3 ms·

There is a recent story where they are attempting to preempt the creation of a monopoly in the grocery sector. https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/26/investing/kroger-

by beart 3y ago

There is a recent story where they are attempting to preempt the creation of a monopoly in the grocery sector. https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/26/investing/kroger-albertsons-merger-blocked-ftc/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/26/investing/kroger-albertsons-m...

xp84 3y ago
yeah, these geniuses are really doing a good job there. last time they "blocked" a grocery merger, the divested stores were sold to basically a mom and pop operation (haggen) who had no idea how to run a large chain and immediately went bankrupt, and most of the stores either stayed empty or were later re-bought by the big bad merged company they were supposedl reining in! Wow, big win for consumers who now have not only fewer chains to shop at, but literally fewer stores too! The same will happen again. Consumers will be the only ones to suffer.
- jprd 2y ago
  Your stance is that preventing monopolies, as required by law, is _bad_ for consumers? Historically, what do monopolies do when they capture a market is the opposite of lower prices and increase choice for the consumer.
  - xp84 2y ago
    Sorry for the long delay, but: Defining the grocery market as just supermarkets is the foolish thing I disagree with. Walmart, Target, Amazon, even Dollar General — along with Blue Apron and their ilk - and ethnic grocers - are all competitors of the supermarket. Kroger and Albertsons, even as a single unit, can’t simply jack prices up because Walmart and Target would LOVE to take all their customers, and easily will if they aren’t price-competitive. We already have competition and the notion that we wouldn’t if 2 supermarkets merged is lunacy. Honestly, I have a choice of either of the supermarket chains in question and I primarily frequent the one closest to me. I don’t cross-shop them against each other, but there are some things I buy at Walmart because I’ve learned it’s a better deal. And yes, when regulators are so ham-fisted as to literally destroy many neighborhoods’ only grocery store with their dumb divestiture demands, yes, that was bad for consumers!

by beart 3y ago

xp84 3y ago

yeah, these geniuses are really doing a good job there. last time they "blocked" a grocery merger, the divested stores were sold to basically a mom and pop operation (haggen) who had no idea how to run a large chain and immediately went bankrupt, and most of the stores either stayed empty or were later re-bought by the big bad merged company they were supposedl reining in! Wow, big win for consumers who now have not only fewer chains to shop at, but literally fewer stores too! The same will happen again. Consumers will be the only ones to suffer.

jprd 2y ago
Your stance is that preventing monopolies, as required by law, is _bad_ for consumers? Historically, what do monopolies do when they capture a market is the opposite of lower prices and increase choice for the consumer.
- xp84 2y ago
  Sorry for the long delay, but: Defining the grocery market as just supermarkets is the foolish thing I disagree with. Walmart, Target, Amazon, even Dollar General — along with Blue Apron and their ilk - and ethnic grocers - are all competitors of the supermarket. Kroger and Albertsons, even as a single unit, can’t simply jack prices up because Walmart and Target would LOVE to take all their customers, and easily will if they aren’t price-competitive. We already have competition and the notion that we wouldn’t if 2 supermarkets merged is lunacy. Honestly, I have a choice of either of the supermarket chains in question and I primarily frequent the one closest to me. I don’t cross-shop them against each other, but there are some things I buy at Walmart because I’ve learned it’s a better deal. And yes, when regulators are so ham-fisted as to literally destroy many neighborhoods’ only grocery store with their dumb divestiture demands, yes, that was bad for consumers!