> While I'd lean more towards plain ol' capitalism as the reason for small market players going under
He seems to point pretty directly to Chinese subsidies allowing those printers to be sold under cost. That’s not capitalism.
He seems to point pretty directly to Chinese subsidies allowing those printers to be sold under cost. That’s not capitalism.
And the government sat on its hands and our representatives loved all the Prime boxes stacked at their doorstep. It has ensh#ttified entire industries that once depended upon retail as their interface with customers.
The free-market folks talk about something that works in theory as an ideal, but has never actually been put into practice.
Companies doing the "same thing" with government handouts (where the ultimate source of the money had no say in the matter) is not.
It's like the difference between companies that hire workers and those that use slave labor. They may have otherwise identical business models, but the later are operating at an unfair advantage.
If we would know the true motivation of the government, then we could make a difference, but until we don't know it exactly, then there really isn't.
It is entirely possible that that government is giving money against shares or future profits.
It gets problematic and different if, for example, let's say the motivation is to use it as political leverage or even installing backdoors and collect user data.