Of course it's the definition of a market. Why is that a problem? Nothing in your comment contradicts what I said, although I don't agree with everyone you said.
Pretty much all markets sell convenience. Buying something at one place and time and selling it in another that's more convenient to the buyer is what traders do.
And yes, alternatives exist. But companies are selling the bits for more than the cost of production and millions of people are buying it, despite cheaper competition. This seems to be sustainable. So the original argument about economics and what markets will bear is false.
You're right Fred, we just don't see the world the same way
I personally don't think the idea of "markets" has much to offer the
world now, it's an outdated and immature way of trying to see complex
things in a simple way.
Sorry we can't seem to have a more grown up conversation about it, but
not only are you inflexible you've crossed the line into making
personal remarks which is unacceptable.
Obviously, that does not apply if the market already exists, which it usually does. In that case you have to be different and better enough than the alternatives.
You seem to be refuting claims I never made. I'm simply perplexed that so many people don't know this market exists (as is indicated/suggested by the number of upvotes).
Whereabouts in Asia? That's an interesting counterpoint and example.
I agree with you completely: I'm not a 'markets' guy because I think they're the answer to all problems all the time, but because I think in this case we could use more of them.
reply