3 ms·

> 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 effi

> 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.

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.