this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2026
102 points (98.1% liked)

Ontario

3605 readers
189 users here now

A place to discuss all the news and events taking place in the province of Ontario, Canada.

Rules

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca 45 points 5 hours ago (3 children)

How is this not against the law already?

[–] silvermoon82@wandering.shop 24 points 5 hours ago (3 children)

@BedSharkPal
Capitalism.
Both the Liberals and Cons are pro-business, and charging more when you can get away with it is a Very Good And Brilliant Business Strategy.

[–] potpotato@lemmy.world 1 points 54 minutes ago

Pro-business should be anti-trust.

Robinson-Patman Act is anti-trust.

Assume all buyers are potential sellers then price discrepancies are anti-trust violations.

[–] arin@lemmy.world 1 points 59 minutes ago

Liberal my ass, you mean centrist.

[–] reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net 6 points 5 hours ago

Maximum Efficiency just like we planned.

[–] dom@lemmy.ca 15 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Because we dont ever elect left wing parties

[–] n3m37h@sh.itjust.works 12 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

True, both Libs and Cons are right leaning currently. We need Avi

[–] BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca 4 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Big fan of this guy except for his views on military spending.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

I'd still get him elected and lobby the party for doing domestic defence investment. That'd be easier to achieve than getting con or lib gov't to not spend much more money on foreign equipment. We still have not canceled the F35 purchase.

[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 4 points 4 hours ago

An actual argument for would be haggling and bargaining at places like markets.

But to pretend selective pricing only happens there is wrong.