3 ms·

It's literally just regulatory capture. It has nothing to do with capitalism. In a truly capitalistic economy, there would be no regulations preventing competi

It's literally just regulatory capture. It has nothing to do with capitalism. In a truly capitalistic economy, there would be no regulations preventing competitors from coming in and creating competition. The propaganda doesn't have to be good when nobody understands what is and isn't capitalism anyways.

falcolas 2y ago
This isn't regulatory capture, this is deed restrictions. HOAs, water rights, mineral rights et.al. use this same mechanism.
- bigstrat2003 2y ago
  To be honest, I think all of those should be abolished as well.
- ttyprintk 2y ago
  That’s correct: Albertsons is responsible for upholding the deed restrictions, and can use any legal means to do so. The regulators could have said that a monopoly has grown too big to enjoy good standing in court, but instead of that they chose a small fee.
immibis 2y ago
When the incumbent owns the vacant lot, it's capitalism. Free formation of contracts (saying you promise not to open a grocery store there, in exchange for getting the land at all) is also a big part of capitalism.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
You are incorrect. This has nothing to do with regulations. It's the same as a farmer secretly buying up neighboring already irrigated fields from bankrupt farmers, and not planting on them in order to be able to raise the price on their own crops, assuming that the cost of importing the same crops from elsewhere is prohibitive and there is no other readily arable land nearby (thus they have a monopoly on the local market). So it's cheaper for them to leave the purchased fields fallow, and raise prices, than grow more crops. This is the type of predatory capitalist practices for which we need regulation in the first place.
- pixl97 2y ago
  The Onion Futures Act for example.
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    pretty crazy that there is an act of Congress that concerns a single vegetable only
    - ttyprintk 2y ago
      It also covers futures on motion picture box office performance, the onions of a new generation.
anigbrowl 2y ago
But what's being described here (ie the land use covenants) is not regulation, it's contractual restraint.

falcolas 2y ago

This isn't regulatory capture, this is deed restrictions. HOAs, water rights, mineral rights et.al. use this same mechanism.

bigstrat2003 2y ago
To be honest, I think all of those should be abolished as well.
ttyprintk 2y ago
That’s correct: Albertsons is responsible for upholding the deed restrictions, and can use any legal means to do so. The regulators could have said that a monopoly has grown too big to enjoy good standing in court, but instead of that they chose a small fee.

immibis 2y ago

When the incumbent owns the vacant lot, it's capitalism. Free formation of contracts (saying you promise not to open a grocery store there, in exchange for getting the land at all) is also a big part of capitalism.

insane_dreamer 2y ago

You are incorrect. This has nothing to do with regulations. It's the same as a farmer secretly buying up neighboring already irrigated fields from bankrupt farmers, and not planting on them in order to be able to raise the price on their own crops, assuming that the cost of importing the same crops from elsewhere is prohibitive and there is no other readily arable land nearby (thus they have a monopoly on the local market). So it's cheaper for them to leave the purchased fields fallow, and raise prices, than grow more crops. This is the type of predatory capitalist practices for which we need regulation in the first place.

pixl97 2y ago
The Onion Futures Act for example.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  pretty crazy that there is an act of Congress that concerns a single vegetable only
  - ttyprintk 2y ago
    It also covers futures on motion picture box office performance, the onions of a new generation.

anigbrowl 2y ago

But what's being described here (ie the land use covenants) is not regulation, it's contractual restraint.