• grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Sure, in the same way it’s the government’s “fault” for removing your option to, say, run a protection racket, or agree to a contract of indentured servitude, or sell baby formula with melamine in it. There are lots of abusive or exploitative business models that the government removes your option to engage in! And the government is right to do it.

        • oo1@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          go price discrimination!

          we should give more companies more market power so they can do it more.

          fucking competetive markets suck - i cant believe all these fucking laws trying to limit monopoly power.

          /s

        • Deceptichum@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not at all.

          Offering those less capable of paying, a reduced price isn’t abusive or exploitative.

          There is a huge difference between the things you’ve mentioned and this. You’re being intentionally dishonest at this point and there’s no further point in this discussion.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            The cost of producing something doesn’t change depending on who you sell it to. Charging anything beyond cost + some reasonable profit margin is unethical profiteering.