In article ,
Janet writes


You can't keep propping up businesses on emotive arguments about doe-eyed
cows and sad farmers.

Nobody did. The supermarkets, having cornered the market in retail milk
sales, collectively stopped paying a fair price to farmers for what they
produce, so that they could rake off a doubled profit for themselves.

It is fantastical, that these same supermarkets woo customers
consciences with "fair trade" exotic goods such as tea and coffee, with a
promise that the third world producers get a fair deal and can make a
reasonable living. At the same time supermarkets manipulate the milk
market to deny the same fair deal to UK home producers.


I'm afraid you seem to be arguing with an advocate of a totally free
market. The market is king. Make a profit and damn the consequences.
etc.

So I suspect that any argument to try and point out that the results of
this are almost always unpleasant and bad for society is likely to go
unheard.

Profit at any cost, making a killing and taking advantage for personal
gain seem to be the only principles.

For example, the implied comment on welfare and safety - 'there's your
problem...'. Such things are just an impediment to raking it in.

There *are* reasons for regulations in certain areas. The sharks in the
market need to be controlled - it isn't a choice of either free market
or communism, despite Ian's implication.

The fact that unregulated markets result in valueless speculation
becoming an industry in itself is either ignored or, worse, justified -
despite it being damaging for all but the speculators.

--
regards andyw