5 ms·

So not really a leading question, just curious... why shouldn't I be OK with buying the cheap mega-supermarket brand product? As the consumer, I just want a ch

by mal10c 7y ago

So not really a leading question, just curious... why shouldn't I be OK with buying the cheap mega-supermarket brand product? As the consumer, I just want a cheap price - I personally don't really care where the money is going. If small companies can't produce a less expensive alternative, then won't breaking up the larger company just increase costs to the consumer? Thanks for your thoughts.

damnyou 7y ago
You as the consumer aren't the only entity that matters. The long term health of communities might not be aligned with short term consumer benefit.
jakelazaroff 7y ago
To answer with another question: how can you tell the difference between big pseudo-monopolies truly providing the best product or service vs. smaller companies being unable to enter the market with a better one because a big company has locked them out?
- workblood 7y ago
  I’m sorry, can you clarify what you mean by pseudo-monopoly? It’s not a term of art and I’m trying to understand your argument.
  - jakelazaroff 7y ago
    Maybe pseudo-monopoly was the wrong term… I'm basically saying that if a company has enough market or lobbying power, it can distort the market by blocking entrants who might make better/cheaper products or services. For example, ISPs lobbying to ban municipal competitors.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
rapind 7y ago
Ultimately if all those other brands go out of business, the cheaper option may no longer be that cheap.
- bduerst 7y ago
  This comes up with predatory pricing antitrust claims, which are complex in themselves, but you shouldn't punish someone or an organization for behavior that they only have the potential to do, but have not done.
  - rapind 7y ago
    I think it's destined to happen when there is less competition. I don't think of it as punishment, but as prevention. Even if we assume a company was altruistic and kept prices artificially low, the lack of competition would at least prevent a product from getting cheaper faster due to less players innovating... and we wouldn't even be able to measure what we're missing out on.
GuiA 7y ago
Yes, and effective regulation is precisely about preventing broader emergent patterns that harm innovation, competition, and society as a whole as a result of the (inevitably) short sighted, individual actions of consumers who indeed often only care about the cheapest prices.
CharlesColeman 7y ago
> why shouldn't I be OK with buying the cheap mega-supermarket brand product Just some random thoughts, in different contexts: 1. Buying the cheap mega-supermarket can lead to non-obvious degradations in your community (e.g. you find yourself in a news desert because the local paper went bankrupt, following the closure of the local stores who advertised there). 2. Competition keeps competitors honest, but if one company gets too much of a lead, it's competitors give up leaving fewer market-based checks on its behavior (even if it was fantastic and awesome in the first place). Eventually prices will go up or quality down, as the never-ending quest to provide increasing shareholder value continues. 3. The real costs may not be reflected in the sticker price. For instance, you pay for Facebook and Google with your data and privacy, not your money. A competitor that directly charges you $20/year may actually be a better deal.

by mal10c 7y ago

damnyou 7y ago

You as the consumer aren't the only entity that matters. The long term health of communities might not be aligned with short term consumer benefit.

jakelazaroff 7y ago

To answer with another question: how can you tell the difference between big pseudo-monopolies truly providing the best product or service vs. smaller companies being unable to enter the market with a better one because a big company has locked them out?

workblood 7y ago
I’m sorry, can you clarify what you mean by pseudo-monopoly? It’s not a term of art and I’m trying to understand your argument.
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  Maybe pseudo-monopoly was the wrong term… I'm basically saying that if a company has enough market or lobbying power, it can distort the market by blocking entrants who might make better/cheaper products or services. For example, ISPs lobbying to ban municipal competitors.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

rapind 7y ago

Ultimately if all those other brands go out of business, the cheaper option may no longer be that cheap.

bduerst 7y ago
This comes up with predatory pricing antitrust claims, which are complex in themselves, but you shouldn't punish someone or an organization for behavior that they only have the potential to do, but have not done.
- rapind 7y ago
  I think it's destined to happen when there is less competition. I don't think of it as punishment, but as prevention. Even if we assume a company was altruistic and kept prices artificially low, the lack of competition would at least prevent a product from getting cheaper faster due to less players innovating... and we wouldn't even be able to measure what we're missing out on.

GuiA 7y ago

Yes, and effective regulation is precisely about preventing broader emergent patterns that harm innovation, competition, and society as a whole as a result of the (inevitably) short sighted, individual actions of consumers who indeed often only care about the cheapest prices.

CharlesColeman 7y ago

> why shouldn't I be OK with buying the cheap mega-supermarket brand product Just some random thoughts, in different contexts: 1. Buying the cheap mega-supermarket can lead to non-obvious degradations in your community (e.g. you find yourself in a news desert because the local paper went bankrupt, following the closure of the local stores who advertised there). 2. Competition keeps competitors honest, but if one company gets too much of a lead, it's competitors give up leaving fewer market-based checks on its behavior (even if it was fantastic and awesome in the first place). Eventually prices will go up or quality down, as the never-ending quest to provide increasing shareholder value continues. 3. The real costs may not be reflected in the sticker price. For instance, you pay for Facebook and Google with your data and privacy, not your money. A competitor that directly charges you $20/year may actually be a better deal.