Okay. This will take a little economic theory to understand so I hope you appreciate I'm taking your question seriously and not passing it off as snark.
You probably have heard of Nash equilibria? These are points on a multi-player economic manifold in which no party can make a move to improve their outcome. The surprising aspect of these is that they are often not the optimal or pessimal points of operation. The prisoners dilemma is a classic illustration of rational behaviors driving them to the pessimal outcome when they could also both win in the optimal outcome.
that's usually as far as most introductory classes go but there's much more to explore here.
Keynes argues that when recessions occur, everyone is getting less and so spending less which leads to getting less. It's a stable Nash equilibrium . But theres another stable point too. Every spends more, and makes more money. The problem is you ccan't get the system to move from one stable point to the other more desirable one by the players own actions. He reasoned that an outside force could temporarily cut a channel in the manifold coinnecting the two points in a way everyone would move to the better point. his prescription was to borrow on the future higher productivity and inject spending into the system. Whether you agree with his prescription is a good solution isn;t the point. The point is about an. Outside force being able to cut channels.
That only works when the outside force has a strong enough market power to literally change the economic manifold itself. In the case of a bussiness when it has enough monopoly it can do this. And that's considered a hazard.
How a bussiness wields that strategy and whether it helps or hurts is immaterial to observing the existence of it. So for example, we very often see governments spending into recessions as Keynes advised but then forgetting about paying back the borrowed money as Keynes also advised. (Politicians not Keynes are to blame for the imperfect application of his strategy).
So while we don't know why amazon does what it does, we do know it can do this kind of market shaping. The fact that they lower the whole market is evidence of this. How it benefits amazon one can only speculate on. (For example, the reason target lowers prices is presumably to acquire more regular customers at amazons expense. They are in effect purchasing a customer base. Amazon can defeat that purchase and profit later from the retained customer base after target reaches the end of its finical gambit. But the why doesn't matter here. The point is amazon has enough power that it alone can determine if target succeeds.
It's the flip side where we get back to the manifolds. How then does amazon walk from the Nash equilibrium at the low price back to the Nash equilibrium at the high price? A small bussiness can't do it. That's the whole point of a Nash equilibrium. YOu can't induce the other players actions to favor you.
But amazon was testing ways to do just that using its market size. And it works.
Thus it is able to literally alter the market manifold. This is considered a bad sign of monopoly practices even if nothing bad happened in a particular case.