> Not defending the bad actors here, but there's that whole "show me the incentives and I will predict the outcome" thing. If the market structure rewards manip

> Not defending the bad actors here, but there's that whole "show me the incentives and I will predict the outcome" thing. If the market structure rewards manipulation, you get manipulation. The market structure doesn't have to be this way. I think that’s partly right but it’s much broader than that. The incentives in capitalism in general very frequently don’t line up with what’s best for consumers or even humanity. There are numerous industries where the financial incentive to drive down cost (poor quality products) and increase price (consumer strain) is sooo strong. Far stronger than weak regulatory incentives. So while you’re right, that’s kinda the whole point of the article too. Even without the market structure, the incentives are not aligned to make the cheapest possible yet high quality eggs for consumers. I mean in what universe does that make more profits for companies. But that would be better for humans. You’re right, we should care that the structure of the entire economy is deprioritizing what’s best for humans. It’s supposedly only the best structure we’ve found so far. I mean sheesh. The fines for bad behavior like this need to be like N + some % of N. Where N is the profit they made (MINIMUM), and you scale the % of profit based on how bad the issue is. Companies aren’t people. They can take bigger fines. Investors just need to account from it before they spend millions upon millions in extravagant excess on criminal CEOs like these.