> "Let the market run free and everything will be right" sounds good in theory, but that implies that we will be better off without anti-trust laws, and minimum

> "Let the market run free and everything will be right" sounds good in theory, but that implies that we will be better off without anti-trust laws, and minimum wage rules. I agree; it should not be taken to an extreme and I didn't mean it in an ideological sense. But there is value to 'free' market competition; it's a useful tool and also provides freedom, in the sense of liberty, a core value of our society. Government intimidation of businesses is almost always a bad solution to the problems; law and regulation are democratic and much more just. Infosys isn't the first - remember the businesses whom Trump claims to have intimidated about their factory locations. > It'll create market inefficiency, which will allow other promising companies to compete, which can potentially raise the quality of the end-result. Fundamentally, that's not the result of inefficiency. It's called "inefficient" because it costs more for worse outcomes. It's a very predictable, well-tested outcome.