3 ms·

>I don't think we will ever see such law, nor do I think this would be a good idea. Why isn't this a good idea?

by slg 6mo ago

lotsofpulp 6mo ago
Buyers and sellers should be able to negotiate prices however they want. It is how markets have worked since the dawn of human trading. It would also be costly to police. If the problem is that a grocery store has a monopoly in an area, then that is a different problem fixed by adding grocery store(s).
- slg 6mo ago
  This is a law about grocery stores. How much haggling do you think is happening at grocery stores?
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
  - bityard 6mo ago
    I routinely ask the cashier for half off on anything that is perfectly fine but has less-than-pristine packaging. I usually get it. (But I understand this isn't really relevant to the article or discussion here.)
- sidewndr46 6mo ago
  Most pricing laws are built on the idea that this isn't OK. For example, I can't negotiate pricing directly with an automobile manufacturer. I have to go through a dealer so I am "protected".
  - lotsofpulp 6mo ago
    That is a pretty good example of why these laws are not OK.
  - fn-mote 6mo ago
    There are special laws made to protect the dealer's position. This is an exception not the rule. You should justify why it is improving price (or something) for consumers if you want to hold it up as an example.
- fc417fc802 6mo ago
  Most markets have also had a wide variety of regulations. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that large retail operations would be prohibited from attempting a predatory scheme depending on individualized pricing. There's a tangible difference between one off purchase contracts and selling into the consumer market at large. Sure, haggling was historically the standard but that just isn't the way these modern operations work. If an outdated practice gets caught in the crossfire when protecting consumers from imminent harm I'm okay with that.

>I don't think we will ever see such law, nor do I think this would be a good idea. Why isn't this a good idea?

by slg 6mo ago

>I don't think we will ever see such law, nor do I think this would be a good idea. Why isn't this a good idea?

Buyers and sellers should be able to negotiate prices however they want. It is how markets have worked since the dawn of human trading. It would also be costly to police. If the problem is that a grocery store has a monopoly in an area, then that is a different problem fixed by adding grocery store(s).

slg 6mo ago
This is a law about grocery stores. How much haggling do you think is happening at grocery stores?
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- bityard 6mo ago
  I routinely ask the cashier for half off on anything that is perfectly fine but has less-than-pristine packaging. I usually get it. (But I understand this isn't really relevant to the article or discussion here.)
sidewndr46 6mo ago
Most pricing laws are built on the idea that this isn't OK. For example, I can't negotiate pricing directly with an automobile manufacturer. I have to go through a dealer so I am "protected".
- lotsofpulp 6mo ago
  That is a pretty good example of why these laws are not OK.
- fn-mote 6mo ago
  There are special laws made to protect the dealer's position. This is an exception not the rule. You should justify why it is improving price (or something) for consumers if you want to hold it up as an example.
fc417fc802 6mo ago
Most markets have also had a wide variety of regulations. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that large retail operations would be prohibited from attempting a predatory scheme depending on individualized pricing. There's a tangible difference between one off purchase contracts and selling into the consumer market at large. Sure, haggling was historically the standard but that just isn't the way these modern operations work. If an outdated practice gets caught in the crossfire when protecting consumers from imminent harm I'm okay with that.