# The Price of "Premium" and its negative effect on the world.



## Dr_Faustus (Jun 1, 2022)

Something that has been on my mind for a bit off and on is the concept of things being priced because of them being "premium" despite it logically having no reason for it to be. 

What do I mean by this? Well there are many examples but the one that would make the most sense here in example of argument is in the case of food and wellness. If you say, wanted to get a regular sandwich or even a meal at a fast food restaurant, the price would be half or almost the amount than it would be for a full salad at said restaurant. Why this is the case however is never really explained or argued, its just accepted at this point that "if you want to eat better and/or healthier, you have to pay a premium for it!". Its something that never sat well with me, mainly because there should be no reasonable point why a salad should cost as much as a meal or twice as much as a regular sandwich. This further expands into other areas such as if you want to eat something that has a plant based option and/or if you are sensitive to gluten. (a goddamn gluten free bun is 2 dollars alone extra!) It all costs extra to have because its meant to be better for you. But why does it have to cost so much more?

Again it really does not add up. Most salads are prepared not on the spot but are premade before they are ordered (unless special ordered) Gluten free buns are not even put on but are kept aside so they customer has to put them on themselves. Plant based options do not offer any truly better flavor than its regular options and sometimes can come off being worse than their meat counterparts, again at a premium. 

Even in supermarkets, if you want to eat better the options tend to scale upward fast. A small bag of soy made breaded chicken can cost around 6 dollars where a larger bag of regular chicken costs the same or cheaper! 

This also extends into other facets too, such as things including status tags such as "cruelty free" and "fair trade" which adds the price up on items a fair amount over the cheaper options that do not have these. Why should it cost so much more to do the right thing? I feel its more of a matter of making ones self feel good to spend more money for these things. It preys on their guilt and by spending more they somehow see themselves as being better because spending more supported the better effort, even if you do not know if those efforts are actually being done behind the scenes. 

What I am trying to say here is why should any of these things cost a premium at all? If we want to do the right things for ourselves and the world around us why should it come at a significantly higher cost? If we really want to fight things like obesity in this country why not make the healthy options as cheap or cheaper than the normal unhealthy options? If we want to support gluten allergies, vegetarians and vegans why is it so much more than just eating normal food? If we want to support a fair and well world for everyone why should it cost a premium to do so?

It simply does not make sense. The only thing that does is the aspect of companies and special interests taking more money out of something because of a perceived value of something being better for you and/or the world being more expensive by default than simply going for the cheaper option. 

Another example would also be EV's and hybrids. The point of these are to lower emissions and to be cheaper to avoid needing gas (if at all). However how are we ever going to make these cars more mainstream when they still have not been made cheap enough for the average car owner to use and drive fine enough? If we are to want to aim for a world where we would one day no longer be dependent on gas we will never get there if EV's are constantly perceived as a premium item. A further problem is when Some States intend to phase out the sale of new gas cars within under 15 years. A goal where there is no plan to push an alternative EV option for the same price or cheaper than other new cars that would be cheaper because of their engine. But did they think of this or plan on doing anything about this? No, its not _their _problem to figure out._ Its yours_.

If the point is to make the world a better place and for ourselves to be healthier people, then we seriously need to stop pricing these things at a premium. Make them the same price as everything else out there, maybe even cheaper! Things would improve vastly as a result. Otherwise nothing will change if we keep the bad things cheap and the good things premium. Its a matter of financials and convenience. 

I wanted to make this thread to discuss this, why it is what it is and more examples of "premium" pricing for things in the world.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 2, 2022)

Dr_Faustus said:


> What I am trying to say here is why should any of these things cost a premium at all?


They shouldn't. If you go to the supermarket you are dealing with highly sophistcated scemes from merchants of the tallest order. Bypass them altogether by buying local. You get to know the people and conditions of the production of the food you consume and cut out the middle man.


Dr_Faustus said:


> If we really want to fight things like obesity in this country why not make the healthy options as cheap or cheaper than the normal unhealthy options?


Because they want you to be unhealty and obese, makes it easier to rule.


Dr_Faustus said:


> If we want to support a fair and well world for everyone why should it cost a premium to do so?


That is not what it is about.


Dr_Faustus said:


> If the point is to make the world a better place and for ourselves to be healthier people, then we seriously need to stop pricing these things at a premium.


Won't happen.


Dr_Faustus said:


> Make them the same price as everything else out there, maybe even cheaper!


Forget it.


Dr_Faustus said:


> Things would improve vastly as a result.


Not the goal.


Dr_Faustus said:


> Otherwise nothing will change if we keep the bad things cheap and the good things premium.


Yes, nothing will change. Just disengage with their bs.


Dr_Faustus said:


> I wanted to make this thread to discuss this, why it is what it is and more examples of "premium" pricing for things in the world.


There is not much to discuss. If you deal with highly sophisticated merchants you will pay as much as they can get away with, every single time. Deal with it or deprive them of your demand and take it somewhere else.



Dr_Faustus said:


> But why does it have to cost so much more?


