3 ms·

> No, they simply pass those costs on to the consumers. I believe this is a false narrative spread by those who want to reduce consumer access to courts. Busi

> No, they simply pass those costs on to the consumers. I believe this is a false narrative spread by those who want to reduce consumer access to courts. Businesses don't price their goods at (cost + profit). They price them at the level that will maximize profit. Sometimes that's at a loss, sometimes that's around break even, sometimes it provides a healthy profit, and sometimes they make extraordinary profits (what do you think the cost is for that $4 soda at the movie theater?). But the price is already set to maximize profits. If the seller's costs increase, raising the price won't increase profit or help them at all - it would merely reduce revenue due to the negative impact on sales volume. And if their costs go down, they of course don't lower the price, they take more profit.

jacquesm 9y ago
> I believe this is a false narrative spread by those who want to reduce consumer access to courts. You are free to believe whatever you want but that's a quote straight from a conversation with the CEO of a very large manufacturer of consumer goods, who - in my experience - tended not to speak stuff that wasn't true.
- ScottBurson 9y ago
  Demand is relatively inelastic in some markets; less so in others.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    Most consumer-goods markets have relatively elastic demand and high levels of competition. Companies have little ability to "pass on costs" in such markets.
  - forapurpose 9y ago
    Where it's inelastic then a profit-maximizing business would already have priced their goods accordingly, and there would be no room to raise prices. Most businesses won't just leave money on the table. There are exceptions and complexity, of course. In health care, raising the price of a good with inelastic demand such as, say, Epipens, might attract social and political penalties. On the other hand, pricing such goods (e.g., pills that cure terminal diseases) at very high levels to begin with is an accepted practice.
zerkten 9y ago
I think one element of limiting access to courts is forcing binding arbitration (http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20170605/NEWS/170609949 http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20170605/NEWS/170609...). Are there others?
- forapurpose 9y ago
  > Are there others? The ways discussed in the article and in this thread, as examples.

jacquesm 9y ago

> I believe this is a false narrative spread by those who want to reduce consumer access to courts. You are free to believe whatever you want but that's a quote straight from a conversation with the CEO of a very large manufacturer of consumer goods, who - in my experience - tended not to speak stuff that wasn't true.

ScottBurson 9y ago
Demand is relatively inelastic in some markets; less so in others.
- rayiner 9y ago
  Most consumer-goods markets have relatively elastic demand and high levels of competition. Companies have little ability to "pass on costs" in such markets.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  Where it's inelastic then a profit-maximizing business would already have priced their goods accordingly, and there would be no room to raise prices. Most businesses won't just leave money on the table. There are exceptions and complexity, of course. In health care, raising the price of a good with inelastic demand such as, say, Epipens, might attract social and political penalties. On the other hand, pricing such goods (e.g., pills that cure terminal diseases) at very high levels to begin with is an accepted practice.

zerkten 9y ago

I think one element of limiting access to courts is forcing binding arbitration (http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20170605/NEWS/170609949 http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20170605/NEWS/170609...). Are there others?

forapurpose 9y ago
> Are there others? The ways discussed in the article and in this thread, as examples.