[arindambasu13]

Originally Posted by KK_HakunaMatata

Yes, there has been a re-jig at the share holding pattern, and now Amazon holds only 24% shares of cloudtail, which doesn't make it a related company. So cloudtail back in business from yesterday.

The latest regulations do not mention anything about the seller being a related party or otherwise. All its says is that the marketplace entity cant have equity participation in the vendor registered on the marketplace. So I am not sure how Cloudtail is still managing to sell on the platform as on date, assuming Amazon still has 24% (or any other) equity stake in Cloudtail.

[civic-sense]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

There's plenty I disagree with in your post (let's agree to disagree), but this one bit piqued my curiosity.

What happens when either or both parties in that trade decide to renege on agreed terms, especially after capital has changed hands and walking away isn't an option?

Is that a trick question? Cos I don't see how it is relevant here. Our courts system, although inefficient, is still thriving.

Originally Posted by rdst_1

Till that time, both will have to co-exist and both parties will try to fight for their spot whichever way they can.

Local retail businesses are not going anywhere. I was referring to the hypothetical situation that online businesses will kill local retail stores.

Originally Posted by aadya

Its the responsibility of the intelligent and more fortunate to at-least consider what is good for the least fortunate. This is called Society. If the other way around happens its a jungle, and those live such a life are animals or barbarians.

Everybody thinks he is intelligent enough to take decisions about himself. If you find somebody who thinks otherwise, he can sign up. But leave the others, who do not want to be told what to do, alone.

Why somebody would want a receipt when the seller and buyer are in agreement? That receipt or invoice is to show some regulatory authority that one of the party has not kept the promise when the deal goes sour.

That's not regulation.

Its easy for somebody lazy enough to walk to a neighbourhood store to buy what we eat and use, but to run on treadmills to gain health. If there is no regulatory bodies there is no competition. If a half billionaire cannot challenge a billionaire that is called monopoly.

Regulation will only kill competition when rich corporations bribe regulatory authorities to form policies that will benefit only them. Without regulation anybody can enter any business and add competition.

I pray that our internet shuts down for few days for the benefit of everybody and the armchair capitalist wake up to the neighbourhood human beings.

Since this debate is slowly getting personal and I have already said whatever I had to, this is where I get off.

[AMG Power]

Originally Posted by civic-sense

rich corporations bribe regulatory authorities to form policies that will benefit only them.

True. The amount of naivette on this thread justifying consumer protection as the real reason for passing the norms is astounding.

Such logic would hold good in a thread on economics. This, unfortunately, is politics.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Economics and politics are inseparable, especially when international interests are concerned as well as personal consumer interests.

The kind of "economics" that determines who, corporate or personal, should or should not be controlled or regulated, or taxed, etc etc is certainly political. Never mind party names, it is about ideologies. And it is ideology which determines what is claimed to be economic "fact."

[AMG Power]

The primary ideology here is political.

The economic outcome / ideology is only an end result dictated by this primary political ideology.

Hence the debate here should be on the political ideology which is not permitted.

[sdp1975]

Cloudtail, the largest seller on Amazon’s India website that suspended operations about a week ago, is making a comeback on Thursday after restructuring its ownership so that it is no longer a group company of the marketplace.

NR Narayana Murthy’s Catamaran Ventures has increased its stake in Cloudtail’s parent company Prione Business Services to 76% from 51% earlier, reducing JV partner Amazon Asia’s stake to 24% from 49%, people aware of the matter said. With this change, Cloudtail ceases to be an Amazon group company and becomes eligible to sell on the marketplace.

Equity holdings in Appario, the other large seller, will be similarly rejigged to make it eligible to return, the people said.

Source

[rovingeye]

And as expected, the US starts to react. Try to buy votes from the small time Amazon seller and screw up the lives of exporters.


US considers withdrawal of zero tariffs for India: Sources

"The trigger for the latest downturn in trade ties was India’s new rules on e-commerce that restrict the way Amazon.com Inc and Walmart-backed Flipkart do business in a rapidly growing online market set to touch $200 billion by 2027."

Read the full article here.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by civic-sense

Is that a trick question? Cos I don't see how it is relevant here. Our courts system, although inefficient, is still thriving...

No tricks, good sir.

I thought you were in favor of letting nobody interfere in the transaction except the buyer/seller? Or is the legal system immune to being bent by the better-leveraged party in your opinion, because that's the basis of your distrust of bureaucracy?

Also, in your preferred system of buyer/seller negotiated terms, said terms are not guaranteed by anything except the word of both parties (no regulations, you see), so what exactly would the legal system base their intervention on in the absence of regulation governing the transaction?

[civic-sense]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

No tricks, good sir.

