you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 10 points 3 months ago (5 children)

You are assuming both options were on the market for consumers to choose from.

These are unilateral decisions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    I am making no such assumption, and you clearly do not know how businesses operate.

    I'm not fond of much of what they do, but I'm speaking in realities, not idealations.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    You "make no such assumptions" of whether both sizes were available in 1991, but you do assume that the user has no idea how businesses operate. You're not speaking in reality at all, you're just arguing nonsensically

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Y'all go live in made-up land, I guess.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago*

    If people weren't buying more of them, they wouldn't've changed the size

    That's what you said. If a business is already making sales and profit, why would they decrease the size? You think they were selling the candy at a loss or something, and had to slowly increase revenue?

    It's the definition of "shrinkflation" and it's anti-consumerism because they aren't making it obvious that they're increasing the cost of the product

    What kind of ignorant are you, that you can't wrap your head around that? Go spout your elitist, anti-intellectualism elsewhere, cause ain't nobody here buying it

    And if you truly believe in what you're saying, good luck my dude, and may god have mercy on your soul

  • source
  • parent