You can just let the free market solve this problem for you. It doesn’t happen often, but it’s actually true here.
It’s super fucking easy too: place the burden of delivery on the seller/shipper, and presto, suddenly paying a little more for non-shit delivery becomes worth it. Or they keep trying till they get it right.
Not when there’s a hot new trend of charging extra at checkout for “shipping protection” from some shell of a company named Route, on top of paying for shipping. And checking it by default, too, so most folks probably never even notice.
“By declining package protection, $merchantname is not responsible for lost, damaged, or stolen items.”
Of course they still are responsible, but some companies like this are making it clear they’re not gonna deal with their own selected shippers when they fuck up
indeed. but when using the term “free market”, regulation and consumer protection is sort of the opposite of what people picture. i have no doubt it would change the dynamics since the economy tends to fill whatever space it’s given, but you could not get away with calling it a free market solution.
You can just let the free market solve this problem for you. It doesn’t happen often, but it’s actually true here.
It’s super fucking easy too: place the burden of delivery on the seller/shipper, and presto, suddenly paying a little more for non-shit delivery becomes worth it. Or they keep trying till they get it right.
Not when there’s a hot new trend of charging extra at checkout for “shipping protection” from some shell of a company named Route, on top of paying for shipping. And checking it by default, too, so most folks probably never even notice.
“By declining package protection, $merchantname is not responsible for lost, damaged, or stolen items.”
Of course they still are responsible, but some companies like this are making it clear they’re not gonna deal with their own selected shippers when they fuck up
…and you’re suggesting to implement that… how?
That would require making and enforcing laws.
right. which the free market is famously all about.
I mean, within set boundaries, it can work pretty well. Having it entirely free is demonstrably a bad idea for all but like 17 people.
indeed. but when using the term “free market”, regulation and consumer protection is sort of the opposite of what people picture. i have no doubt it would change the dynamics since the economy tends to fill whatever space it’s given, but you could not get away with calling it a free market solution.