• ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    That assumes the consumer has perfect knowledge of a businesses practices and has the resources to vote with their wallet. Businesses are incentivised to conceal any actions that would cause them to lose customers, not stop those actions. They are also incentivised to eliminate competition so consumers don’t have a choice but to buy from them regardless of business practices.

    • Kalcifer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      That assumes the consumer has perfect knowledge of a businesses practices

      This is actually a very good point. I’m not sure that I have a solution for it at the moment. The lazy argument would be that information eventually leaks out, but that is not, in the slightest, a guarantee. I will have to think on that.

      and has the resources to vote with their wallet

      This outlines the need for a competitive free market. If a business is making an undesirable decision, then the consumer would have other options to choose from, or a competitor without those practices would enter the market to scoop up those who are disillusioned.

      They are also incentivised to eliminate competition

      The wilful direct elimination of competition is anti-competitive behavior, and is, therefore, incompatible with a competitive free market, and should thus be prohibited.