Sure, "a competitor" with hundreds of billions of dollars and a few decades to burn could, in theory, do that.
But what would be the payoff? Getting to compete head-to-head with Amazon? Amazon, that's a well-established incumbent, with a well-known pattern of ruthless dealings, including leveraging their ties with governments, to protect their monopoly?
No one's going to be able to make a profit doing that.
"The market" is not a real entity with desires and opinions.
"The wisdom of the market" only works with an ideal free market, or something close to it.
Such a thing has a number of requirements, such as low/no barriers to entry, perfect information, elasticity of demand, etc.
Those do not exist here. No useful information on how things "should be" can be obtained from the fact that Amazon cannot meaningfully be challenged.
Your position, essentially, boils down to "however things are right now, if they're even remotely stable, that's how things should be, because that's what the market wants." Worship of the status quo.
I’m only criticising Varoufakis point of view and some people arguments here. Of course I have some things to say about Amazon… and yes information is never perfect
But what would be the payoff? Getting to compete head-to-head with Amazon? Amazon, that's a well-established incumbent, with a well-known pattern of ruthless dealings, including leveraging their ties with governments, to protect their monopoly?
No one's going to be able to make a profit doing that.