dominance in Japanese Politics
In: Current history: a journal of contemporary world affairs, Band 60, Heft 356, S. 207-212
ISSN: 1944-785X
18608 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Current history: a journal of contemporary world affairs, Band 60, Heft 356, S. 207-212
ISSN: 1944-785X
In: Contributions to Indian sociology, Band 2, Heft 1, S. 58-81
ISSN: 0973-0648
In: Contributions to Indian sociology, Band 2, Heft 1, S. 82-97
ISSN: 0973-0648
In: Peace review: peace, security & global change, Band 17, Heft 1, S. 55-63
ISSN: 1469-9982
In: Breaking Male Dominance in Old Democracies, S. 221-237
In: Mathematical social sciences, Band 52, Heft 1, S. 15-30
In: The Rand journal of economics, Band 32, Heft 1, S. 1
ISSN: 1756-2171
In: Journal of social and biological structures: studies in human sociobiology, Band 12, Heft 1, S. 87-99
ISSN: 0140-1750
In: Journal of social and biological structures: studies in human sociobiology, Band 7, Heft 2, S. 159-177
ISSN: 0140-1750
In: The journal of psychology: interdisciplinary and applied, Band 48, Heft 2, S. 227-235
ISSN: 1940-1019
In: Pacific affairs: an international review of Asia and the Pacific, Band 27, Heft 2, S. 171
ISSN: 1715-3379
The internet giants - Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google, among others - have transformed society with both positive and negative effects. The negative effects have been stark. There have been huge disruptions caused by e-commerce. More recently, subtler, but even more serious negative effects are only now being recognized: threats to democracy, violations of privacy, and monopolistic behavior. By traditional measures Facebook and Google are highly concentrated. Each has obtained de facto monopolistic or oligopolistic power with little concern on the part of government. Facebook and Google and other internet giants are multisided markets (MSM); their economic rents are "hidden" from the public. On the user-side of the market, prices are zero - "free." On the other side of the market, Facebook's and Google's revenues are derived from advertising which appears when the users click on advertiser's web sites. Facebook and Google can extract exorbitant prices for ads, since they are virtually the only source that can target ads directly to potential customers. This is where the economic rents are not so obvious. This paper addresses the monopolistic/monopsony aspect of the internet giants. In the singlesided market, monopoly pricing is well defined - as well as tests for predatory behavior; not so with multisided markets. Since the definition of markets is central to the legal enforcement of antitrust statutes, the paper examines non-transactional multisided markets for their potential for determining consumers' harm and welfare effects, as well as defining monopoly and predatory pricing in this context. Initial estimates of Google's and Facebook's social cost in terms of consumers' welfare loss are $54 and $33 billion, respectively and increasing cost to consumers at least $87 billion dollars. It demonstrates and quantifies that dominate internet platforms can create three major harms to consumers: - Increasing prices to consumers via added costs to the products being advertised, - Elimination (or non-emergence) of competition in markets to the products being advertised, - Increasing prices to consumers beyond the cost of advertising via the market power of the remaining firms in the market of the products being advertised The paper outlines potential remedies to ameliorate the problems.
BASE
In: The review of politics, Band 70, Heft 3, S. 502-503
ISSN: 0034-6705
In: The Antitrust bulletin: the journal of American and foreign antitrust and trade regulation, Band 46, Heft 4, S. 835-878
ISSN: 1930-7969
In: (2018) 4 International Antitrust Bulletin 17-22
SSRN