Australia has two major grocery chains who stockpile vacant land to remain monopolistic. The supermarkets screw suppliers on price and will dump them entirely if they speak out. They also produce their own ‘home brands’ which undercut competitors as they own the entire supply chain. You can be damn sure it’s happening here.
Edit: and whether it happens or not, my question was related to whether mr beast dangling a million dollars for someone to stand in a circle for 100 days is as unethical as price gouging essential items. One may take advantage of a few people and is probably not extremely biased towards the most vulnerable, (e.g. the participants are probably not homeless), the other is taking advantage of everyone, homelessness is surging in aus atm. I see Mr beasts videos as far less damaging than the current problem in Australia.
Not all shady business practices are gouging. I was responding to the statement you made. Selling a product cheaper than your competitors, even if you're using unfair leverage to do it is not by any measure 'gouging.' In the US, discount stores are most likely to play the "strategically let this useful land moulder in a densely populated area during a housing crisis" game but they're definitely not price gouging. Those are problems with business ethics, and I do not consider them more harmful, generally, than lampooning poor people to an audience of millions. The stigma of poverty and houselessness has direct, consequential economic and mental health impact on the people that experience it.
Australian supermarkets are screwing producers by making lowball offers on stock and increasing prices far beyond inflation to consumers. They are both price gouging and performing other shady business practices at the same time.
Ok, so one of those things is price gouging (the price gouging), which sounds like a problem local to the Australian grocery market. It's obviously bad, but Mr Beast has 12x Australia's population in YouTube followers. The comparison doesn't make sense. Your trying to whatabout this with that is completely bizarre, and why your initial comment is dead. Bye
I’m not sure how his follower count is relevant unless he’s paying all his followers to stand in a circle. But sure, keep thinking mr beast is the most unethical entity in the world while we all suffer the consequences of late stage capitalism.
Come on... you know I never even intimated that Mr. Beast is the most unethical entity in the world. Saying that viewership doesn't matter when you've turned degrading poor people into a form of entertainment is obviously a bad faith argument. Now, for real, I'll leave you to destroy every straw man you can fabricate, by yourself.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yoo6XVxpiU8
Edit: and whether it happens or not, my question was related to whether mr beast dangling a million dollars for someone to stand in a circle for 100 days is as unethical as price gouging essential items. One may take advantage of a few people and is probably not extremely biased towards the most vulnerable, (e.g. the participants are probably not homeless), the other is taking advantage of everyone, homelessness is surging in aus atm. I see Mr beasts videos as far less damaging than the current problem in Australia.