 expensive if you look at the volume because if you are a rich urban consumer in a city and you buy something this big you'll get it much cheaper but because they're in the small sachets the people in villages can actually buy them because they don't have a hundred rupees to spend on cheaper shampoo bought in bulk they can buy shampoo one shampoo at a time in a sachet for one rupee and pay twenty times what someone in the city would pay but you can see that although this is the market today enabling people who did not have access to shampoo getting shampoo so it's creating a bigger market it's not a market of perfect competition because you have very high transaction costs which means that smaller transactions cost much more per unit so you do not have an even distribution of prices now perfect competition is a very theoretical construct because it almost never exists in reality at least not in the marketplace of trading products but it does exist in many other areas if you take the analogy further scientific progress depends on the free even open flow of knowledge competition of ideas it drives innovation the stronger the competition between ideas the more likely innovation is going to take place scientific history is full of all sorts of wonderful little notions that were thought of at that time as the you know the scientific truth of the day my favorite is is flogiston which was a 17th century notion that fire is consumed of particles called flogiston and everything has an element of heat in it which is flogiston and you could take the heat out and you would get combustion and you would put the heat in and you would get metal and all sorts of things like that happen and that seemed to make sense it made sense to most people at that time and it was overthrown because of an open exchange of ideas the ability for anyone not just the one scientist who liked flogiston the ability of anyone to conduct experiments to validate scientific ideas through experimentation it is of course much harder today because not everyone has access you know to to the supercollider and so on well even the people and so on don't really have access to it but it's it's much more expensive to do experiments but in principle there is no barrier anyone can do it at least in theory and the more competition there is the greater the progress of science and this is clearly well understood and accepted it's not really controversial people don't say we will have better science if we don't share knowledge people do say we will have we will make more money if we don't share knowledge at least we the ones who have these ideas will make more money maybe society but nobody says that science will progress with that so innovation is clearly driven through a free flow of competition