> I agree fully, but Amazon is still the "cheapest" when you consider the all in price of cost_of_goods+cost_of_delivery|want_goods_in_fewer_than_two_days.

Why say you agree when you only go on to disagree with me?

I've bought plenty of things cheaper on other sites. Delivery included. There have been things that were cheaper on Amazon as well. This is why I said it's about average. But there are so many variables at play here (location, items you're looking to purchase, etc) that it might just be easier to agree to disagree.

> Amazon has the most efficient business, which allows them to survive on lower margins and attract buyers because of the vertically integrated pipeline they've created.

Those vertically integrated pipelines come with significant cost savings though. That's why they do it. And because it saves them $$$, it then also increases their margins.

> Your example of other companies selling the same product at cheaper prices helps to illuminate the fact that there isn't any real impact from the supposed anti-competitive behavior to the consumer. Cheaper prices still exist! Amazon hasn't become the sole provider.

Those two arguments aren't mutually inclusive. Other companies might be offering cheaper prices but making a loss in the hope that loyalty will win customers in the long run. Or other corners might get cut that could ultimately lead to that businesses demise, such as not hiring skilled staff, not following health and safety or other local laws, etc. And even if none of the aforementioned is true, it still doesn't mean that Amazon aren't being anti-competitive.

Also "anti-competitive behaviour" applies to how they block other businesses from competing. You cannot be "anti-competitive to the consumer"