• @grue
      link
      English
      0
      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
        link
        fedilink
        21 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
        link
        fedilink
        01 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
          link
          English
          01 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.