4 ms·
> But ultimately that strategy is good for the consumer right? No. It may be good for the consumer right now, but not ultimately (and on top of that, I would a
by tremon 5mo ago
> But ultimately that strategy is good for the consumer right?
No. It may be good for the consumer right now, but not ultimately (and on top of that, I would argue that reducing everyone to a consumer is already the wrong framing -- you need to ask what's good for the citizens). Having ten competing supermarkets with various interweaving supply lines is ultimately much better than having one giant supermarket, because that one monopolist is able to squeeze both consumers and suppliers to the detriment of both.
- brookst 5mo agoDo you think Walmart’s prices are higher than you’d pay if there were just ten competing stores with the same product mix, each of which did not have the leverage to squeeze suppliers?
- miltonlost 5mo agoPlease please please learn the basics of monopolies.
- brookst 5mo agoWhile I appreciate the condescension, tell me how Walmart is a monopoly?
- tremon 5mo agoIt doesn't matter what Walmart's prices would be -- because there'd be nine alternatives offering their products at different price points. Also, you seem to be implying that suppliers are inhuman and deserve to be squeezed (but Walmart somehow deserves all the wealth it extracts as a middle-man, go figure), which is exactly why I said that focusing on consumers only is a myopic view of the world.