How is that odd? The issue was the safety of its French employees, and therefore the order from the French court relates to the Amazon facilities in France.
No, but unless the French decide that they can force others countries to follow their laws, the only choice is between [French protection laws applied in France; French protection laws not applied abroad] and [French protection laws not applied in France; French protection laws not applied abroad].
"Free markets, except when the markets do not work" is not particularly specific - I fail to think of any mainstream party in the West that do not agree with this principle. The disagreement is about 1. when do markets fail and 2. what are the acceptable policies to fix it.
For instance, environmental externalities could justify an endless list of regulations, a massive carbon tax and/or cap-and-trade policies, as well as tariffs for countries not complying with environmental regulations. Because the markets does not work. Yet this is clearly not something everyone agrees with, despite being a market drive the economy but intervene to keep them spinning until the (climate) crisis passes.
I do not mean to enagage in politics and suggest the example I gave is what we should or should not do.
My point is that most people beliefs about the economy are a lot more specific than "markets with some intervention".
Totally agree with pretty much all of this; I'm just arguing that "don't subsidize, ever" is a very extreme vision of capitalism, and doing a one year or less intervention is nowhere close to throwing away the whole system (which GP is implying very clearly elsewhere in the thread, and to be fair I probably should have responded to those specific comments instead of this one).
I agree that when and how we intervene is important to discuss, it's just important to argue the details, not "but muh capitalism" as a way to argue against every government action ever.
Well Amazon has been sued by its workers' representatives, lost in the first trial and lost again in the appeal trial.
It is of course possible that other delivery services have similar safety measures and have not been sued yet, or have more lenient workers, or whatever; but still, it offers _some_ evidence that Amazon might have worse practices than others.
The liabilities of the Fed [0] are money in circulation, reserves accounts of banks (mainly to meet requirements) and the deposits of the Treasury. Besides the fact that it is not clear why the Fed may collapse when they can create money to pay back their liabilities, I am not sure what it would mean for the Fed to default on the bills and coins in circulation (?) or to wipe out the accounts of banks when those very banks are legally bound to hold money in those accounts.
It's lucky I never said that because obviously that would be stupid. However the release of a major version of a popular piece of software should be expected to go beyond the mailing list - and guess what, it being on the front page of HN all morning proves that exact point.
The strongest plausible interpretation of what the previous comment said is that it refers to the Fields medal, which has been described as the mathematician's Nobel Prize [0]. Assume good faith.