I thought you were in favor of letting nobody interfere in the transaction except the buyer/seller? Or is the legal system immune to being bent by the better-leveraged party in your opinion, because that's the basis of your distrust of bureaucracy?

Also, in your preferred system of buyer/seller negotiated terms, said terms are not guaranteed by anything except the word of both parties (no regulations, you see), so what exactly would the legal system base their intervention on in the absence of regulation governing the transaction?

Cheating is dealt with by the legal system. That has nothing to do with regulation. Market regulation is when some entity persuades or dissuades some kind of transaction against the will of one or more parties.

Am not advocating anarchy here. At least, not yet.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by civic-sense

Cheating is dealt with by the legal system. That has nothing to do with regulation. Market regulation is when some entity persuades or dissuades some kind of transaction against the will of one or more parties.

Am not advocating anarchy here. At least, not yet.

Doesn't answer my question though. This could probably get off-topic for this particular thread but bear with me for a second.

'Cheating' isn't always a clear cut case, and the more complex transactions get, the murkier it becomes to separate out what's above board and below.

In a unregulated market where we let the participants sort things out between themselves until judicial arbitration becomes necessary, how do we expect a fair legal resolution for a situation that may have no legal precedent for the courts to rely on, and no legislative basis to base a fresh precedent on?

[AMG Power]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

.. how do we expect a fair legal resolution for a situation that may have no legal precedent for the courts to rely on, and no legislative basis to base a fresh precedent on?

There have been several situations where courts have no legal precedent to rely on but yet pass judgement - case in point a recent issue on religion in a southern state.

Courts can sit in judgement in every area regardless of there being a precedent.

Fair resolution is utopian - what appears fair to one will not appear so to another.

[Ithaca]

Amazon changes business structure - TOI Article
Source: Amazon changes business structures

Amazon brings back offers, fast deliveries - TOI Article
Source: Amazon brings back offers, fast deliveries

Amazon has restructured its stake in holding companies of both Cloudtail and Appario Retail to be compliant with updated norms

Happy with this since Amazon Basics sells good quality charging cables, notepads and sundry items that are reasonably priced.
Also Amazon Pantry is back.

On another note, on the Amazon Pay dashboard page, there is a notice saying that existing minimum KYC is expiring and full KYC needs to be completed such you can load upto Rs 1 Lakh per month.
Amazon representative will visit at doorstep and collect the documents and verify that the person exists.
Documents required - Pan Card and Address Proof (Passport / Voter ID / Driving License)
Since it is not yet offered at my pin code, I have asked them to notify me once my area is under consideration.

[civic-sense]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

Doesn't answer my question though. This could probably get off-topic for this particular thread but bear with me for a second.

'Cheating' isn't always a clear cut case, and the more complex transactions get, the murkier it becomes to separate out what's above board and below.

In a unregulated market where we let the participants sort things out between themselves until judicial arbitration becomes necessary, how do we expect a fair legal resolution for a situation that may have no legal precedent for the courts to rely on, and no legislative basis to base a fresh precedent on?

Perhaps I don't understand your question. Or you have a wrong understanding about regulation. A regulators job is far from arbitrating between people. A buyer pays the seller not because a regulator says so, but because it is implicitly agreed before sale that money and goods will change hands. If I pay money to a tomato seller and he refuses to give me tomatoes a Tomato Regulatory Authority of India will not step in and give me tomato. A Tomato Regulatory Authority of India's job is to only dictate minimum/maximum price, where it can be sold, who can sell it etc. Any breach of contract between buyer and seller is handled by courts.

[aadya]

Originally Posted by civic-sense

A Tomato Regulatory Authority of India's job is to only dictate minimum/maximum price, where it can be sold, who can sell it etc. Any breach of contract between buyer and seller is handled by courts.

No sir, I think Tomato Regulatory Authority does fix the price band and lays down the regulation for the sale like how many days after the tomato is harvested, how it should be packed, where it should be sold and what the contract should mention etc etc.,

There are no King Solomons and Manus sitting in our courts interpreting morality, they just interepret the Constitution, Laws passed by the legislature/parliament and the Rules framed by the Regulators(with the power vested on them by the Laws establishing them). So in the absence of Politico economics(capitalistic or socialistic) and in the absence of Regulators, Courts would be again market place where justice is sold and bought, even online.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by civic-sense

Perhaps I don't understand your question. Or you have a wrong understanding about regulation....

Let's move this to the economics thread if we intend to continue, or leave it here because we'll veer far off-topic.

The crux of the whole thing is in what one calls cheating. You probably view it as a black & white argument (appears so from the examples you quoted but excuse me if I got the wrong impression), while I look at it as a dynamic grey area that depends on the complexity of the transaction.