• 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.