Such selling at a loss is really weird from an anti-trust perspective.
As a worst case, it allows a company to 'invest' in market share by selling at a loss to strangle the competition. Once this is done, they can entrench themselves and raise prices.
If you only look at anti-trust as consumer protection, the above scenario only becomes problematic when its to late.
That said, lines are hard to draw. When is a company lowering prices to strangle the competition and when is the competition being strangled a side-effect of efficiency?
Is it okay if amazon intends to always stay cheap, and use retail as a loss-leader?
What should happen when supermarkets dampen price fluctuation, taking a loss when prices spike to appease their customers.
It's a hard problem, but we should be careful about companies operating at a loss just to strangle their competition.
However, should this come at the cost of companies that strangle their competition by just being more efficient?
That said, lines are hard to draw. When is a company lowering prices to strangle the competition and when is the competition being strangled a side-effect of efficiency? Is it okay if amazon intends to always stay cheap, and use retail as a loss-leader? What should happen when supermarkets dampen price fluctuation, taking a loss when prices spike to appease their customers.
It's a hard problem, but we should be careful about companies operating at a loss just to strangle their competition. However, should this come at the cost of companies that strangle their competition by just being more efficient?