
Amazon snubs French free delivery ban with one-cent charge - SchizoDuckie
http://www.france24.com/en/20140711-amazon-snubs-french-free-delivery-ban-with-1-cent-charge/
======
mandalar12
The article misses the working part of the law. Book prices in France are not
a free market since we have a fixed book price law
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_book_price_agreement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_book_price_agreement))
meaning that the publisher decides the retail price of the books it publishes.
There is an exception authorizing retailers a maximum of 5% discount. In
practice all majors players (book store chains, Amazon, supermarkets...)
systematically apply the 5% discount.

The new law forbids retailers to apply the discount if the book is delivered
but allows them to apply the discount on the delivery fees (which is useless
to Amazon who offers the delivery).

The final effect is that books on Amazon are 5% + 1 cent more expensive than
in physical stores.

~~~
moioci
Would the law permit Amazon to discount the delivery fee more than 100%?
("We'll pay you 5% to allow us to deliver to you.")

~~~
nolok
No, in view of the law both (book and delivery) are considered as two
different "products" and they are only allowed 5% on the delivery. They can
set the delivery price to anything they want, but it was 0 before so it
doesn't matter.

------
rfrey
Seems like the protection laws were enacted with the goal of ensuring access
to books in small towns. Big stores are prevented from discounting books (more
than 5%) with the idea that small stores will go out of business from price
pressure, then selection will be limited to what the big stores have, which is
less than the aggregate of the small stores.

Seems reasonable, but does that still apply to Amazon? Even if critics of
Amazon are correct, and Amazon raises prices after small businesses are gone,
consumers are no worse off than they are now, when discounts are prohibited.

I can't see how anybody other than the booksellers are being advantaged here,
with the cost being paid by consumers.

~~~
Malarkey73
Essentially any profit made by Amazon in Europe is faux booked to a Luxembourg
office where it is then off-shored to another tax-haven. It then just sits
there till Amazon can buy Congress to let them bring it back to US
shareholders. That money is effectively removed from the economy.

Any profit made in a local bookstore meanwhile will support the jobs of more
people and will be taxed and will recirculate when those employees spend that
money. Its because they are part of society and pay their way that Amazon can
undercut them.

~~~
briandh
> That money is effectively removed from the economy.

Not really. If that money is stored in a bank, most of it will be loaned out.
If it is used to buy bonds (including but not limited to government bonds)
then it goes to the issuer. And so on.

~~~
adventured
This is the only correct answer.

Even if Amazon actually removed it from the economy by putting it under Bezos'
mattress, that would boost the value of all remaining fiat, increasing
purchasing power for everyone else. So consumers would gain a temporary burst
of value, which they can utilize today; when the state then devalues fiat over
time, Amazon's money will lose value, while the consumer will have locked in
that higher purchasing power.

There is no scenario under which Amazon actually hurts anybody by 'removing'
money from the economy. Money and wealth are not fixed sums anyway.

------
hvs
I have trouble reading an article from a news source that use value-laden
statements like "snubs French free delivery ban" as if they are committing
some sort of mortal sin against the state, but have no qualms about making the
only visible part of the article be the headline:

[http://postimg.org/image/ngztksi8j/](http://postimg.org/image/ngztksi8j/)

That crass, advertisement-filled page is certainly a bigger offense against
the capitalism-averse French than a $0.01 delivery charge.

~~~
unclebucknasty
> _capitalism-averse_

Interesting phrase In this context, given that the intent (or at least likely
effect) of the law is to protect the market from dominance by a single large
player.

------
sgdesign
I'm always amazed at how we have laws for every little thing (or more
accurately, _against_ every little thing).

Maybe it's the coder in me but it just seems so inefficient, like an if…else
if… with dozens of conditions…

~~~
TillE
I think this is basically why so many nerds become Libertarians.
Unfortunately, reality is messy and complicated and not a computer program.

~~~
briandh
> Unfortunately, reality is messy and complicated and not a computer program.

> Nah, probably easier to keep pretending that it's super-simple to manage
> humans at scale just because it's easier to reason about.

This canard about libertarians [1] not understanding the complexity of the
real world is oft-repeated, but it is misguided, and comes off as
condescending to boot.[2]

The likes of Hayek and Friedman did not contend that reality is simple; they
contended that it was complex -- too complex for economic systems based on
expansive government intervention (socialism, mercantilism, etc) to grapple
with and produce satisfactory outcomes.

They advocated a free market system on the premise that it was the best way to
handle this complexity, not on the basis that it doesn't exist.

Now, you are free to question whether empirical evidence bears out either
point. But it is ignorant to suggest libertarianism is based on eschewing
complexity.

1\. Here I am referring mostly to libertarians of a consequentialist lean.
Libertarians of a mostly deontological lean are orthogonal to this discussion
because whether or not they understand the world's complexity is mostly
immaterial to their policy prescriptions, as they are concerned mostly with
morality, not outcomes.

2\. Usually unintentionally, I would hope, though it seems that at least with
mpyne it is not.

~~~
vegabook
Can we try to keep (the deeply discretited) Hayek and the Chicago school, not
to mention over-complicated philosophical jargon out of the argument? I would
content that you should liberate yourself from the received wisdom of your
philosophy course, and think for yourself.

The issue is simple: is protection of local industry justified in the face of
globalization. Obliquely (not orthogonally), are local businesses adding
social value, or is lowest cost the absolute and only barometer of utility.
Only once we have answered these questions can we decide if Amazon is correct
or not, and it is not going to help to cite a bunch of dead people, who, in my
opinion, are very clearly responsible for the ills of our current society.

Far better, citing The Economist Style Guide, "think what you want to say,
then say it as simply as possible".

~~~
punee
Possibly the most pretentious post I've ever read.

The issue may be simple, but it doesn't have a thing to do with what you're
talking about. Amazon operates in France. It's a local business. Next
question?

~~~
vegabook
Clearly the point is that Amazon is also a global business, and therefore,
through economies of scale, is able to dominate businesses that are small or
purely local. Moreover arguably it has monopoly power, exacerbating the issue
futher. It is clear that you have not thought this through.

------
transfire
Instead of making yet more laws to patch the mess of old laws (ad nauseum) how
about getting rid of a law, i.e the Land Tax. Then brick and mortars would
have a _natural_ improvement in their circumstance competing with online
retailers.

------
praptak
France furious: foreign firm formerly fined for free freight feigns fee!

~~~
workerdrone
glorious!

------
j4kp07
They could go one step further and offer "rewards" at the end of the calendar
year that would make up for the 1 cent.

------
wdr1
I've never seen such an open & deliberate case of regulatory capture.

