4 ms·
A good where consumers have inelastic demand does not mean that individual companies face inelastic demand curves - that's the whole point of competition. ie. I
by yanderekko 3y ago
A good where consumers have inelastic demand does not mean that individual companies face inelastic demand curves - that's the whole point of competition. ie. It doesn't matter if you're willing to pay a lot to avoid starvation since no individual company is making profits off of having some market power to starve you.
The thought that food providers are colluding to raise prices is absurd and should serve as a reductio ad absurdum in these arguments, not a fundamental explanation for "greedflation".
- NLPaep 3y ago> The DOJ, explained forbes.com, charged that company “executives worked together to keep prices paid to poultry farmers low while raising costs for consumers at grocery stores and restaurant chains.” https://www.producer.com/opinion/u-s-government-strikes-out-on-food-price-fixing-prosecution/ https://www.producer.com/opinion/u-s-government-strikes-out-...
- yanderekko 3y agoSeems relevant to note that these charges failed..
- sobkas 3y ago> Seems relevant to note that these charges failed.. As USA lives in post law age it only means that relevant corporations carpet bombed regulator with lawyers, paid politicians, lobbyists, job offers for key bureaucrats(after they retire/leave) to make it go away. And to prosecute corporation regulator needs money, money they have is finite so they need to choose their fights. And they need don't know if around the corner some corporation doesn't produce fentanyl out of baby skulls. On top of that fixing plight of chicken producers won't translate into them spending money on lobbyists, hiring retired bureaucrats or financing PACs, everything corporations that gain from it will definitely do.
- brailsafe 3y agoFood providers don't need to collude when much of the time (enough) they're all the same company.