3 ms·
I don't see how a monopoly or not changes this much if the additive makes the product more profitable and people aren't generally aware of its existence or pote
by not_kurt_godel 4y ago
I don't see how a monopoly or not changes this much if the additive makes the product more profitable and people aren't generally aware of its existence or potential harm. Why is manipulating a rube goldberg machine of market economics - that will, by definition, still lead to a significant number of people consuming a harmful substance if it even 'works' at all - better than simply banning additives outright?
- bsder 4y ago> I don't see how a monopoly or not changes this much if the additive makes the product more profitable If there is robust competition, I can vote with my wallet. At that point, compromising quality for a fraction of a penny isn't worthwhile to a smaller manufacturer. I would very much like to buy France-level bread every day in the US. I, however, cannot because that tiny producer cannot compete with the monopolies--they can't get volume discounts; they can't automate with industrial processes to the same degree; they have to have retail space; they can't get into supermarkets (which are also monopolies), etc. The US used to have very nice, local bakeries. They have been all wiped out by consolidation.
- not_kurt_godel 4y agoOK, but why should harmful additives be allowed whether the market is monopolized or has competition?