Because they can get away with it. It's fundamentalyl stacked against you.


Dr_Faustus said:


> This also extends into other facets too, such as things including status tags such as "cruelty free" and "fair trade" which adds the price up on items a fair amount over the cheaper options that do not have these. Why should it cost so much more to do the right thing?


It shouldn't. Buy locally, check for yourself, save your money.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 2, 2022)

Something is worth what someone else is willing to pay. As you yourself note, albeit in a more roundabout way, people do like to pay for the appearance of luxury or equally meaningless internal good boy points as well.

In the simplistic case (the complex one pretty much only sees prices go up from there unless loss leader) then cost of base materials plus cost of manufacture, base materials and manufacture also includes wastage.

Those two things adequately explain all your concerns.

Also do I want to support vegans? Disgusting creatures they are. Would rather have a child; they are similarly disgusting but at least they have a chance of growing up and having a sensible conversation one day.

As far as the saviour of the world, that being electric cars (despite then needing to mine lots of rare and unpleasant materials to make even remotely viable, physics providing a hard limit on energy storage density there, which goes back to the base cost thing from earlier and also speaks), then your two options are government gravy train (has it ever worked?) or government mandated pricing* (rather against free trade).

*granted there is also the stick approach of banning things (or virtually banning them by taxing them out of existence) but you also have the pick up and leave approach.


----------



## impeeza (Jun 2, 2022)




----------



## Creamu (Jun 2, 2022)

FAST6191 said:


> Something is worth what someone else is willing to pay. As you yourself note, albeit in a more roundabout way, people do like to pay for the appearance of luxury or equally meaningless internal good boy points as well.
> 
> In the simplistic case (the complex one pretty much only sees prices go up from there unless loss leader) then cost of base materials plus cost of manufacture, base materials and manufacture also includes wastage.
> 
> ...


Agreed


FAST6191 said:


> Would rather have a child;


Yikes!


FAST6191 said:


> they are similarly disgusting but at least they have a chance of growing up and having a sensible conversation one day.


Yes and you would ensure the survival of your kind.


FAST6191 said:


> As far as the saviour of the world, that being electric cars (despite then needing to mine lots of rare and unpleasant materials to make even remotely viable, physics providing a hard limit on energy storage density there, which goes back to the base cost thing from earlier and also speaks), then your two options are government gravy train (has it ever worked?) or government mandated pricing* (rather against free trade).


Also they are moving low intensity microwavesovens.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 2, 2022)

It's just capitalism being capitalism.  At least in the American system, there are financial incentives to keeping people sick and/or unhealthy.  Not so much in the EU where people are covered by universal healthcare.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 2, 2022)

Xzi said:


> It's just capitalism being capitalism.  At least in the American system, there are financial incentives to keeping people sick and/or unhealthy.  Not so much in the EU where people are covered by universal healthcare.


Yes. Also its curious how the health care system and the unhealthy food industry benifit from eachother.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 2, 2022)

Creamu said:


> Yes and you would ensure the survival of your kind.



That is one of those silly survival instincts that is better ignored. Not to mention I am banking on mind uploading and medicine being good enough to get me there, to say nothing of ideas matter more (and I have trained a lot of people to be fellow cynical bastards) than biology.

Anyway I already went.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 2, 2022)

FAST6191 said:


> That is one of those silly survival instincts that is better ignored. Not to mention I am banking on mind uploading and medicine being good enough to get me there, to say nothing of ideas matter more (and I have trained a lot of people to be fellow cynical bastards) than biology.


Oh what a shame. So sad to see you go. It was nice. Sakura anata deaete yokatta!


----------



## Kraken_X (Jun 2, 2022)

Restaurants and grocery stores charge more for lettuce than they do for corn and potatoes, because they cost more.  Similarly, it costs much more to provide a range for chickens to live ethically than to keep them in tiny cages in a factory farm, so of course those chickens will cost more to eat.  EVs cost more than gas cars to make and so that extra cost is passed on to the consumer. 

So what do we do to make the option that's better for society more affordable, and for that matter, why is the unhealthy thing currently more affordable?  Government. 

The government subsidizes corn, so of course it is cheaper than the healthy vegetables that they don't.  If they stop subsidizing corn, then corn prices would go up - people don't like that; not just consumers, but especially big agribusiness and their bribes/lobbying money.  Plus the cost of chicken goes up since corn is used for feed, along with everything that has corn as an ingredient.  

Oil is a big one too.  The price of oil in the USA is lower than most of the rest of the world, even now, due to subsidies.  Some of those subsidies are direct, and some are ignoring the environmental consequences of oil consumption.  The government gave oil producers a ton of federal land too, much of which they aren't using.  But when prices get high instead of using the land they already have to produce more, big oil pockets the profits and demands more subsidies.  And what should the government do?  Crack down on their profiteering and start taking away land they aren't using as punishment?  Nah, more subsidies and free land.  Wouldn't want those bribe checks to bounce, or for big oil to retaliate against the people who already struggle to get to work and have even less take home pay by raising prices at the pump. 

