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.
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.
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.
🤷 Still not the regulator’s fault.
deleted by creator
It is their fault for removing that option however.
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.
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
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.
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.