3 ms·

It reads as highly politicized. I am not one for Biden or Trump, so I am sharing a neutral perspective here. But as they say, where there’s a spark there’s usu

It reads as highly politicized. I am not one for Biden or Trump, so I am sharing a neutral perspective here. But as they say, where there’s a spark there’s usually a fire. Cutting through the cruft - the main issue seems to be that some grocers may have cashed in on their monopoly, by forcing suppliers to give them preferential treatment or face some penalty. I think that’s a pretty standard business practice. While I like my groceries to be cheaper, I think that any retrospective government interference in free economics is unwarranted. I get it - it’s a hard balance to strike between supporting individuals wanting to be treated fair and businesses trying to make money under uncertainty. I also don’t like that CEOs earn 100-200x an average employees salary. But objectively, simply flexing your business muscles and getting a better deal is not illegal.

lesuorac 3y ago
> But objectively, simply flexing your business muscles and getting a better deal is not illegal. Pretty sure it's objectively illegal [1]. Having a more efficient operation -> lower prices is fine. Using your size (market power) -> lower prices is not fine. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act
- Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
  Exactly, the problem here is the consolidation of the industry so there are only a few large corporations and large bars of entry for new players. It's not a free competitive market anymore. It's also food, a necessity, and not a luxury people could choose not to buy anymore.
- sheepscreek 3y ago
  By that logic - it was illegal for US to scoop up vaccine capacity of Pfizer at the height of the pandemic. But it’s not - because universally, we accept the difference in fighting for survival and intentionally starving your competition. This was one of those times. Each business was out for its survival. When supply is low, we cannot expect companies to support egalitarian values. The concept of fairness is a human creation (or, more widely, of sentient intelligent beings). In times of survival, there is no fairness in nature or civilization. So, the suppliers were thinking about their survival (choosing to keep their relationship with the big guys), just as the businesses were thinking about theirs. However, like I pointed out, there is a more profound argument to be made - in the pursuit for higher bonuses/payout, the company executives (possibly with the full cooperation of the board) were overzealous in increasing profitability in the name of survival. This included doing mass layoffs, hogging inventory, hiking rates sharply by 20% (over a 3 year period, the inflation was between 4% and 8% - which is equivalent to ~13% when combined, so there’s an unexplained difference of maybe 6-7% or so). It doesn’t make sense to hinge the entire argument on how unfair this was to the little guy.
  - lesuorac 3y ago
    The US isn't a business so anti-trust laws don't apply to it.

lesuorac 3y ago

> But objectively, simply flexing your business muscles and getting a better deal is not illegal. Pretty sure it's objectively illegal [1]. Having a more efficient operation -> lower prices is fine. Using your size (market power) -> lower prices is not fine. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act

Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
Exactly, the problem here is the consolidation of the industry so there are only a few large corporations and large bars of entry for new players. It's not a free competitive market anymore. It's also food, a necessity, and not a luxury people could choose not to buy anymore.
sheepscreek 3y ago
By that logic - it was illegal for US to scoop up vaccine capacity of Pfizer at the height of the pandemic. But it’s not - because universally, we accept the difference in fighting for survival and intentionally starving your competition. This was one of those times. Each business was out for its survival. When supply is low, we cannot expect companies to support egalitarian values. The concept of fairness is a human creation (or, more widely, of sentient intelligent beings). In times of survival, there is no fairness in nature or civilization. So, the suppliers were thinking about their survival (choosing to keep their relationship with the big guys), just as the businesses were thinking about theirs. However, like I pointed out, there is a more profound argument to be made - in the pursuit for higher bonuses/payout, the company executives (possibly with the full cooperation of the board) were overzealous in increasing profitability in the name of survival. This included doing mass layoffs, hogging inventory, hiking rates sharply by 20% (over a 3 year period, the inflation was between 4% and 8% - which is equivalent to ~13% when combined, so there’s an unexplained difference of maybe 6-7% or so). It doesn’t make sense to hinge the entire argument on how unfair this was to the little guy.
- lesuorac 3y ago
  The US isn't a business so anti-trust laws don't apply to it.