Quote:
Originally Posted by ApK
Sounds like what you'd like to see is government telling everyone what kind of society they should want to see, and making sure they make the 'right' decisions by criminalizing or penalizing the 'wrong' ones. Because you seem to believe that the population would be incapable of choosing to patronize newsagents and tea rooms, if in fact the population DOES want them in society, unless the government makes laws making any other choice less desirable.
|
The job of a government is to do what is best for a country and for the people as a whole. The "whole" doesn't necessarily mean "the majority". Most people don't really think about political or economical matters that exceed their own personal needs or their own purse. People may well want a local tearoom, but unless they work in one or depend economically on it very directly, then they'll prefer to save $1 on that grocery product that they can get cheaper at Walmart. (There's a reason they let us vote only once every four years and why it's exceedingly rare that there are plebiscites (referendums?) on important matters.)
"Anything goes" is not what a fair market is about. Amazon is ruthless when it comes to annihilating regional competition. They don't mind losing money in order to kill off their competitors to increase their market share. Independent book stores cannot do that. You can't reasonably expect the owner of one of those shops to go to the bank, take out a 100k loan, then sell stuff at or below cost, or offer free home delivery, just to stay in business. Local stores nevertheless provide an important service (social, too, it goes beyond just protecting regional jobs) to the local communities, and that is why it's crucial to preserve them.
So what can be done? Either economical termites like Amazon get told they can't utilize these methods to take over the regional market, or the postal service is required to ship new books without charging for it (in which case then the postal service, which has been privatized in many European countries over the past two decades, pays for it). Seems easier to tell Amazon to quit exploiting their economical power, because what they do is not essentially different from what monopolies do, and those are frowned upon even in the Land of the Free. In case of monopolies people understand why it's bad, because it's immediately bad for themselves and not just others.
So, yes, sometimes the government has to help the weaker elements, even if it is unpopular or tax-money-expensive. Sometimes that is bookstores, sometimes that is the chronically ill, and sometimes it is the coal plant. The uncompromising "survival of the fittest" approach made the US to what it is today, and some of us feel that it's not what we envision the entire world to be like.
It's not the only feasible and viable model, and above all, it's not a role model.