3 ms·

> When Robinson-Patman was enforced, suppliers had to offer the same deal to all grocers The law made it so no one had the position to squeeze suppliers for lo

> When Robinson-Patman was enforced, suppliers had to offer the same deal to all grocers The law made it so no one had the position to squeeze suppliers for lower prices and as a result, consumers paid more for groceries. If the suppliers were shifting their costs unduly to small retailers, then there was a market for new suppliers. If retailers were a monopoly they would have raised prices, and that hasn't happened. The grocery market remains VERY competitive, with stores popping up and closing down all the time.

lapcat 2y ago
> If retailers were a monopoly they would have raised prices, and that hasn't happened. Huh? Where have you been the past few years?? The price of groceries has gone way up, and this might have even determined the outcome of the Presidential election.
- haroldp 2y ago
  Prices went up in 2023 following a massive spurt of deficit spending by the government devaluing the currency, and major supply line disruptions and realignments. If sidelining Robinson-Patman is the reason prices went up, then why did it take 40 years?
em-bee 2y ago
If the suppliers were shifting their costs unduly to small retailers, then there was a market for new suppliers where should these new suppliers come from? and how should they compete? by offering lower prices? how? farming has a cost that can only be lowered through massive scale. to get massive scale, suppliers need to sell to big chains where they face the same problems the existing suppliers already have.
Rury 2y ago
> The law made it so no one had the position to squeeze suppliers for lower prices Not quite. The law made it so that suppliers couldn't offer better deals to one of its customers over another. But retailers could still squeeze suppliers by going with another supplier if another supplier had better prices. In other words, the law didn't make suppliers a monopoly, there was still competition between suppliers, it just prevented suppliers from shifting a disadvantage onto their smallest customers.

lapcat 2y ago

> If retailers were a monopoly they would have raised prices, and that hasn't happened. Huh? Where have you been the past few years?? The price of groceries has gone way up, and this might have even determined the outcome of the Presidential election.

haroldp 2y ago
Prices went up in 2023 following a massive spurt of deficit spending by the government devaluing the currency, and major supply line disruptions and realignments. If sidelining Robinson-Patman is the reason prices went up, then why did it take 40 years?

em-bee 2y ago

If the suppliers were shifting their costs unduly to small retailers, then there was a market for new suppliers where should these new suppliers come from? and how should they compete? by offering lower prices? how? farming has a cost that can only be lowered through massive scale. to get massive scale, suppliers need to sell to big chains where they face the same problems the existing suppliers already have.

Rury 2y ago

> The law made it so no one had the position to squeeze suppliers for lower prices Not quite. The law made it so that suppliers couldn't offer better deals to one of its customers over another. But retailers could still squeeze suppliers by going with another supplier if another supplier had better prices. In other words, the law didn't make suppliers a monopoly, there was still competition between suppliers, it just prevented suppliers from shifting a disadvantage onto their smallest customers.