Re:Amazon, in Threat to UPS, Tries Its Own Deliveries
by cookiecaper on Thursday April 24, 2014 @03:49PM
(#7642530)
He said "a truly fair free market" which doesn't translate to anarchy. Some regulation may be necessary. He is just positing that the current regulations are not appropriate, not that regulations and/or law should be abolished entirely. Some regulation and law is required for a market to remain free.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Amazon, in Threat to UPS, Tries Its Own Deliveries
by e40 on Thursday April 24, 2014 @04:43PM
(#7642844)
Does anyone, anywhere believe a "truly fair free market" is anything but an ideal that could never exist? We'll find unicorns first.
Re:Amazon, in Threat to UPS, Tries Its Own Deliveries
by cookiecaper on Thursday April 24, 2014 @06:22PM
(#7643478)
I don't think "truly fair" necessarily implies "perfect".
Re:Amazon, in Threat to UPS, Tries Its Own Deliveries
by e40 on Thursday April 24, 2014 @07:23PM
(#7643757)
"Truly fair" implies that regulation would not be needed, and that is only something that would happen in an ideal world.
Re:Amazon, in Threat to UPS, Tries Its Own Deliveries
by cookiecaper on Friday April 25, 2014 @04:09AM
(#7645265)
Why does it imply regulation would not be needed? It's truly fair because appropriate regulations are in place and inappropriate regulations are not. There may still be minor flaws, but once a certain fidelity is reached, I think "truly fair" is an apropos descriptor of a system even if it isn't 100% perfect.
Re:Amazon, in Threat to UPS, Tries Its Own Deliveries
by justinreeves on Thursday April 24, 2014 @05:24PM
(#7643129)
"a truly fair free market" doesn't translate to anything, because it's not attainable.