This article by economist Paul Krugman, is an op-ed piece that appeared in an October 2014 edition of the New York Times newspaper. In the article Krugman, an internationally respected thinker, is critical of Amazon.com’s business practices in the online retail arena. He says that Amazon is acting as a monopsonist, or the only buyer in a market where there are many sellers. He is speaking particularly about the online book publishing and sales market. Mr. Krugman says that Amazon is using its position to control the market prices and in the process, hurting consumers and its suppliers. I take issue with Mr. Krugman’s general assessment that Amazon “has too much power”. I will attempt to point out the weaknesses in Mr. Krugman’s article and his use of rhetoric to sell his position in
…show more content…
If the reader accepts his credentials, then his rhetoric used in the article may be easier to believed as being correct. He also employs a faulty logic saying that because the action of Amazon.com negatively effects their publisher/suppliers by paying them low prices, then the same low prices will eventually harm authors and consumers. This doesn’t add up as sound logic. Paul Krugman’s use of a pathos appeal, to generate the readers sentiment against the “big bully” Amazon who sits atop of the market and who is getting bigger all the time, seems to fall on its face. It seems to me to be an ineffective rhetorical strategy going up against the reality of low prices and quality service, that even Paul Krugman himself appreciates. In conclusion, I don’t see the article as being an effective use of rhetoric to sell the main idea put forth in the article. I am like Mr. Krugman, a satisfied customer of Amazon.com. I haven’t purchased a lot of books from Amazon, but I am pleased with the business that I have done with them. I don’t see this article successfully selling the idea that Amazon is too powerful or potentially a negative force for consumers in the
If the reader accepts his credentials, then his rhetoric used in the article may be easier to believed as being correct. He also employs a faulty logic saying that because the action of Amazon.com negatively effects their publisher/suppliers by paying them low prices, then the same low prices will eventually harm authors and consumers. This doesn’t add up as sound logic. Paul Krugman’s use of a pathos appeal, to generate the readers sentiment against the “big bully” Amazon who sits atop of the market and who is getting bigger all the time, seems to fall on its face. It seems to me to be an ineffective rhetorical strategy going up against the reality of low prices and quality service, that even Paul Krugman himself appreciates. In conclusion, I don’t see the article as being an effective use of rhetoric to sell the main idea put forth in the article. I am like Mr. Krugman, a satisfied customer of Amazon.com. I haven’t purchased a lot of books from Amazon, but I am pleased with the business that I have done with them. I don’t see this article successfully selling the idea that Amazon is too powerful or potentially a negative force for consumers in the