A lot of new technologies haven't been optimized yet and haven't achieved economies of scale.  For example, solar panels and EVs don't have the economies of scale or the decades of engineering that their oil consuming alternatives do.  Plus the oil-based alternatives already have a system of subsidies in place.  So, since EVs cost more to produce than traditional cars, the government slapped a subsidy on them in the form of a rebate to entice consumers.  However, a lot of elected officials don't want EVs to be successful, so they remove or lower the credits when control of the government switches.

tl;dr, things that are better for you and/or society often do actually cost more, and that gets passed on to you, the consumer.  The government affects prices by offering subsidies, but a lot of times are subsidizing the wrong things.  Removing the subsidies is hard because consumers don't want to pay more and the industries receiving the subsidies can spend less than the subsidies influencing elections and sending bribes to keep the subsidies in place.  Subsidies for new and better alternatives are necessarily, but that's government spending, and entrenched industries don't like competition either. 

Until and unless government steps up, you will have to decide between the cheaper option that's better for your wallet, or the more expensive option that makes you sacrifice for the betterment of society.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 2, 2022)

On subsidies I do have to point at New Zealand. Yes New Zealand, the place that makes all sorts of wonderful high quality world class foods. That happened after they removed subsidies. Whether that would happen to the US (something more of a market force) could be subject to a bit more debate, though I would still go for it.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 3, 2022)

I also want to add this book recommandation.

Weston A. Price - Nutrition and physical degeneration



As you can see in this video. People lived healthy by producing their own foods, while giving 0 to merchants.

The closest thing you can do your self is make your own waterkefir. Buy local grass fed beef, potatoes and beans all directly from the farmer (waaaay cheaper).


Listen to the NUTRITION GENIOUS and live healthy.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 3, 2022)

There is however a distinct difference between subsistence farming and more industrial approaches. The latter takes a lot less labour to feed a lot more people, probably better too.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 3, 2022)

FAST6191 said:


> There is however a distinct difference between subsistence farming and more industrial approaches. The latter takes a lot less labour to feed a lot more people, probably better too.


In the case of grass fed beef vs grain fed beef you get amoung other critical differences no K2 komplex (mk-4 espcially critical due to the bioavailablity). If you research K2 you will learn that its hard to get anywhere in your diet. If you dont eat grass fed beef or eat raw cheese of those animals you are most likely deficiant. K2 transports calcium from blood to bone. Missing K2 is a major contributor of plaquing of the arteries (heart attack, stroke). It also contributes to the dgeneration of your sceletol structure.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 6, 2022)

Another thing I would like to add is this:



Look at how the cats who ate cooked meat/milk and those who did eat it raw.

The cooked group degenerated into inferility after the 3rd generation. So there is intergenerational degeneration. In the 3rd generation you see a cat with over 24 fractures due to failure in developement. This is important if you want to keep your kind alive. The raw group stayed fit across generations.

This shows that inproper nutrition wipes out your lineage completly.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 6, 2022)

a) Cats can't digest milk.
b) Cats are something called obligate carnivores. This is one of the great perils of animal comparison studies (rats, monkeys and other closer relations doing better).

Proper nutrition is well known to be a good thing but your comparison there is so tenuous as to be useless.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 6, 2022)

FAST6191 said:


> a) Cats can't digest milk.


Apparently they can.


FAST6191 said:


> b) Cats are something called obligate carnivores. This is one of the great perils of animal comparison studies (rats, monkeys and other closer relations doing better).
> 
> Proper nutrition is well known to be a good thing but your comparison there is so tenuous as to be useless.


Well it is the comparison of Pottenger. He makes the relation to Weston Price, who observes a very similar thing with humans.



> Francis Marion Pottenger Jr. (May 29, 1901 – January 4, 1967) was an American physician and raw food diet advocate. He was best known for his cat study that sparked interest in a diet high in raw animal products including uncooked meats and unpasteurized dairy. Pottenger was a disciple of Canadian dentist and diet food advocate Weston A. Price. The Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation is named after Price and Pottenger.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_M._Pottenger_Jr.

For more information have a look at the Weston Price Foundation:
https://www.westonaprice.org/



> *Weston Andrew Valleau Price*[1] (September 6, 1870 – January 23, 1948) was a Canadian dentist known primarily for his theories on the relationship between nutrition, dental health, and physical health. He founded the research institute National Dental Association, which became the research section of the American Dental Association, and was the NDA's chairman from 1914 to 1928.[2][3][4]
> 
> Price initially did dental research on the relationship between endodontic therapy and pulpless teeth and broader systemic disease, known as focal infection theory, a theory which resulted in many extractions of tonsils and teeth.[5]  Focal infection theory fell out of favor in the 1930s and was pushed to the margins of dentistry by the 1950s.[6]
> 
> ...


In this picture you see twin brothers, one was raised on his traditional diet (right) and the other was raised with modern processed diet (left). Look at the difference of the developement of facial features (and of course the teeth):


----------

