# The Fundamental Rules of Economics

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fundamental-rules-of-economics/971357>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [September 11, 2022, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fundamental-rules-of-economics/971357 "2022-09-11T01:50:08Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 138

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\
**Post date:** [September 18, 2022, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fundamental-rules-of-economics/971357/138 "2022-09-18T18:30:46Z")

</div>

> [@Sam\_Stone](#):
>
> I don’t want you or anyone else deciding what is or isn’t desirable for other people. I’d rather let them choose.
> 
> I’ve always been baffled by people who sneer at ‘excessive choice’. And yes, that aspect of freedom is ‘desirable’. I’d rather have a world with 18 different types of mustard and 20 different small cars and lots of choice in clothing and everything else than live in a world where our ‘betters’ decide what mustard we will eat and what car we must drive. Choice is freedom. It’s also what keeps brands competing with each other and striving for constant improvement.

This is why your mold example shows the opposite of what you pointed out. They optimize for them only. There is less freedom coming from the ones that ‘are our betters’ unless government intervenes (not all the time, but enough to prevent monopolies or duopolies), as it is clear that the ones controlling the market do optimize things for their own benefit, then they do not have an incentive to do the right thing.

> **[Can the Visa-Mastercard duopoly be broken?](https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2022/08/17/can-the-visa-mastercard-duopoly-be-broken)**
>
> It is bad for American consumers and retailers—and it is under threat

> [@Sam\_Stone](#):
>
> So what? If Charmin is inferior to what is available elsewhere, Walmart will lose some market share. If it isn’t, it doesn’t matter. But I suspect that what’s really going on is that the ‘big’ manufacturers are the only ones who can manufacture and deliver products on the scale required by Wallmart, and do it with the low margins Walmart demands.
> 
> Walmart’s efficient supply chain management was responsible for cutting about a half point off of inflation in the 2000’s, benefiting everyone and the poor especially. And all of it was to the benefit of customers who could buy decent goods at lower prices than had been achieved before. Poor single mothers in particular have found Walmart a godsend. Walmart is a great example of capitalism helping the poor.

[Yet another “Susanita” argument](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-me-be-real-clear-this-message-board-does-not-need-conservatives/947474/2384), in this case it is a willful omission of the point being made, assuming for a moment that yes, Wallwart saves a lot of money for poor people, _that should not be a reason to look away from the corruption being reported._ The corruption that was pointed out when Charmin does that with the shelf space, while the store may lower prices, the point is that lack of competition eventually does keep prices up. Point being that the prices then would be even lower if there were better chances given to the competitors of Charmin.

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fundamental-rules-of-economics/971357)._