2 ms·
> I get that government subsidies tilt the scales it's not just the subsidies that tilt the scales, its also efficiency of scale with the chains being able to
by parpfish 2y ago
> I get that government subsidies tilt the scales
it's not just the subsidies that tilt the scales, its also efficiency of scale with the chains being able to do more/cheaper because they are a big chain. and it's really hard to fight that, or even argue against it because it is more efficient.
the only thing a small local could do to compete on that front would be able to exploit local features that the chains don't know about -- tailoring inventory to local taste, making deals with other small local producers -- but once you start doing that it's more like the local is evolving into a different niche of 'serve regionally-specific needs' while the bigbox is 'serve generic needs'
- MikeTheGreat 2y agoI don't have the reference, but apparently there used to be US laws requiring producer / manufacturing / distributing companies to sell to all grocery stores at the same price. Because of this regional and local grocery stores could buy inventory at the same price that Walmart does, and because of that there were a lot more local and regional grocery stores. At some point (under Regan?) the US got rid of these laws, Walmart in particular realized that it could compete on scale (and aggressively negotiating Walmart-specific deals), and that's a huge part of why we don't have as many smaller grocery stores anymore. I don't have the article handy but if anyone else knows details about this I'd love to hear more. (Bonus points for a LMGTFY answer :) )
- philk10 2y agoRobinson-Patman act of 1936? Wasn't got rid of but they stopped enforcing it?