 Price and quality of things are known to all. In a market without perfect information, of course, perfect information is only there in ideal markets. But in a market without perfect information, you go to the fishmonger and he tells you that this is a beautiful fish, and then you cut it open and it stinks. That is something the fishmonger knew, but you didn't know. And that means that consumers who are better at figuring out what the fish quality is have an edge over consumers who are not that good and they just want to eat a good meal. That means that market producers have an incentive to hide the information. You have an incentive without sufficient information flowing as a producer to produce something to sell bad fish dressed up nicely. Well, you know, the supermarkets, many European supermarkets spray their vegetables with water to make them look fresher than they actually are. I'm convinced that the red onions in Brussels actually have purple paint on them because it comes off my hands when I'm peeling it. So there is a lot of that privilege that producers have naturally. And they're in a natural position to have such privilege. And if that privilege is not there, through the system, not through the good will of the producers, not through some excessive intelligence among the consumers, but because the system itself doesn't allow for that privilege, then you have perfect information and perfect competition. You also don't have transaction costs in a perfectly competitive market because if you have transaction costs, then buying a lot of things in one go means that you'll get a much better price. So you're not actually getting the real price when you buy one thing at a time. You're getting a price with a premium because it's a small transaction. So if you have perfect competition in a perfect market, you should not have transaction costs. In India, Unilever's Indian outfit, Hindustan Leever, made a huge amount of money. They've got a very, very extensive rural distribution network. They made a huge amount of money selling shampoo and soap to villagers in remote villages who never used shampoo and soap. They used whatever local products they could find. And the way they did this was not as is typical in the West, or now that I live part-time in the US, you get everything in sizes this big, family backs for a family of 20 people. And they're really, really big. In Europe, we don't have so much space in our home, so we get smaller packages. But the bigger packages are still cheaper than smaller packages. So the pricing depends on the size. What Unilever did in India was they went in the completely opposite direction. They sell shampoo in sachets for single use. These are one rupee sachets, so they cost a couple of cents. And they're extremely expensive.