> By saying that you're basically throwing the whole concept of "fairness" out of the window, so that's no argument.
Not at all. I'm saying that, if the small bookstores are less efficient at providing books to people, then there is room for a more efficient competitor to drive them out of business without any unfair competition taking place.
> In my view, Amazon does provide a more complete service than smaller bookstores, but they achieved this with external money; money obtained from outside the book-selling business.
So what if the money was from outside the book-selling business? You seem to be declaring all outside capital investment to be unfair, which strikes me as a bizarre stance. Were railroads unfair competition to wagons because the railroads had to raise capital on Wall Street?
> By saying that you're basically throwing the whole concept of "fairness" out of the window, so that's no argument.
Not at all. I'm saying that, if the small bookstores are less efficient at providing books to people, then there is room for a more efficient competitor to drive them out of business without any unfair competition taking place.
> In my view, Amazon does provide a more complete service than smaller bookstores, but they achieved this with external money; money obtained from outside the book-selling business.
So what if the money was from outside the book-selling business? You seem to be declaring all outside capital investment to be unfair, which strikes me as a bizarre stance. Were railroads unfair competition to wagons because the railroads had to raise capital on Wall Street?